Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
34 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,266 Year: 22,302/19,786 Month: 865/1,834 Week: 365/500 Day: 64/64 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reaching the practical end of physics?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 68 (436874)
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


Hi, this may be more of a question... probably for cavediver... than a solid debate position.

In the realm of fundamental particles, and forces, physics has made a lot of gains within the last century. I'm wondering if physics is reaching an end point, especially with regard to particle physics.

While I realize more might always be found, smaller and smaller, as our instruments get more precise. However, I am wondering if the finding of smaller particles and what influences their behavior, is of any real use, especially given the great amount of energy needed to parse them out?

From what I can tell... and this may be wayyyyy off... all these fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, etc) don't last long in the "real world". That is to say, no matter how much we pick them apart, they fall back together (or reduce to energy) such that they have no value beyond understanding the esoteric properties of the universe.

Is it true that for all practical purposes we'll have to deal with particles and events from the electron size up? Disregarding that photons have no size of course. Is their some use that could be found among the sub-subatomics? What would they be? How about smaller than them?

I'm not sure where this should go... maybe is it science?


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by fgarb, posted 11-29-2007 2:21 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2007 4:17 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 11-29-2007 4:21 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-29-2007 8:14 AM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2007 7:12 PM Silent H has not yet responded
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 12-01-2007 11:56 AM Silent H has responded
 Message 54 by Son Goku, posted 12-17-2007 2:30 PM Silent H has responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 68 (436879)
11-27-2007 9:43 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 3734 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 3 of 68 (437170)
11-29-2007 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


Ah man. I should be going to bed, but instead I get sidetracked by an interesting topic like this. To be upfront, I should say that I am a grad student working on this stuff experimentally. While that does make my opinion biased, I am also very interested in hearing what people outside my field think about it.

Silent H writes:

Is it true that for all practical purposes we'll have to deal with particles and events from the electron size up? Disregarding that photons have no size of course.

Electrons and photons are actually both point like objects of zero size, though unlike photons, electrons do have a small mass. That small quibble aside, it sounds like you are saying something along the lines of "are we stuck dealing with particles that occur in the everyday world around us, or could there be a practical use to researching exotic particles that are created for tiny fractions of a second in expensive accelerators?"

One justification that I sometimes use to reassure myself is that fundamental discoveries have a way of leading to applications no one expects. Who ever would have predicted all the amazing applications that developed out of the quantum revolution at the beginning of last century? For that matter, I would be interested to know of any examples of a fundamental discovery in the history of science that has not eventually led to new technologies. I can't think of any off the top of my head.

But might the enormous energies needed to produce some of these particles make this new research fundamentally different and useless? Maybe so. I am hard pressed to think of possible applications myself. With a several million dollar investment you could produce unstable particles such as muons and antiprotons that could have applications in medical work and energy (fusion) research. But this only scratches the surface of the immense energies being studied today. At the multi-billion dollar level you open the door to tons of new particles, but they decay so fast that it's hard to think of an application. Even if we came up with one, it would have to be pretty good for a company to be willing to make such a large investment.

So if you are looking for a justification for such science and you aren't happy with "it's worthwhile because we're curious and it increases our knowledge about the universe," then there are just a few other points I can still make in its defense. a) New particles aside, it is conceivable that when we discover the answers to the problems in our current understanding of things, the new theory may give us something we can use. Maybe this isn't very likely, but if an application does arise it could be something extremely dramatic. b) There are technologies in the pipeline that might make acceleration vastly more efficient and make these vast energies more affordable for other uses. c) Like the mission to the moon, such research has unrelated technological benefits. For example, the world wide web was developed for use in this kind of research. It would be kind of hard to be having this discussion without it, in fact :).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2007 8:24 PM fgarb has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 68 (437176)
11-29-2007 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


In the realm of fundamental particles, and forces, physics has made a lot of gains within the last century. I'm wondering if physics is reaching an end point, especially with regard to particle physics.

Experimentally, we've been in a bit of a desert for the past twenty-odd years. The last big breakthrough came in '83 with the discovery of the W and Z bosons of the Electroweak theory. Since then we have stuggled to look for the Higgs, supersymmetric particles, various dark matter candidates, all without unqualified success. We just haven't had the tools - the Superconducting Super Collider was infamously cancelled in '93 after sinking god-knows how manby $$$ into it. However, we are finally looking to get back on track when the Large Hadron Collider comes on line at CERN next year (it will still be significantly less powerful than the SSC...) There is *HUGE* excitement in both experimental and theoretical physics :)

While I realize more might always be found, smaller and smaller, as our instruments get more precise. However, I am wondering if the finding of smaller particles and what influences their behavior, is of any real use, especially given the great amount of energy needed to parse them out?

