Particle Drifts in Space

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

#4. Electrons

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:32 am

.
Secrets of the Polar Aurora by David P. Stern: https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/aurora.htm  

Electrons of the Aurora

To early observers, and well into the 20th century, the polar aurora was a great mystery. Not everything is solved even now--but thanks largely to space satellites, we have a fair understanding of the way the aurora is produced.

First question-- how high up is it? By comparing photographs taken from separated locations, an altitude of about 60 miles was found for the green aurora, and up to about twice as much for the red one. Clues like that led scientists to conclude that "something out there" was shooting towards us beams of fast electrons, somewhat like the ones painting the picture inside a TV picture tube.

Airman. “”Something out there” was shooting towards us beams of fast electrons, …”. We cannot see the charge field, photons are too small. Electrons are like dust in the wind. When we observe electrons in motion, we must recognize that the true source of the motion is the underlying charge field.

In a TV, electrons hit a screen, come to a stop, and their energy is converted to light. Something similar happens with the electrons that cause the aurora: they collide with atoms in the upper fringes of the atmosphere, give up their energy to those atoms and cause them to emit light.

Airman. The author stated something causes beams of electrons, those electrons then transfer their energy to atoms in the atmosphere; the atoms will then dispense the increased energy in the form of emitted light. The text hasn’t elaborated on where the electrons get their energy, other than from the Sun; instead, we are indirectly assured electrons can create aurora. A television picture tube is offered as evidence. I would think fluorescent bulbs describe aurora much better, but it's probably ignored because it doesn't depend on electrons.

Please note that the charge field is clearly filling a void in the text’s explanation. The solar wind cannot explain how charges could possibly distribute as aurora. The mainstream is looking for very high energy particles here, apparently they think only electrons can fill the bill.

Electrons do not cause aurora. Electrons and ions within the atmosphere are being energized by the intersection of equal and opposite photon flows from both Earth’s emissions and incoming solar charge.

And what are electrons? Tiny particles with negative electric charge, contained in all matter. At the center of every atom is a nucleus, containing almost all of its mass and always carrying a positive electric charge. The positive charge attracts electrons and binds them, and jointly the two types yield an ordinary atom, electrically neutral, with no excess charge of either kind. Atoms like this build up you, me, and anything we can see on Earth.

Airman. According to the charge field, electrons are charged particles. Charged particles constantly recycle real photons which move 1) forward with a linear velocity of light-speed c – the pre-electric field, and; 2) spin with a tangential velocity of c, the pre magnetic field. All charge is repulsive, photon emissions that generally prevent charged particles from approaching other charged particles too closely. There is no attractive force, all attraction is only apparent. All forces are reduced to photon collisions.

Electrons are created from photons by a series of end-over-end spin doublings. Electrons are too large to travel at c. Further spin doublings result in larger charged particles such as protons and neutrons. Planets, suns and galaxies act like charged particles. Electrons and protons are not equal and oppositely charged, the proton is 1821x larger than the electron with 1821x the charge.

The text relies on an outdated atomic model that neither Quantum Mechanics nor Quantum Electrodynamics currently support. Miles’ work with the charge field also includes new atomic models. Try going to Miles’ Physics Homepage, http://milesmathis.com/index.html and explore some of the many charge field ideas he’s described.

For example, please see,
316. Electron Bonding is a Myth. http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf  
Molecular bonding explained by the charge field instead. 8pp. By Miles Mathis.

However, sunlight can separate electrons from atoms of the gas found in space (or in the upper fringes of the atmosphere), into negative free electrons and positive "ions", atoms missing an electron or more. And because that gas is so rarefied, it can take very, very long before an electron finds a vacant nucleus and recombines again. So, free electrons are plentiful there. Still, electrons moving at 1/10 the velocity of light, like those in the aurora, need a better explanation. We will get to that, by and by.

Airman. Sunlight can knock electrons from atoms, ionizing them. I suppose high energy atoms and electrons can exist for long periods of time in the upper atmosphere. Free electrons can travel from the sun to the Earth at 0.1c, but electrons in Earth’s upper atmosphere meet far too much resistance to travel very far at that speed. The text promises to explain how electrons gain energy from the solar wind then releasing that energy into atoms of the aurora, by and by. I’ll try to show the charge field is the better explanation.    

The green and red colors are emitted by atoms of oxygen after they are hit by fast electrons. Each element emits its characteristic colors, and for rarefied oxygen, these appear to us green or red. Typically, a delay of 0.5-1 second exists between collision and the emission (in this case--not in denser surroundings!), and that is why the rays of the aurora brighten and fade so slowly. The beam of electrons which "excites" the oxygen atoms may only last a small fraction of a second, but the afterglow persists 0.5-1 seconds or more.

Airman. Within the auroral zone, electrons, as well as all charged particles including protons and atoms are being spun-up to higher than normal energy levels due to the two equal and opposite emission and incoming charge flows. The e-fields cancel while the spins add. Outside the auroral zone, the e-fields will not cancel, perhaps that is where higher than average speed electrons observed along with aurora are being created.

I can't speak to observed time delays, or how red and green emissions occur, electrons moving from one orbital to another is one old theory that I was taught as a lad. That cannot work for the old reasons given. Miles has written a couple of papers on color that may provide some additional information here.

Your comments are appreciated.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Nevyn on Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:52 am

As far as the color goes, I think that is related to the atoms structure which the charge photons must pass through. The atoms nucleus is channeling that charge and focusing it. It is also colliding with it as the charge passes through the atom. This could alter the color by altering the spins on the photons. Colors are not just a single photon, they are many photons and they can have different spins. Different combinations create different colors (but there are 2 colors that actually belong to photons, can't remember which ones). So the nucleus is changing the photons, or some of them, so that they create red or green. Look into Miles papers on the rainbow for more information on what photons create what colors. That might make a good new page for my site. Could also give us some ideas on how to measure the internals of an atom by the colors they produce.

That time delay is very interesting. I have never liked the electrons jumping between energy levels and emitting a photon crap. This time delay throws that out the window. Does the electron just take a nice little stroll to the lower energy level? 0.5 to 1 second is a hell of a lot of time for a photon. Sounds more like charge moving around the nucleus before it finds a way out to me. In the past I have mentioned an idea I had that charge could pulse from north to south and back again through the main charge channel. Some of it leaks out but a lot is kept inside of the nucleus. Once the input stops, the trapped photons eventually leave. This does mean that it is not just one photon, but many.

I wonder if there is a connection between color and stack size? Larger stacks create a longer north-south path. The length of that path could affect the photons as they bounce around in there much like an antenna needs to be at least a 1/4 wavelength long to hear a signal at a given frequency.
avatar
Nevyn
Admin

Posts : 795
Join date : 2014-09-11

View user profile http://www.nevyns-lab.com

Back to top Go down

Aurora colors and duration - discussion

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:44 pm

.
Nevyn, Thanks for providing several ideas, I was drawing blanks. I reviewed Rainbows, Prisms, and non-edge Diffraction, http://milesmathis.com/rain2.html as you suggested. I’ll continue with the rest of the rainbow series while I’m at it. I’m still trying to understand that gravity or charge density changes can sort photons along surface boundaries or through varied medium, i.e. a prism. Consider this quote:

We have seen that visible light is emitted at only two wavelengths. All visible light is originally red or violet. It can then become yellow or cyan when its spin speed is slowed by diffraction or refraction—by close contact with a charge field. Magenta and green are then created by a mixing of these four colors. This means that yellow and cyan wavelengths do exist, but they have to be created by charge interaction, since they can't be emitted.

We observe green aurora 100km high, and red aurora at about 200km. I would have agreed with you, the colors must be due to atomic photon emissions, but the only colors we might see are red or violet. Miles says yellow or cyan are created by charge interaction, diffraction or refraction, green is mixed only after the first four colors are present.

Perhaps the Earth is behaving like a prism. Sunlight is passing low over the Earth near the poles. The Earth, along with Earth’s atmosphere is a very significant change in charge density, the red is refracted high, and green is refracted low. There’s also the boundary I keep mentioning - between the Earth’s emitted field and incoming solar charge flow, but I don’t see how refraction might work along that cylindrical surface.

Sorry I keep repeating myself, related to this time delay idea. Charged particles, atoms included, must recycle charge according to the density of charge received. If the high charge density being received is interrupted, the charged particle must dissipate that unsupportable energy with some delay. It’s true that high energy atoms and electrons exist in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, it’s also true that they are being bombarded with high energy photons. Without the high charge density input, the particle could not remain high energy for long.  

I agree that proton stacks emit signature wavelengths or sets of wavelengths. I guess the minimum resonant element should be the alpha - helium. Of course one or more alphas in tandem form the proton stack. I’m definitely in favor of considering the atom’s stack dimensions in terms of phase length. Phase length is a bit different from length alone, phase length combines frequency and distance, for example, 1/4 wavelength is by definition a phase length. Another example, a given stack may be described as several different phase lengths, depending on the wavelength of photons present. The longest distance - the main n/s axis - may correspond to the atom's fundamental frequency, the carousal arms are secondary frequencies. Phase lengths may be a way of interpreting how photons may pass most efficiently between alphas within stacks, perhaps favoring specific wavelengths over others.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:34 am

Speaking of Photon wavelength, I found these old papers:

Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right
By Miles Mathis

http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html
---
Einstein was a theorist, not an experimenter like Tesla. He did not know of the foundational E/M field. Almost no one except Tesla has known of it, even among other specialists in electricity. The field I am talking about has concerned only quantum physicists up to now (since it is the field mediated by their ridiculous “messenger photons”). So Einstein could not be expected to have included this field in his theories of the macro-world. But he never denied the existence or importance of the electromagnetic field, and he would never have denied the possibility that other unknown fields existed, even ubiquitous and powerful fields. He would only have denied, based on his theory, that they would be considered the “background of space.” As he showed, space has no background except the motion of light.

He is correct about this, and it is one of two major reasons I refuse to call my foundational E/M field an ether. The other reason is also historical. Tesla called his field an ether, since it was ubiquitous and powerful. It allowed many things to happen, and caused many things to happen. It was fundamental, as fundamental as gravity, or more so. While admitting all that, I refrain from referring to my foundational E/M field as an ether because it does not fit the even older and more famous definition of ether as the mediator and facilitator of all motion. According to the 19th definitions, the ether was invented to explain the motion of light. It seemed to physicists at that time that light needed a medium through which to propagate, just as sound needed air through which to propagate. Especially as regards the wave motion, it was not understood how light could show this wave without a medium.

Using stacked spins, I have shown how light moves in a wave pattern without the need of any medium. The wave is internal to each photon, and the analogy to sound waves in air completely breaks down. The wave motion of light is not a pattern in a medium, it is real motion of each quantum. You will say, “Motion relative to what?” Motion relative to the previous position, or relative to the void, or relative to a graph you superimpose over the moving quantum. Motion does not require a medium, it only requires a background. That background is automatically created relative to previous positions. You don’t need a medium to describe the motion of quanta. You only need a mathematical or diagrammed background, and previous positions give you that.

In fact, requiring a physical medium for all motion is a reductio ad absurdum. Say that we do define Tesla’s “ether” as the medium. Say that we do define my foundational E/M field as the medium against which the speed of light is calculated. We obviously run into an immediate problem, since my field or Tesla’s is made up of some kind of photon or other emission, fluid or particulate. At that point, you are defining the motion of light against a background of invisible E/M photons. But that brings up many questions: 1) Which photon is more fundamental? The light photon or the photon that transmits the E/M field? 2) How can you measure one against the other? Aren’t they both going c? Or, if they are not going exactly c in all situations, won’t they both vary in the same way for the same reasons? 3) If the light photon is moving relative to the E/M or ether photon, what is the ether photon moving relative to? Don’t we require a sub-ether as a background to the ether photon? 4) It seems we need something that is not moving to be our medium, but Tesla’s ether field, like my foundational E/M field, is made up of moving particles.

The only thing that is not moving is the void. But calling the void an ether is pretty much admitting defeat. If the void is the ether, then Einstein was basically correct. Einstein’s only real crime was desiring to put a finer point on a thing than most people care to put on it. Most people today who want an ether simply mean they want the standard model to quit ignoring the E/M field in all its contexts, and to quit interpreting Einstein in narrow, abstract mathematical ways. To this extent I agree with them. To this extent, Einstein would have agreed with them, too.
-------
From the Maxwell paper:

We can also see the problem here:
http://milesmathis.com/disp2.pdf

Maxwell concluded, using Newton's equation for the speed of sound (Lines of Force, Part III, equation 132), that “light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.”
You can see the conflation there, and the confusion. Whether the confusion is completely in the minds of those who came after Maxwell, or whether some of the confusion was his own, is not completely clear. But that quoted sentence is true only if you read it correctly. It has not been read correctly. It is true only if by “in the same medium”, Maxwell means in the same general space. But the way it has been read historically is that light is undulations in the E/M field. Light is NOT undulations in the E/ M field. Light is its own field. Furthermore, light is not undulations in anything. The wavelength of light is not a field undulation, it is a spin wave caused by each individual photon. Each photon has a wavelength, as we now know, and the only way it can have that is if the spin of the photon causes the wave. As I have said a hundred times, light is a spin wave, not a field wave.

We have since discovered field waves in the charge field, but these waves are not photons and are not light. They are neutrinos. Neutrinos are “undulations” in the charge field. But they are not thereby undulations in the E/M field. The E/M field and the charge field are completely separate. The charge field influences the E/M field, but they are not the same.

Like everything else we have looked at, the mainstream has this one upside down. They think that light is moving in the E/M field. But it is actually ions that are moving in the light field. The charge field is primary, and it sets the ion field. Not the reverse. Light doesn't move in the E/M field. Light moves in the charge field, which is its own field. Light is charge and charge is light. Strictly, light doesn't move in any field. Light IS the fundamental field. The motion of light sets all the fields in sizes above it.

In this way, charge field theory ties into Relativity, since Einstein basically proposed the same thing. In telling us that the motion of light determined the motion of everything else, Einstein was saying the same thing I am. He never made the connection as explicit and clear as I am making it here, but that is his most fundamental link to Maxwell. Just as Maxwell was (sometimes) trying to do, Einstein based everything on light. But now physicists have turned that on its head. They now try to define the motion of light relative to the E/M field. Since the E/M field is a creation of light, that can't work. They have cause and effect mixed up.
...
After studying Maxwell's paper closely, I can see that the original fault here is his. He has not been misunderstood or misinterpreted. There has been no misreading, there has simply been a failure to correct him. The central problem here is that he thought and proposed that light was a wave in the E/M field. So he had it upside down from the start. Since electricity and magnetism were discovered before charge and were far easier to study, Maxwell naturally took them as primary. Electromagnetism is the motion of ions, while charge is the motion of photons. Since photons are very much smaller than ions, they hadn't been studied in Maxwell's time. We still know almost nothing about them. For this reason, Maxwell took the E/M field as the foundational field, and tried to fit light into it, explaining light as a field wave in the E/M field. But this is upside down. Light does not move in the E/M field, ions move in the light field. The motions and spin of photons create everything, including ionization, magnetism, current, and so on. The charge field is the fundamental field, and the E/M field is only a creation of it.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 653
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

Aurora colors and duration - discussion continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:05 pm

.
I made a comment on colors and the aurora last time, I'll clear that up here.



You’ve seen the left image previously in this thread, a satellite image of aurora.  I found the middle https://i2.wp.com/gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magnetic-North-Pole.png and eyeball corrected the arrow and red dot as I've shown. The right side is a result.



Here we see a crescent of daylight along the top edge in this night side view. Earth is 12,742km in diameter. The large red circle is 200km and the green circle is 100km above the Earth’s surface, magenta. I tried to keep to scale, I'd be happy with a single pixel.

The red circle centered on the north magnetic pole is the auroral zone; a rough boundary of equal charge densities between incoming solar charge at the pole; and Earth’s own emissions which are strongest toward the equator. The auroral zone is roughly a circle, 1,500km radius centered on magnetic north, 380km left (in this view) of  the geographic north.

Given that the Earth recycles 2x more matter into the south magnetic pole than the anti-matter entering the north magnetic pole, I would expect the south auroral zone to be about twice as large as the north auroral zone.



I believe the Earth refracts sunlight into the prismatic colors. Light coming from the right side misses the Earth yet is refracted by the earth’s 200km thick atmosphere and gravity field. This happens all along the dividing line around the earth, separating day and night. The colors and locations are a guess, I did searches for diffraction by opaque spheres, no joy. My point is - the colors are in the atmosphere on the night edge of the world.

Auroras are created in the balance of two opposing charge flow currents causing a local energy spin-up. The spun-up atoms are fed colors that are created by defraction. Do the atoms alter the colors in some way?

Yea, Nay?
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

More Aurora

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jul 12, 2017 6:56 pm

.
Airman. I almost left some aurora stuff behind.

#3H.      The Polar Aurora – History
The term "aurora borealis" was used in 1621 by the French scientist and philosopher Pierre Gassendi, but George Siscoe has given reasons to believe it was introduced by Galileo Galilei in 1619 (p. 51 in "Majestic Lights"). "Majestic Lights, The Aurora in Science, History and the Arts" by Robert H. Eather, American Geophysical Union, 1980.

Elias Loomis of Yale University compiled, in 1860, a map marking how many times in an average year were auroras observed in various locations (click here https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wloomis.html to see his map). A more accurate map was compiled in 1881 by Hermann Fritz (1830-1883) (click https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfritz.html to see Fritz'es map).

NOTE: BOTH MAPS POSTED BELOW

It was long suspected that the aurora was caused by electrons arriving from the outside and hitting the high atmosphere.

Airman. The Sun’s charge emissions are the primary source for the charge currents received by the Earth. There may be plenty of electrons arriving, but they are being pushed along by photons. But that’s only half the story, the Earth is also emitting charge. The aurora is an electromagnetic manifestation – we only see electrons and ions – of the high energy boundary between the two charge flows.  

The Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), for instance, placed a magnetized sphere, a "terrella" representing the Earth, inside a vacuum chamber, and aimed a beam of electrons towards it. He was gratified to see that the electrons were steered by the magnetic field to the vicinity of the terrella's magnetic poles.

Airman. Electron current within the terrella was observed being steered to the sphere’s magnetic poles. That observation is consistent with the fact that the charge field photon currents Earth receives tend to flow into the poles. It seemed the terrella was somewhat analogous to the Earth but as a practical matter, it simply didn’t explain the aurora. In my opinion, Birkeland’s terrella is described more appropriately as a large high voltage vacuum tube. Explaining aurora with a vacuum tube is not a mechanical argument. Note that this interpretation is consistent with the source material’s earlier reference to electron beams within the television picture tube.

However, it was only in 1954 that auroral electrons were actually observed, by detectors aboard a rocket launched into the aurora by Meredith, Gottlieb and Van Allen, of Van Allen's team at the University of Iowa. Carl McIlwain, another member of that team, used a 1959 rocket experiment to identify the particles as electrons of an average energy corresponding to acceleration by 6000 volts (see high energy particles).

Nowadays scientific satellites regularly cross streams of auroral electrons and measure their properties, and aurora is also observed from the ground with video cameras and special radars.

Airman. All electron currents are caused by a net charge field displacement. The charge field provides a mechanism that was never available in earlier theories, Aurora are the electromagnetic signature of a charge field event - Earth’s charge recycling.

3a.     Auroral Frequency Map by Elias Loomis

Below is map of the frequency with which aurora is seen in various polar regions, produced in 1860 by Elias Loomis (1811-1889), professor of natural philosophy at Yale. The central band has at least "80 auroras annually".



One might expect the center of the pattern to be at the magnetic pole, but it is not: the magnetic pole is in northern Canada, while the center of the pattern is near the northwestern end of Greenland. The reason is that the Earth's field is not exactly like that of a bar magnet, but contains additional irregularities, more complex and effective mainly near the surface, not far out in space.

#3b.     Auroral Frequency Map by Hermann Fritz

Shown here is a map of the frequency with which auroras are seen, produced in 1881 by the German scientist Hermann Fritz (1830-1883). The line of greatest frequency lists 100 auroras per year, while in the center of the pattern auroras are much less frequent.



If the Earth's field resembled that of a simple bar magnet ("dipole"), its magnetic pole would be near the northwestern tip of Greenland, in the middle of the pattern. However, the field contains additional complex parts, whose effect does not extend as far into space, and these shift the pole actually observed on the ground to northern Canada, to the location shown on the map.

Airman. Earlier, I assumed that the auroral zone was centered on the magnetic pole - Ok, wrong. The area is larger than I thought, easily encompassing both magnetic and geographic poles. Charge appears to be entering the Earth’s north pole anywhere within the Arctic Ocean, including Iceland, Greenland and parts of Northern Canada.



Aurora indicate the boundary between incoming solar, and Earth emitted charge. A larger pole region means the incoming charge density needn’t be so high, helps clear things up for me. Here’s an updated northern auroral image. I see color also extends far beyond the earlier night’s edge I talked about, another thing to think about.

See, I can almost achieve a discussion with myself, I’ll keep trying.

Further Reading:
• "Majestic Lights, The Aurora in Science, History and the Arts" by Robert H. Eather, American Geophysical Union, 1980.
• Some details about Birkeland's work and further references to it can be found in "A Brief History of Magnetospheric Physics Before the Spaceflight Era" by David P. Stern, Reviews of Geophysics, 27, 103-114, 1989,  https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/bh2_1.html

Airman. The second book above is in this same archive collection, written for a more educated audience.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:15 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Moved the squoted entence "It was long suspected ... " into the quote)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#4a. Electricity as a Fluid

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:19 pm

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/welectrc.html

#4a.      Electricity as a Fluid

The preceding sections did not follow the conventional order:

Airman. I apologize for making hash out of the source order.  

First electric currents were brought up, in connection with Oersted's work.
Then electric charges, in connection with electrons.

That may be OK, because most of us are familiar with currents and charges. Currents run electric lights, radios, TVs, clocks and applicances in the home, and "static" electric charge causes papers and clothes to cling together in dry weather. An electric current is essentially the continuous flow of electric charge. This section goes a little further, to the concepts of voltage and of the electric field.

Airman. Electron/proton, -1/+1, repulsion of like signs and attraction of unlike signs; the list, unfortunately, is false. The singular failure of over 400 years of Science has been the lack of a proper definition of charge. All charge is repulsive, the result of photon collisions. Still, voltages currents and electric fields do exist, so I’ll try to keep up. Your corrections/suggestions are always appreciated.

Ohm's law

It is easier to understand electricity if we regard electric charge as a sort of fluid, like water, as scientists did for the first 200 years. Yes, it does consist of individual electrons, but those are so small that any large charge behaves like a continuous fluid. In the same way sand pours like a fluid, and water in a glass is usually regarded as a fluid, even though it consists of individual molecules.

Airman. Charge is too fast and too small to see. Infra-red photons are 3.3 million times (1821^2) smaller than the electron. Electrons will form currents only when there are currents in the charge field. Free electrons and protons are logs and trees pushed along by an unseen river of photons traveling at the speed of light.

Using a pump we can push water through a pipe around a closed circuit (top drawing). The rate at which it flows past any point in the pipe--measured in gallons (or liters) per second--depends on the pressure produced by the pump (measured in pounds per square inch, or kilograms per square centimeter). More accurately, it depends on the pressure difference between the entrance to the pipe (left) and the exit from the pipe (right).



The greater the pressure difference, the greater the flow. In addition, given a certain pressure difference, a fatter pipe will carry more water, and a longer one will resist the flow and carry less.

Airman. Unlike water, charge field flows can travel in two opposite directions at the same time. Charge traveling to the right must add to anti-charge traveling left. Photons and anti-photons can flow past each other with no resistance.

All this mirrors exactly the behavior of the electric fluid.

No pipes here, though: electricity in our homes and appliances usually flows in metal wires, most often of copper. Electrons in a metal can jump from atom to atom, and that way carry negative charge around the circuit.

Airman. Electrons jumping from atom to atom doesn’t make any sense to me. The electricity business bloomed before recognition of the charge field. They observed high numbers of electrons slowly flowing through wires. Describing electricity using water is common practice. As an engineer, I’ve done it myself many times, even searched water solutions when thinking of electrical problems. For most intents and purposes, like paying the bills, electron flow makes the numbers work.

We now know the charge field is the motive force, not the power station. The atoms within the copper wires act more like antennas radiating photons in all directions and to each other. Charge recycling throughout the conductor lengths do push electrons and positrons along. I believe the net electron motion will be forward according to the difference in charge and anti-charge current flows, a resultant current that is ultimately linked to the Earth’s magnetic field. I suppose there’s really no requirement that electrons move down the wire at all. You have your electrical device plugged into the socket and pull the switch, the device’s motor circuit coherently links to the power source when the conductors’ nuclear charge channels join.
 
Like a fluid, electrons are driven by a kind of electric pressure, known as voltage, because it is measured in units known as volts, named after the Italian scientist Alessandro Volta. An electric battery produces (by a chemical process) a voltage difference V between its two ends, and therefore acts like a pump (bottom drawing).

Airman. Electrons in electrical circuits are generally confined to the conductor and conductor surfaces. The electron motion however is simply drifting, in response to countervailing rains of photons and anti-photons.

My guess is – an increased voltage, and increased current demand causes an increase in the average number of charge channels operating within a conductor’s cross sectional area. The greater the voltage, the greater the number (or cross-sectional area) of charge channels active.  

The electric current I flows from high voltage to low voltage and is measured in units known as Amperes, named for André-Marie Ampere whom we met in section #2. And as with water, we expect that if we increase the driving voltage V, the driven current I will also increase. In fact, the two are pretty much proportional: double the voltage, and you get double the current. That relation is known as Ohm's Law, after Georg Ohm who first formulated it.

Airman. A wire’s current capacity is determined by its resistance to electrical current flow, it gets hotter as current is increased. It burns open, acting like a fuse above a certain current. Again, probably related to the cross sectional areas: conductor size and active charge channels.

Ohm's law (with some extra details concerning the length and thickness of the wire) is usually among the first things taught in electricity classes, and many students therefore view it as one of the fundamental laws of electricity. It isn't. It holds quite well for metal wires, but as will be shown in section #7a, it fails badly in fluorescent tubes--while in space currents exist which flow without any voltage driving them (section #10a).

Airman. Where we’re going, we don’t need no burned and stinking wires.

Electric Fields

One small caution here. By long tradition, the direction of the electric current is defined as the direction in which positive charges move. We may blame Ben Franklin for deciding--by pure guess--what kind of electricity is called "positive" and which "negative." A century later it was found that most electric currents were carried by negative electrons, which move in the opposite direction.

Airman. That long tradition is, unfortunately, wrong. There is no positive and negative, all charge is positive in the sense that all charge is a repulsion caused by the charged particle’s photon emission field. Any apparent attraction can be explained as a lesser resistance. While not positive and negative in the traditional sense, charge can be spin up or spin down. Two thirds of our bodies is charge, and one third is anti-charge - like electricity, magnetism, and the Earth. Keeping the right hand rule for positive electrical current flow is child’s play, or a good start anyway, to understanding spin interactions in photon collisions.  

One may therefore argue that the flow direction which should be assigned to electric fluid is really the opposite of what we say it is. But it's much too late to change the old convention.

Airman. The old convention must go.

In our homes, electric currents and effects of electricity are usually channeled along insulated wires. In 3-dimensional space, on the other hand, electric phenomena tend to spread out. If the way electric current flows in the home resembles water flow in pipes, then in space the flow is often like ocean currents or air motion in the atmosphere, spread out in 2 and even 3 dimensions.

The 3-dimensional voltage distribution is often called the electric field.

Airman. All charged particles emit photons into space. The linear velocity (c) and charge density of those photons form the pre-electric field. The tangential spin velocity (c) and charge density form the pre-magnetic field. Any object moving near the charged particle will feel the collective effect of those collisions.

Compare:

In a magnetic field the direction of the field is that of the force. If isolated N magnetic poles existed, they too could do so, by moving in the direction of the field, while S poles would move in the opposite direction. The poles at the ends of a compass needle move this way, and thus line up the needle in the direction of the field.

Similarly

An electric field is a region where electric forces can be felt by charged objects, and the direction of the field is the one in which positive charges would move. A positive ion moves in the direction of the field, a negative electron moves in the opposite direction.

If both magnetic and electric fields are present, the motion of ions and electrons gets complicated. That however is left for a later section.

Airman. Yep, it’s getting complicated. Charge interaction (collisions) does take some getting used to.
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected sentence - Again, probably related to the cross ... .)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#4. Electrons Continued

Post by LongtimeAirman on Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:48 pm

.

https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/welect.html
Author and Curator:   Dr. David P. Stern

Airman. Continuing to update the archived The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere to include the charge field.  I’m sure I’ll get this sequential order thing down eventually.

#4.               Electrons

Matter consists of atoms, and atoms consist of electrically charged components--lightweight negative electrons, and positive nuclei.
Airman. The charge field based structure of matter is quite different from what is offered by traditional or contemporary mainstream science. I’ll review. All matter is expanding photons.

All matter consists of charged particles, these include: IR photons, UV photons, electrons, protons and neutrons (and many others in between). Let’s say our smallest charge photon is a B photon with radius equal to about 1x10E-24 meters. Charged particles are all created from B photons by a series of high energy collisions with light speed motion limits that result in up or down, x, y, and z, end-over-end, mass radius doublings. Protons are 6 billion times larger than IR photons.

All charge particles recycle photons, generally receiving incoming charge into the particle’s poles and emitting photons anywhere though mostly from the particle’s high angular momentum equatorial area. Photons received from all directions end up in the particle’s emission plane. Atoms, planets, stars and larger groups of matter seem to recycle charge in much the same way.


Proton from Nevyn’s Lab. http://www.nevyns-lab.com/

Atomic structures are based on proton stacking and charge recycling. Hydrogen is a lone proton, it is depicted as a disc because most charge will enter the proton’s poles and exit most strongly in the disk area, the area of maximum emissions and maximum resistance. The proton might have a neutron partner and the occasional stray electrons. Neutrons are at the same spin count as protons, although the orientation of the neutron’s outer spin causes it to recapture any equatorial emissions. The neutron thus recycles pole-to-pole and not pole to equator. A missing equatorial emission field means neutrons are more exposed to random high energy photon collisions. Lone neutrons don’t last more than 15 minutes before some high energy photon or electron collides with and removes the neutron’s outermost z-spin. *

Atoms are most likely formed in stars. Helium is two parallel protons (parallel emission planes) close together with two neutrons sandwiched between them. Helium is also called an alpha unit since it is a basic building block for larger atoms. Simple atoms are arranged as proton (or alpha) stacks which allow charge input along a common north/south, pole-to-pole, main atomic charge channel. Free positive matter atoms will turn to align the main N/S axis so as to maximize receipt of anti-photons into the N pole, or photons into the S pole.


Black discs are single protons, blue discs are alphas - two protons and two neutrons. Twenty-six protons. Fe, iron.

In larger atoms, protons and neutrons will arrange around the main N/S axis to form a carousal level’, four new orthogonal charge channels in the left, right, front and back directions. The atom is then a balanced, spinning (around the main N/S axis) 6-armed stellated octahedron.  

All emission fields tend to be repulsive, since they cause photon collisions. Smaller charged particles may approach larger ones rather freely, avoiding the larger particle’s emission field. That’s the case between protons and electrons, which has been misinterpreted as attraction. The proton is 1821x larger than the electron, and recycles 1821x the charge. Over time, electrons will drift in photon currents or arrive close enough to block the proton’s charge recycling intake at the proton’s poles. Electrons there will be held in place by the photon current trying to enter that pole. Those electrons can be knocked loose by an increased charge field density, with higher photon densities subjecting those electrons to an increased number of collisions, also tending to prevent the slow return of electrons back into those positions - this is called ionization.

The electron’s main distinction is that it is the smallest charge particle our most sensitive electromagnetic instruments can detect. The electron is also the smallest charged particle too large to travel linearly at light speed, (the highest speed I’m aware of impact Earth orbiting satellites at 0.3c during powerful solar flares).

How do we know?

One clue comes from the "Edison effect," discovered by Thomas Alva Edison. Imagine a glass bulb from which air has been pumped, until hardly any of it remains. In one end we embed a metal coil of wire (like that of a flashlight bulb) in the other a metal plate, as drawn. Connect now an electric battery (drawn at the bottom) between the coil and the plate, so that the former is negative and the latter is positive, say at +100 volts.

No current will flow in this circuit: some atoms or molecules may be left inside the bulb, but they are electrically neutral, and can carry no electric current. Air is an excellent insulator: electric companies can string power lines in the open air and never have to worry about currents dribbling out on their way from the power station to consumers.



Airman. A clue eh? The above is a new first diagram for clarity. A vacuum tube with coil and plate connected across a 100V battery. No current flows between coil and plate. Knowing current cannot flow across large air gaps, the electric company can confidently distribute their overhead power lines without concern for power losses.



Now connect a small second battery (on the left) to the end of the coil, so that a current flows through the coil and heats it up. As the wire begins to glow, a current begins to flow, because now negatively charged particles are emitted from the hot wire, are attracted to the positive charge on the plate and by doing so, complete the electrical circuit.

Airman. When the coil is heated with the polarities shown and 100V battery – “As the wire begins to glow, a current begins to flow”.  

In my previous post I mentioned the current carrying capacity of a wire. The wire’s resistance to electrical current flow causes heating. Too much current will burn or melt the wire open. A glowing hot wire means a high number of charge channels are active at increased energy levels. The increased number of active charge channels should be equivalent to the electrical current demand necessary to cause that same thousands of degrees temperature. The coil is recycling charge at a high enough rate to the point where we can see the increased photon density with our own eyes – glowing hot.

The increased photon emission density means that electrons in the coil are also at higher energy levels, subject to a greatly increased number of higher energy photon collisions, sufficient, apparently, to bridge the vacuum air gap.

Suppose the connections of the first battery are reversed, so that now the coil is positive and the plate is negative. Then no current flows, showing that the hot wire releases only negative particles, not positive ones. These particles were named electrons.

Airman. The hot wire releases a high charge density of charge particles: 2x photons to 1x antiphotons, 2x electrons to 1x positrons. The polarity of the circuit favors electron flow from the coil to the plate. Anti-photons and positrons at the plate cannot cross to the coil because it is not at the same high energy level the coil is at.

In laboratory experiments these particles were directed by electrically charged structures (similar to the "electron guns" inside TV picture tubes) to form beams. Those beams were then bent by magnets and by electrified plates, and their behavior was studied. From such experiments and others the mass of the emitted particles, which became known as "electrons", could be determined. It turned out that they were rather lightweight. The simplest atom, that of hydrogen, contains a central positive particle, a proton, and a single electron, and the proton is nearly 2000 times heavier.

Airman. Agreed.

Light, like heat, can also knock electrons out of a metal. If the heated coil in the drawing is replaced by a clean metal plate, and light shines onto it, electrons are again released, and current will flow in the circuit. The explanation of this phenomena, called the photoelectric effect, earned Albert Einstein the 1921 Nobel Prize.

Airman. An example of heat causing an electron current, with clear apparent photon production, at characteristic colors corresponding to incandescent temperatures. Electrons are high energy photons. Some high energy photons the coil recycles will wind up being promoted to electrons. The glowing hot coil is obvious proof that photons are also apparently being created. Photons aren’t really being created, the heated, energized coil is recycling a greater number of photons, creating a distinctly visible spectra and denser emission field.

The photoelectric effect also creates electrons, eh?

The same process will charge a spacecraft orbiting in the sunlight positively, to a few volts. Sunlight knocks out electrons from the surface and a few manage to escape, leaving the spacecraft positively charged; the situation then stabilizes, because the positive charge prevents any more electrons from leaving.

Airman. High energy collisions ionize a spacecraft’s surface. Positive charge cannot be what holds electrons to spacecraft. I’m thinking electrons are held to conductors primarily through gravity - resulting in the air gap. The denser coil emissions must reduce the gravity of the conductor felt by electrons. The spacecraft is probably collecting many stray electrons and positrons. By the way, reading back over what I write sometimes, I'm more enthusiastic than accurate. I hope my efforts at describing things from a charge field perspective aren't too far off the mark. Keep learning.  
.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

http://milesmathis.com/index.html.
 
*. 315. How to Build the Elements. Explaining the periodic table, with nuclear diagrams. http://milesmathis.com/nuclear.pdf

** . 126. How a Battery Circuit Works. Not the mathematical or field model, but the full mechanical model, with photons. 9pp.
http://milesmathis.com/seft.pdf
.


Last edited by LongtimeAirman on Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Several last paragraph changes.)

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

#5. Magnetic Field Lines

Post by LongtimeAirman on Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:31 pm

.
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wfldline.html

#5.     Magnetic Field Lines

When researchers map the three-dimensional flow of a river around a bridge pier, or of wind around the wing of an airplane (picture below), they use streamlines, lines that trace the flow of particles of water or air.



Magnetic field lines similarly describe the structure of magnetic fields in three dimensions. They are defined as follows. If at any point on such a line we place an ideal compass needle, free to turn in any direction (unlike the usual compass needle, which stays horizontal--such needles exist, see bottom of page) then the needle will always point along the field line (drawing below).

Field lines converge where the magnetic force is strong, and spread out where it is weak. For instance, in a compact bar magnet or "dipole," field lines spread out from one pole and converge towards the other, and of course, the magnetic force is strongest near the poles where they come together. The behavior of field lines in the Earth's magnetic field is very similar.



Not so in space, however, where magnetic field lines are fundamental to the way free electrons and ions move. These electrically charged particles tend to become attached to the field lines on which they reside, spiraling around them while sliding along them, like beads on a wire (drawing below).



Because of this attachment, the behavior of electrified gas ("plasma") in space, a gas of free ions and electrons, is dictated by the structure of field lines: Electric currents, for instance, find it easiest to flow along such lines. Indeed, the role of field lines in a plasma resembles that of grain in wood: just as the grain is the "easy" direction along which wood splits most readily, so the direction of field lines is the one along which particles, electric currents, heat and certain types of waves prefer to flow.



Exploring further

A small bar magnet, on gimbals that allow it to point in any direction in space, can be procured from its manufacturer, Cochranes of Oxford, Ltd., Leafield, Oxford OX8 5NT, England. Two types are available, Mark 1 with jewelled bearings for $36.60, Mark 2 with simple bearings for $12.65. For details see their web site:
   http://www.cochranes.co.uk/secondary.html   HTML Error 404

Airman. Note three images of the Earth: 1) compasses describe the geomagnetic field lines; 2) as a bar magnet; 3) in space, free electrons, ions, and neutral particles will follow trajectories both along and orthogonal to those magnetic lines.

The problem is, the particle motions shown are not following the magnetic models above. The simple N/S pole model doesn’t give enough freedom to explain all the motions observed. How can it possibly explain trapping neutral particles into trajectories spiraling vertically up from one hemisphere, passing high over the equator and then spiraling down in the other?



Here’s a major update to the source material, adding the Earth’s charge recycling diagram *.

Charge primarily enters the poles and is usually emitted from the equator. Some charge travels pole-to-pole. The Earth is everywhere emitting charge upward; the charge field holds up the atmosphere. Miles has taken the original polar model of the Earth and bifurcated it, turning a single magnetic torus into two, and now emissions are included.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

* This diagram comes from Birkland Currents, in which, among other things, Miles specifically addresses the confusion of contemporary earth fields: E,B and then H.
http://milesmathis.com/index.html
160. Birkeland Currents. http://milesmathis.com/birke.pdf
I show that these currents must pass through the Earth. By Miles Mathis. 11pp.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Particle Drifts in Space

Post by Cr6 on Fri Jul 21, 2017 12:13 am

Great read LTAM. I caught some of the original over at TB as well.

This is a worthy read at this point in light of your clear descriptions above (note for "fun" only) :
---
The World Sunday Magazine - March 8, 1896
A Way to Harness Free Electric Currents Discovered by Nikola Tesla

The World is on the eve of an astounding revelation.  The conditions under which we exist will be changed.  The end has come to telegraph and telephone monopolies with a crash.  Incidentally, all the other monopolies that depend on power of any kind will come to a sudden stop.  The earth currents of electricity are to be harnessed.  Nature supplies them free of charge.  The cost of power and light and heat will be practically nothing.

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1897-01-27.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1896-03-08.htm



.W. Wilkins in England (1845) corroborated findings made by Bain, developing a similar earth battery for use in telegraphic service. An early English Patent appears in 1864 by John Haworth, the first true composite earth battery. This battery is drum-shaped , having numerous solid discs mounted on an insulative axis, end-braced, and buried. Their power was rated in terms of disc diameter and telegraph line distance: one foot diameter discs for seventy-five miles of line, two foot discs for up to four hundred and forty miles of line.

earthcell33.jpg (17093 bytes)

Composite earth battery


Experimental modulated earth battery



The experiment is to modulate the earth current.  It works just like a modulated current source in a solid state amplifier, only this battery supplies the current. An example would be a strain gauge circuit.

This mystery persisted for years. I have talked to some older engineers who report that local telegraph stations remained in operation despite the fact that their batteries had not been recharged for a great number of years. When the battery was examined it was actually dried out and physically corroded. Yet the signals continued.

Cr6
Admin

Posts : 653
Join date : 2014-08-09

View user profile http://milesmathis.the-talk.net

Back to top Go down

#5. Magnetic Field Lines continued , discussion and #5H. Magnetic Field Lines -- History

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:37 pm

.
Hey Cr6, are you asking me to stop? I’m only halfway there.

As I stated at the beginning of this thread, my initial goal was to answer comingfrom. Can we explain #10a. Particle Drift in Space. I looked at the spirals and saw a mechanical motion I honestly still cannot explain. For the sake of argument I’ll assume the motion is true. Rather than answer immediately and poorly, I went the slow route, and began examining The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/Intro.html with great interest.

A magnetosphere discussion is ideal. I’ll admit, the material I’ve covered may be too middle school for many readers; it started slow, we’ll see how it goes. Not having planned or read ahead past the table of contents, after 5H. History – there may not be much sense in criticizing history - the coming series: induction1, induction2, electromagnetic waves, plasma, etc., sound fairly intimidating. If I make it to #10a I’ll probably be more than ready to stop. You have my sympathy.

The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere continues to # 35. Solar Energetic Particles with many interesting subjects and accompanying documents. I truly believe this is a wonderful collection of information that needs to be reinterpreted from a charge field perspective.

With respect to Tesla, and the cost of power. We recognize that “free” energy exists. Ancient water and wind mills, and now wind farms and photovoltaics, we can tap energy from ample renewable energy sources, water, wind, sunlight and more. In our current society, the cost of electricity may be kept artificially high; that’s somewhat justified by the fact that power distribution systems are very expensive and a world-wide technology and order must be maintained. I suspect technology will advance till every home or building will come with its own sustainable power source that will most likely always require great expense.

I appreciate the Tesla source, I only just started looking at it.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In my last post I submitted a “major update” to the text, - Miles’s Earth charge recycling diagram. I cited Miles’ Birkeland Currents paper and figured people would read up on the subject. I’m a bit unsure here because I expect maximum charge at +/-30deg Latitude, in this Birkeland image the matter/antimatter charge flows exit the planet before they cross.



Nevertheless, for discussion sake I would superimpose the images above and point out that the charge field lifts particles continuously. There is a small field cancellation over the equator which will allow ions to cross over it *. I’m not convinced there’s spiraling yet. I’m waiting to hear how the text proposes how protons orbit over the equator east to west, while electrons orbit west to east.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

5H. Faraday 1846 https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whfldlns.html
#5H.     Magnetic Field Lines -- History

Most scientists nowadays view field lines as intangible abstractions, useful only for describing magnetic fields. Faraday, however, felt that they represented more, that space containing magnetic "lines of force" was no longer empty but acquired certain physical properties. In 1846 he speculated that light was just a wave propagating along such lines--like the wave on a rope tied at one end and shaken at the other.

Airman. Faraday may have been the first to suggest that space contain magnetic “lines of force”, but that doesn’t make the belief correct. Miles has shown us that assigning physical attributes to space is wrong; the charge field does not require such nonsense. Their models were insufficient and they filled in the blanks with theory.

Following Maxwell, we nowadays call a space modified by the presence of magnetic field lines a "magnetic field": if a bar magnet is placed there, it will experience magnetic forces, but the field exists even when no magnet is present. Similarly, an "electric field" is the space in which electric forces may be sensed--for instance between metal objects charged (+) and (-) by a battery, as in the drawing accompanying the discussion of the electron .

Maxwell also showed (perhaps his greatest achievement) that an "electromagnetic wave" was possible, a rapid interplay of electric and magnetic fields spreading with the velocity of light. Maxwell correctly guessed that light was in fact such a wave, that it was basically an electromagnetic phenomenon, and with this his equations paved the way to a much deeper understanding of optics, the science of light.

Airman. The author considers electromagnetic waves Maxwell’s greatest achievement. We now know that the source of electromagnetism are charge field photons.

Maxwell's younger colleague, the German Heinrich Hertz, calculated in 1886 that waves of this type would be broadcast by a rapidly alternating current in a short antenna. He then obtained such a current from an electric spark (which does produce a fast back-and-forth oscillation of electric charge) and demonstrated his "Hertzian waves" experimentally. His work was continued by scientists all over the world--e.g. by the Russian Alexander Stepanovich Popov who around 1895 detected radio waves from lightning (a natural spark!), and by the Italian Gugliemo Marconi who, at about the same time, developed the first commercial radio applications.

The waves that carry radio and television, microwaves, infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, x-rays and gamma rays are all variations of the same basic process envisioned by Maxwell, namely, they all belong to the family of electromagnetic waves.


Airman. Photons form spin waves. Their forward velocity (c) corresponds to the pre-electric field, and tangential spin velocity (c) to the pre-magnetic field. Frequency is a function of photon radii stretched at light speed. Miles has devoted many papers showing how the current mainstream understanding of electromagnetism is upside-down.  

It may seem strange that empty space can be modified by electric and magnetic influences, as the field concept proposes. Yet it allows one to understand light and radio waves, and also to retain the conservation of energy. When a transmitter on a spacecraft broadcasts a radio signal, most of that signal spreads out into space and never reaches Earth. Is its energy lost? No, it now resides in an ever-spreading electromagnetic field, associated with the radio wave.

Airman. It’s not strange that empty space can be modified, it’s just wrong. Electromagnetism can be explained with colliding photons. More later.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

*
191. The Equatorial Anomaly. I show the mainstream explanation is wrong here, and give you the right one. By Miles Mathis. 11pp. http://milesmathis.com/equat.pdf

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I'm happy to welcome Bryan and Ken NG.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 581
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum