Time travel

Discussion of theories involving time as a dimension, time travel, relativity, branes, and so on, usually applying to the "real" universe which we live in.

Time travel

Postby hypercuby28 » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:07 pm

has anyone considered the fact of einsteins theory, if we make a big enough lens capable of seeing around curves then in turn if we saw all the way around the world till we saw the back of ourselves, would that mean that could look into the future if we intesified the amplification of the lens??
hypercuby28
Mononian
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:43 pm

Postby Jay » Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:35 pm

How could you make a lense see around curves?
Jay
Trionian
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:30 am
Location: New York City

Postby hypercuby28 » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:06 pm

thats just it, we havnt just like we havnt, its a theory if we could do it would we be looking into the future??
hypercuby28
Mononian
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:43 pm

Postby alkaline » Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:17 pm

We'd be looking at an image of ourselves a certain amount of time in the past, depending on how long it took for light to travel around the earth. So, we wouldn't be looking at the future. Unless gravity does something funny to the light, but i don't know enough about the whole theory to say.
alkaline
Founder
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 2:47 pm
Location: California

Postby Simeon » Fri Jan 16, 2004 12:28 am

There are two possibilities for what is incorrectly called 'curved space', and neither involve the bending of light. One is that our 3-space, complete with all its 3-D geometry, is actually the surface of a tetraspace glome, like the skin of a soap-bubble. The other is a replacement of Euclid's by Riemann's geometry; in terms of this, our 3-D space is itself curved, not Riemann's. So the physics is intact, even though such resolution will probably never be obtainable. A lot of work just to see the rings round Uranus.
Simeon
Simeon
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:53 am

Postby sup2069 » Fri Jan 16, 2004 5:36 pm

This theory is based off the movie Paycheck


An "OK" movie.
sup2069
Dionian
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:46 pm
Location: Abilene, TX

Postby hypercuby28 » Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:31 pm

hey buddy its not based off the movie paycheck ive never seen it, read up on some of einsteins work and he explains it very well
hypercuby28
Mononian
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:43 pm

Postby Geosphere » Sat Jan 17, 2004 6:51 pm

Actually, Paycheck is based off of those theories, not the other way around.
Geosphere
Trionian
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: ny

Postby RQ » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:51 am

Well, according to Einstein's theory every time we move we make time slower for us, even though by a bit.
RQ
Tetronian
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

Postby sup2069 » Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:16 am

hypercuby28 wrote:hey buddy its not based off the movie paycheck ive never seen it


Well not exactly based, but the idea is used in the movie
sup2069
Dionian
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 10:46 pm
Location: Abilene, TX

Postby Watters » Tue Mar 16, 2004 4:21 am

To get this conversation back on topic, The idea that time is a singularity is still in the works, I mean it doens't realy matter for day to day stuff on earth, because the difference in time dialation for travelign in the radius of earth is so small it is pointless to notice. There is this book (didn't read it, just the back, and can't remember title) that deals with singrinised particals. If you think about it, it would be inpossible to singranise any thign in the universe and there for impossible for imposable for time to be a singularity. But back to the particals in teh book that if you do one thing to this type of partical the same thign happens instantyous to the other "pair" partical any where in the universe. sounded pretty cool.
Watters
Dionian
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:50 pm

Postby RQ » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:08 am

I think I read that somewhere, though I dont sure I remember any of it.
There are other space-times where time travel is possible (supposedly), since they have cone shaped strings (not strings in string theory), that when moving faster than light toward each other, or in 180 degree opposite directions, the observer would say that the event happened in the past. That would be because the two strings are traveling at the speed of light and they cannot both have the same speed relative to an observer. Some bs like that. If you ask me what about light in our universe, wouldn't it be considered as time travel, I don't know.
RQ
Tetronian
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

Postby swirl gyro » Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:18 am

In reply to the original question, you can see around curves by using fiber optics, I think. But I wouldn't want to buy enough optic cable to go all the way around the earth... pointless expensive excersize.
I sense, therefore I am.
swirl gyro
Dionian
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:10 pm
Location: Pasadena, Ca

Postby RQ » Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:29 am

You're talking about electronics now. Remember, electricity can give off an image too, this is what a computer's light is. That's not light. Light can be curved at specific enough curvature so you can see the back of your head as much as you can through a croissant (I don't know that's what my physics book said) and hit yourself on the back of the head at specific enough gravity given strength and if you're a really accurate thrower.
RQ
Tetronian
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

Relativity and time travel

Postby PhysicsWiz » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:53 pm

My theory is that the universe is curved because of gravity. There was a start to the universe hence it has a centre. The universe spins at a constant speed, so it has a constant time line, but the galaxies within the universe also have a constant speed within the universe, so a different time line. This is prooved by the experiment involing 2 atomic clocks and 1 being accelerated to a constant speed in a car while the other was left stationary on the planet. The one in the car had timed the period slower, by a very small ammount almost zero, so a galaxy spinning inside the univrse's spin, should have a slower time line.
If this is correct then the slower you go the faster time should pass, but you can only go as slow as the Earth is spinning... So, what if you left Earth in a space craft, travelled into (against) the spin of the universe at the exact same speed ( ssuming you knew the speed and the direction) Then your speed should equal zero and time should pass infinitely. So if you wanted to travel into the future you would need to figure out the speed of the universe spinning and the speed needed to go back a certain time.
If you wanted to goto the past then you'd have to go faster than the speed of the universe into its direction of speed cause time to be negative, so im not sure if you'd age backwards and if this is true then you wouldn't be able to go back at all. The exact time you reach a greater speed than the spin, then you'd be forced to go back in time to when you were about to accelerate towards the speed of the spin...
PhysicsWiz
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: uk

Re: Relativity and time travel

Postby jinydu » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:10 am

PhysicsWiz wrote:My theory is that the universe is curved because of gravity.


That is indeed the case, according to General Relativity.

PhysicsWiz wrote:There was a start to the universe hence it has a centre.


I think what you have in mind is the Big Bang theory. According to that theory, yes, the Universe did have a beginning. However, it does not have a center. You're probably thinking that before the Big Bang, there was only empty space, and then there was an explosion (the Big Bang itself), and the Universe is just what's inside the "bang" at the moment. The center would just be the location of the explosion.

However, this involves looking at the Universe from outside. This is impossible because the Universe, by definition, includes everything that exists. Not only that, the current consensus among scientists is that spacetime itself began at the moment of the Big Bang. Hence, there is no outside from which you can locate the center.

PhysicsWiz wrote:The universe spins at a constant speed, so it has a constant time line, but the galaxies within the universe also have a constant speed within the universe, so a different time line. This is prooved by the experiment involing 2 atomic clocks and 1 being accelerated to a constant speed in a car while the other was left stationary on the planet. The one in the car had timed the period slower, by a very small ammount almost zero, so a galaxy spinning inside the univrse's spin, should have a slower time line.
If this is correct then the slower you go the faster time should pass, but you can only go as slow as the Earth is spinning... So, what if you left Earth in a space craft, travelled into (against) the spin of the universe at the exact same speed ( ssuming you knew the speed and the direction) Then your speed should equal zero and time should pass infinitely.


There's another problem with your claim about the Universe spinning about a center, but I'm talk about that later. First, I'm focusing on the last sentence of that quote, where I think that you claim that time should pass infinitely fast when you're at rest. You probably have in mind the concept of time dilation. However, the time dilation formula tells you how fast different observers will observe a clock as moving, not how fast the clock is moving in some absolute sense. According to the time dilation formula, you observe a clock moving fastest when the clock is at rest with respect to you. Although (according to your observations) the clock is moving at its maximum rate, that rate is still not infinite. If you don't believe me, look at your computer's clock and tell me if its moving infinitely fast.

PhysicsWiz wrote:So if you wanted to travel into the future you would need to figure out the speed of the universe spinning and the speed needed to go back a certain time.
If you wanted to goto the past then you'd have to go faster than the speed of the universe into its direction of speed cause time to be negative, so im not sure if you'd age backwards and if this is true then you wouldn't be able to go back at all. The exact time you reach a greater speed than the spin, then you'd be forced to go back in time to when you were about to accelerate towards the speed of the spin...


I'm looking at the phrase, "you would need to figure out the speed of the universe spinning". That phrase implies that implies that there is an absolute frame of reference (the stationary center of the Universe, already suspect according to what I posted above), and that it is possible to detect and measure this absolute frame of reference. This violates a postulate of Special Relativity, which says that all inertial frames of reference are equally valid (and hence, there is no absolute frame of reference). This is the problem that I mentioned earlier.

There is also an experiment that could test this idea of a spinning Universe:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/llpassal/primapagina.html

Don't worry about the text on that webpage (I don't understand any of it, since its in another language). The important thing is the picture at the top. It is a picture of the Fermilab particle accelerator. Subatomic particles move around the accelerator at over 99% the speed of light. Notice that the accelerator is shaped like a circle. This means that, if your model is correct, the particles move with the Earth's rotation about the absolute center in some areas of the circle, and against the Earth's rotation in other areas of the circle. Thus, according to time dilation, the particles should age more slowly in some parts of the circle than others. Now, its possible to measure how quickly particles age, just use radioactive particles with a limited half-life. If they are affected by time dilation, they will live longer and hence travel farther before decaying, which is detectable using current technology. Hence, if your idea were right, we should be able to detect the Earth's rotation about this absolute center using current technology. The fact that this has not been detected, and that my high school teacher is still teaching Einstein's idea that there is no universal frame of reference, should cast grave doubts on your theory.

Still, these are some imaginative ideas. Keep up the thinking!
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby PhysicsWiz » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:15 pm

No what i meant by zero speed was the exact same speed as the universes speed in the opposite direction, so the speeds would cancel out
then speed = 0. My computer is moving at this moment with the earth's speed around the sun, plus the universes spin speed. I know you can't make the speed = 0 since your inside the universe, like if you drop a coin in a car it doesn't fly to the back. But, what if you could create a warp or tunnel around yourself using spacial energy.

Im not too sure on spacial energy, i read somewhere that 99.9% of everything is nothing but i read somewhere else that space is filled with energy, light distorts this energy to get here. But, i suppose energy hasn't got a mass so it could be ignored.
PhysicsWiz
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: uk

Postby jinydu » Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:22 am

PhysicsWiz wrote:No what i meant by zero speed was the exact same speed as the universes speed in the opposite direction, so the speeds would cancel out
then speed = 0. My computer is moving at this moment with the earth's speed around the sun, plus the universes spin speed. I know you can't make the speed = 0 since your inside the universe, like if you drop a coin in a car it doesn't fly to the back.


I think you're saying you want to fire your engine in the opposite direction to the Universe's velocity. But there's a problem with that: The Universe's velocity with respect to what?

Central to the Theory of Relativity is the idea that all motion is relative. All measurements of an object's motion must necessarily take place from a particular point of view, or as Einstein called it, a frame of reference. It is a fundamental postulate in Special Relativity that all inertial (non-accelerating) frames of reference are equally valid. Thus, there is no universal frame of reference, no "God's eye view" of the Universe, from which to judge whether an object is truly moving or not. Please see my post on the following thread: http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=104.

Now, your theory does provide a universal frame of reference, namely the center of the Universe. This provides a way to decide which frames of reference are more valid than others (simply go to the center and observe), thus violating the postulate that all inertial frames of reference are equally valid.

PhysicsWiz wrote:But, what if you could create a warp or tunnel around yourself using spacial energy.

Im not too sure on spacial energy, i read somewhere that 99.9% of everything is nothing but i read somewhere else that space is filled with energy, light distorts this energy to get here. But, i suppose energy hasn't got a mass so it could be ignored.


As far as I know, the Theory of Relativity doesn't say anything about empty space being filled with energy, other than the Cosmic Microwave Background radiationi (i.e. The leftover energy from the Big Bang).

Also, light does not need a medium in which to travel. Maxwell's Theory describes how electromagnetic radiation can propogate through empty space. Physicists once believed in an "ether" that filled all of empty space, allowing light to propogate anywhere in the Universe. The supposed existence of this ether was disproven near the end of the 19th century by the Michelson-Morley experiment.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby PhysicsWiz » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:06 am

What about using a black hole as your warp, a seperate existance. Travelling greater than the speed of light, but when you do this your mass and shape change..But the black hole also changes your mass and shape, while travelling the speed of light you get squashed and in a black hole you are stretched out. I don't know much about black holes, but it must have an end somewhere.
PhysicsWiz
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:36 pm
Location: uk

Postby jinydu » Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:35 am

PhysicsWiz wrote:What about using a black hole as your warp, a seperate existance. Travelling greater than the speed of light, but when you do this your mass and shape change..But the black hole also changes your mass and shape, while travelling the speed of light you get squashed and in a black hole you are stretched out. I don't know much about black holes, but it must have an end somewhere.


Ok, I think you're getting confused being black holes (accepted in the scientific community) and wormholes (far more speculative, to say the least).

Black holes are, by definition, objects with an escape velocity greater than the speed of light at some areas in their gravitational field. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity does predict that black holes can exist. However, the quantitative predictions of that theory are inaccurate, and the theory misses several important features of black holes. Still, it should be noted that no observational evidence for black holes was known until the twentieth century.

In 1916, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, where he viewed gravity as a curvature of spacetime. The quantitative predictions of General Relativity (GR) are close to those of Newton's theory, but make markedly different predictions in very strong gravitational fields, especially black holes. The predictions of General Relativity have been verified in numerous experiments, and GR currently provides the most sure-fire description of black holes.

It is accepted among physicists that black holes form when massive stars collapse at the end of their lifetime. Surrounding a black hole is an imaginary sphere called the event horizon. Inside the event horizon, the gravitational field is so strong that not even light can escape. Now, according to Special Relativity, no material object can accelerate to the speed of light. Thus, if you are unfortunate enough to enter an event horizon, it is impossible to escape. You are inexorably fated to fall ever closer to the center of the black hole, called the singularity. Eventually, the gravitational field at the part of your body closer to the singularity will become significantly stronger than the part of your body farther from the singularity. The resulting tension will pull you apart. Thus, there is no way for any human or probe to reach the singularity intact.

The intense gravitational field around a black hole also affects the measurement of time. According to GR, clocks run more slowly when they're in a gravitational field. Thus, if you see someone falling into a black hole, you will observe his clocks running slower and slower, until they stop at the event horizon. You will never see him actually cross the event horizon. On the other hand, if you are unlucky enough to fall into a black hole, you will observe clocks from the outside Universe as running faster and faster. At the event horizon, you will observe outside clocks as running infinitely fast. Then, you will continue towards the singularity, and (assuming you were immortal and had an indestructible clock), you would observe yourself reaching the singularity in a finite time. Now, outside observers say that you never reach the singularity. You say that you do reach the singularity, in a finite time. Who is correct? According to Einstein, you're both equally correct.

Although it is impossible to see inside the event horizon, astronomers do have obtained indirect evidence for the existence of black holes. This is done by observing objects outside the event horizon. Astronomers measure the velocity and distance from the singularity of this infalling matter, and then use these measurements to calculate the properties of the black hole candidate. If it is shown that the candidate object's mass is sufficiently high, and its volume sufficiently small, astronomers can confidently say that it is a black hole. For example, observations have strongly suggested that there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy, with a mass over 1 million times that of our Sun.

Now, the idea of a wormhole is much more speculative. Now, by changing some +'s into -'s (or vice versa) in the GR equations that describe a black hole, it can be shown that another type of object, a white hole, is also consistent with the equations. Theoretically, a white hole would be the exact opposite of a black hole. Its gravitational field would be repulsive, meaning that it would be impossible get closer than a certain radius to the center. Although white holes are allowed by the equations of GR, you should keep in mind that mathematical possibility does not necessarily translate into physical reality. There is no known observational evidence that white holes really do exist, and there is no known process to actually create a white hole, other than by invoking exotic (and untested) physics ideas. If the idea of a white hole is doubtable, the idea of a wormhole is even more so. A wormhole is link through hyperspace between a black hole and a worm hole. The idea is that a spaceship can enter through the black hole, travel through the wormhole, and exit through the white hole, which is probably somewhere distance from the black hole in both time and space. Besides the problem of whether white holes exist in the first place, there's also the problem of how such a link can form, and whether the link can be last long enough for a spaceship to get through it before it collapses. And then, of course, there's the problem of how the spaceship can even reach the singularity of the black hole without being torn apart.

It should be noted that even if worm holes exist (and that's a very big if), they don't allow you to travel faster than light. Light travelling through the wormhole still travels faster than the spaceship travelling through the wormhole. Still, some claim that wormholes allow you to travel back in time. Personally, I think that time travel into the past is impossible, because it allows you to do things that violate the principle of causality (ex. killing your grandfather before he met your grandmother) and thus give rise to paradoxes.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:41 am

this is just a far out thought so do you think im makeing a point or am i just crazy...... so here it is.

for the argument of descution, if a white hole did exist and there was a link in between them a "worm hole" then wouldnt the extreme gravatatinal pull of the black hole be cancled out by the repelsion of the white hole and vise versa so in other words the black hole would have no gravaty and nither would the white hole. so wouldnt that be more proof that a worm hole and or a white hole dosn't exist?
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:45 pm

No, because the force vectors don't add up to zero!

You can think of it by analogy to Newton's Third Law. If you push against a wall, the wall pushes against you with an equal and opposite force. But the forces don't cancel out because they act on different objects.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:01 pm

so even though the charactoristics are the opposit they dont cancle each other out because they act upon diforent things?
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:03 pm

Yes, and not only that, they're not even in the same place!

But don't worry too much. There's no real evidence for the existence of white holes, other than consistency with Einstein's equations.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Time is accelerating...

Postby Gilles » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:17 am

As you said, time depends on the speed of earth.

With all the earthquakes that are happening lately, and those that are about to come, earth starts spinning faster and faster. This means that time itself goes faster and faster aswell.
Haven't you guys noticed?
Start training to deal with your emotions, if time accelerates, that'll be harder and harder.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:21 pm

With all the earthquakes that are happening lately, and those that are about to come, earth starts spinning faster and faster. This means that time itself goes faster and faster aswell.
Haven't you guys noticed?
Start training to deal with your emotions, if time accelerates, that'll be harder and harder.


that wouldnt be true, if the earth was spining fasster and faster time would actualy stay the same (for us) but to an out side observer it will seem are clocks are travaling faster. so we dont realy have to prepare for anything 8)
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Re: Time is accelerating...

Postby jinydu » Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:29 pm

Gilles wrote:As you said, time depends on the speed of earth.

With all the earthquakes that are happening lately, and those that are about to come, earth starts spinning faster and faster. This means that time itself goes faster and faster aswell.
Haven't you guys noticed?
Start training to deal with your emotions, if time accelerates, that'll be harder and harder.


If you had fully read what the scientists said, you would know that the South Asian tsunami on Dec. 26 changed the speed of the Earth's rotation by an almost imperceptible amount. The change is on the order of one second per year, so I don't see much need to worry.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 5:59 am

Ok, I agree that the universe is curved because of gravity... I have no doubts about it... but the whole lens thing doesn't fit anywhere. I mean, I lived in Japan for 6+ years, and I can say, that if you make a lens big enough, you can see around a curve. I know this because they use mirrors to see around blind corners and curves. BUT, it is physically impossible to make a lens big enough that you can see around a sphere. You would have to make at least one more and place it opposite to the first. That way, any image reflecting off the opposing mirror will be reflected and refracted onto the first, allowing you to see your backside. The reason I know this is because my dad's an optometrist. He works with this everyday. Now, the problem with all this is, in order to make it large enough to see to the 180th degree around the world to reach the other lens, it has to be at least the size of the world, if not a little bigger, and the only place that the other lens's images would be visible on the first lens, is at the top. Say for instance, you CAN see there, being as it's so MANY miles up and it was able to stand the tempurature changes and atmospheric changes, looking back at yourself... what have you accomplished? Nothing much, but you can surely say that you can look at your own arse without turning around. Now, other than that, you've just pretty much waisted your time.

Now about looking into the future... I can't remember where I posted it, but there is a theory of mine, one of the new ones in this forum, that explains time travel... I would suggest looking for something under time travel... maybe speed of light as well. You cannot look into something that has not happened yet. BUT, there are other dimensions that contain the possibilities that COULD happen in the future, or maybe are happening right this second, and we don't know it... or infinite other possibilities... it's all in there. look at it.
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby brasileiro » Sun May 08, 2005 6:03 am

Ok, I know this is a little off-subject from what we are all talkin about, but I have to ask it. ok... let's say we built a flat wood plank until it touched ends, we could see that the plank isn't flat, but it curves at a very VERY slight angle, but it would seem flat... and if we built a perfectly flat plank, it would seem like it was curving up into the sky... why is that? Someone please elaborate
brasileiro
Dionian
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 12:46 am

Postby Twix18 » Sun May 08, 2005 6:05 am

hmmm someone above me ( and i wish i had the foresight to qoute their stuff) mentioned earthquakes as a means of speeding up earth, that owuld be a good idea except that earth is not balenced now, the earth quakes that we are experenceing are not effecting enough area to be cuaseing much problems with how the earth is rotating.

and time travel is impossable for one reason. time dosent flow, we flow. you cant travle to or through time the way you can through a city. and since you cannot travle to or through it, it cannot exist.
I am a master to the unspoken word... and a slave to what has already been said.

"Somebody should have labled the future some assmebly required"

"the future isnt what it used to be"
Twix18
Dionian
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 5:49 am

Next

Return to Non-Spatial Dimensions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron