Notices
Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: The Start of Matter

  1. #1 The Start of Matter 
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    To start off, I must say that for this question to be valid, one must accept the Big Bang theory. Because when the Big Bang created the universe, it only created hydrogen, right... then these atoms fused and because helium which fused etc. But hydrogen has no neutrons. If the Big Bang only created hydrogen, where do neutrons come from... or am I totally wrong and the Big Bang created something else than hydrogen.


    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    If I am not mistaken, some helium were also formed in the big bang. But most of it was created as a product of fusion in star cores. Helium has neutrons. Neutrons are created when an electron and a proton fuse. An electron and a proton have less mass apart than when fused to form a neutron and the excess mass is converted to energy according to E=MC^2. Hence the energy release of stars.


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    If I am not mistaken, some helium were also formed in the big bang.
    This is correct. I believe the figure, determined from observation and theory, is about 23% helium by mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Helium wasn't formed until the Universe cooled down significantly. It wasn't formed at the point of the bigbang but several important eras after .
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Then how would you explain the presence of neutrons if helium was formed later...
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Things needed to cool down for interactions to work - First mesons needed to form so very low comparative temperatures (below higgs) were need for the weak interaction to be distinct.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    There are some reactions in nuclear physics where a neutron simply splits into a photon and an electron.

    I imagine, though I'm not sure, that the reverse must be possible as well. Don't ask me how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    There are some reactions in nuclear physics where a neutron simply splits into a photon and an electron.
    I think you mean proton and electron?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostofMaxwell
    Helium wasn't formed until the Universe cooled down significantly. It wasn't formed at the point of the bigbang but several important eras after .
    I am quite comfortable calling a few minutes after the Big Bang as still being part of the Big Bang. Since phsysicists refer to the production of helium and deuterium at this point Big Bang nucleosynthesis then it is good enough for me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Neutron = photon + electron + proton?
    I think an electron can fuse with a proton through quantum tunneling? If I remember correctly, it very seldomly happens, but at the density and energies in the core of a star it happens alot.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Since phsysicists refer to the production of helium and deuterium at this point Big Bang nucleosynthesis then it is good enough for me.
    Please could you cite some of these phsysicists and maybe some Physicists also? if possible.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    How about Martin White at Berkeley?

    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

    Thanks to the pioneering efforts of George Gamow and his collaborators, there now exists a satisfactory theory as to the production of light elements in the early Universe. In the very early Universe the temperature was so great that all matter was fully ionized and dissociated. Roughly three minutes after the Big Bang itself, the temperature of the Universe rapidly cooled from its phenomenal 10^32 Kelvin to approximately 10^9 Kelvin. At this temperature, nucleosynthesis, or the production of light elements, could take place. In a short time interval, protons and neutrons collided to produce deuterium (one proton bound to one neutron). Most of the deuterium then collided with other protons and neutrons to produce helium and a small amount of tritium (one proton and two neutrons). Lithium 7 could also arise form the coalescence of one tritium and two deuterium nuclei.
    and http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...bndetails.html

    The Big Bang therefore predicts that there should be one helium nucleus for every ten protons, created in the first three minutes of the expansion.
    Or the Max Planck institute for astro-physics?

    http://www.einstein-online.info/en/s...hys/index.html

    Until about 1 minute cosmic time, nothing much happened: The ratio of neutrons to protons remained constant at around 1:7 (one neutron for every seven protons - the time had not nearly been long enough for a significant fraction of the neutrons to decay radioactively). Note that, if we could have halted the universe's expansion at this time, long enough for the weak interactions to lead to an equilibrium state, then the ratio would have dropped to one neutron for every 74 protons! Instead, the expansion continued, and within the next two to three minutes, the temperature sank from 3 to about 1 billion Kelvin (from 0.3 to 0.1 MeV energy per particle).

    This expansion was slow enough for a rather fast type of reaction to become significant: The capture of neutrons by protons and light nuclei.
    and when in doubt there is always wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

    Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang
    I've highlighted the important parts.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    How about Martin White at Berkeley?

    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

    Thanks to the pioneering efforts of George Gamow and his collaborators, there now exists a satisfactory theory as to the production of light elements in the early Universe. In the very early Universe the temperature was so great that all matter was fully ionized and dissociated. Roughly three minutes after the Big Bang itself, the temperature of the Universe rapidly cooled from its phenomenal 10^32 Kelvin to approximately 10^9 Kelvin. At this temperature, nucleosynthesis, or the production of light elements, could take place. In a short time interval, protons and neutrons collided to produce deuterium (one proton bound to one neutron). Most of the deuterium then collided with other protons and neutrons to produce helium and a small amount of tritium (one proton and two neutrons). Lithium 7 could also arise form the coalescence of one tritium and two deuterium nuclei.
    and http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/da...bndetails.html

    The Big Bang therefore predicts that there should be one helium nucleus for every ten protons, created in the first three minutes of the expansion.
    Or the Max Planck institute for astro-physics?

    http://www.einstein-online.info/en/s...hys/index.html

    Until about 1 minute cosmic time, nothing much happened: The ratio of neutrons to protons remained constant at around 1:7 (one neutron for every seven protons - the time had not nearly been long enough for a significant fraction of the neutrons to decay radioactively). Note that, if we could have halted the universe's expansion at this time, long enough for the weak interactions to lead to an equilibrium state, then the ratio would have dropped to one neutron for every 74 protons! Instead, the expansion continued, and within the next two to three minutes, the temperature sank from 3 to about 1 billion Kelvin (from 0.3 to 0.1 MeV energy per particle).

    This expansion was slow enough for a rather fast type of reaction to become significant: The capture of neutrons by protons and light nuclei.
    and when in doubt there is always wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

    Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang
    I've highlighted the important parts.
    Where do the they state nuclear synthesis occurred at the point of the bigbang? 3 minutes is a colossal time relative to the evolution of particles and interactions.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

    Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang
    I've highlighted the important parts.
    Duh! I know it took place 3 minutes after the big bang you dickhead.

    Where the expletive deleted does it say nuclear sythesis took place before the planck era?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    You: BBN did not occur until after the big bang
    Ophiolite: I am quite comfortable calling a few minutes after the Big Bang as still being part of the Big Bang
    You: Please could you cite some of these phsysicists and maybe some Physicists also? if possible.

    I then provided the requested info you asked of Ophiolite. Now seeing that you can use bold and change font size and swear I assume you can follow a simple argument?

    Should I rephrase? Are you not following? I can draw a picture if it helps.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    No!Ophilite said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am quite comfortable calling a few minutes after the Big Bang as still being part of the Big Bang. Since phsysicists refer to the production of helium and deuterium at this point Big Bang nucleosynthesis then it is good enough for me.
    Which Im sure no Physicist will tell you is a point in the big bang but several eras after and very much cooling later(A-F-T-E-R the big bang) Do you get it now I said it slower, expletive deleted ?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    um, the big bang is not an event but a process - unless you are suggesting that t=0 should be called the big bang and then i can fall off my chair and continue laughing at you instead of remaining seated as i currently am.

    There is a reason it is called big bang nucleosynthesis.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    um, the big bang is not an event but a process - unless you are suggesting that t=0 should be called the big bang and then i can fall off my chair and continue laughing at you instead of remaining seated as i currently am.

    There is a reason it is called big bang nucleosynthesis.
    expletive deleted off spastic. You are a expletive deleted maths major and you are telling me things about the big bang? expletive deleted fag.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang
    .......Your own link even says 3 minutes after but you are still continuing to argue black is white.

    af·ter (āf'tər) Pronunciation Key
    prep.

    1.
    1. Behind in place or order: Z comes after Y in the alphabet.
    2. Next to or lower than in order or importance.
    2. In quest or pursuit of: seek after fame; go after big money.
    3. Concerning: asked after you.
    4. Subsequent in time to; at a later time than: come after dinner.
    5. Subsequent to and because of or regardless of: They are still friends after all their differences.
    6. Following continually: year after year.
    7. In the style of or in imitation of: satires after Horace.
    8. With the same or close to the same name as; in honor or commemoration of: named after her mother.
    9. According to the nature or desires of; in conformity to: a tenor after my own heart.
    10. Past the hour of: five minutes after three.
    11. Irish Used with a present participle to indicate action that has just been completed: "Sure I'm after seeing him not five minutes ago" (James Joyce).


    adv.

    1. Behind; in the rear.
    2. At a later or subsequent time; afterward: three hours after; departed shortly after.


    adj.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    That is what happens when you quote popular science sources, if you want i can get nice and technical here, use fancy things like maths if you want?

    So i assume you are saying that the big bang occurred at t=0 and thus have no clue about general relativity and cosmology except for the popular accounts? How do you construct epoch's for big bang cosmology GW? Do you even know the construction? Further if you know the construction do you understand why t=0 is not part of the manifold? Can you reply without swearing or should I continue laughing?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    That is what happens when you quote popular science sources, if you want i can get nice and technical here, use fancy things like maths if you want?

    So i assume you are saying that the big bang occurred at t=0 and thus have no clue about general relativity and cosmology except for the popular accounts? How do you construct epoch's for big bang cosmology GW? Do you even know the construction? Further if you know the construction do you understand why t=0 is not part of the manifold? Can you reply without swearing or should I continue laughing?
    expletive deleted you prick. You are the one who has no clue.....You jump in not understanding the big bang and now you throw that I dont know relativity at me.

    You are just a copying and pasting fraud aren't you? because you obviously dont know nothing about the science and maths you paste up.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Look here if you dont even trust your own usual copy and pasting sources: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest2.html

    It explains (for even the dumb) which epochs came into play after the big bang.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Ok, so you have no idea what an epoch is. That is nice to know. You still haven't answered my question, is t=0 part of the spacetime manifold? You have not demonstrated anything to make me believe you can even contract a tensor never mind venture near general relativity and the associated differential geometry. All i see is a lot of swearing to make up for the very little action.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Ok, so you have no idea what an epoch is. That is nice to know. You still haven't answered my question, is t=0 part of the spacetime manifold? You have not demonstrated anything to make me believe you can even contract a tensor never mind venture near general relativity and the associated differential geometry. All i see is a lot of swearing to make up for the very little action.
    expletive & personal perjorative deleted !

    An era or epoch is relative. The epochs after the bigbang were as small as 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.

    I will understand anything you can paste about relativity , so bring it on!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    BTW Why havent you read the link personal perjorative deleted? You are like a politician who has been proven wrong so goes off on a tangent to avoid admitting it.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    Um, an epoch is a equivalence class of world lines GoM - this is general relativity 101 seriously. Its all to do with defining what you mean by "time" for the universe as a whole and has to do with the idea of homogeneity.

    So i can take it you have no idea what an epoch is, seems like my contraction comment stands unchallenged. I seriously doubt you understand this simple concept, so why post more on general relativity as I am obviously wasting my time.

    Regarding your link (which was read but said nothing not stated in what i posted earlier so i'm missing the point of that), are we talking popular science here or are we talking the actual technical stuff? If the technical matter scares you i'll be more then happy to revert back to the popular stuff. It would explain your diving and ducking regarding a simple question: is t=0 part of the manifold?
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by river_rat
    Um, an epoch is a equivalence class of world lines GoM - this is general relativity 101 seriously. Its all to do with defining what you mean by "time" for the universe as a whole and has to do with the idea of homogeneity.

    So i can take it you have no idea what an epoch is, seems like my contraction comment stands unchallenged. I seriously doubt you understand this simple concept, so why post more on general relativity as I am obviously wasting my time.

    Regarding your link (which was read but said nothing not stated in what i posted earlier so i'm missing the point of that), are we talking popular science here or are we talking the actual technical stuff? If the technical matter scares you i'll be more then happy to revert back to the popular stuff. It would explain your diving and ducking regarding a simple question: is t=0 part of the manifold?
    What did I do to deserve this thick shit? Just expletive deleted off. I haven t got time for retards who dont know what the hell they are talking about so make up story's. Go back to copy and pasting wiki spastic!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    30
    It seems to me you two are mostly arguing over the semantics about what exactly the big bang is defined to be and what is considered a long or short time after/during it. So you should probably give it a rest as I doubt either of you are going to convince the other of anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,517
    lol, you are cute you know that. Swearing like a trooper to hide the fact you have no idea what the answer is. The answer btw is that t=0 is not part of the manifold, go though the construction and you will see why

    May i suggest some reading for you? Try Ludvigsen - you might learn something.

    PS. Unless you want to be banned like what happened on sciforums i suggest you control that language. I think its funny watching you rant like a drunk but there is a code of conduct here.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Petulant personal outburst with zero semantic content deleted.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Hey, leave the South Africans alone! (this is going to be good)
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I cant believe this moron is still arguing in balack is white.

    Its all over his links even for everyone to see.


    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html

    Roughly three minutes after the Big Bang itself, the temperature of the Universe rapidly cooled from its phenomenal 10^32 Kelvin to approximately 10^9 Kelvin. At this temperature, nucleosynthesis, or the production of light elements, could take place.
    AFTER, AFTER, expletive deleted AFTER

    The guy needs remedial reading lessons, let alone highschool physics.
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I should like to thank supernothing for attempting to restore some calm to the proceedings.
    I should like to thank river rat for maintaining reasonable calm throughout the interchange with Ghost.
    I should like to ask Ghost to do three things:
    1) moderate your language and your emotive outbursts.
    2) Consider the possibility that Big Bang can be, and is, viewed both as an instant (the instant when time began?) and as a process. This relates back to supernothing's comment on semantics. I have certainly read in popular science works, and possibly in astrophysics textbooks, reference to nucleosynthesis occuring in the early stages of the Big Bang. You may not have encountered these references, but I am wholly comnfortable they exist and I am somewhat perplexed as to why you should feel a nuance in a verbal description of a physical phenomena is so important.
    3) Understand that when you greet River rat's reasonable question "is t=0 part of the spacetime manifold?" with bluster and cursing, observers are likely to think you have lost the plot if not the argument.

    Ophiolite, (in moderator mode)

    P.S. If I have to go through a bunch of your posts again, cleaning them up, I shall likely take the easy way out and simply delete them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    Little did I know what was going to happen when I posted my original question. Through the swearing and arguing, I think I have come to understand that as the early early early Universe cooled down, protons and electrons fused to become neutrons (the opposite of what happens when you split a neutron). This is when some heavier elements (lithium and helium) started getting created. Am I right, or did I misunderstand everything???
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •