The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?  (Read 9010 times)

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Time slows down in outer space. -The key word here is "outer."

Do you realise that this would also require the speed of light to slow in outer space to match? (Light is the moving mechanism of a light clock.) A slowing in the speed of light in outer space would mean that around galaxies there should be a lensing effect opposite to the gravitational lensing that we can see in the real universe, so this would either partially cancel out existing gravitational lensing effects or would create extra distorted images of other background galaxies not from in behind the foreground galaxies, but from further out to the side than the distorted images of them. Such a lensing effect has never been seen anywhere in the universe, so it would have to be a weaker effect than the existing gravitational lensing. I can't see that being a way out for you though, because as soon as you have clocks starting to run slower in outer space than it is running closer in towards a galaxy, it will have to outgun the normal strength of gravitational lensing and start to cause lensing in the opposite direction.

A particular case to consider would be where there are two foreground galaxies and a much more distant one seen between them - your theory would either spread the background one out into a line between the two foreground galaxies or two distorted versions of it would appear between them - there should be thousands of pictures of such cases in Hubble photos, but I don't know of the existence of any.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2015 19:44:58 by David Cooper »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Many aether theories use the term time dilation as a synonym for clocks run slower. The debate is usually around the cause rather than the effect.
I say many, because there are a large number of aether theories, you've met one in this thread, and they are generally far better developed than yours. In order to stand out from the crowd you will need to show some rigorous proofs to back up your claims.
The point David raises is not a trivial one. You will need to demonstrate how your ideas work taking account of observable phenomena.
Even more difficult is the magnitude of the task you have set yourself. Most aether theories are trying to offer an alternative to relativity. You have set the additional and non trivial task of an alternative to QM. Even more difficult, you are setting out to challenge classical physics, and I know of no other aether theory which attempts this.
The earth's magnetic field was measured well before QM and the measurement is not dependant on quantum technology. The magnetosphere has been mapped well into space.
Which of the laws and theories developed by Faraday, Gauss, Tesla, Oersted, etc does your analysis show need modification in order to account for an increase in earth's magnetic field strength? Can you please be specific and show the exact modifications you expect.
If you are unable to develop your ideas into a rigorous set of proofs, and we have not yet seen any, you ideas will be viewed by most as little more than armchair musings.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
David,

These two models for Time are certainly at odds.

I carelessly omitted one detail in my aether-model for Time, in connection with the part of my model claiming that an aether ambience slows time, by eschewing the influence of magnetization/quantization that occurs in the neighborhood of bodies like the earth.

It's interesting to continue that line of aether theory in closer detail. -I mentioned that the "near space" region above earth slows the rate of time as measured by an atomic clock in an airplane, and my belief that there are occult aether technology entities tapping aether energy which increases the ambient aether in that "near space" region. (I also mentioned that I attribute the speed-up of time in "middle space," the region traversed by an orbiting satellite. to the drop-off in near-surface aether, plus the effect of magnetization/quantization from earth's magnetic field,at this "middle-space" level.) -What is interesting is to continue this line of theory to the idea that outer space, which has not been similarly measured using clocks, would "re-slow" the rate of time once you get above the influence of the mmagnetic field.

In my model, once you are above the magnetic field, and into truly-outer space, the ambience becomes highly aetheric and much less magnetized and quantized. -This would mean that the aether which is slowing Time in "near space" would have to resonate with the aether of outer space, which would be an over-riding vast, macrocosmic, "controller," for the rate of Time for any other similarly aetherized region, such as near-earth space-space. -The idea here is that the vanishingly-rarified scale of the units of the aether (compared to quantum scale units) means that any aetheric vibratory resonance process would "connect" any two aether space regions, such as near-earth space and outer space. -The middle-space region where time speeds up is quantrized, and the size-scale of the energy units there would not resonate as much with the other two space regions.

While the near-earth space region is quantized, like the middle space region, but (applying my aether-technology hypothesis) it is also more highly aetherized "artifically"/technologically, so its time rate eschews the speed-up effect of quantization, because of the very powerful effect of the un magnetized outer space aether, which is comparatively immense in magnitude. -That is why there are not just two different time rates in space, but, if we were able to measure it, three space-time regions, with the inner and outer at the slower time rate and the middle at the fastest time rate.

David, you may not be willing to accept the hypothesis about an occult aether technology affecting the near-earth time rate. -Perhaps, as a quantum/relativity adherent, you would be willing to entertain at least some of my aether model as correlating with the consensus concept of "Dark Energy?"
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
to Colin2B:

I would disagree with each critical point you made in your last post. -I believe you probably haven't read an earlier Thread of mine, which describes my aether model more fully, starting with a new concept of original space, and continuing to how it could have led to a universal unit-based vibrational/resonational aether. - If you read that Thread, and contrast its aether model with others, you would be in a better position as to your observation that "there are many aether theories, and they are generally much better developed" than mine. -This earlier Thread is titled "Is there an aether model suitable as an alternative to BBT/inflation?" -Dec. 4, 2014, currently at page 5 of "New Theories."

Colin2B, you also state that I have "set up an alternative to QM." -Again, I feel that you have either not read through my full aether theory, or else have not really thought it through. -My model of the aether is not describable as an "alternative to quantum mechanics (QM)." -In no part does it ever deny the reality of QM. It merely rlelgates it to a more limited area, in that it denies that QM is appropriate for understanding the true nature of cosmological forces, which originated in space - not in our earthly environment. -QM does "work" in our environment (although I would submit that even here it fails to yield a complete understanding of the basic forces involved.) - My objection is to the effort of physics to extend QM to the theory of cosmic forces.

You also state that "earth's magnetic field has been measured" and "the magnetosphere has been mapped." -Here again, you are overlooking what I actually claim in my aether model. -I never state that the map of the magnetoisphere is inaccurate, only that (due to our present inability to detect the aether) the true strength of the magnetic field is not being detected.

 
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
David, you may not be willing to accept the hypothesis about an occult aether technology affecting the near-earth time rate. -Perhaps, as a quantum/relativity adherent, you would be willing to entertain at least some of my aether model as correlating with the consensus concept of "Dark Energy?"

I lean towards Lorentz Aether Theory more than anything else, but I'm still open to any other theories that look as if they stack up. My worry with yours was that you might be creating a beautiful theory that contradicts the evidence, so I just wanted to be sure that you understand the implications of time slowing in deep space as it requires light to be slowed, and that will likely lead to optical effects which we don't see. So long as you're aware of that and can keep things within sufficiently tight bounds for those optical effects to stay small enough not to show up (or if you can find evidence for them in the actual sky), you might not be wasting your time.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
No, I had read your earlier posts, but to be honest there still isn't enough hard theory to hang anything on. At the moment it is too wordy and not enough real analysis to attract serious attention.
If you can achieve that rigorous analysis, you will attract lots of backers. Anyone who can offer a sound alternative to relativity is in line for major accolades, Nobel prizes, book deals, lecture tours, and TV adoration at a level only achieved by film stars.
If you really have faith in your theory you will have to do a lot of work. Take a leaf out of David's book. You misjudged him, he is a relativity skeptic, but he has done his homework and he understands relativity better than most people I know. You need to achieve that same level of knowledge if you are to provide an alternative.
Good luck, but I'm not convinced you'll do it.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
I've mentioned, in a couple earlier posts in the present Thread, that I claim to have derived a design for a field test for a property of aether, which I derived from an obscure independent source. The test would be costly. -From my point of view, my aether model just needs enough acceptance to get the test done. I don't see any other way to resolve the issue.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Why not start with less expensive tests? What percentage of slowing of time do you imagine you should get in "outer" space and how far out do you have to go from a star or galaxy before you get that much slowing? It should be very inexpensive to calculate the optical effects that should show up and then to look for them in the sky.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
David,

As for "testing for the aether," if you choose to be guided by the kind of approach usually taken by "zero point energy" innovative-tech people, the usual approach uses some sort of tech gear in some sort of relatively small-scale set-up, such as in a laboratory, and then one would proceed to larger scale technological setup, if the initial investigation warrants it.

However, my type of investigation would be different in that it would use more naturally-occurring materials, and would be based on (I claim) new information on how to replicate an occultified (for us) energy technology. As it happens, the only possible investigatory setup would necessarily have to be at a fairly large scale. (One advantage, however, if it ever gets done, would be that the test setup could also serve in utilizing any new properties such a new form of energy could provide.)
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
If your theory says time runs slow in outer space and experiments show that to be wrong, why would anyone put vast amounts of money into testing your theory if it is already broken?
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
David Cooper:

You're restating the same  argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.

Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels. -As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.

(In my aether model, there is one more influence at work here, however, which is the motion of the clock in the moving vehicle, which in my model means that the clock is moving at a faster rate through the aether of space, increasing its resonance with the ambient aether, making the infra-atomic structure of the clock more aetherized, while of course a clock at the surface is stationary.  -So the clock-measuring/position RE magnetic field/change-in-rate-of-time analysis actually becomes still more complicated, than just the influence of the magnetic forces.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
You're restating the same  argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.

I'm simply trying to get you to provide a rough figure on how much a clock will slow in deep space compared with one that's running faster in "middle space". What I want to see if whether it's worth trying to understand your theory in depth or if it is already disproven by the lack of optical effects in the sky of the kind that would show up if you require a significant slowing.

Quote
Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, ...

Clocks run slower when moved fast at the same altitude regardless of which altitude you choose.

Quote
...and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels.

Time passes faster as you go to higher altitude, and this effect is stronger than the one that causes slowing due to speed of travel. You still don't appear to be separating out the two effects.

Quote
-As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.

Are you aware that there are other planets and moons in the solar system with different strengths of magnetic field which have had atomic clocks taken to them and which have not showed the magnetic field to have any impact on the passage of time? Are you aware of magnetars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar):-

"These magnetic fields are hundreds of millions of times stronger than any man-made magnet, and quadrillions of times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth."

Do we see weird optical effects around them because of their extreme magnetic fields? If your idea of time being slowed doesn't involve light being slowed too, you aren't describing a slowing of time but a slowing of some kinds of clock while other clocks (light clocks) in the same locations would not be slowed with them. If you really are trying to say that time is slowed, then you have to have it slow light down as well, and if you do that you should get optical effects if this slowing is anything other than trivial. That's why I'd like to hear a few figures on how much slowing you predict there to be, because that slowing will be directly proportional to a slowing in the speed of light. If you can't provide such basic information, no one will ever invest a penny into testing your theory.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: David Cooper
A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read the Wiki article that I posted? I posted it for a good reason. The current case is an example of what's called a veridical paradox[/b] defined as follows
Quote
Veridical Paradox: A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless.
This is precisely what the twin paradox scenario is and that's why its called the Twin Paradox.

If you'd like to read more about the definition of the various types of paradox then you can read the following article

What, Exactly, is a Paradox? by William G. Lycan, University of North Carolina
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Paradox.pdf
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Reply to D. Cooper's last post,

Regarding my hypothesis that time would slow if measured in an outer space region free of magnetic fields, you offer a criterion concerning the observation of the speed of light, i.e., that it should be found to slow down if time was passing more slowly in a given region of space. -This would not qualify as a criterion using my model of the aether. In my model, light is basically transmitted by elemental aether energy units resonating vibrationally and contiguously. The speed of light (in my model) was determined at the onset of the universe, when electronic/photonic elemental units were the smallest units, and therefore the fastest. -Subsequently, other larger units were formed via linear resonances of the elemental units - such as photons, protons, neutrons, etc. The photons retain the fastest speed by being generated along the path of an elemental aether light beam, but it is the elemental light units that are the basic actors here. (Units such as neutrons and protons were formed by aether units also, but are slower and larger than electron/photons, and so they became located in atomic nuclei.) -Therefore, observing the speed of light as a constant would not have anything to do with a change in the rate of time, in my aether model.

You note that "clocks run slower at any altitude when moving faster." -In my aether model, moving the clock faster means that the aetheric components of the clock's infra-structure are encountering a greater number of other, ambient, aether units in space, and resonating with them, than if the clock is stationary, which should slow the time rate -Your observation, then, actually agrees with my aether model.

Your two theoretic points, (1) as to whether the speed of travel or the altitude has a greater effect on time, and (2) that the rate of time in clocks sent to strongly magnetic bodies in space has been measured, I don't see as bearing on the question of what the rate would be in an outer space region where magnetic fields aren't strong.

Finally, I would insert my opinion that my aether model should not have to hinge on the question of assessing how it affects the rate of time in space, in the face of these other, possibly-complicating, factors. The measurements and observations that you cited were all guided by quantum/relativity hypotheses. My aether model should have different judgment tests using very different theoretic criteria. My aether model does not have to hinge on this aspect of theory, in any case. I have described a wide ranging theoretic model with persuasive correlations in other areas. -Just one example is the phenomenon of action-at-a-distance, which my model addresses more rationally than does the hypothesis of "quantum entanglement."
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Quote from: David Cooper
A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read the Wiki article that I posted? I posted it for a good reason. The current case is an example of what's called a veridical paradox[/b] defined as follows
Quote
Veridical Paradox: A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless.
This is precisely what the twin paradox scenario is and that's why its called the Twin Paradox.

I didn't trust Wikipedia enough to consider its opinion on a definition to be correct, but having checked other sources it is clear that the word "paradox" can be used in such sloppy ways that there is no easy way of describing a real paradox (because the expression "real paradox" has its meaning contaminated by the slackness of the "paradox" part). The consequence is that there appears to be no way of describing the thing that I have always thought of as a paradox without using a paragraph to explain what you're referring to [edit: I now see that "intractable paradox" is used in your more recent link for this, so I will use that from now on]. However, it is possible too use the word "paradox" with the meaning I apply to it [intractable paradox] as a completely distinct word from the word "paradox" with the meaning "veridical paradox", which means that a veridical paradox is a paradox, and a veridical paradox is not a paradox. Now, there's a veridical paradox for you!

With the veridical paradox, whether something is classed as one or not depends on how "obvious" the resolution is, and that rests on shifting sands. In the case of the Twins Paradox, the solution was always so obvious to me that I was never able to see it as being anything resembling a paradox at all because it is plain obvious that something moving more quickly through the fabric of space will have its functionality slowed down. For me then, I still don't see it as a veridical paradox. Other people who approached it from a different direction may disagree. What we have then is a case of sloppy categorisation where something is a paradox or not a paradox depending on the degree to which different people find something obvious.
« Last Edit: 26/04/2015 17:52:56 by David Cooper »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Regarding my hypothesis that time would slow if measured in an outer space region free of magnetic fields, you offer a criterion concerning the observation of the speed of light, i.e., that it should be found to slow down if time was passing more slowly in a given region of space. -This would not qualify as a criterion using my model of the aether. ... Therefore, observing the speed of light as a constant would not have anything to do with a change in the rate of time, in my aether model.

If that means you aren't predicting any reduction in the speed of light in "outer" space, then a light clock in "outer" space will not be slowed while other designs of clocks are slowed. That is not a slowing of time, but a slowing of some clocks. So long as your theory recognises that time is not being slowed in this situation though, that need not be a problem, but you should make your language clear and not state that time is slowed when it isn't.

Quote
Your two theoretic points, (1) as to whether the speed of travel or the altitude has a greater effect on time, and (2) that the rate of time in clocks sent to strongly magnetic bodies in space has been measured, I don't see as bearing on the question of what the rate would be in an outer space region where magnetic fields aren't strong.

If your theory predicts a slowing of light, away from magnetic fields, I would expect substantial optical effects around a magnetar and those could be looked for very easily. However, since it now appears that you don't think light is slowed in this way, that problem is resolved - you just don't have a slowing of time in deep space.

Quote
Finally, I would insert my opinion that my aether model should not have to hinge on the question of assessing how it affects the rate of time in space, in the face of these other, possibly-complicating, factors.

It most certainly should hinge on that when you're making such a claim about time being slowed in deep space - if that is required by a theory and does not show up in the real universe, the theory is in need of major surgery to fix it.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Mr. Cooper,

You continue to cite observational data made using earthbound quantum-mediated tools, the human eye being one such tool. You then seem to be asking for a perfect "fit" with certain such data for entertaining my aether model in any way.

Theoretic perfection may not be attainable in the arena of quantum versus aether theory. Quantists tend to pile on hypotheses and agree by consensus to support each other. -I believe there are also a number of non-random (extraterrestrial) celestial factors that can affect this "arena," and muddy the waters. -I'm not going to comment on your point about "light clocks" having settled any issues.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
MichaelMD - Can you please post the logical reasoning behind your conclusions about time running slower at higher points about the ground?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
Quantists tend to pile on hypotheses and agree by consensus to support each other.
Good Lord! Where on Earth did you ever get such an wild idea from? Do you actually think that we physicists have a voting booth to determine what the group thinks upon which an edict is issued tell us how to think? That's how you're making it sound.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Mr. Cooper,

You continue to cite observational data made using earthbound quantum-mediated tools, the human eye being one such tool. You then seem to be asking for a perfect "fit" with certain such data for entertaining my aether model in any way.

Well, if you're satisfied with an imperfect fit where what the theory describes is wildly in conflict with reality, why does your theory need to be tested at all? Why throw money into a test that isn't needed, because however badly it might fit your predictions, it'll do just fine.

Quote
I'm not going to comment on your point about "light clocks" having settled any issues.

I can't say I'm surprised. Who's going to take you seriously if you ignore something that shows time manifestly running faster for a light clock than for a different kind of clock that is slowed at the same location? If you attribute slowed time to the slowed clock while ignoring the unaffected light clock, you are making a monumental error.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
To D. Cooper's last Post:

OK, I will answer your "light clock" question from the perspective of my aether model.

A light clock runs faster when in motion because the technological presence of light-energy has "queered" the natural setting from the magnetic-energy-level standpoint. -The infra-atomic, or aetheric, energy units of the clock's structure have been "artificially" energized to a higher magnetic energy setting. -Light is a high-energy application, from the aetheric energy standpoint. It has a relatively high amount of "pure" electron/photon aetheric elemental energy units acting linearly. -This makes the magnetic energy level in the clock much higher than in another type of clock.

In my aether model, one would not have magnetic energy as one form of energy, light energy as a separate form of energy, and the like. (Even gravity falls into the model as a basically-related form of energy.)
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
PmbPhy:

In my aether model, time runs slower above the ground (as in an atomic clock in an airplane), because of two factors. -One, the motion of the clock inside the plane means the infra-structure of the clock - the aetheric elemental energy units making up the clock's ultimate structure - are encountering an increase in the amount of ambient aether units in the regional space, than if the clock were stationary. This means the clock is resonating with the aether of space at a higher level, which slows the clock, because the magnetization state of the clock is lower.

This question gets more complicated if continued in more detail. -One complicating factor in my model is that there is an artificially higher level of aether, close to the ground, because there are extraterrestrial groups tapping aether energy occultly, that we are not aware of. -This would further explain why the rate of time speeds up again when measured by atomic clocks at a somewhat higher level, as in an orbiting satellite. -In the latter case, my model would explain the faster rate of time at the orbiting level as due to Earth's magnetic field, which is active at that level. -In my model, if one were to measure the rate of time in pure outer space, away from the influence of magnetic fields, the rate of time would be slower, as it is in the space region nearer the ground. -The slowing of time near the ground would be due to the fact that (due to occult aether technology) there is an increased aether there, which acquires its slower time setting by resonating with the aether of outer space, which is the over riding controlling time setting for any other (microcosmic) aether setting. -The two predominantly-aetheric regions resonate with each other because they share the same composition of extremely-rarified energy units.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
A light clock runs faster when in motion...

Wrong way round. Try to get the basics right before you waste your time trying to build a theory on top of them.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
D. Cooper:

I agree that that portion of my answer to your question was wrongly worded. I had answered your question the way I understood your meaning initially. -However, I believe you are now wrong by dismissing my entire answer on the basis of my misinterpreting what you had stated as the conditions of the setting for comparing light clocks and other clocks with respect to their time rates.

The basic question you had posed was "why would a light clock run faster than another type of clock," and my basic answer stands. The idea of my aether model is that light energy is closely resonant with magnetic energy (that at the elemental aether unit level, photonic aether units are resonating dynamically with electronic aether units, and that these two energy manifestations are very similar and both are very linear.) -So citing the time rate difference between a light clock and another type of clock should include realizing that, due to its makeup, the light clock is intrinsically magnetically energized itself. Therefore, a light clock's comparative rate of time relative to other clocks would not be a function of the ambient magnetism setting, which is the answer to your basic question.
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Well, my aim has been to make sure you have taken these things into account, and I will now assume that you have. I wish you luck with developing your theory further and hope what I have said will help you to present it better so that other people don't just stop reading when they spot what look like basic errors. Anything that could easily be mistaken for such an error needs to have a note attached to it to explain it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length