The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16087 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #25 on: 13/02/2016 13:12:10 »
Quote from: TheBox
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?

These lasers are managed very closely to prevent unexpected variations in amplitude and frequency. There is actually some intentional variations in power that are used to provide a calibration signal, and also to inject test signals that can verify correct operation of the hardware and software.

One of the changes during the recent sensitivity upgrade was the use of homodyne receivers, which have much less noise than crude detection of the signal amplitude.

I can assure you that an EMP pulse or solar flare would have been noticed by more than just these detectors.

How about you tell us the real reason you don't like black holes? (...instead of just throwing up smokescreens?)

Who said I do  not like black holes?  I just thought it odd people declared that the detection was two black holes merging, I may accept the gravitation wave, I have a laser and experimented myself last night using some Mgyver science,

I managed to curve the beam, create a split laser like the dual slit experiment result, and recorded something that I can only describe as individual photons,even an image that looked like a persons face ,but I could not gravitationally affect the beam.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #26 on: 19/02/2016 01:38:44 »
I have a laser and experimented myself last night using some Mgyver science,

I managed to curve the beam, create a split laser like the dual slit experiment result, and recorded something that I can only describe as individual photons,even an image that looked like a persons face ,but I could not gravitationally affect the beam.

Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #27 on: 19/02/2016 02:26:46 »


Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
So true, so true chiral. Where's MacGyver we need him. Of a truth, I think Mr. Box is jiving us about what he was really doing in his bedroom last night. I usually intend on preforming very different kinds of experiments in my personal bedroom, oh-well, what's that old saying about the fly on the wall................?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #28 on: 19/02/2016 12:31:10 »


Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
So true, so true chiral. Where's MacGyver we need him. Of a truth, I think Mr. Box is jiving us about what he was really doing in his bedroom last night. I usually intend on preforming very different kinds of experiments in my personal bedroom, oh-well, what's that old saying about the fly on the wall................?
YOU have seen my laser experiments before, I am always messing with light, I do not gest, do you forget the seemingly atoms I observed before by my own type of spectroscopy,  but I agree to they detected something,
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #29 on: 19/02/2016 13:43:46 »
Everyone with half a brain knows space behind the light and mass is made of nothing, nothing can not ripple or wave.
I don't see it that way, but I am not missing 50% of my brain, either. Light is made of electromagnetic energy, specifically, an electric component, and a magnetic component.

I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass. My favorite way to state that principle is, "Energy is unbound mass that travels through space, mass is bound energy that occupies a location in space."

You mentioned light specifically, so think about a massless photon. I'm going to oversimplify here to try to be clear. Everything moves in a 3 dimensional space described by three axes, x, y and z. In the case of a photon, you have a wave in the x plane (electric component) and a wave in the y plane (magnetic component) traveling through space together at speed c. Like this:

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2014/Amanda_Mcpherson/Amanda_McPherson/em_electric_magnetic_propagating_waves.jpg

What is not possible is to include a third wave along the z plane simultaneously. Simultaneous forward motion along all three axes cannot occur. The z axis in that image I linked to is perpendicular to both the other axes, so any "forward" motion along that axis would take a particle AWAY from the other two axes. Consequently, what was forward motion for the wave along the x and y axes becomes an oscillation back and forth about the z axis. Energy is conserved, so the momentum that was previously dedicated to forward motion through space becomes an oscillation at a location designated by where the z axis intersected the x and y axes.

This is what is meant by the phrase I got from a quote on a Tool album, "Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration." Forward motion at speed c along the x and y axes becomes an oscillation at a location in space designated by their intersection with a z axis. I like to think of this as a "particle in a box" model. The "box" is the space around the intersection of all three axes about which the waves oscillate. Light has no mass because it is not "in a box." It only has two dimensions, x and y. When it becomes binding energy by being absorbed by an atom at location x,y,z, THEN it is in a box, and contributes a bit of mass to the system.

The more I learn about this stuff, the more my opinions change from those previously held. These days, I am starting to think that everything is actually made of spacetime, including energy. Energy is merely a ripple in spacetime. When you confine those ripples to a location with 3 coordinates, that spacetime gets "tangled up" into a particle. That "snag" pulls a little bit on the surrounding spacetime fabric, which is gravity. That's what gives things "mass." The more particles in a mass, the more "tangling" to pull on the fabric of spacetime, which warps it.

Two black holes colliding is like two giant "snarls" in the fabric of spacetime becoming instantly interwoven, which gives the entire fabric a nice tug momentarily.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 14:13:30 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #30 on: 19/02/2016 18:54:56 »
We've already been over how this statement is very wrong. To review:

There is nothing that in general prevents a wave from having oscillations in all three dimensions. By your theory no way should simultaneously have transverse and longitudinal components. However, it has long been known that earthquakes produce both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously. These are called s and p waves. Now the dispersion of these two types of oscillation are different so parts of the wave move faster than other parts and the wave has a whole gets (for lack of a better term) torn apart over time. If you don't like earthquakes than there are also water waves which can also support waves with transverse and longitudinal components and here I'm not just talking about wave on the surface of the water. If you don't like water waves then there are phonons in solids. Like photons they can be quantized and treated like particles under certain conditions but a quite clearly waves under most conditions. Yet they too can have longitudinal and transverse components. Heck even photons themselves can have longitudinal components under certain circumstances (like when the propagate in a medium other than free space). So your argument that a wave cannot oscillate in 3 dimensions is strictly counter to observed reality.

Now about energy. Energy isn't a thing. Energy is a property of things just like mass is a property of things. Things that have an invariant mass have a rest frame and have the property we generally call mass while things that don't do not have a rest frame do not have the property of mass. Both have the property of energy. The energy of a photon is just the energy in the electromagnetic fields of the photon. The energy of any particle is just the energy in the excitation of the field that makes up the particle (and at the moment every particle is thought to have its own field). To reiterate energy is a property not a thing.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #31 on: 20/02/2016 15:19:47 »
We've already been over how this statement is very wrong. To review:

There is nothing that in general prevents a wave from having oscillations in all three dimensions. By your theory no way should simultaneously have transverse and longitudinal components.
Good, then let's go over how you are very wrong:

1) I NEVER said there can't be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if there's already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say.

2) I have not presented a "theory" here, nor did I even use language to suggest it is a theory. Again, learn to read. Similes, analogies, models, opinions, thoughts and musings are NOT theories.

3) You never like my analogies, but here, you have compared a photon to an earthquake. LOL

This is not physforum.com, I see you have followed me from there, and I am not interested in having people lie about me or misrepresent the things I've said. Check my statement. It reads, and I quote, "I'm going to oversimplify here to try to be clear." Now, leave me the hell alone, or I WILL ask a moderator for help. Maybe you can't read, but they can. Stop making false statements.
« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 15:43:00 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #32 on: 20/02/2016 21:37:01 »
Quote
1) I NEVER said there cant be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if theres already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say.

Which happens to be the same as saying a traveling wave like that from an earthquake can not have longitudinal and transverse components and still be a traveling wave which is untrue.

Quote
I have not presented a "theory" here, nor did I even use language to suggest it is a theory. Again, learn to read. Similes, analogies, models, opinions, thoughts and musings are NOT theories.

I was using theory in the common sense of the word not the scientific sense. Obviously your statements are not developed enough to be a scientific theory (maybe a hypothesis but not a theory). In common parlance any attempt to explain some fact, like the existence of particles, falls under the definition of theory.

Quote
You never like my analogies, but here, you have compared a photon to an earthquake. LOL

I never compared anything to anything. I gave examples of traveling waves that had properties that you suggested should not be possible.

Quote
This is not physforum.com, I see you have followed me from there, and I am not interested in having people lie about me or misrepresent the things Ive said. Check my statement. It reads, and I quote, "Im going to oversimplify here to try to be clear." Now, leave me the hell alone, or I WILL ask a moderator for help. Maybe you cant read, but they can. Stop making false statements.

For starters there is a difference between oversimplification and just being incorrect. Furthermore, someone that points out that you are incorrect is not automatically misrepresenting what you have said or not telling the truth. I have also not followed you here at all which is completely clear by looking at posting records. I posted here on February 5th in a thread about light which is had nothing to do with you and falls neatly into a period of inactivity by you that started on January 30th and ended on February 14th. So my most recent post before my post to you was not related to you can came a week after your last post and a week before your next post.

You can contact a moderator if you want but I have done nothing but point out where you were incorrect. I did not accuse you of anything and I am still not doing so.

To any moderator that will eventually read this I apologize. I should have anticipated this reaction and perhaps not corrected the errors that I saw.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #33 on: 21/02/2016 15:07:05 »

Quote
I NEVER said there cant be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if theres already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say
Which happens to be the same as saying a traveling wave like that from an earthquake can not have longitudinal and transverse components and still be a traveling wave which is untrue.

You can contact a moderator if you want but I have done nothing but point out where you were incorrect. I did not accuse you of anything and I am still not doing so.
Yes, you did. Here you have accused me of something I didn't say. You are incorrect. I didn't say anything stupid about earthquakes. That was you. Of course, an earthquake is not an analogous motion to what I'm talking about. An earthquake is not three fundamental, indivisible wave components, nor is an earthquake a fundamental mass/energy conversion at the particle level. An earthquake spreads out in 3 dimensions, x, y and z.

Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.

If you say anything other than that, I am afraid you're the one who is mistaken.
« Last Edit: 21/02/2016 15:09:39 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #34 on: 21/02/2016 15:23:05 »
Firstly you are both missing the point, that XYZ are virtual lines in a n-dimensional space. Secondly you are missing the point that all waves and all waves travel through space.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2014/Amanda_Mcpherson/Amanda_McPherson/em_electric_magnetic_propagating_waves.jpg

Consider the background in the link is a void of n-dimensional space and all matter is in motion relative to this stationary reference frame of 0.

I defined nothing in another thread, nothing has two meanings, 0 and ∞0.

Just consider what I have just said, and consider that nothing is also a negative and then you may understand .

In my own words it is a bit like this, nothing is adjoined to nothing, but something always wants to displace something,

When I mention real-antimatter I am referring to Electromagnetic radiation, and when I mention matter I am referring to negative in this context.


I have a few ideas about the information you gave me about the magnetic component and electrical component, but maybe they are best not mentioned ,

There is a strange liking to magnetic bottling and being inside of a ''box''.

 








 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #35 on: 21/02/2016 20:45:30 »
Quote
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.

Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #36 on: 21/02/2016 21:56:05 »
Quote
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.

Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.

I agree to a point.








 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #37 on: 22/02/2016 08:27:01 »
WE could discuss Cambridge University and the 5th dimension black hole, that could prove Relativity wrong.


 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #38 on: 22/02/2016 17:15:23 »
Quote
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.

Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.
Whatever. If I had said photons DO spread out, you would argue that point to. That's all you do. Argue. It's boring.

Photons DON'T spread out in three dimensions indefinitely or they could be described as an expanding sphere; they travel in a straight line, not an expanding sphere.

Long story short, a photon cannot travel in a straight line when it is absorbed by an atom as binding energy. It becomes even more localized than when it was a free photon.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #39 on: 22/02/2016 20:38:51 »
Whatever. If I had said photons DO spread out, you would argue that point to. That's all you do. Argue. It's boring.

That is unnecessarily hostile.

Photons DON'T spread out in three dimensions indefinitely or they could be described as an expanding sphere; they travel in a straight line, not an expanding sphere.

Photons are more accurately described as a wave packet. In general this wave packet has an intensity envelope which peaks at what might be called the center of the photon and decays to infinitesimally near zero at some distance away (the exact shape and thus distance can very and this same argument applies to all quantum things). In a perfect vacuum the length of this packet (distance from the middle to either end in the direction of travel) does not change with time for a photon because the dispersion relation for a photon in a perfect vacuum is linear in the direction of travel. The wave packet still spreads transversely over time. In any non-perfect vacuum case the dispersion in the direction of travel can be such that the wave packet spreads out or under the right circumstances gets shorter in basically any combination of directions relative to the direction of travel. However, your first statement never mentioned anything about three dimensions and your new statement is clearly self contradictory as there is clearly a middle ground between a sphere and a line (namely an arc). That and an increase in a wave packet length in the direction of travel doesn't even correspond to an expanding sphere. In fact it is perfectly possible for the center of wave packet to continue in a straight line (which they do in general unless acted on by a force) while the wave packet itself changes shape getting bigger or smaller. Wave packet shape and trajectory are largely (but not completely) separate things.

Long story short, a photon cannot travel in a straight line when it is absorbed by an atom as binding energy. It becomes even more localized than when it was a free photon.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. The properties that it once had (i.e. at least some of the information it carried) is transferred to whatever absorbed it but the oscillating electric and magnetic fields that were that photon are gone completely. Before the absorption of the photon the electron clouds of the atom are stationary (disregarding thermal vibrations) and after the absorption of the photon they return to being stationary (disregarding identical thermal vibrations with maybe a slightly higher temperature depending on many factors). The excited electronic state has slightly different values of energy and orbital angular momentum which store some of the properties of the photon and the atom as a whole usually recoils a bit absorbing some of the photon's linear momentum and a little energy. After the absorption of the photon is finished there are no oscillations of any part of the atom that can be said to be a bound photon.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #40 on: 23/02/2016 15:36:34 »

That is unnecessarily hostile.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist.
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile. Needlessly shoving information down my throat that I already know is also hostile, at both sites.

No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.






 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #41 on: 23/02/2016 18:08:39 »
Quote
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile.

I've already proven that I did not follow you anywhere.

Quote
No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.

This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #42 on: 24/02/2016 14:55:55 »
This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #43 on: 24/02/2016 17:57:40 »
Quote
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #44 on: 25/02/2016 13:54:20 »
Quote
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
I request that you practice what you preach, earthquake photon.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #45 on: 25/02/2016 14:15:04 »
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #46 on: 26/02/2016 15:34:14 »
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
Are you idealistic or just naive? That's not how this works. You're not familiar with this guy. He followed me here from physforum.com. That place was a madhouse. The wolves have been left in charge of the chicken coop. People like him are the reason I joined here in the first place. I WANT a forum with moderators. He's not going to resolve anything with me.

And I don't really care what the topic is, IF somebody makes a misstatement, defies fact, or contradicts what I know about science in a thread, I'm going to try to get a word in. This guy has been acting like the final authority on physics for almost a year now, and I'm not particularly happy to see him here. I truly hate it when people obfuscate the issues just to win an argument, like comparing photons to earthquakes which he just did a few posts back. Ridiculous.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #47 on: 26/02/2016 17:34:45 »

Are you idealistic or just naive?
I'm not totally familiar with the dispute you two are involved in, I simply suggested that you both try to settle down a little. Has nothing to do with idealism and at my advanced age, I wouldn't consider myself nave at all. What ever your problems are with each other, everyone has the right to express their views here at TNS.

If you don't care to engage each other, simply apply the ignore feature of our forum. Neither of you has the right to refuse the other's participation here. If you disagree with each other, it's easy enough to state your objections and allow everyone else to consider the merits of those objections. Problem solved!

As I've already suggested, if you can't get along with each other, acquaint each other with our ignore feature. It works for me, should also work for you.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson

And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2016 17:42:44 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #48 on: 28/02/2016 15:00:31 »
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson

And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
That was taken out of context. Of course I care what the topic is, but nobody is going to learn anything if he posts contradictory information and nobody calls him on it or ignores it just because it was off topic.

Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents? Because I came here to talk about science, not to get scolded.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #49 on: 28/02/2016 17:02:43 »


Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.



 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #49 on: 28/02/2016 17:02:43 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums