|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 08/31/2006 : 12:18:14 [Permalink]
|
| Pot meet kettle. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
upriver
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 12:58:44 [Permalink]
|
As to the photosphere emitting a BB emission.
In JET the density is approx. 1/1000 gram m-3. http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion2.html
And in the million degree plasma, which is thicker than the photosphere, what did they find?
"From the JET website.
"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".
"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level."
So I wonder what the pressure of the plasma at the level of the photosphere is.
"The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter." http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html
There is no way a plasma like that is going to emit a BB curve. The photosphere emits lines.
It will not emit a BB curve just because of it physical depth.
Look at this line spectrum from a gas under pressure in a sonoluminescence bubble. As you can see as you increase the drive pressure, the spectrum changes from a line emission to a quasi-continuium indicating an increase of pressure inside the bubble. Yet there is no experimental evidence that plasma as thin as the photosphere will emit BB.
http://www.strangeeye.net/universe/pressurebroad.jpg
Again the photosphere cannot emit a BB spectrum.
And as far as it being optically thick, that is derived from the fusion model. It is not derived from looking at the top of the photosphere. If you look at sunspots, I would conclude that it is only optically thick at the first glow layer which looks to be 50km thick(spicules).
MHD is the study of the interaction of magnetic fields with plasma but does not necessarily take into account electric fields which create the magnetic fields.
In a bar magnet, all the domains are aligned so you get a consolidated magnetic field. In a plasma the domains are chaotic so you can only rely on moving charges to produce a magnetic field. In the case of the loops you have a potential difference between two areas on the surface so you have a loop or current flow between them. And for a plasma with the density of the photosphere, to emit a bolt of "lightning" is impossible. The charge density is just not there.
So the surface below the photosphere is a solid electrified surface. |
| Edited by - upriver on 08/31/2006 13:23:26 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 14:21:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Who the hell said it was "ok" Michael?
Do you mean besides every college on the planet that teaches an incomplete gas model theory to their students to the exclusion of every other possible solar model?
Every theory that is taught in college is incomplete, Michael, and they are taught to the exclusion of all less-complete models.quote:
quote:
You are attempting to claim that the current standard solar model is "worthless" by expressing your incredulity that it doesn't yet include an explanation of phenomena which are extremely difficult to study.
No, I'm trying to point out that there is no useful scientific purpose in putting *any* single solar model on a pedestal, to the exclusion of all other possible solar theories.
So you want to see the "fairies with magnets" theory for the solar magnetic field taught, also?
The fact is that the standard solar model has the most testing and verification under its belt out of all possible human-created solar models at this moment. That's why it's the one that's taught.quote:
Even gas model theory leaves *giant* issues utterly unexplained.
And the standard particle model has 37 or so independent variables in it (every one a "hole"), yet it is taught, also.quote:
If gas model theory offers no explanation for the strong and stable magnetic fields we record at the solar surface, then surely Birkeland's lab work which *did* not only explain the process but "simulated" it in a lab, should also be taught in college classrooms today.
No, Birkeland only had a simulation, he didn't offer an explanation other than to say, "maybe this is the way the Sun works." His simulation certainly didn't explain the source of the magnetic fields any more than current solar theory does, he just used magnetic fields to make pictures.quote:
Birkeland's simulation not only explained these kinds of magnetic fields, it replicated them.
Birkeland's "explanation" of the magnetic fields must have been "the Sun contains a giant electromagnet," since that's all he had.quote:
Alfven even layed out the plasma movements mathmatically. All of these things require "electricity" however, and that seems to be the one thing that astronomers today absolutely and positively refuse to acknowledge.
No, it is you who refuse to acknowledge what the astronomers of today acknowledge. You've got as much of a clue about that as you do the standard solar model in general.quote:
quote:
You imply that we should ignore the stuff the standard model gets right just because it can't yet explain everything about the Sun.
I didn't say that Dave.
I know you didn't say that, which is why I said you imply it.quote:
I'm just looking for parity right now, not superiority.
Fine: publish as many papers as the solar scientists have with as much verifiable data in them, and your theory will be considered equal to the current standard model. Asking for equality when you've got a whole four papers published in inappropriate journals is to ask to be held to a much lower standard than any other theory.quote:
You folks have sure implied that we should ingore the things I can explain because of the things I cannot.
I don't see that you've explained anything, Michael. For example, the heat of the corona. You claim that it's due to resistive heating from the electrical arcs, but you've done absolutely nothing towards proving that that is true. As far as I can tell, you have a guess that you've put to exactly zero tests. That's not an explanation at all.quote:
There can be no double standards here, not in gas model favor, or any other solar theory.
That's fine: develop your theory as much as the solar scientists have, and your theory will be taught at colleges. That's the only way for things to be fair.quote:
quote:
Nobody makes the claim that the standard solar model can currently explain (to the standards of every other theory of physics) the cause of the magnetic fields.
But Dave, strong magnetic fields at the surface are a significant issue that must be explained.
ARGH! Nobody is disputing that, Michael.quote:
Alfven offered us a way to do that using current flow and MHD theory.
And it's still being studied!quote:
Plasma filaments form plasma where current is present.
That makes no sense.quote:
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 14:24:46 [Permalink]
|
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050304starbirth.htm
Like I said Dave, this article demonstrats that I'm not the problem. The current state of astronomy is in utter disarray because mainstream astronomers today are unwilling to embrace electricity as a primary force in the universe. The same force (current flow) that drives solar system formation processes, also reveals itself in solar surface activity as Birkeland's simulated model demonstrated over 100 years ago. There is a one to one correlelation between "confusion" in astronomy today, and the community's unwillingness to embrace the role that electricity plays in our universe. Alfven's work has only been "partially" understood. As soon as astronomers start to recognize that magnetic fields cannot be "frozen" in light plasma without kinetic energy and current flow, they'll begin to understand how to explain coronal loops, but not one second sooner. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 14:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by upriver
As to the photosphere emitting a BB emission.
In JET the density is approx. 1/1000 gram m-3. http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/content/fusion2.html
And in the million degree plasma, which is thicker than the photosphere, what did they find?
"From the JET website.
"The Science of JET", by John Wesson".
"The initial idea was that of detecting the blackbody radiation from the thermal plasma ions. However, when the ICE spectra were measured they were not consistent with this expectation, having instead narrow equally-spaced emission lines, the spacing being proportional to the magnetic field, and intensities much larger than the blackbody level."
Equally spaced emission lines, proportional to the magnetic field? JET isn't even emitting like a regular plasma, then. It's emitting as something altogether different. And you want to compare that to the photosphere, which is less dense and much less hot? You're insane.
quote:
So I wonder what the pressure of the plasma at the level of the photosphere is.
"The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter." http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html
And I see that you can't be bothered with the difference between pressure and density.quote:
There is no way a plasma like that is going to emit a BB curve.
Your incredulity isn't evidence of your claims.quote:
The photosphere emits lines.
Prove it.quote:
It will not emit a BB curve just because of it physical depth.
It has to, or else the laws of physics are wrong.quote:
Look at this line spectrum from a gas under pressure in a sonoluminescence bubble. As you can see as you increase the drive pressure, the spectrum changes from a line emission to a quasi-continuium indicating an increase of pressure inside the bubble. Yet there is no experimental evidence that plasma as thin as the photosphere will emit BB.
http://www.strangeeye.net/universe/pressurebroad.jpg
How is that "gas under pressure" comparable to the Sun's photosphere?quote:
Again the photosphere cannot emit a BB spectrum.
Again, prove it.quote:
And as far as it being optically thick, that is derived from the fusion model. It is not derived from looking at the top of the photosphere. If you look at sunspots, I would conclude that it is only optically thick at the first glow layer which looks to be 50km thick(spicules).
Why would you only look at sunspots, and think that determines something definitively? What about all the other data?quote:
MHD is the study of the interaction of magnetic fields with plasma but does not necessarily take into account electric fields which create the magnetic fields.
So according to Michael, MHD is wrong for doing so.quote:
In a bar magnet, all the domains are aligned so you get a consolidated magnetic field. In a plasma the domains are chaotic so you can only rely on moving charges to produce a magnetic field.
So what?quote:
In the case of the loops you have a potential difference between two areas on the surface so you have a loop or current flow between them.
No, that's the theory. Where is the evidence?quote:
And for a plasma with the density of the photosphere, to emit a bolt of "lightning" is impossible. The charge density is just not there.
Okay.quote:
So the surface below the photosphere is a solid electrified surface.
How does it ever develop potential differences (needed for "discharges") with a high-conductivity plasma sitting right on top of it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 14:49:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050304starbirth.htm
Like I said Dave, this article demonstrats that I'm not the problem.
You want me to take a complete unreferenced and unreviewed article from a site with an obvious agenda to show astronomers as fools as evidence that what you say about astronomers is true? You really think I'm that stupid, don't you? Sure, you patronize me sometimes with "I really respect you, Dave," but then you spit in my eye like this.quote:
The current state of astronomy is in utter disarray because mainstream astronomers today are unwilling to embrace electricity as a primary force in the universe.
Prove it by citing the astronomers themselves talking about the "utter disarray," Michael. Using the site you just linked to is as reliable as getting information about the former Soviet Union from old issues of Pravda.quote:
The same force (current flow) that drives solar system formation processes, also reveals itself in solar surface activity as Birkeland's simulated model demonstrated over 100 years ago. There is a one to one correlelation between "confusion" in astronomy today, and the community's unwillingness to embrace the role that electricity plays in our universe. Alfven's work has only been "partially" understood. As soon as astronomers start to recognize that magnetic fields cannot be "frozen" in light plasma without kinetic energy and current flow, they'll begin to understand how to explain coronal loops, but not one second sooner.
Prove it, Michael. I'm not going to assume you're correct about any of this stuff. I did you that favor once, and you squandered the opportunity. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 16:18:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Every theory that is taught in college is incomplete, Michael, and they are taught to the exclusion of all less-complete models.
That's not the way it's done in *every* field of science. Architects are not taught *one* way to build or design a building. 'Computer chip designers are not introduced to only one theory of hardware design. Programmers on not taught just *one* language, or one way to solve a programming problem. Mathmaticians are not taught that there is always only *one* way to solve any given problem. Not every field of science works like this.
quote:
So you want to see the "fairies with magnets" theory for the solar magnetic field taught, also?
Only if there is observational evidence to support it. 
quote:
The fact is that the standard solar model has the most testing and verification under its belt out of all possible human-created solar models at this moment.
So what? QM didn't hold a candle to GR when it was first proposed. In fact there are still aspects of GR that work better than QM in certain circumstances. All new types of theories take time to develop and to mature. This is to be expected.
quote:
That's why it's the one that's taught.
That's like a college deciding to teach only COBOL because it's the most "tested" langauge around.
quote:
And the standard particle model has 37 or so independent variables in it (every one a "hole"), yet it is taught, also.
Perhaps so, but I'm not even aware of any competing models. Certainly none that offered explanations where current theory comes up short.
quote:
No, Birkeland only had a simulation,...
Ya, and a darn good one.
quote:
he didn't offer an explanation other than to say, "maybe this is the way the Sun works."
And he's probably right about that as well.
quote:
His simulation certainly didn't explain the source of the magnetic fields any more than current solar theory does,....
Whereas Dr. Manuel has offered to explain how Birkeland's inner magnetic field is generated.
quote:
...he just used magnetic fields to make pictures.
Yes, and he produced pictures which very much mirror the kinds of images that we see today in satellite images, 100 years later.
quote:
quote:
Birkeland's simulation not only explained these kinds of magnetic fields, it replicated them.
Birkeland's "explanation" of the magnetic fields must have been "the Sun contains a giant electromagnet," since that's all he had.
Well, that's evidently all gas model theory has even today, whereas Birkeland has the support of Manuel and Alfven to explain these things today.
quote:
No, it is you who refuse to acknowledge what the astronomers of today acknowledge.
Show me where one published mainstream astronomer today (besides people I've published with) who acknowledges the role of electricity in coronal loop formation?
quote:
You've got as much of a clue about that as you do the standard solar model in general.
That's an unfair cheap shot. While astromers seem to grasp and accept the role of current flow between the sun and the earth, they do not acknowlege the current flow between the sun and the universe, nor do they acknowledge the role that electricity plays in coronal loop formation. Birkeland demonstrated with his model that these loops can be explained in terms of current flow. It only took astromers 60+ years to demonstrate Birkeland currents between the sun and the earth. How long will it take them to verify the electrical nature of a coronal loop?
quote:
quote:
I'm just looking for parity right now, not superiority.
Fine: publish as many papers as the solar scientists have with as much verifiable data in them, and your theory will be considered equal to the current standard model.
And that is supposed to be a realistic way to conduct science? Birkeland produced whole books on this subject. Manuel and his friends have published many papers before I got involved. Bruce doumented the electrical nature of coronal discharges long before I was even born. Alfven published papers galore. His students continue to publish data to this day. Does this material matter? How much data and how many papers are "enough" to be taken seriously?
quote:
Asking for equality when you've got a whole four papers published in inappropriate journals is to ask to be held to a much lower standard than any other theory.
But science has never been a popularity contest, and no theory is right by virtue of the amount of "papers written" on the subject. There is no correlation here between volume of material and accuracy of the material.
Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/31/2006 16:23:20 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 16:35:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Equally spaced emission lines, proportional to the magnetic field? JET isn't even emitting like a regular plasma, then.
What does a "regular" plasma emit?
quote:
It's emitting as something altogether different.
Different from what?
quote:
And you want to compare that to the photosphere, which is less dense and much less hot? You're insane.
If anything, a less dense plasma, at a lower temperature is *less* likely to emit anything close to a BB spectrum than a more dense plasma. I don't understand your objection at all.
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 17:06:52 [Permalink]
|
Let's add some more satellite information into this discussion:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/winter01/satellite.html
quote:
Launched from a Pegasus rocket on 26 February 1998, SNOE has collected observations every six hours at several wavelength bands in the poorly monitored soft X-ray range between 2 and 20 nanometers (nm). Within this range, the data show up to four times more solar irradiance than indicated in a standard model. "This confirms contentions developed from several lines of evidence, but to a larger degree than previously suspected," says Solomon.
The soft X rays are an important part of what Solomon calls space climate. As he points out, "Many people use the term 'space weather' to mean particle-driven changes in the space environment." As these charged particles emerge from solar storms and bombard Earth's outer atmosphere, there's a parallel spike in the level of soft X rays. The spike is an indication of the highly variable nature of the Sun's output at such low wavelengths. The total solar irradiance varies by only about 0.1% across the 11-year solar cycle, but the soft X ray output rises and falls by a factor of five. "These changes have a huge effect on the density and composition of the ionosphere," says Solomon.
So much for gas model theories of black body emissions accurately predicting the x-ray end of the solar output spectrum.
SORCE/SOHO data shows that there is a direct correlation between coronal loop activity at the surface as seen in SOHO images, and x-ray emissions from the sun as recorded by SORCE.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16464
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Anims/SORCE_320x240.mpg
There is a direct correlation between coronal loop activity and x-ray emissions. You can actually see the surface events in the EIT image while the SORCE graph spikes. The sun does *not* radiate like a "perfect black body", in fact at the x-ray wavelengths, the sun changes dramatically during the solar cycle, rising and falling by a factor of five. That is due to the increase and decrease of coronal loop activity during "active" and inactive parts of the solar cycle.
I think that's a total of 8 different satellite systems I've used to confirm these theories. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/31/2006 17:10:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 18:07:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
So much for gas model theories of black body emissions accurately predicting the x-ray end of the solar output spectrum.
So much for any possibility of a rational discussion with you, Michael. You've shown yourself to be beyond reason with this latest ridiculous implication that anyone, anywhere, has ever tried to use any sort of blackbody calculation to predict x-ray emissions from the Sun.
I mean, trying to claim that my arguments about the amount of work put into the theories in question was just an argument from popularity was bad enough. The idea that you're not asking for pity was somewhat worse. This new "black body emissions" thing is simply over-the-top in its absurdity.
Be sure to email me when you've got that electricity paper written up. Take all the time you need. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 18:18:47 [Permalink]
|
The Surface of a Sunny Smile!
This moment of levity was brought to you by Chip.
And now back to the Surface of the Sun show with Michael Mozina, Dave W and occasional comments by other skeptic friends. 
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 19:56:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
The Surface of a Sunny Smile!
This moment of levity was brought to you by Chip.
And now back to the Surface of the Sun show with Michael Mozina, Dave W and occasional comments by other skeptic friends.
ROFLOL! That actually made me giggle. :)
|
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 20:29:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
So much for any possibility of a rational discussion with you, Michael. You've shown yourself to be beyond reason with this latest ridiculous implication that anyone, anywhere, has ever tried to use any sort of blackbody calculation to predict x-ray emissions from the Sun.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/winter01/satellite.html
From the article is this quote from Stan Solomon, not me:
quote:
Within this range, the data show up to four times more solar irradiance than indicated in a standard model.
According to Stan, evidently somebody has tried to predict the solar x-ray emissions with the standard model, even if it wasn't anyone here. It was evidently wrong, and far too low a prediction according to Mr Solomon. How is his quote suddenly my fault?
It is my fault there is a direct correlation between the coronal loops and x-ray output, and therefore a correlation between x-ray output and the solar cycle?
quote:
I mean, trying to claim that my arguments about the amount of work put into the theories in question was just an argument from popularity was bad enough.
You are effectly trying to equate total "effort" with accuracy, when total effort would clearly be function of popularity. Effort and accuracy aren't necessily related in the first place! No amount of "effort" put into a bad theory will ever make it a good theory. You are trying to equate total "work" with absolute "truth", and that is simply not possible, and ultimately it's a popularity arguement.
I have "worked" at trying to develop a solar model, but my work and my efforts won't ever make me "more" right. I could be right and never lift another finger to demonstrate it and I would still be right. Likewise I could be right and never be able to completely demonstrate that I'm right, or have my work be verified in my lifetime, as with Birkeland and Birkeland currents. Then again, I could be wrong and put in all kinds of effort and still be dead wrong. There is no correlation between effort and accuracy, as much as you might like to believe otherwise. There is also no way that a "minority" viewpoint could ever match the "efforts" of the majority. If effort is all that matters, then the most popular theory wins hands down every time.
quote:
The idea that you're not asking for pity was somewhat worse.
I'm not asking for your pity Dave. I am asking you to be reasonable and rational and logical. There are several hundred papers a month published on Arxiv related to something in astronomy. I, as one individual, could never hope to put in that much time and effort into publishing that many papers per month. It's simply not humanly possible. Raw effort in terms of published papers is ultimately predicated on what's popular, nothing more. It is ultimately an appeal to popularity fallacy in that sense.
quote:
This new "black body emissions" thing is simply over-the-top in its absurdity.
From my point of view, it's a little hard to tell when it's ok to use the BB emission routine to calculate something related to solar activity, and when it might be "over the top". Afterall, black body emission theory it's used to calculate or explain everything from the total energy output of the sun, to explaining why sunspots are relatively dark, to rationalizing why coronal loops don't have to be included in total output calculations. It's a little tough then for me to know when exactly it's appropriate to use bb explanations and when it's not, especially when other people *must be* calculating x-ray expectations that evidently are several times too low to explain what is actually observed. I can only assume by Mr. Solomon's comments that *someone* came up with a predicted number of x-rays using the standard model, and that prediction failed, otherwise that quote wouldn't be there in the article.
quote:
Be sure to email me when you've got that electricity paper written up. Take all the time you need.
It's probably time from me to take a break anyway and work on that paper. That was probably the best suggestion you've given me, and I agree with you. I have no illusion it will end our debate, but it needs to happen anyway. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/31/2006 20:34:43 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2006 : 20:47:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You want me to take a complete unreferenced and unreviewed article from a site with an obvious agenda to show astronomers as fools as evidence that what you say about astronomers is true? You really think I'm that stupid, don't you? Sure, you patronize me sometimes with "I really respect you, Dave," but then you spit in my eye like this.
Man Dave, sometimes you are really touchy and totally unpredictable. I certainly never intended to patronize you or to question your intelligence in any way. I think I've personally provided a better link to this data before by the way, but perhaps it was on the Livescience forums. I'll see if I can't locate that link for you.
quote:
quote:
The current state of astronomy is in utter disarray because mainstream astronomers today are unwilling to embrace electricity as a primary force in the universe.
Prove it by citing the astronomers themselves talking about the "utter disarray," Michael. Using the site you just linked to is as reliable as getting information about the former Soviet Union from old issues of Pravda.
:) That's kind of an ironic comment when you look at it from my perspective. From my side of the aisle, mainstream astronomers are about as likely to publish such material as Pravda was likely to provide discenting views in the former Soviet Union. The moment they do that, is the moment their funding gets "scrutinized".
Anthony Peratt seems to have a discenting view, as did his mentor. Do they count?
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
Do other EU proponents count? Arp?
quote:
Prove it, Michael. I'm not going to assume you're correct about any of this stuff. I did you that favor once, and you squandered the opportunity.
I really don't understand this statement. Why would you "do me a favor" and then take it away? How exactly did I squander the opportunity? |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 08/31/2006 20:51:58 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