From what I can tell... and this may be wayyyyy off... all these fundamental particles (quarks, leptons, etc) don't last long in the "real world". That is to say, no matter how much we pick them apart, they fall back together (or reduce to energy) such that they have no value beyond understanding the esoteric properties of the universe.

Is it true that for all practical purposes we'll have to deal with particles and events from the electron size up? Disregarding that photons have no size of course. Is their some use that could be found among the sub-subatomics? What would they be? How about smaller than them?

All I can say is that your comments could have equally well been applied to the atom 100+ years ago. The control of the electron has affected us a billion-fold more than any visionary could imagine; nuclear physics to a lesser but more dramatic extent; antimatter in the use of positrons in PET scans; neutrinos in the understanding of the Sun; the quantum knowledge gained in the pursuit of fundemental physics applied in superconductivity and superfluidity; and I could go on if I had the time. How much of this could I have suggested (or even dreamed), had you asked me 120 years ago????

But forget all that - "understanding the esoteric properties of the universe" is what we do, and have been doing for 3000+ years. If you want to be the one to call a halt... don't forget that all this research is not just about finding what happens at the small scale - this is particle physics, cosmology, the theory of everything, other universes, the nature of time, etc, etc. Just look at the layman book sales to get a feel for how much support we have for this endeavour...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:03 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3333 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 5 of 68 (437177)
11-29-2007 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


But isn't gravity "the elephant in the room" here?

Now I'm certainly no physicist, but when one considers how much is still to be learnt about the exact workings of the gravitational force, there must be some way to go yet.

What sort of technology could the ability to harness gravity give rise to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19110
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 68 (437192)
11-29-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


Somewhere around the turn of the 20th century a famous scientist of the period gave a lecture in which he announced the end of physics. Perhaps someone here recalls who this was, I couldn't seem to provide the right keywords to Google to track him down, but he said that physics had already discovered the important principles, and that scientists in the future would just be adding decimal places or precision to that that was already known. Sure, there were still a couple minor problems out there, like the spectrum of black body radiation and the inability to detect the ether, but those would no doubt be wrapped up soon.

It wasn't suspected at the time that the world of physics was on the brink of a revolution that would introduce quantum theory (explained black body radiation) and relativity (explained the absence of the ether). This tells us that we can't know where the future of physics will take us until we get there.

There is one way in which we could be realistically said to be approaching the end of physics. The low hanging fruit of physics, the simpler and more obvious principles like mechanics and optics, were discovered long ago, and the 20th century showed that further progress in physics required increasingly greater collaboration and time and money, often on massive scales, and this trend continues. So while past experience tells us that there is still far more to learn, practical constraints might make further significant progress too difficult for mere humans. In other words, if we are actually encountering any limits, they're not limits of knowledge but of human capability.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Wounded King, posted 11-29-2007 8:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2007 8:51 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2438 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 7 of 68 (437194)
11-29-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-29-2007 8:14 AM


Wasn't it lord Kelvin?

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-29-2007 8:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 8 of 68 (437201)
11-29-2007 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
11-29-2007 8:14 AM


Somewhere around the turn of the 20th century a famous scientist of the period gave a lecture in which he announced the end of physics

Kelvin, though Hawking said something similar around 1980 on the back of N=8 Supegravity :rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 11-29-2007 8:14 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 68 (437317)
11-29-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
11-29-2007 4:17 AM


To everyone... in single post to cavediver
My thread title was a bit over dramatic, and I tried to draw it down in the OP itself. I really didn't mean all of physics. Gravity is one good example of something still not understood well enough, and I take antimatter as completely useful (even if currently hard to control).

frgab correctly surmised what I was really asking, and Percy also rewrote my question more eloquently.

frgab had an interesting point about the tech developments alone which come out of these searches. The ability to manipulate the world better is always of some value.

However, and this is what I didn't see you (cavediver) mention. While I do agree with everything you said, and I'M not going to be the guy asking for anyone to halt science, I'm wondering if we can and perhaps have found a practical limit to our capabilities? Or if the nature of the universe itself is showing some practical limits of control?

Here's a crude example. When we pull things apart and say get quarks, is there any idea that we can use them for anything, beyond recreating what we already have existing at the nuclear level? Sort of like, are all we doing then is reinventing the wheel? Maybe it could have use at a different time scale than we live, but then that still doesn't help us.

I'm not sure if that question is the same as what was said about the atom at the turn of last century.

Hahahaha... now that I think about it, maybe another way of asking it is if this kind of research will ever allow Physicists to be more important in everyday manipulations of the most basic physical structures of the world. Currently Chemists would seem to hold that role. Could Physicists end up manufacturing quark or lepton materials for mom and pop?

Personally I do like the never-ending quest, the russian doll nature of the universe. But I'd still like to be able to recognize when I pushed past a practical limit.


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2007 4:17 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2007 5:33 PM Silent H has responded
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-29-2007 6:10 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 10 of 68 (437326)
11-29-2007 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
11-29-2007 5:03 PM


practicality? possibly, but irrelevant.
Hi, H.

Sorry that I haven't been participating in a few of your other threads. Been real busy to write long posts, and those threads were getting wacky anyway.

But as far as this point:

I will point out that to the best of my understanding, useful devices like NMR and PET scans were developed after through the investigation of the properites of atomic nuclei and their constituents. What is interesting is that these imaging techniques don't really rely on using the protons and neutrons as individual particles -- rather they rely on the understanding we gained as protons and neutrons were studied as individual particles and how they behave when combined in nuclei.

In a similar vein, in investigating the quantum mechanical nature of electrons, especially their behavior in solid matter, I don't think the physicists of the early 20th century could have realized that the electrical devices with which they were familiar would be completely replace in many applications (and totally new applications developed) by the then unknown properties of semiconductors.

So it may very well be that stuff like quarks and vector bosons will themselves will not be of direct practical importance. But understanding them may lead us to new understandings of the nature of mundane, bulk matter that will have practical applications.

Pretty much hard to say.

And, as I've said before, I think that primary value of this type of research lies more in the "Gee whiz!" factor more than in any real "practical" applications that may come out of it. But then, my main training has been in mathematics which in the main part is conducted with very little thought of "practical importance", at least by the participants themselves, so I have a fondness for learning and intellectual achievement for its own sake.

-

Now as far as "the end of new physics is concerned", we aren't in the same position as the scientists of the turn of the 20th century. (Or is 1900-01 the turn of the 19th century?) I don't think anyone is naive to believe that we are close to knowing everything, and that all that will be left to do is to dot the i's and cross the t's.

Rather, if there is a problem, it's with the availability of energy. Now to study ever smaller scales requires ever greater energies at which to "smash those atoms". And, although I don't think that we are at that point yet, there is only so much energy that will be available to us whatever our level of technology -- unless we discover something that will allow us to get around the laws of thermodynamics. So it is possible that someday in the far future we will hit a wall simply because the fundamental laws of nature itself will not allow us to probe any deeper. Or, as another possibility, our understanding of physics changes and we realize that we don't need higher energies to probe deeper into the fundamental nature of the universe.


Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:03 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:50 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 4162 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 68 (437330)
11-29-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
11-29-2007 5:33 PM


Re: practicality? possibly, but irrelevant.
Don't have to apologize for skipping threads... especially when they get wacky. Just appreciate it when you do pop in (to be honest I still spend some time each night mulling over implications of your post on rights/relativism).

On this thread, I get what you're saying regarding devices like NMR and PET. In a way that also goes along with what frgab was saying with developing tech just to discover the new particles. We find new ways to do things. Okay, I buy that.

But from what I am understanding, the effects of anything coming out of the most fundamental particles are on such a short time scale, that there might not be much to harness... such that we could get something like NMR (which uses properties of much more stable matter).

I suppose I'd love to be surprised that there are things coming out like that, and maybe CERN's future work can provide it? Actually I'm excited by their capture of antimatter particles, and would love to know what we can get out of that.

Or, as another possibility, our understanding of physics changes and we realize that we don't need higher energies to probe deeper into the fundamental nature of the universe.

Yes, personally I'd like to be able to probe deeper into the fundamental nature of the universe at about the low energy level of a human-sized tub filled with hot water (bubbles, and whirling currents optional).


h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2007 5:33 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-29-2007 6:30 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 529
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 12 of 68 (437334)
11-29-2007 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
11-29-2007 5:03 PM


Been there, done that.
I think your questions, particularly as rephrased by frgab, could equally well have been asked right after Newton published his theories of mechanics and gravitation. These theories enabled one to predict the motions of the planets, but not significantly better (at that time) then the existing techniques. They gave a better description of what happens when you hurl a rock or shoot an arrow, but doing so with accuracy relied far more on the subconscious skills of the warrior than upon any calculations. They greatly increased our understanding of the workings of nature, but for a long time did not contribute to our control of nature.

This reminds me of a famous (and probably apocryphal) exchange between Queen Victoria and Michael Faraday when the queen visited Faradays lab for a demonstration of his brand new invention, the electric dynamo. Queen Victoria asked Faraday; "So Mr. Faraday, that's all very nice and interesting, but of what the fuck use is the damned thing?" Faraday replied; "Madam, of what use is a baby?"

Another important aspect that has not been mentioned is that while elementary particle physics, cosmology, and the physics of the solid state (now usually referred to as condensed matter physics and includes our understanding of the semiconductors used in our computers, etc.) seem to deal with quite different components of nature, in fact there is a great deal of commonality in the mathematics and models of these topics. A key part of the current theory of elementary particles, the standard model, is a mathematical description called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This concept and its development originated in solid state physics.

I am currently reading and highly recommend a very nice popularization (very easy read and no equations) of the current state of fundamental physics: "The Trouble with Physics", by Lee Smolin. It will give you a good idea of what is currently taking place in the field, and as the title implies, its current impasses. If you read this book, keep in mind the extremely sophisticated and powerful mathematical and modeling techniques that are being developed to tackle these problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:03 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6841
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.1


Message 13 of 68 (437341)
11-29-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
11-29-2007 5:50 PM


Re: practicality? possibly, but irrelevant.
But from what I am understanding, the effects of anything coming out of the most fundamental particles are on such a short time scale, that there might not be much to harness... such that we could get something like NMR (which uses properties of much more stable matter).

Well, my point is that the initial investigations did use pretty high energies and exotic energy sources. I believe, in fact, that some of the earliest experiments were conducted at high altitudes because at the time cosmic rays were the highest easily available energies. Then, as particle accelerators became common, the scientific investigations involved accelerating the nuclei to incredibly high energies.

Now, to conduct NMR the just put the patient in these huge magnets. And PET simply relies on radioactive isotopes to produce their own positrons. So the knowledge was gained from bulky apparatuses (apparati?) and very high energies, but is implemented using much more manageable equipment and much lower energies.

Similarly, we may be using very high enegies to study such very ephemeral phenomena, but that may give us knowledge about the behavior of even ordinary matter that will allow us to manipulate it at more reasonable energies.

I agree that this is kind of a stretch. I, myself, don't expect much practical used to come out of this. But what do I know? Twenty years ago I was the guy who insisted that the dinosaurs could not have been wiped out by a meteor.


Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2007 5:50 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5881
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 14 of 68 (437352)
11-29-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-27-2007 9:33 PM


On the cusp of knowing nothing at all
In the realm of fundamental particles, and forces, physics has made a lot of gains within the last century. I'm wondering if physics is reaching an end point, especially with regard to particle physics.

I don't see any end in sight. Science is an obscurantist. Its tentative. Every time we think we know something, something else comes along to challenge those time-honored beliefs.

It was not long ago that Einstein claimed that light has a finite speed, and that nothing could usurp that constant. It is an incontrovertible fact, he might have said. Einstein stated that nothing could travel at a higher velocity than 186,000 mps. His theory of general relativity might be in jeopardy if it were incorrect.

Well, two experiments have demonstrated that it is entirely possible. A team at the NEC Institute of Princeton University sped light 300 times faster than the commonly accepted belief.

Similarly, a joint effort made by the Rowland Institute yielded equally impressive results. This team managed to bring light waves to a one mile per hour crawl and then stopped the beam entirely. They could literally capture, and re-release light, at their whim.

Perhaps also as impressive is the famed Slit Experiment you were asking about a few weeks ago. You might be inclined to agree.

I am wondering if the finding of smaller particles and what influences their behavior, is of any real use, especially given the great amount of energy needed to parse them out?

I don't think there is any reason to assume we've reached a capacity, but rather are possibly at the tip of the iceberg, where what we think we know is being challenged.


“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 9:33 PM Silent H has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 11-29-2007 7:46 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 17 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-29-2007 7:55 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 15 of 68 (437362)
11-29-2007 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-29-2007 7:12 PM


Re: On the cusp of knowing nothing at all
t was not long ago that Einstein claimed that light has a finite speed, and that nothing could usurp that constant. It is an incontrovertible fact, he might have said. Einstein stated that nothing could travel at a higher velocity than 186,000 mps. His theory of general relativity might be in jeopardy if it were incorrect.

Well, two experiments have demonstrated that it is entirely possible. A team at the NEC Institute of Princeton University sped light 300 times faster than the commonly accepted belief.

Similarly, a joint effort made by the Rowland Institute yielded equally impressive results. This team managed to bring light waves to a one mile per hour crawl and then stopped the beam entirely. They could literally capture, and re-release light, at their whim.

Nem, just as a quick point of information before I go to bed: neither of those experiments have anything to do with demonstrating Einstein incorrect, nor do they in any way put Special or General Relativity in the slighest jeopardy. But of course that's boring, so the reporters have to jazz it up a bit - i.e. get it all totally wrong... sigh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2007 7:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 11-29-2007 7:51 PM cavediver has responded
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-29-2007 8:03 PM cavediver has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019