The Sky Is Falling...?
Pages
| Author | Topic: The Sky Is Falling...? |
|---|---|
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:SkeleTony has been around before, but not recently. quote:Uh... I guess if such a thing were to exist, you'd be right. quote:Uh, "energetically-based principles of connectedness in the universe"? I'm reminded of the EPR paradox, but that has nothing to do with energy (more with transfer of information). Energy can be transmitted at the speed of light, sure. After all, light is energy. It can't go any faster than that, though. quote:Eh, one of the ways of making sense of this is to think that time actually looks more like a radius than like an axis in Cartesian coordinates. If you're on the surface of a balloon and someone is blowing air in, as time passes, the radius of the balloon increases and the surface expands. The radius can be measured in units of time, and in the universe, the radius is time. If the balloon is sufficiently big, the surface looks 2-D, even though the balloon itself is a 3-D object. The universe is doing something similar, except the universe is big enough that it looks at a given point in time 3-D, even though it is actually 4-D. And just as with the balloon, time is a radius, and the Big Bang happens at r=0. What was before the Big Bang? Well, the universe before the Big Bang would be a sphere with negative radius. No such thing exists. Stephen Hawking's line is that asking what was before the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole, and my rendition of that is that it's like asking what a negative-radius sphere looks like. quote:Uh, no. You have to make some sort of appeal to a form of Occam's Razor, here, or you're stabbing blindly in the dark. [ Tuesday, August 28, 2007 20:19: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:20
Profile
quote:In view of your subsequent statements about time being and temporal sequence existing, I am not sure what you mean by time not existing. [/quote]Different usages of "exists" here. Time and such exist as useful concepts which we employ to measure the passage of events. Sequence is simply the way things have to be for a s4ensible existence(i.e. an existence where things are not both 'A' and 'Not A' simultaneously). Time and such do not "exist" in the way that you or I or a planet "exists". quote:Does the above clear this up for you? I probably should have taken the time to explain every facet at every turn but I kind of thought this stuff was obvious and I did not want you to think I was talking down to you. quote:Because that is what "beginning" means. Can you have a "beginning" to a race if the cars have all been driving eternally in circles in infinite regress?! Infinite regress, by definition negates a "beginning". quote:See above. How do you arrive at this logically though?! How can one possibly infer what you speculate above?! quote:I did not say it was "meaningless word salad" did I? In fact did I not THANK YOU for presenting it? The idea that "time has a beginning" still does not make sense though because the very act of the "beginning"(the "bang" or what have you) would itself require sequential linear time to accomplish. You cannot escape this. quote:This is another appeal to ignorance fallacy. You ARE presenting a logical contradiction and justifying it by an appeal to some imagined lack of understanding we have about time. quote:Objection! Relevance...? Not to mention this is an unqualified assertion fallacy. quote:But I am most certainly prepared to do so. Just as soon as you present such I will be happy to allow it to overrule whatever you think my "intuitions" are.(Hint: I do not rely much on "intuition" as it strikes me as largely unreliable and irrational). Let's please avoid the attacks on person that you are starting to hint at here. I am no dogmatist or person enthralled with presuppositions about reality or some such. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:26
Profile
Homepage
There is nothing in the term "beginning" that implies that anything preceded it. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:39
Profile
quote:SkeleTony has been around before, but not recently.[/quote]I am around quite a bit actually but I mostly lurk. On occasion I pop up and post for a few days or a week then go back into lurking. [quote] quote:Uh... I guess if such a thing were to exist, you'd be right. quote:The "twins" thing is greatly exaggerated also. People have this wonky idea that twins have these psychic links" to one another and such and it is rubbish. quote:Granted and I understand all that but this still does not answer my question though. If time has "a beginning" then how can this be in the absence of sequence that comes with the existence of time(or more accurately the existence of non-static material objects for which events can transpire). In other words how was the "balloon" initially 'inflated' with no moment in which such could occur?quote:Eh, one of the ways of making sense of this is to think that time actually looks more like a radius than like an axis in Cartesian coordinates. If you're on the surface of a balloon and someone is blowing air in, as time passes, the radius of the balloon increases and the surface expands. The radius can be measured in units of time, and in the universe, the radius is time. quote:EXACTLY! Which pretty well proves that there can be no "before time". quote:?! I do not follow you. And as a skeptic I LIVE by Occam's razor BTW. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:40
Profile
*Sigh* Double post due to forum screwing up again... [ Tuesday, August 28, 2007 20:42: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:44
Profile
quote:"Beginning" DOES imply a preceding moment where the event(of said "beginning") had not yet occurred or the phenomenon did not yet exist. I explained why this was in a preceding post. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 156
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 20:46
Profile
quote:"Beginning" DOES imply a preceding moment where the event(of said "beginning") had not yet occurred or the phenomenon did not yet exist. I explained why this was in a preceding post. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 | Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 21:07
Profile
I can see why you go back to lurking. I'm exhausted just reading your posts, I can't imagine how much effort goes into writing them. By the by, it hasn't rained since Synergy started this topic. Thanks Synergy! -------------------- Synergy - "I don't get it." Dikiyoba - "Dang. I'm one firecracker short from getting a gourd potion today." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 7171
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 21:39
Profile
quote:Your opinion on this matter is not widely held by working theoretical physicists. quote:If applied mathematics is not logical, then I do not know what is. quote:It would not. quote:It is not. He is not. You are not "we"; SoT is not the one with a lack of understanding of time. quote:An infinite regress is not the only alternative to a beginning with a moment before it. quote:It does not appear to have occurred to you that since the "balloon" was spacetime, the "balloon" was the moment in which its own inflation occurred. The fact that you do not understand how time can expand is not anything more than a demonstration of your lack of understanding of quantum mechanics. quote:That there cannot be anything before time and that time had a beginning are not mutually exclusive. quote:It does not. You did not. [ Tuesday, August 28, 2007 21:41: Message edited by: Maimonides ] Posts: 66 | Registered: Sunday, May 28 2006 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 21:49
Profile
quote:You do not disappoint. -------------------- Synergy - "I don't get it." Dikiyoba - "Dang. I'm one firecracker short from getting a gourd potion today." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 22:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:Sure. There was no time before time. That's what people mean when they say that time itself began at the Big Bang. There can't have been time before the Big Bang, because "before the Big Bang" is not a well-defined concept. quote:Would you prefer that we say that the Big Bang occurred as far back in time as time goes? How would you like to put it in order to indicate that we're tracing the radius of the circle back to r=0 and there is no farther that we can go? quote:It is reasonable to conclude, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that your aunt is probably not a trans-dimensional vampiric telepath. Upon this we are agreed. However, we are not concluding this only because we lack evidence in favor; we are concluding this because we have a whole host of evidence that is consistent with her not being such a thing (namely, your experiences with her). On the other hand, concluding that she is a trans-dimensional vampiric telepath would require creating a lengthy and complicated explanation in order to keep consistent with the evidence that we have. There is nothing to say that the latter complicated explanation is impossible, but you can appeal to Occam's Razor and say that we're better off to accept a simpler explanation. If we really had no evidence at all, we'd just have to admit that we don't have any idea. [ Tuesday, August 28, 2007 22:29: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, August 28 2007 23:55
Profile
Grrr, that Stephen Hawking. I was going to say that bit about north of the north pole. It is possible that I came up with it independently just now, but it is very likely I who stole the line from him, and forgot my source, since I have read his book. This sort of thing happens all the time, I'm afraid. Many of my best ideas are other people's. When I was much younger this bothered me a lot more than it does now, when I know that this is true of everyone else as well. I expect Hawking wasn't the first to use the north pole thing, either. About Occam's Razor: I guess up to a point I like it as much as anyone, but I do try to remember that it isn't really sound. It's just an aesthetic principle, and there's no guarantee that it leads to the truth. [ Wednesday, August 29, 2007 00:02: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 02:54
Profile
quote:I'd like to think that something as cool as a negative radius does exist... As far as the original topic goes: Heat in 2006. -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 10:55
Profile
quote:And this is why I’m saying you’re projecting opinions you’ve heard elsewhere here. God doesn’t know every single detail of the future. We do have choice. Wickedness comes from misuse of that freedom. No robots. No paradox. quote:Is “logically rule out” = “deny the existence of”? This is what I mean by having a problem with not understanding things. If you say something is unreasonable so you can’t accept it, I can understand. If you say because you don’t understand a thing it doesn’t exist, you are unreasonable. I think that is the major qualm that I and the others are having with you. It may be just be lack of clear communication or we’re missing your point. If humans were a blind species, would color exist? quote:Yes, but what have I asserted nonsensically?! Unless you qualify questioning your assertion as irrational assertion, I’ve done no such thing. quote:p1. OK. p2. OK, but ones logic and sense can be limited by lack of knowledge, experience, or ability. At the risk of beating a dead horse, it may seem nonsensical to some that 299,999m/s added to 299,999m/s gives us 300,000m/s, but based on current understanding it can. p3. And this is why I said you define things supernatural out of existence. Find the flaw: I hereby call all fruit “apples.” Therefore any fruit that is not an apple does not exist. Is it illogical to say there could be entities with a nature very different from our own? If not why? If so, is it possible we cannot fully grasp this nature? If not, do you believe that baboons know the nature of bacteria? Do bacteria not exist for baboons? C1. Does not follow logically. quote:Cite the fallacy. You say reason is not a foundation of religion. I say that is too broad of a statement. To support my position I cite a religions textbook viewed as the foundation for Christianity. Proverbs 14:15 Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps. Acts 17:2 So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three Sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references… Romans 12:1 Consequently I entreat YOU by the compassions of God, brothers, to present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason. One cannot have Biblical faith without reason. There’s a dumber version in which a person believes something because they want to or because they have been told it by parents, priests, or climatologists. But faith, as outlined in the Bible, is based on evidence and reason. quote:Reading the Bible does not guarantee understanding it. Disbelief is not evidence that something doesn't exist. Some people read the Bible and are convinced it has all the answers and is what it claims to be. It is perfectly reasonable to them. What conclusion would you draw from that? Personally, there are a very small minority of accounts out of the many thousands that present difficulties in understanding. The vast majority of them and certainly the overall theme are perfectly clear and reasonable to me. quote:But it was not just written by shepherds, that’s a major fallacy and it that betrays the claim that one has read the Bible critically. If you had you would know that the penmen of the Bible included military generals, kings, high ranking imperial officials, lawyers, physicians, priests, judges, and tax collectors. What would you expect from a book written by God that is not in the Bible? What do you see in the Bible that conveys it is man-made? In all fairness we should probably take this to another thread. I have a suspicion it may get closed by the powers that be, but we could give it a go. http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004455#000000 Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 73
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 13:04
Profile
Are we discussing whether SkeleTony's views about the nature of the Whole Sort Of General Mish Mash are logical here, in the Man or God thread, or in a new thread? I'll continue here until someone tells me otherwise. SkeleTony, I believe that you are not claiming that you not understanding something makes it not exist, as others have suggested. I think you are saying that if it's not understandable at any point ever, it doesn't exist. However, you define things as "not understandable ever" that you don't understand but we do. We understand perfectly well that time can have started at the Big Bang and how, for instance, but because you don't understand them or the methods used to understand them, you seem to assume, either consciously or subconsciously, that they must be non-understandable. This seems to be obvious to everyone in the discussion but you, and I find that amusing. Here's an example of what could have existed before time besides nothing and infinite regression: eternity. Before you say we can't understand eternity, let me explain just what "eternity" is, as I understand it. Eternity can reasonably be defined as "the period of time that is simultaneously forever and no time at all". This seems like a contradiction in terms, but consider this: We know that the square root of -1 is i. i is what we call an imaginary number, but it certainly exists. It has real mathematical value and is useful in, and in many cases essential to, coming up with practical results. i is a seeming contradiction in terms: A number's square root multiplied by the same square root equals the number. However, multiplying a real number times another real number with the same sign, as multiplying a real number by itself inherently is, always yields a positive number. So how can we multiply a number (i) times itself and get a negative number? Simple: The number i transcends (yes, that word you don't like) the sequential number system. You cannot count to i, but i still exists, and there are several other non-real but still existent numbers like i. Like i transcends the sequential number system, eternity transcends sequential time. You may not like it or understand it, but that doesn't mean it's not true. [ Wednesday, August 29, 2007 13:05: Message edited by: The Almighty Do-er of Stuff ] -------------------- My Myspace, with some of my audial and visual art The Lyceum - The Headquarters of the Blades designing community The Louvre - The Blades of Avernum graphics database Alexandria - The Blades of Exile Scenario database BoE Webring - Self explanatory Polaris - Free porn here Odd Todd - Fun for the unemployed (and everyone else too) They Might Be Giants - Four websites for one of the greatest bands in existance -------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Posts: 2957 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 19:57
