• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Lambda-CDM: What good is their so called "research" program?

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Jan 28, 2016.

  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    I just happened to drop by ISF (formerly JREF) for the first time in awhile to see what nonsense they are spewing at the moment, and I noticed a recent thread entitled "Electric Universe: has there ever been a scientific research program?"

    In that thread, they seem to be insinuating that EU/PC ideas cannot or have not been "tested" in lab, or that the EU/PC community is not interested in real life experiments. The irony of course is that EU/PC theory began it's existence based upon a series of laboratory experiments by Birkeland, all of which produced many successful predictions which have since been confirmed by satellites in space. From his experiments in the lab, Birkeland successfully predicted the existence of Birkeland currents in aurora, both types of high speed charged particles flowing from the sun, discharges in the solar atmosphere, coronal loops, polar jets, etc. All of these predictions were directly related to a "research program", as were all the recent SAFIRE experiments. In fact, because EU/PC ideas are all based upon pure empirical physics, many if not all of the core tenets can (and already have) been tested in the lab, and they have produced successful results.

    We would *love* to have the public financial resources to conduct additional experiments. I for one would love the scientific community to drop 10 million dollars to recreate Birkeland's experiments using modern equipment, but alas the mainstream keeps pouring all our public funds into big holes in the ground, only to simply ignore the outcome of their so called "research".

    Lambda-CDM has been a *complete disaster* in the lab. Not only are they incapable of even empirically researching supernatural claims like "expanding space" in a lab, or "inflation" in a lab, their beloved dark matter of the gaps claims have been falsified in the lab in every single experiment they have conducted. The mainstream doesn't even care about the outcome of the "research" as it relates to their own belief systems. If they did, they would have abandoned their claims about exotic matter already. They spent billions of dollars "researching" their beloved and sacred SUSY theory at LHC, and not a single predicted "sparticle" showed it's ugly face. They poured tens of millions of dollars down several holes at LUX, PandaX, AMDx, electron roundness tests, etc and again, not a single prediction they made was worth the paper it was printed on. They came up entirely empty and they simply do not care about the outcome of such research in the first place!

    The mainstream has no way to even "research" most of their claims in the lab, and the few claims that can be "tested" all got blown out of the water.

    That whole ISF thread is a joke. Lambda-CDM proponents don't actually do any real "research" that can or ever has had any effect at all on their "beliefs". In spite of their spectacular string of failures to find "dark matter", they simply ignore any and all "tests" entirely. They still write insistently about "WIMPS" in spite of the lab results that falsified all the popular models. They still write about mythical axions too though AMDx saw nothing of the sort. Their beef with EU/PC theory is therefore a joke.

    We would *love* to have the public funds to do some serious empirical research, but they're constantly wasting those precious funds conducting "research" that doesn't matter to them one iota, and burying their collective heads in the sand with respect to the results of that research.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Since I've been virtually executed at ISF, I think I'll respond to JeanTate here instead and they're welcome to comment here if they dare:

    Yes Jean. In fact EU/PC theory began it's life in a lab with the experiments conducted by Kristian Birkeland. Some of us would *love* to recreate those experiments using much more modern equipment and such, but alas all the public funds keep getting poured into holes in the ground to try to support Lambda-CDM, and all those null results are simply being ignored anyway. What a huge waste of effort, and what a great example of why Lambda-CDM cannot actually be falsified via direct experimentation.

    Well, maybe the reason we're no longer as vocal at ISF has to the do with the fact that you folks could not handle us or handle reality, and therefore you banned most of us, including me. How ironic that you'd you whine about our silence when there has been a concerted effort to silence us publicly.

    Aside from SAFIRE and other experiments on plasma physics? FYI, SAFIRE didn't produce "null results", it produced many observations that were consistent with solar physical observations. Lerner (and many other folks) have conducted many experiments with plasma in the lab. Inelastic scattering experiments could also be conducted in the lab with actual public funding. Birkeland's work can also be recreated and no, SAFIRE didn't replicate Birkeland's whole range of experiments. There wasn't enough time or funding spent to conduct an exhaustive study on cathode configurations. Almost everything about EU/PC theory can and should be tested in a lab, but there isn't any public funding beings spent on it!

    Jean, did you even bother to read Birkelands work with respect to his experiments? If not, why are looking for more empirical experiments if you're not even personally interested in the results of the experiments that have been done?

    You're baffled by a lack of current funding, or baffled because you haven't bothered to research anything actually done so far?

    Of course. We are *all* interested in the SAFIRE experiments, the experiments done to recreate inelastic scattering in plasma, etc. The problem is that we don't have access to public funds!

    What do you figure those SAFIRE experiments were designed to do? Note that SAFIRE didn't even have the chance yet to replicate the full range of experiments that Birkeland did himself over 100 years ago. It takes serious money to build those types of experiments. LHC spent *billions* only to falsify every popular SUSY theory on the books. LUX, Pandax, AMDx ect, all spent *tens of millions of dollars* to find exactly nothing! When the mainstream *wastes* those kinds of financial resources, it *hurts* us.

    I'll tell you what Jean, just hand me 10 million dollars and I'll be happy to fix you right up. All I'd need are matching funds that have already been wasted at LUX and I promise you that I will find useful results related to solar physics that are directly related to Birkeland's cathode sun theories. Without such serious funding however, world class type research on these topics isn't possible.

    I'd also love to conduct a series of tests related to various types of inelastic scattering that occur in plasma environments. Unlike the bogus claims about "space expansion" causing photon redshift, real life inelastic scattering processes can and have been empirically linked to photon redshift.

    I'd also be willing to explore fusion processes in high energy discharges if I had the funds.

    The sky is basically the limit with respect to experimenting with various EU/PC ideas, but alas our lunch keeps being eaten by the mainstream in terms of funding, and they keep ignoring their null results anyway, so their experiments are useless!

    The hypocrisy of the mainstream knows no bounds. They take all the money from the public funds, they squander it in holes in the ground, and they ignore the results of those experiments anyway. If they don't find something, they simply spend more money finding even more "nothing". Lather, rinse, repeat. Then they have the sheer audacity to blame our community for not having the funds to do more research. Oy Vey!
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Well, for starters, Birkeland's basic model was a cathode model, whereas the SAFIRE project was based upon an anode model. It would be good to test a whole range of various possibilities, but that takes serious funding. It's not simply a rehash of Birkeland's work however because we can do spectral analysis like the SAFIRE project, and we can compare our results to solar satellite imagery. SAFIRE was a good start, but it's only just the beginning of what could be done with further research funding.

    Your beloved mainstream pours money into holes in the ground, finds nothing, asks for more money to pour into the same hole again, finds nothing again, and then ask for more funding to pour down the same hole in the ground! How many LUX failures will suffice anyway?

    Bingo. There's all sorts of empirical tests that could be done with enough cash. It's not ideas that are the problem, it's money.

    Well Jean, that's why I created this thread for you over here on neutral ground. I'll be happy to address any and all of your questions on a site where we can both post.

    The concept of an "electric comet" isn't even appealing to me personally, and I've been clear about that point everywhere I've posted, even on Thunderbolts. I'm not a big fan of an anode solar model for that matter, but at least some amount heresy is apparently acceptable at Thunderbolts.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Considering my banning for my heresy at JREF (ISF), that's a rather ironic and amusing comment. :)
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    It does in fact "test" (rather empirically I might add) the whole concept of an electric sun. It didn't test all the potential wiring configurations, AC/DC possibilities, etc. It did test a "few" of the "electric sun" theories, including the presence of highly ionized plasma around the sphere, and *higher temperatures* than the sphere itself no less! How much BS did I hear about how that was physically impossible while I posted at JREF? There's you're empirical demonstration that your claims about the surface of the sphere being as hot as the surrounding plasma was pure nonsense. They demonstrated that it works the way that I said it works in the lab!

    I assume they discussed their spectral analysis observations, and how they compare to solar atmospheric analysis?

    You suspect not, based upon what evidence?

    I didn't even get any "pretty pictures" from LUX experiments of any "dark matter". LHC could not even produce any pretty pictures of your mythical invisible "cold dark" matter, and they spent *billions* with a B!

    How about the papers by Alfven. In years of online debates, I've yet to see any of you hot shots find a single mathematical flaw in any of his over 100 published papers on circuit theory as it applies to objects in space. Ditto for anything related to Birkeland's maths. The only way you're going to get better quantification is to do better empirical experiments using better measuring equipment.

    At least we can actually measure the tangible empirical effect of current flowing from a sphere, through a plasma. You guys can't even claim that much with respect to your exotic matter of the gaps claim.

    Your mythical matter claims were proven wrong at LHC, LUX, Pandax, AMDx, the electron roundness tests, and all those revelations of stellar and plasma underestimates you made of baryonic matter in 2006. At least have the common decency to spend a few bucks on researching the effect of the flow of current through plasma. At least have the common decency to judge the paper on it's own merits and statements too.

    By the way, that Bicep2 fiasco only demonstrates the mainstream's propensity for hyping their claims, and then biting the dust later on. That was classic "jumping the shark behavior", and there were a lot of authors on that paper. All the 5 sigma hype bit the dust in mere months. How much money did we blow on Bicep2? Will Bicep3 be another exercise in them trying to claim they can absolutely rule out all other sources of polarized photons in the universe in three paragraphs or less?

    Even your beloved "standard candles" have been shown to not be standard, and instead of allowing your theory to be "proven wrong", you cling to a theory that is 95 percent supernatural dogma on a stick!
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2016
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian

    Well, you may be over educated in terms of your carpentry skills, and other topics too for that matter, but your understanding of EU/PC history, theory and *applied physics* is woefully lacking. :(

    I tend to "believe" in ideas that I can actually see working in a lab.
     
  7. comingfrom

    comingfrom New Member

    5
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Thank you, Michael

    In five minutes, one would already be going through the process of seeing idols falling.
    I can imagine, when they see their loved and longheld concepts coming apart, that they are baffled.

    Getting one's head around a whole new paradigm takes more than 5 minutes.
    And you might have to sacrifice a few idols along the way.:hug:
    ~Paul
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Ya, it typically takes more than five minutes to really understand just about any cosmology theory. Unfortunately in this case it probably takes years to fully read through Birkeland's work, Alfven's work, Peratt's work, Lerner's work, and a few textbooks on MHD theory, and only then might you hope to have some concept of a circuit oriented plasma cosmology theory. I doubt most of them even understand circuit theory, and few if any of the EU/PC haters on the internet have ever read a textbook on MHD theory.

    Meanwhile they simply ignore all the failures in the lab at LHC, at LUX, PandaX, AMDx, electron roundness tests, etc, and they ignore the fact that their so called "standard candles" turned out to be less than standard. They ignore the fact that they utterly and completely botched the stellar mass estimates in that dark matter lensing study in 2006 by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20, and they underestimated the number of stars between galaxies, and the plasma around galaxies as well.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

    The mainstream has the worst case of confirmation bias in the history of physics, and they aren't willing to invest even 10 minutes of time trying to approach spacetime from the perspective of empirical physics even when it works in the lab and they can see it working with their own eyes. :(
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2016
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    That's why I started this thread on this forum for you Jean. Nobody here is going to ban you over your beliefs related to EU/PC theory on this forum. You have pure freedom here to say whatever silly things you wish to say, including trying to label a form of pure empirical physics "anti-science" if that floats your boat.

    We both know you won't have a one on one real time debate with me on this topic here, or anywhere else for that matter. We both know that you can't support any of your beliefs with actual physics, including labeling a form of empirical physics "anti-science" while you personally peddle four supernatural invisible sky deities.

    Birkeland's entire body of work is a "novel test" of electric sun theories, and were all the SAFIRE experiments. Before we go pouring money down another hole looking for invisible, impotent on Earth forms of exotic matter, these experiments should be funded and looked at again using modern technologies. These are by far the most productive tests of electric universe theory as evidenced by the fact that Birkeland correctly "predicted" that both types of high speed charged particles came from the sun, polar jet, cathode rays, discharges in the solar atmosphere, etc.

    There's little point in going through ISF looking at old posts. One obvious claim I've made for years at various boards on the internet that turned out to be a verified observation in the lab is the belief that the surface of the sphere would be cooler than the surrounding plasma in the atmosphere around the sphere. SAFIRE demonstrated that in the lab. Nice!

    I also posted some ideas to test specific aspects of the mass separated model I personally support, specifically I'd like to see the sun in several wavelengths related to the ionization state of neon. I'd expect to see the whole surface of the photosphere glowing rather brightly in lower ionization states +1,+2,+3 of neon.

    We can test the formation of coronal loops in the lab, polar jets, all the stuff that Birkeland's model has already successfully produced, whereas in a 100 years of research, none of that has ever been done with "magnetic reconnection" theory. In fact most of the experiments labeled "magnetic reconnection" requires electric current to make them work. :)


    Meanwhile all your so called "tests" of "dark matter" falsified all your fun and fancy maths that apparently have no relationship to reality in any way shape or form. What's the point of testing your claims when you refuse to even consider any null results in the first place?


    Chen's work with current carrying plasma seems like the most interesting to me. He demonstrated that the amount of free electrons in the plasma directly relates to the amount of photon redshift observed in the experiment. He used just a single wavelength, whereas I'd like to test a whole serious of them.

    Well, the first temperature ranges and densities I'd be inclined to test would be directly related to that million degree plasma we found that surrounds every galaxy in the universe.

    https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-331.html

    Speaking of more meat and less whining, when can expect an actually *positive* result from any "dark matter" tests? My lifetime? What's the purpose of "testing" your claims when you don't care about null results?


    RC's entire debate style is related to trashing *people*, not ideas, and he hasn't even read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics, so who cares what RC thinks?
     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian


    There you go Jean. Using Birkeland's cathode model, we can successfully predict high temperature plasma will surround the surface of the cathode, there will be discharges in the solar atmosphere, and the current flow from the sun to the Earth will create aurora.

    By the way, that expectation of current flow between the Sun and the Earth is a "successful prediction" that has already been confirmed by satellites in space, just like every other one of Birkeland's key solar system predictions.

    http://www.universetoday.com/12267/magnetic-ropes-connect-the-northern-lights-to-the-solar-wind/
     
  11. comingfrom

    comingfrom New Member

    5
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    Not to mention, commercial industry has fully tested, and is using electric discharge machining for surfacing materials.

    Simple laboratory experiments replicate crater formation with electric discharge, showing that most craters are not formed by meteorite impacts.

    Both types of craters made in lab tests here
    http://www.setterfield.org/crater_origins/crater_origins.html
     
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    In case you didn't notice, a lot of atheists post to Christianforums, and I've yet to see any of them get banned for dissing on EU/PC theory, or for supporting big bang theory. In terms of neutrality towards various cosmology theories, there isn't a more "neutral" forum on the internet.

    No can do. Apparently they burn their witches at the stake and they limit "against the mainstream" conversations of this nature to 30 days tops. :(

    I don't really feel like going through 8 months of threads looking for various predictions, but I A) predicted that a solid surface radiating at a lower temp could be located under the surface of the photosphere, and SAFIRE actually verified that possibility in actual laboratory measurements of the surface of their sphere compared to plasma in the atmosphere around the sphere. I also predicted that neon at the surface of the photosphere would be highly ionized. These are both unique predictions I made.

    Birkeland however made a whole series of prediction related to solar physics, including the prediction of both types of high speed particles flowing from the sun, polar jets, cathode rays, and current in the Earth's aurora. All of them have been verified by satellites in space. There has never been a day when Birkeland's solar model did not make verifiable, and even *falsifiable* predictions. Compare and contrast that with your dark matter entity who failed to show up at LHC, LUX, PandaX and AMDx and who simply won't and can't die a "natural" empirical death. The dark dogma is apparently impervious to falsification.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089

    Sure. I'd be interested in duplicating Chen's work with current carrying plasma to see if we can verify his claim that photon redshift is related to free electrons in the plasma. I'd also be inclined to test various pressures and types of plasma to see what net effects we can achieve in real labs with real photon in real life "tests".

    Compare and contrast that with your impotent on Earth "space expansion/acceleration" claims which have *never* had any tangible effect on a single photon on Earth, nor could it ever do so.

    Er, why do you need any "meat" in the first place? Exactly what dark matter "meat" did you folks produce at LHC, LUX, PandaX or AMDx? What *exactly* does it take to falsify your invisible friends anyway? Care to be specific about any test that would actually falsify your claims about invisible cold dark matter?

    All things considered, there isn't any empirical meat to any of your dark matter experiments or claims to be found in those millions of dollars you blew on dark matter. Why do you even care about experimentation when you don't care one iota about any negative results in the first place? Why aren't your negative and useless dark matter "tests" a measure of the value of your claim? Why the blatant double standard?
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Er, no. The irony is that if you actually combined EU theory and the concept of God, you end up with a highly *visible*, light emitting God in the form of Pantheism/Panentheism, unlike all your invisible space expansion/acceleration sky deities. Irony overload. You're giving homage to four invisible sky entities and trying to discredit a "visible" concept of God? Wow!
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Um, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Velikovshky's stuff is just silly from my perspective, and I don't even share the solar beliefs of Talbott or Thornhill. It's really sad that you folks are reduced to burning petty strawmen, and blatantly misrepresenting my beliefs. :( Typical.
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Jean, I'd still like to see you address my question. What value is there in terms of "testing" your claims empirically in the lab, only to ignore every null result on the planet? We all know that the baryonic mass estimates made in that 2006 lensing study wasn't worth the paper they were printed on.

    http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

    You folks underestimated the number of entire stars and solar systems by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy! Holy smokes! There was the vast majority of any "missing mass". Then in 2012 the other shoe fell when we found all your "missing baryons" at million degree temperatures surrounding the entire galaxy. You never noticed it because you were looking at the wrong (low energy) wavelengths. It was never 'dark matter', in fact it shows up quite nicely in the correct wavelengths for plasma at those temperatures.

    There was never any need for exotic forms of matter to explain any lensing data. Ordinary plasma will and does suffice to explain it all. The only reason you're exploring any exotic forms of matter at this point in time is because you're stuck on a denial-go-round with respect to your botched baryonic mass estimates in 2006, and because of your confirmation bias with respect to Lambda-CDM. No amount of failures in the lab seem to matter. LHC didn't matter. LUX didn't matter, PandaX didn't matter, AMDx results didn't matter. Cresst-I and Cresst-II results didn't make any difference either. Every single team on the planet is sitting in the hole in the ground looking for something that was never necessary to explain lensing data from space, and isn't part of the standard physics model in the first place.

    There have been so many strike outs in the lab now, they've begun to "spin" the headlines as they see fit:

    Bright sparks haven't shed any light on anything. That's apparently a "statement of faith" in something they failed to see when the blew money their first "experiment", and failed to see again when they blew more money on the second round of experiments, but they're sure hoping to see it next time, so give us more money!

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160201103551.htm

    Oy Vey.

    What's the purpose of testing the various mathematical models to see of your claims had any merit if you won't even take no for an answer even after you blow out multiple mathematical models? What's the point of even spending more money on experiments that have no value or need in terms of explaining lensing data from space?
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian


    In case you didn't notice, this is what a real life 'experiment', with real equipment, and real "positive" results actually looks like. It's not "invisible".

    A real experiment of the EU/PC concept shows the heat that is produced in the plasma around both spheres, in the solar corona, and in Earth's aurora by the flow of currents from our sun, to our Earth. It's a real working model of concept, one that works not just on paper, but in a real life experiment right here on Earth that you can watch on Youtube.

    By the way, IMO you folks should be ashamed to call yourselves "skeptics" when you ignore all the lab falsifications of exotic (and completely unnecessary) forms of matter, and you keep putting your blind faith in the existence of *multiple* invisible sky entities to explain ordinary processes in ordinary plasma. Sheesh.

    Even if you combined a purely empirical theory like EU/PC theory with the concept of "God", you end up with something called "God" that you can actually *see* both during the day and at night.

    How can you even complain about EU/PC theory when the results in the lab speak for themselves, and the results of DM theory in the lab also speak for themselves? You folks call yourself "skeptics"?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
  17. comingfrom

    comingfrom New Member

    5
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    In regards to a neutral place to discuss.

    The Thunderbolts forum was set up to discuss EU theory.
    There are plenty of EU skeptics coming to the Thunderbolts forum, questioning and challenging the EU theory, I noticed.
    This is in fact what the forum is for.
    I only ever saw one person get banned, and that was for bad behavior, not for challenging ideas.

    If people keep condemning, by name calling and by continual repeating of false and unproductive statements (like, "EU is pseudoscience"), then a moderator finally steps in, and blocks the troll.

    Crikey, the disagreements and arguments going on over there are many and varied.
    It's the good thing about it.
    Science is about challenging, and debating, and arguing, but in a friendly and polite manner.

    Righteousness only comes through judgment. :holy:
    ~Paul
     
  18. comingfrom

    comingfrom New Member

    5
    +0
    Non-Denom
    Single
    And to the church structure analogy...
    ... the same analogy can be applied back to them.

    Then Einstein is the deity, with Bohr, Feynman, Hawking, and Higgs, as the high priests, that they be messenger boys for.

    And their lack of knowledge of EU theory, and of Velikovsky, is exposed,
    or they would have known,
    that Birkeland and Tesla, are our deities, and Alfven, and Peratt, and Scott, are our high priests.
    And EU messenger boys are allowed to be priests too, free to explore for themselves,
    and not bound to repeating faithfully after the high priests, as they who follow Einstein are.

    Jesus is he who makes priests :hug:
    ~Paul
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2016
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    We all know that the mainstream cannot handle a real time online debate on an open forum on this topic. They'd get blown out of the empirical water almost instantly. Whereas virtually all the various aspects of EU/PC theory can be tested in a lab, and should be tested in the lab, only their mythical exotic matter enjoys such a luxury, and it's been a dismal failure in the lab to date. Worse yet, their entire basis for proposing exotic matter has also been undermined completely since 2006. In short, they're incapable of winning this debate and they know it. :)
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,156
    Christian
    Ya, current BB theory should be called Guthianity, but as the Bicep2 fiasco demonstrated, Guth wasn't much of a prophet, and he definitely doesn't walk on water. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2016
Loading...