People With Higher IQs Live Longer

Huh?

My post was simply a thought experiment, using everything about astrophysics and quantum mechanics I know.

Another Einstein "Thought Experiment" for you:

There is no such thing as NOTHING.

Pick a space, any space, picture a box, somewhere out in the vast emptiness between galaxies. Make that box as small as you wish. Now, freeze time.

Between the ramifications of the uncertaintity principle, and what we know through experimental measurement, no matter how small the box, no matter where in the universe you place it, you cannot find anywhere where the box will contain NOTHING.

Be it a subtomic fragment of matter or a photon of radiation passing by, there is no such thing as NOTHING. Think about being in the box, looking out, in the vastness between galaxies, what do you see? Even in just the visible light spectrum you see the photons of light of every star and every galaxy for at least 15 billion lightyears in every direction. If your eyes could see all forms of radiation, and all particles of matter no matter what size, you would see that "the box" no matter how small always has something in it.

I am not saying there are multiple dimensions, beyond our universe and the subdimensions within it (3 physical dimensions plus time), it is the mathematics of M theory and the cumulative work of hundreds of brilliant scientists and mathematicians that suggest it. Moving beyond what they have already done with my own work.

MY hypothesis about the reality of the universe is based on a vast array of theory and experimental knowledge about our observable world. I could be completely full of shit, but the hypothesis is plausible and provides for means to test it. Years of observation combined with improvement in telescopes will hopefully let us better observe black holes and thier interaction with their surroundings.

If I'm right, we will ultimately find a blackhole that evaporates its way back to visibility and is observed having done so. We will also with improved telescopes simply discover that the farther we look into the distance, the more of the same stuff we see now, will be there. Forcing yet again the current theory of the big bang to be yet again altered to fit newly observed phenomena. But my hypothesis eliminates the need to concoct mathematical crutches such as "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", as they are no longer needed.

Part of the hypothesis is that gravity is NOT a charateristic of matter, but is instead the manifestation of an interaction between the presence of matter in our universe and the presence of adjacent dimensions. So far it has proven impossible to find on the quantum level, the existence of gravity. The search for the "god" particle will either prove this wrong or will leave open the question by failing to find gravity at the quantum level.

Again, it's just a hypothesis, really not something to get all upset about. The point of posting it was to illustrate the kind of thought processes that higher IQ provides the ability to engage in.:cool:
 
J32P said:
Who is John Galt for $100?

No, damn it...
Click to expand...
LMFAO. That was hilarious. Can I have your permission to use it from now on?

Drutort said:
Yes and the other dimensions you so speak of, please do go and elaborate on them and dream them up for us please, I would like to hear more...

Oh right vibrations… how about this… And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. How about that vibrations were created and traveled on light, and communication and everything physical was created, and everything is held by the most powerful word, how about that what we know as the physical world is 1% some argue up to 4%, so everything that you have dreamed and expanded up on, is really in the 1-4% please do elaborate on the rest of the 96-99%

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. It is a shame that a lot is lost in translation, there is so much more meaning behind every word, but then again you would have to study some of that, and you cant do that if you consider it foolishness… go figure

But what do I know right? My IQ is around 120-130 I would argue with some of those answers, but then again who am I to point out any other alternative to those questions?

And what you have shown with your ability, is nothing more then childes play, imagination intertwined with a lot of information and knowledge, more so then a child could… but still on that level

I ask you to describe or define all that is, with nothing but the absence of everything… that is “darkness was” don’t give me none of that repetitive BS, and other dimensions you get NOTING to start with, now go on please do create and describe your universe, you cant go and use what is already here, what the author and creator has placed, because all your doing is just mirroring and copying… you cant why? Because you and me and this physical world are finite
Click to expand...
+1. I had made the assumption that he was plagerizing, but you've made it even more rational for people to make the assumption he was plagerizing.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Huh?

MY hypothesis about the reality of the universe is based on a vast array of theory and experimental knowledge about our observable world. I could be completely full of shit, but the hypothesis is plausible and provides for means to test it. Years of observation combined with improvement in telescopes will hopefully let us better observe black holes and thier interaction with their surroundings.

If I'm right...

Again, it's just a hypothesis, really not something to get all upset about. The point of posting it was to illustrate the kind of thought processes that higher IQ provides the ability to engage in.:cool:
Click to expand...
You're hilarious. No offense, and I'm cool with it, even if others aren't.
Now for some more rationale:
It's not "MY" hypothesis. It could be anyone's hypothesis; it's just the one that they follow.

I don't think you'll ever be proven right.

People decide whether they want to get upset by it. I'm not, but might be. But I don't know for sure; people can't prove what other people are thinking.

And even if you've been tested with a higher IQ, IQ Tests are completely subjective, and others have given convincing evidence would say that you're not the most rational person in this thread.
 
Rational:

Having reason, or the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason or understanding; or, An exposition of principles or reasons.

How is anything I've said not rational?

There is no current explanation for the nature of gravity, noone has been able to figure it out. The big bang cannot be explained without resorting to mathematical constructs such as dark energy and dark matter, for which there is no observed evidence yet of any kind; without which the big bang theory fails, utterly.

That is not me saying this, it is the physics and astronomical community.

As for plagerizing... well, find what I have hypothesized, anywhere else, use "The Google". I am not "plagerizing" M theory by pointing out its existence and the conclusions and theories of others. Nor plagerizing Hawkings, etc. Just because someone mentions E+MC^2 doesn't mean they are plagerizing Einstein. :eek::rolleyes::p

But now, this is on The Google, and I'm the one saying it, you heard it here first. So if some dufuss publishes something similar in the future, Jack Baby Carver is on the record. :cool:

Meantime, I will be submitting in a year or so in the Journal of Astrophysics, and I hope they will publish it. Needless to say the entire theory is over 80 pages, not a HardOcp post. I'm just trying to give an example of something so complex it requires a high IQ to actually ponder all the ramifications.... ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT IT.

Stephen Hawking has proven mathematically that blackholes evaporate. He assumed that they must give off something to account for this, and called it Hawking Radiation. But noone has been able to find or measure it. The ramification of a blackhole evaporating without giving off something to balance it out would violate the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, one of the sacred foundations of modern physics. The scientific community was all over Hawkings after his theory was published, with claims that he was crazy, since nothing can violate that law. There were scientists suggesting he'd lost his mind. Google it, and read all about the controversy.

I however do not think he is wrong nor crazy, and I offer a hypothesis to account for his mathematical conclusions. Noone, by the way, has been able to disprove his mathematics. Blackholes likely literally do evaporate, because matter is actually DESTROYED and the conditions at the center of a blackhole do indeed violate the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy. There are always potential boundry conditions where things we hold as absolute, in fact, aren't. The understandings of science change over time as we learn more and are able to observe and gain further insight. Just as the Law odf the Sun goes around the Earth was proven incorrect, and the Law of The Earth is Flat was proven wrong, so will assumptions that science even today holds dear. It's the one immutable fundamental truth of science.... our understanding improves with time and effort. :p
 
Jack you keep parading this around like it explains something and I'd just like to point something out:

xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Part of the hypothesis is that gravity is NOT a charateristic of matter, but is instead the manifestation of an interaction between the presence of matter in our universe and the presence of adjacent dimensions. So far it has proven impossible to find on the quantum level, the existence of gravity. The search for the "god" particle will either prove this wrong or will leave open the question by failing to find gravity at the quantum level.
Click to expand...

G*m1*m2/r^2. Lets add e's: G = 6.67 e-11. a proton is, what e-18 kg? Assuming r = 1nm, So you're talking about trying to measure a force thats e-29 newtons big.

Anyone remember that scene in Heist where Sam Rockwell turns to Gene Hackman and says "I'll be as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton", to which Gene Hackman replies: "I don't want you to be as quiet as an ant pissing on cotton, I want you to be as quiet as an ant not even thinking about pissing on cotton".

An and pissing on cotton makes about e-4 or 5 units of noise (arbitrary units just bear with me), an ant not even thinking about pissing on cotton makes maybe e-9 or 10 units of noise. An ant existing in time and space makes, at its quietest, about e-15 units of noise. Two electrons colliding in the ant's (which doesnt exist because it would make to much noise if it did so) brain makes maybe e-20 units of noise. e-29 is unfathomably small. Like you could point to it on a graph and say "oh look a number with 28 zeroes in front of it"... but you couldn't actually picture it.
 
I didn't read the article since I am so busy but my take on it is that the lesser intelligent people are most likely couch potatoes that just lounge on the sofa and eat snacks when they aren't working and watching really stupid reality shows.
 
Mr Wizard,

I was inarticulate. By "finding" gravity at the quantum level, I mean coming to understand what about matter generates gravity. Not a measure of its magnitude at that level, our instrumentation could never hope to see such a miniscule influence.

We could never hope to see the gravitational influence between two neutrons or a proton and neutron, as if we were looking at a binary star system.

By "find" I mean accounting for what about matter is responsible for generating gravity in the first place. This is the realm of mathematics and the understandings gleened from the study of the other forces, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, which as you point out are millions of orders of magnitude greater in effect at the quantum level.

With hundreds of the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians working for almost a hundred years, with the ever improving incredible tools we have, cannot find anything "about" matter to explain gravity. We can and have explained electromagnetic force and what about matter produces it, as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces. But gravity's explanation continues to ellude.

My hypothesis for this inability to find what it is about matter that actually generates gravity is that.... gravity does not come from matter at all. It is instead the manifestation that we see in our universe of the force of repulsion between our dimension and another (or multiple other) dimensions.

Current efforts at nailing down general relativity has niggling issues that preclude a final solution. One of those is, how to account for the formation of galactic super clusters, and seeming asymetries that uniform gravity produced BY matter and the expected behavior in a big-bang universe just don't agree with. Observed phenomena doesn't jive with theorectical expectations, and in ways that make no sense in a context where gravity is a fundamental force produced by matter. Or gravitational lensing, where the observed phenomena doesn't correlate to what the otherwise completely sensible general relativity and quantum mechanics theory would expect.

We have theories which save for gravity, would account for how things are and how they work to near perfection.

There are multiple issues with my hypothesis of the universe. One is dealing with gravity and its true origin, another is dealing with the concept of "the big bang" and its flaws. I apologize for conflating the two. They are seperate issues that are related only in the ultimate overall picture. The big bang didn't happen, it was a flashover which is an event that could occur infinitely faster than the speed of light.

Modern astronomy tries to deal with oddities of the big bang by mathematical crutches such as, gee, time was different at the very beginning. So what should have taken 10 billion years but only took a fraction of a second under the big bang theory, happened when time itself was different than it is now.... intergallactic dog years?

There is also the issue of light itself and the laws of thermodynamics. The concept of tired light, vs the redshift and believed expansion of the universe. It is impossible for a photon to be fired off on its trip and for it to remain unchanged forever and ever. The laws of thermodynamics preclude this. The photon, over vast amounts of time and space will lose energy. A gamma ray over time will eventually lose energy to the point it is an ultravoilet photon which will lose energy until its a visible photon and will lose energy until its an infrared photon and ultimately.... what? We don't really know. Is the universe actually expanding (or contracting) or is our understanding and/or ability to observe flawed? But these issues bleed back into understanding the nature of gravity in order to correctly solve general relativity.

It's way beyond me, my only reason for bringing any of this up in this topic is to give a tangible example of what the differences between an average and a high IQ can conceptualize.
 
you missed the whole point sadly, everyone understands well most do, that there is no such thing as nothing "now" but you do understand that it is possible for nothing to have existed at least in 3d, sense, i mean think about it If a being that is not bound to any of these dimensions, created them in what was nothing, then of course you will have always something once you are looking from the created side, you and I cannot fathom the uncreated scene, never will we be able to, just like other dimensions cannot accept nor deny other dimensions

and at the end, lets jump to a point if everything was known, and things were understood, you could do great things, but at the end you will still bound and subject to it, because you are what it is

and if you are bound to it, and see the then the limits then the only thing is left is to look at whatever would be that bound you to it from the start, thats what it will point to only one thing - God



xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Huh?

My post was simply a thought experiment, using everything about astrophysics and quantum mechanics I know.

Another Einstein "Thought Experiment" for you:

There is no such thing as NOTHING.

Pick a space, any space, picture a box, somewhere out in the vast emptiness between galaxies. Make that box as small as you wish. Now, freeze time.

Between the ramifications of the uncertaintity principle, and what we know through experimental measurement, no matter how small the box, no matter where in the universe you place it, you cannot find anywhere where the box will contain NOTHING.

Be it a subtomic fragment of matter or a photon of radiation passing by, there is no such thing as NOTHING. Think about being in the box, looking out, in the vastness between galaxies, what do you see? Even in just the visible light spectrum you see the photons of light of every star and every galaxy for at least 15 billion lightyears in every direction. If your eyes could see all forms of radiation, and all particles of matter no matter what size, you would see that "the box" no matter how small always has something in it.

I am not saying there are multiple dimensions, beyond our universe and the subdimensions within it (3 physical dimensions plus time), it is the mathematics of M theory and the cumulative work of hundreds of brilliant scientists and mathematicians that suggest it. Moving beyond what they have already done with my own work.

MY hypothesis about the reality of the universe is based on a vast array of theory and experimental knowledge about our observable world. I could be completely full of shit, but the hypothesis is plausible and provides for means to test it. Years of observation combined with improvement in telescopes will hopefully let us better observe black holes and thier interaction with their surroundings.

If I'm right, we will ultimately find a blackhole that evaporates its way back to visibility and is observed having done so. We will also with improved telescopes simply discover that the farther we look into the distance, the more of the same stuff we see now, will be there. Forcing yet again the current theory of the big bang to be yet again altered to fit newly observed phenomena. But my hypothesis eliminates the need to concoct mathematical crutches such as "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", as they are no longer needed.

Part of the hypothesis is that gravity is NOT a charateristic of matter, but is instead the manifestation of an interaction between the presence of matter in our universe and the presence of adjacent dimensions. So far it has proven impossible to find on the quantum level, the existence of gravity. The search for the "god" particle will either prove this wrong or will leave open the question by failing to find gravity at the quantum level.

Again, it's just a hypothesis, really not something to get all upset about. The point of posting it was to illustrate the kind of thought processes that higher IQ provides the ability to engage in.:cool:
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I do understand. My hypothesis involves the entire cycle of the universe, and in that cycle, at the "end" there is in fact nothing. When the universe finally cools to absolute zero, when the last quark stops spinning on its axis, and unravels into its component strings, and those strings cease to vibrate as the last bit of kinetic energy has dissipated, and the very strings themselves stop.... they cease to exist, and there is.... nothing.

With nothing in the universe, there is no longer anything keeping our dimension and the next (or multiple others) from colliding. And when dimensions collide.... BANG!

And the cycle begins again, with our universe flashing over to pure energy, in a flash event that travels instantaneously over a vast expanse, hundreds of billions of lightyears across. With energy coagulating into matter, and matter coagulating into quarks and protons and atoms and gas and stars and galaxies, etc, etc, over vast time frames of tens of billions of years.

In the big BIG picture, god and religion are completely compatible with whatever the physical realities of the universe are.... if god created it, it is what it is, why would the specifics ever be a problem from god's perspective. And if god gave us the mind to figure it out, then I'd expect he/she/it would be ok with us actually figuring it out.

So I've never understood why religion has ever had a problem with science, isn't science from our minds just also gods will?

Further, there is likely nothing in the hyperspace between dimensions (outside both our universe and whatever physical manifestation the other dimension take). Maybe someday we will figure out how to poke a hole in this dimension and access the hyperspace between dimensions. It would provide a mechanism for infitely faster than light travel, the potential for technology like warp drive or stargates to actually exist. But thats a very long way off.... or perhaps simply a moment of inspiration away, who's to say.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Yes, I do understand. My hypothesis involves the entire cycle of the universe, and in that cycle, at the "end" there is in fact nothing. When the universe finally cools to absolute zero, when the last quark stops spinning on its axis, and unravels into its component strings, and those strings cease to vibrate as the last bit of kinetic energy has dissipated, and the very strings themselves stop.... they cease to exist, and there is.... nothing.

With nothing in the universe, there is no longer anything keeping our dimension and the next (or multiple others) from colliding. And when dimensions collide.... BANG!

And the cycle begins again, with our universe flashing over to pure energy, in a flash event that travels instantaneously over a vast expanse, hundreds of billions of lightyears across. With energy coagulating into matter, and matter coagulating into quarks and protons and atoms and gas and stars and galaxies, etc, etc, over vast time frames of tens of billions of years.

In the big BIG picture, god and religion are completely compatible with whatever the physical realities of the universe are.... if god created it, it is what it is, why would the specifics ever be a problem from god's perspective. And if god gave us the mind to figure it out, then I'd expect he/she/it would be ok with us actually figuring it out.

So I've never understood why religion has ever had a problem with science, isn't science from our minds just also gods will?

Further, there is likely nothing in the hyperspace between dimensions (outside both our universe and whatever physical manifestation the other dimension take). Maybe someday we will figure out how to poke a hole in this dimension and access the hyperspace between dimensions. It would provide a mechanism for infitely faster than light travel, the potential for technology like warp drive or stargates to actually exist. But thats a very long way off.... or perhaps simply a moment of inspiration away, who's to say.
Click to expand...


Well I believe in both science and religion and believe that the universe was created perfectly with all of the physical laws and everything that are in it and how well everything was set up (evolution, cells, gravity, etc.....) but I definitely don't believe in the Big bang theory as it is retarded IMHO. There is no way in hell that an explosion could create physical laws and everything could from a microscopic atom that just exploded that came from "nothing". I also have a hard time believing that this "atom" was smart enough to create cells that would combine and create magnificent things which would eventually lead to humans existing. As for the person that said that "nothing" cant exist, the only reason why anything exists is because your brain creates it. Everything that you see/feel/hear etc.... only exists because your brain translates everything into your senses. So if you were dead nothing would exist to you and your brain is the only thing that really creates anything.
 
I think its far more interesting to look in your own backyard then try to look out in the starts, its my opinion because it doesn’t take a whole lot but you can see so much and appreciate all the magnificent order, even though when you take things on such a small level and can conclude that things look random or chaotic, but somehow everything has just the right amount of order. Its amazing how things still produce after their own kind, sure there are mutations and other things.. but you don’t get complete transformations from one type of mater into the other, never do you see, and I think someone who would run the probability of all the mater that is just on this earth, we should yield pretty good results especially with time for something to happen that is completely defies its very nature. And yet what have we found? Things produce after their own kind, and not only that multiply.

I look at nature and ask myself often… why do creates act they way the do? Why or how from berth do these little creates know basics… how is it even possible that such communication and what I simply call programming get passed on and on, and that never changes… and yet somehow things also have a freewill, just looking at the organic side of things… how things can and only do what they do a certain way and you really couldn’t make them act or form a different way… who or what told them to be like that.

To think that all such things were a form of randomness would be madness, and not only that every step of the way you should find that randomness, and should keep seeing it from happening, yet everything has its order so perfectly, not only that when things get out of order, “things” know how to fix and repair themselves why? Why not become or do something completely out of the ordinary?

Maybe it should be looked the same in our universe, that things keep multiplying and that the universe also has seasons, and death and life, were death as we know only brings the nourishment for new life.

And why would dimensions ever collide? Would it not be my understanding that they are nothing much but a form of representation just like we represent an atom or wave lengths… none of it really exists in that forms that we describe it is just a way for us to describe something. If anything dimensions would be the very things that always stay true and just give more flexibility.

Religion and science didn’t work well in the past, because neither one considered the other, and when either of them would not understand something about the other they would try to dismiss and block the other one. Also it was quite the abusive and power manipulating source. Both can be good, and are good but can be very dangerous if misused.

It also states that if you look closely/study and consider all things, you will see Gods work in all creation. It is true, as I have seen and read and heard from people who study any area of life deeply they, may not fully admit but they surly do not deny the existence of a great being.
 
You know what I think of gravity and time? Simply? I think it is the very essence between the matter staying or drawing to nothing, that is, they are simply there as a byproduct of creation. And yes when nothing is around, there would be no gravity or time. Gravity and time is obviously tide to this physical universe alone. Not only that, who is to measure and say what is nearly instantaneous, but yet still takes a fraction of some time? I mean we all know that things can continue to be taken to either great magnitudes.

To me it simply makes sense, why? Because there is a correlation as far as matter and the amount of mater, the smaller you get the less these “forces” or one gets smaller other gets larger.

Ask yourself, if there is nothing in a dimensions, no matter left, is there any time or gravity?



This is were I believe, it makes sense also, if I could be omnipresent, and not bound by the physical dimensions, I could see the future, and YET have a creation that has freewill. How you may ask?
If I give you a path, from point A, to point B with many ways to getting there, and I was omnipresent, regardless what path you take I will be there right?

If God created this universe and us, then he can see or imagine or whatever you can call it, each and every possible combination, he could see how every atom and electron, everything that is seen and unseen, to those who are subject to time. Yet he gives you the choice a path to pick. Is it hard to understand that it would be possible to see how the path of mankind goes?

If he created all of this, surly he would be a master of his own creation? If you were in the same position would you not do the same? Oh wait we are also in the likeness, so we do have a limited ability, and we are expressing it right now

And you know were evolution really eats its own words? Ill tell you, in the very area were they try to prove that it works. Lets look at the big, galaxies and solar systems and such… they still keep on being created and keep dyeing right? Now that light, states that they are 3465346345436346 years old? Correct? Ok good, now why do they keep on going and being created in similar ways, yes a little different, something we might not have seen but pretty much still fallowing some order…

Ok good now fallow with me… Arguments state that you need 3463535303434 years and tries for things to just happen… well dang! What ? why are the galaxies forming the same way? I don’t get it… surly all that time and soooo many chance should have created something soo bazaar and completely out of the ordinary and maybe even defying some physics, but wait… they haven’t now have they?

So if you take that same approach here, on the shorter level, you can see that things like random act, would be really insane, especially since we can keep on looking and keep on seeing that the seed principle is in fact true

Im sorry I think I must be putting myself and others to sleep, its been fun while it lasted, maybe I should have gone and written a book or two but then again why should I, there already exists a great one
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
Yes, I do understand. My hypothesis involves the entire cycle of the universe, and in that cycle, at the "end" there is in fact nothing. When the universe finally cools to absolute zero, when the last quark stops spinning on its axis, and unravels into its component strings, and those strings cease to vibrate as the last bit of kinetic energy has dissipated, and the very strings themselves stop.... they cease to exist, and there is.... nothing.

With nothing in the universe, there is no longer anything keeping our dimension and the next (or multiple others) from colliding. And when dimensions collide.... BANG!

And the cycle begins again, with our universe flashing over to pure energy, in a flash event that travels instantaneously over a vast expanse, hundreds of billions of lightyears across. With energy coagulating into matter, and matter coagulating into quarks and protons and atoms and gas and stars and galaxies, etc, etc, over vast time frames of tens of billions of years.

In the big BIG picture, god and religion are completely compatible with whatever the physical realities of the universe are.... if god created it, it is what it is, why would the specifics ever be a problem from god's perspective. And if god gave us the mind to figure it out, then I'd expect he/she/it would be ok with us actually figuring it out.

So I've never understood why religion has ever had a problem with science, isn't science from our minds just also gods will?

Further, there is likely nothing in the hyperspace between dimensions (outside both our universe and whatever physical manifestation the other dimension take). Maybe someday we will figure out how to poke a hole in this dimension and access the hyperspace between dimensions. It would provide a mechanism for infitely faster than light travel, the potential for technology like warp drive or stargates to actually exist. But thats a very long way off.... or perhaps simply a moment of inspiration away, who's to say.
Click to expand...



Now we are just playing poker with random rules…

What is to say that other dimensions would even except the current rules of physics?

Sadly to say, but if your in nothing, it would be quite impossible to travel through with something, regardless of whatever hyperspace or whatever you can create to sort of cheat the physics or time… you would still fall under your own kind… that is whatever is physical will need to fallow the physical laws… hence if you are attempting to go into nothing… you have no resources to move about.. hence you could not do it in a physical form…

Kind of brings me to the point, of hmm darkness devil and no resources in darkness because it is the emptiness or nothing , err the lack of everything, and everything is what we speak of was created by God so hmm, I guess tough luck going in physical form through nothing… with something ;)

but one thing is for sure, the more people think maybe the more we will get closer to something, and make nothing more useful ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top