Profile
ADoS, I made the other thread for the Bible stuff, but you can use it for whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 21:04
Profile
The analogy between eternity and imaginary numbers is interesting. But I'm not sure I buy it. For one thing, i can be represented as a 2-by-2 matrix of real numbers, and if you understand matrix multiplication, then there is no trouble with a matrix squaring to minus the identity matrix. I don't know of any comparable explicit representation of eternity in terms of more familiar concepts. If you want to stick to single-component objects, though, then i is indeed a bit weird. It is supposed to be some kind of number, that can be added and multiplied and so on, but it doesn't correspond to a quantity in any usual sense. It is nevertheless defined quite effectively, I would say, by the arithmetic rules that we give for it. It is defined by its role in the 'game' of multiplication and addition. And a lot of higher mathematics is about defining things in this rather indirect way. One might try to define eternity in similar fashion. But here is where I see the big difference: the game that defines i is a comparatively rich one. We can do a lot of arithmetic with i, and it is all self-consistent. We can even prove astounding theorems about the exponentials of imaginary numbers being cosines and sines. We can learn how to evaluate gruesome integrals, of ordinary non-imaginary functions, using analytic continuation into the complex plane. With i, there is enough gameplay that the definition-by-role seems to work. Play with i enough, and you get used to it, and come to feel that you do know what it means. It becomes a familiar gamepiece, even a useful tool. And here is where eternity seems to suffer in comparison. Its game consists of a few isolated statements: eternity is that which comes before the beginning of time, or after the end of it, etc. And that's about it. I can't take eternity off to my room and play with it for myself. All I can do is parrot the few sentences written by the teacher on the board. So I don't think it's the same. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, August 29 2007 21:40
Profile
SoT - this is good stuff. I really feel sorry for your students this term if this is the kind of mind work that will be expected of them. It's ... expansive. -------------------- Synergy - "I don't get it." Dikiyoba - "Dang. I'm one firecracker short from getting a gourd potion today." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Thursday, August 30 2007 07:33
Profile
As a matter of mathematical fact, i is not transcendental; however, pi and e are. -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Thursday, August 30 2007 07:47
Profile
They are? Explain, I'm curious about this. I don't get to learn all the nuances here in vocational institute, you know... -------------------- Life is a neverending carneval where everyone has multiple costumes. I just hope mine are pleasing to the eye. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Thursday, August 30 2007 08:00
Profile
Essentially a number, x, is transcendental if there is no polynomial, f, with rational coefficients such that f(x) = 0. -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, August 30 2007 11:12
Profile
Saying that i transcends sequential numbers was presumably not invoking the mathematical meaning of 'transcendental'. But e to the power of (i times pi) is equal to -1, so i is close friends with some transcendentals. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Friday, August 31 2007 06:48
Profile
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Friday, August 31 2007 07:57
Profile
Is Fred Singer a reliable source ? [ Friday, August 31, 2007 07:59: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ] -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Friday, August 31 2007 14:10
Profile
There is no wholly "reliable" source. The question should be, are significant statements such as the following true, and how hard are they to verify. Get to it, sciency sorts. Are the main assertions of the following two sections true, the first on the so-called "consensus" and the second on how climate models, upon which so much global warming hysteria rides, are fashioned? One of my biggest reasons for not being concerned about CO2 is that I think our computer models "proving it" are complete bunk based on very unscientific assumptions. They are fashioned to generate the intended results (water vapor = a positive reinforcment, etc.) "In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.” Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent. The second reason not to rely on a “scientific consensus” in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view—or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands." ,,, "report—that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the “fingerprints” match—“fingerprints” meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes. For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth’s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator. The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don’t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006 (see www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm). It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion. What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor—i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2." -S- -------------------- A4 Items • A4 Singleton • G4 Items • G4 Forging • G4 Infiltrator • NR Items • The Lonely Celt Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |