Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

The Meaning Of Life

Recommended Posts

Russell , you don't know what you're talking about , and you're rambling . If you cant understand the post , then you have a problem .  Your replies are getting more absurd as this discussion goes on .  The point can not be made any more clear than in the first paragraph of my previous post . You seem to have a strange dissonance in understanding the English language , or you are unfamiliar with the  limits of present day science as they relate to the Inflation .You have displayed that you are incapable of understanding the terms being used , which even amateurs on the subject know well .All your bringing to this discussion is blather .  

 

And yes , agreeing with me on the big bang is so obtuse at this point in the discussion , as you had referred to that term so late in the discussion , and then use that to simply repeat what I had been telling you all along. I found that rather odd .  That's why I think your last paragraph was a bucket of steam .    

 

 Go back to that numbers thread and wrack your brain with Andalusi , you're over your head in this discussion .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi Eclipse

 

Since you can't or won't answer the points I've been making here, in fact you seem unaware of what I'm even staying to be honest, I'll leave it to others to decide who's got a grasp of this topic and who has not.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell please, you are not talking to a grade school child . Although your argument resemble that of one .You haven't made any point here other than proving you don't know the subject you are trying to hold an argument on .

 

As for your method and mentality , well your  absurd analogy with the Koalas ,illuminates what kind of mentality I'm dealing with . What you are saying is repetitious, argumentative , nonsense . You should try reading and understanding the terms you are copying from science websites, before incorrectly using them in a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Still ducking the points I see.  I think we all have the measure of Eclipse now.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Construct whatever excuse for your charade you choose Russell . Don't thank me , I didn't make you the way you are . Someone else will have to take that responsibility .

 Don't hurt yourself boy .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More ducking hey.  No problems Eclipse, as I said everyone here can see how you handle challenges to your position.  If your claims about my position were true you'd be able to take the points I've expressed here and explain, one at a time, why they were wrong rather than ducking and complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only challenge here Russell is attempting to explain some astronomical and cosmological basics to some one like you , who is obviously pretending to understand those basic facts .

 

 The only points you have "expressed " are those which I had to teach you ,  that you repeat out of rote , but can seem to understand . Rearranging them ,and incorrectly at that , claiming them to be rebuttal , is not what I would call challenging my statements .  

 

You are one fancy piece of work Russell . I would imagine you win many arguments with grade school kids . Brow beating is quite effective eh Russell ?

 

You haven't refuted anything I have said with facts , just word games  . You are literally tripping over your own words . And STILL , you can not grasp the meaning of basic scientific truths .

 

You need to do a bit more reading on the subject Russell , before you engage in any meaningful discussion . However if you wish to continue to display that basic lack of knowledge on the issue being discussed , then by all means carry on . You are free to make as big a fool of yourself as you please .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Lets look at an independent lay sauce for a description of the beginning of the universe and the inflationary epoch.

 

“In physical cosmology, the Planck epoch or Planck era is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10−43 seconds (Planck time).” - Wikipedia

 

“the Planck epoch … ran from 0 to around 10-43 of a second after the big bang.“ - Russell

 

“In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.” - Wikipedia

 

“there was a period from 10-43 of a second to 10-36 of a second, which is 10000000 Plank Seconds, till the beginning of inflation.” - Russell

 

“inflation lasted from 10-36 till around 10-33 or 10-32” - Russell

So my statements conform to the most prominent view in cosmology but I know nothing, right Eclipse, while you state nothing but claim great knowledge?

 

Creation of open universes from de Sitter space

J. Richard Gott III

Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Peyton Hall, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA

Hawking1,2 has shown that event horizons produce thermal radiation. I propose here a new cosmological model which has an early event horizon and in which the observed3 cosmic microwave background radiation is Hawking radiation. The model starts with de Sitter space—a space-time of constant curvature which is a solution to Einstein's vacuum field equations with a positive cosmological constant. Associated with an event E in de Sitter space there is a quantum barrier penetration tunnelling which leads to an open, negatively curved (k = −1) cosmology. This has an early exponential expansion phase but turns into a standard big-bang solution at late times. The geometry and quantum mechanical treatment within the future light cone of E are similar to that found in the Brout, Englert and Spindel (BES) theory4,5. This model has the following advantages: (1) It has no singularities. (2) The observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background is explained because the different regions we observe have all been in causal contact. (3) The temperature at early epochs (T 0 ~ 1019 Ge V) is high enough to allow grand unified theories (GUTs) to produce the observed baryon excess from an initial thermal distribution through CP violations6,7. (4) T 0 is correct to make the BES scenario work. (5) The early exponential expansion phase can naturally account for the observed large number n 0 ~ 1088 of particles within a volume a 3 (where a is the radius of curvature) and the Guth8 flatness problem. (6) It predicts that our Universe is an open k = −1, Ω<1 cosmology consistent with the amount of mass detected in the universe so far9–11. (7) The existence of the event horizon makes it possible to create from the original de Sitter space other k = −1 universes (perhaps an infinite number) which are entirely disjoint from our own and from each other.” - Nature 295, 304 - 307 (28 January 1982); doi:10.1038/295304a0

Sorry I couldn’t find a lay reference for this one.

 

“Science can’t explain the origins of the big bang at this stage though theories exist, a burrowing event into de-sitter space of a virtual particle triggering the expansion of this universe by creating a curvature in this ‘space’.” - Russell

 

“In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (abbreviated BBN, also known as primordial nucleosynthesis) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of the lightest isotope of hydrogen (hydrogen-1, 1H, having a single proton as a nucleus) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis is believed by most cosmologists to have taken place from 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang, and is calculated to be responsible for the formation of most of the universe's helium as the isotope helium-4 (4He), along with small amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium (2H or D), the helium isotope helium-3 (3He), and a very small amount of the lithium isotope lithium-7 (7Li). In addition to these stable nuclei, two unstable or radioactive isotopes were also produced: the heavy hydrogen isotope tritium (3H or T); and the beryllium isotope beryllium-7 (7Be); but these unstable isotopes later decayed into 3He and 7Li, as above.” - Wikipedia

 

“…during the Nucleosynthesis epoch from around 3 to 20 minutes after the big bang as the temperature of the universe falls atomic nuclei begin to form from the energy of the curvature of space time by E=MC^2.  This initially forms Neutrons and Protons which form rapidly into Helium-4.  The rest follows on from there.  After around 17 minutes the temperature of the universe has fallen too low for nuclear synthesis to continue leaving around three times more hydrogen than helium-4.” - Russell

So again I know nothing but what I say conforms to the current predominant model accepted by physicists though I did have the start time wrong by a few minutes.

 

“inflation predicts that the structures visible in the Universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations that were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch”- Wikipedia

 

“Inflation predicts that the visible universe today was formed by the gravitational collapse of perturbations that began as vacuum fluctuations during the inflationary epoch.” - Russell

 

“The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations called a nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random field (or Harrison–Zel'dovich spectrum) is very specific and has only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index, which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe)” - Wikipedia

 

“The details of this nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random field has only two free parameters, amplitude and spectral index.” - Russell

While you’re contribution consists of little more than

“roughly 3 Planck segments after the Inflation” - Eclipse

“3 Planck time segments after the Inflation started” – Eclipse

In which you clearly disagree with yourself and don’t conform to any scientific view I’ve been able to find but please, if you can find a scientific authority that supports either of these views I’m sure we would all be interested to see it.

 

So time and again, as you can see, what I say conforms in great detail with the current predominant view from physicists and cosmologists yet you continue to claim that I’m simply wrong and don’t know what I’m talking about while throughout this discussion you have said very little of substance apart from a few self-contradictory statements that don’t conform to anything I’ve ever been able to find in the scientific literature yet you are the expert here.  Sorry as I said before I’ll leave the judgment on that one up to other’s here.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take your blather over to the Numerical thread , the B.S. has got wings over there , and you will be at home . You're so full of it Russell, it's coming out your ears .

 

I see you've accentuated  3 planck segments after the inflation , indeed no one knows what happened before that . And THAT is what this discussion has been about from the getgo . So in you charade , blather ,and double-talk which you call " a challenge " to me , you infact were challenged several posts ago to show that any theory of what conditions were before those 3 planck segments was valid . You haven't done that Russell and you know it . Or you're so confused you can't even understand the argument .

 

You have infact produced a waterfall of irrelevant and mixed up information , and that itself , as per your own skewed replies , was AFTER  those 3 planck segments following the initial inflation .This whole discussion has been about what was BEFORE those 3 Planck segments after initial inflation started . Man !  You are as thick as a brick .

 

Russell,   WAKE UP  - those cut and pastes which you obviously don't even understand , in fact destroy your argument ,and only show more proof, that you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about. They expose your utter lack of understanding of what you're attempting to debate .

 

 

 

 BTW , there are no others here , they've got your number .  Buh- Bye Russell . Take your mental dallying and cut and pastes  with you .  Come back when you know what you're talking about .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

“I see you've accentuated  3 planck segments after the inflation , indeed no one knows what happened before that .”

 

Actually the problem is that you can’t define when that is, I’ve given you exact, specific, scientific notations on the timing of these events but you can’t, or won’t fit your vague statements into the standard timeline.  Please try if you want any of this to make sense.  Yes you challenged me to show you any “theory” that explains what happened before those 3 planck segments but it’s hard to do that when you can’t say when that actually is.

 

Yes yes yes, ad homonym is fun isn’t it, Hmm now what was it that famouse lady said:-

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” - Margaret Thatcher

 

As I’ve pointed out inflation lasted for around 1000000000 Planck seconds which you agreed were equivalent to “planck segments” earlier and there is no boundary in current theory at three Planck Seconds after the initiation of inflation so this is nonsensical.  You need to work out what time you actually mean and express it in seconds as I have done, how many seconds after the initiating event of this universe are you actually talking about?  10-43 is the end of the Planck Epoch and I agree that we can’t know what happened before that.  10-36 of a second after the start of this universe is the beginning of inflation and almost 1000000000 Planck Seconds after that at 10-33 of a second was the end of inflation so what time in there do you see the end of your 3 planck segments?  Please stick to the standards and express your view in seconds, in scientific form in other words.  It will make this simpler.

 

“You have infact produced a waterfall of irrelevant and mixed up information , and that itself , as per your own skewed replies , was AFTER  those 3 planck segments following the initial inflation .” - Eclipse

 

Now we are getting to the heart of your confusion.  I explained what happened from the initiating moment of the universe starting with 0 seconds.  From there for the first 10-43 of a second was the Planck Epoch.  That was followed at around 10-36 of a second by the beginning of inflation so my explanation started 10-36 of a second BEFORE inflation began yet you insist that my “mixed up information” started AFTER it.  You’ll have to explain you’re thinking here because it doesn’t jell with the scientific views that I posted earlier or the details I gave you so you have obviously completely misunderstood what I wrote and the words of the scientific view I included.

 

So if you can put your view in standard terms, in seconds in other words, please do so because until you can do that we can’t move forwards and you’ll continue to make these blunders such as suggesting that when I talk about a time 10-36 of a second before inflation started that I was talking about a time after your 3 planck segments after the start of inflation.  Sorry but that’s a logical fallacy Eclipse but I apparently can’t help you with that at least not till you work out what you are talking about here.

 

I note that you didn’t answer one single point of the list of details from the standard scientific viewpoint that I posted last time, you blathered that they were rubbish but you didn’t, or I suspect more rightly couldn’t, counter any of them.  The picture you paint of your abilities here, as opposed to your claimed abilities, is becoming very clear now Eclipse.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My abilities ? LOLOLO....I can do something you are incapable of Riussell , and it's called reading comprehension . You have no idea of the science you claim to know . All you are capable of is cutting and pasting without even knowing or understanding the content .

 You delude yourself Russell . 

 You are getting to "the heart of your own confusion " . Run along Russell you are not qualified to debate such issue . You lack the education . You are a clown throwing around terms of which you have no knowledge .  How many more ways can you prove yourself a buffoon ?  No doubt you will show me .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

So Ad Homynim is all you’ve got left is that it Eclipse. Remember that Margret Thatcher quote!

 

I note that you still haven’t answered the simple question I posted to you a long time ago, give us the time from the initiation of the universe in seconds to the point you are talking about, 3 planck segments after the initiation of inflation, I’ve given you the timeline as it is generally understood in science in fractions of a second but you’ve not shown yet that you even understand the notation of times I’ve used even though it is standard scientific notation.  Until you can work that one out we are going to remain at a standstill here.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad Hominem ? No ,objective description Russell  - you're a clown with a vocabulary Russell . Don't take yourself too seriously .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My abilities ? LOLOLO....I can do something you are incapable of Riussell , and it's called reading comprehension . You have no idea of the science you claim to know . All you are capable of is cutting and pasting without even knowing or understanding the content .

 You delude yourself Russell . 

 You are getting to "the heart of your own confusion " . Run along Russell you are not qualified to debate such issue . You lack the education . You are a clown throwing around terms of which you have no knowledge .  How many more ways can you prove yourself a buffoon ?  No doubt you will show me .

 

LOLOLO? Laugh out loud out loud out? Huh?

 

Riussell? Who's Riussell?

 

Reading comprehension!!!! Hahaha!

 

How many more ways can you prove yourself a buffoon?

No doubt you will show us.

 

You can smell the 'butt-hurt' dripping out of every one of your posts, Eclipse.

Go and talk to someone else with a brain. Ask them about the problem...

And hopefully, from a position of neutrality, they will tell you where you're wrong/ incorrect/ false/ in error.

 

Thanks though. Really enjoyed this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald_M , Russell knows little and you know less . This subject matter is way above your understanding . As for your sophomoric criticism ? I always consider first , the source .

 You don't even know the subject you have decided to interject yourself in , and make a bigger fool of yourself than Russell . You both have quite a competition going - Who can prove themselves the bigger blather thrower .

 Run along  Donald_M , come back when you've learned the subject . Agreeing with Russell simply means you possess the same low level of understanding and high level of ignorance .

 

 

 

BTW ,Donald_M , you asked "who's Russell " ?   Really Donald ? Seriously ? 

 

 

Need I say more regarding your confusion ?

Edited by ECLIPSE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse


Actually Donald asked who was "Riussell" because that's how you spelled it earlier.

 

And no matter which way you slice it you are fitting the description of ad homonym.  It doesn't matter if what you are saying is true, its still ad homonym if it doesn't address the points made.  Sorry but that's very basic logic so I didn't think I'd really need to explain it.  The most fowl, uneducated, ugly, drunk fool may still speak the truth and if you can't answer what they have said then you've shown the strength of your argument for all to see.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russell , calling you what you, are is not an ad-hominem attack . And as for spelling , what in the heck is  an " ad homonym " ??????

 

You are too much Russell , I warned you that the more you speak the more you put yourself on display as a clown . And a clown you are .

That is truly an OBJECTIVE description of YOU .

 

You have been answered , you're just too ignorant of the subject, and too tangled up in your own confusion and double-talk to realize it . You and Donald_M are birds of a feather , and it's only fitting to expose that. If not for your own pathetic sake , then for the sake of other posters who's intent is to engage in intelligent discussion and debate , only to be met with yours and Donald_M's  ludicrous machinations and word games .

 

And yes Russell , what I'm saying is true , which you have inadvertently now just admitted . Just as it is true , that you have know knowledge of the subject, about which we are contending , and that should be painfully obvious to you by now - you simply don't know what you are talking about , you are copying terms from whatever your source and you don't even realize that they are irrelevant to the argument , in addition , you have no idea of what they mean .

 

 You're a joker Russell , nothing more. Your game is exposed . Andalusi , although I disagree with his entire theory , because I have read the book roundly refuting any such miracle , he is infinitely more altruistic and honest than you are . Perhaps he will realize that you are simply gaming and mocking him . You know it , and I know it . You are a clown . 

  If you wish to lodge a complaint regarding what you perceive as ad HOMINEM attacks , then I shall lodge a complaint regarding you , wasting time and bandwidth , in addition to your subtle mockery and baiting that you have been doing in most of your posts . And I will not relent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There, there, Eclipse.

 

Tomorrow, Russell & I will take you to the zoo. Would you like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

No ad hominem is suggesting that my argument is false because of what I am which is what you have done.  Yes my spell checker has something to answer for in miss-correcting there.  I’ll send Microsoft a nasty letter should I?

 

It went downhill from there really didn’t it Eclipse.  Still nothing on topic from your side I see.

 

I’ll wait for you to expose your claimed great intellect and actually explain the timing of your claims in standard form such as I have done.  No I’m not holding my breath.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt your explanation Russell because it's pure B.S. just like everything else you have written . As I said , I made my point and explained it to you several times , and you insist on an answer that you have received several times . Either you're dyslexic or as I suggested , you haven't a clue regarding the subject .

 I made no claim of any "great intellect " , that is just another of your rambling accusation to obfuscate the fact ,that you do not understand at all , the material you have been cut and pasting in your charade as rebuttal .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald_M , have Russell to take YOU to the zoo , he knows a lot about the ethics , or lack thereof  ,of Koalas in their reproductive process . There's probably a lot the Koalas could teach both of you .

 

 And no , don't hold your breath Donald_M , that takes cogent thought , and besides you may forget to inhale again , and what a tragedy that would be eh ?

 

You two are a matched set , have fun .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Well you are skimming the correct method here but you have not yet reached it.  You should never doubt my explanation because it is "pure B.S." rather you should doubt it because some specific feature of it is wrong and you should be able to express what that is.  That’s how debates are done not this ad hominem sniping.  Can you do it Eclipse?  Point to specific features of my explanation and explain why they are wrong?

 

Koala behaviour is shaped by evolution; it is based on what works like everything in evolution.  If Koala’s lived by our rules they would go extinct because Koala girls always say no, that's how their gene's work.  Their reproductive strategies are used to test mates so that only the best gene’s get passed on.  Such strategies are used throughout the animal kingdom where mate selection is a standard part of evolutionary biology.  It is objectively true that this strategy works for Koala’s while it is only subjectively true that rape among humans is wrong.  Rape among humans is wrong because humans don’t like it, it's not written in stone out there.  Koala's have stones too you see.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rape among humans is wrong , because humans raping other humans does not have the evolutionary purpose of passing on superior genes .

There is no evolutionary purpose for rape . If humans behaved like Koalas , you'd like have many bad mutations from the outset since humans mate according to desire , humans do not go into heat . Humans procreate anytime , so if rape was a normality , the biggest baddest humans would be raping women at will and chances are  very good that the offspring produced not knowing who their brothers , sisters , first or second cousins were , would in turn mate and produce genetic defects . There is a reason Russell , why incest is not a good idea . In fact even dog breeders know this .

 You argument is meaningless . Since humans do have free will and do not reproduce according instinctual and evolutionary cycles , which are usually dictated by the production of hormones , at specific times of the year or specific points in development , your analogy is not only a poor one , but totally irrational .  Koalas do not have ethics they have instincts.

 

 Rape is wrong because human do not like to be raped ? And you can not think of any other reason ?  Seriously Russell ?  Did you come to that conclusion all on your own ? Or did you have a deranged professor teach you that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Evolutions explains how we got here and it explains how our genetics will behave in various circumstances but it doesn’t control our moral codes.  Rape is wrong among humans because humans don’t want to be raped.  It’s an opinion in our minds like all morality.

 

I’m not sure how you leap from Koala mating practices to incest in humans, bit of a stretch that, but you are missing the point of how nature works here.  Among Koala’s the girls are sedentary, they live pretty much where they are born for their entire lives.  The males, on the other hand, are nomadic. They are thrown out of their families once they are old enough and they roam the country side, covering considerable distances, looking for a place to settle down.  Because of the distances they cover they are unlikely to ever meet any of their female relatives.  An occasional case of incest doesn’t generate significant genetic problems of course but it’s very improbable in Koala society.

 

Humans are very different to Koala’s, obviously, so we have different mating strategies.  Our reproductive success is based in social groups and in families.  Both parent’s play a part in raising children so keeping the parent’s together is important at least for our wild living relatives in the past.

 

Our reproduction is driven by hormones just like all other animals.  The cycles our bodies go through don’t follow the same cycles as other animals apart from the great apes and a few of our slightly more distant relatives but that’s irrelevant to a discussion of rape.

 

You get closer to discussing the actual issues here when you point out that we have free will.  It is with that will that we decide we don’t want to be raped and that’s what makes it wrong.  There are a few of our closest relatives among the great apes who share that moral code so it’s not uniquely human.  We have the mental abilities to decide for ourselves what moral code we think is best for us.  That’s true for murder and for rape.

 

You seem to see other reasons why rape is wrong, can you explain these and we’ll see how they fit into this world view.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Russell , you have jumped threads , but at this point I really don't think it matters , as I said you play the same deception on either . You would no doubt approach any subject with the same .  However as this discussion relates to the nature of the Universe at the time of inflation and what is and is not known by science , I will bring it to a level any 5th grader would understand , keeping in mind the possibility that you may be an adult  . I have no proof of that as of yet . I will draw you a picture and maybe then you will be able to answer having a rudimentary understanding of what you claim to  know something about . A picture is worth a thousand words :

 

 * A - - - * B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - -* C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *P

 

 Russell , A- is the start of inflation . B - is that point in time 3 planck segments after Inflation A- started  . * C   I have inserted C since for some reason you brought 1000000 planck seconds into the discussion so  C represents 10000000 planck segments

 * P - is the present , from which all theoretical Theories , hypotheses , notions , Ideas  ,have been extrapolated backwards in time , which we all agree is approximately 13.8 billion years from point P back to point  B .

 

Between point B and point P all gases were being formed , coalesced in to the matter we observe today , galaxies ,stars etc .  Science can calculate the changes, temperatures and states of matter ,and Physical laws both classical and quantum  approximately from P all the way back to  B .

 

What was , what happened ,what physical laws were , what the temperatures and states of gases and matter were between B and A - is totally UNKNOWN . Any theory , hypotheses, math , "true ideas " etc., relating to any information before B  or between A and B is pure speculation and conjecture . No one , not Hawking , Pearlman , Boehr ,Fermi , no one knows anything about what was between point A and  point B and more so before point A .

 Can not make it any simpler than that Russell , so if you can refute that , go ahead . If you can posit a valid theory , hypothesis , "true ideas " , guess , then pay it forward , because anything you bring forth will be speculation .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×