Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36
Like Tree12Likes
  • 1 Post By emygirl691
  • 1 Post By pyoko
  • 1 Post By msafwan
  • 2 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By Janus

Thread: How do we know there are other galaxies?

  1. #1 How do we know there are other galaxies? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7
    We all know it is impossible for human kind to go out of our galaxy. So how in the world (no pun intended) do we know the shape of our galaxy, and if there are other galaxies? How do we have photos? Are those photos we have just paintings or something? Is it possible to send satellites out of our galaxy?


    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    We know what our galaxy looks like from photos of other galaxies. It is not "impossible" to get out of our galaxy. At current technology it will simply take too long. By the way, we are situated on the edge of our galaxy.

    We live in a galaxy known as a barred spiral galaxy. We can see others of this type through various telescopes. They are real images, not an artists' impression. The light had time to travel at light speed towards Earth.


    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Also,
    picture of a galaxy is really really small. They are as big as a dot in sky. But with awesome telescope you can zoooooom in... and it appears as galaxy.

    P/S: they are insanely far away...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Also,
    picture of a galaxy is really really small. They are as big as a dot in sky. But with awesome telescope you can zoooooom in... and it appears as galaxy.

    P/S: they are insanely far away...
    As I understand it, these so called pictures/images are highly doctored and the actual images are nothing more than tiny little specs.

    Here is what hubble can do.. Here is an actual picture of pluto.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Also,
    picture of a galaxy is really really small. They are as big as a dot in sky. But with awesome telescope you can zoooooom in... and it appears as galaxy.

    P/S: they are insanely far away...
    As I understand it, these so called pictures/images are highly doctored and the actual images are nothing more than tiny little specs.

    Here is what hubble can do.. Here is an actual picture of pluto.
    Contrary to popular belief, it is more difficult to capture images/ evidence of bodies close to Earth. When we zoom out, the sheer immensity of the far away target appears extremely "crisp".

    Your picture of the satellites of Pluto are images of extremely small objects. Think of finding a needle in a haystack.

    No, you are not being "fooled". But your asking questions is a good thing. Keep asking

    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Okay... after some re-searching I found out that Hubble really do capture pictures of galaxy. It wasn't simple: they need 3 week of camera exposure to get the picture. I think the technique is called "Hubble Deep Field" or something.

    Here's a vid from HubbleSite:
    HubbleSite - Gallery - Behind the Pictures

    REMEMBER: 3 week of space-camera exposure! (if you try that with pluto... it will glow like a sun!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Okay... after some re-searching I found out that Hubble really do capture pictures of galaxy. It wasn't simple: they need 3 week of camera exposure to get the picture. I think the technique is called "Hubble Deep Field" or something.

    Here's a vid from HubbleSite:
    HubbleSite - Gallery - Behind the Pictures

    REMEMBER: 3 week of space-camera exposure! (if you try that with pluto... it will glow like a sun!)
    The "deep field" that Hubble did was to demonstrate that in a really small piece of sky there are worlds of unimaginable size and magnitude.

    You can see galaxies with simple, cheap light telescopes. In fact, you can see them with a good set of binoculars.

    These are all things we "can see" or "observe" as being real.

    Pluto is relatively nearby. Imagine trying to focus on a little bird that is flying past you. That is what it is like trying to focus on a satellite of a nearby solar system planet. If there is something much larger and a long way away, it is easier to take a photo.

    Keep the questions going
    msafwan likes this.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Also,
    picture of a galaxy is really really small. They are as big as a dot in sky. But with awesome telescope you can zoooooom in... and it appears as galaxy.

    P/S: they are insanely far away...
    As I understand it, these so called pictures/images are highly doctored and the actual images are nothing more than tiny little specs.

    Here is what hubble can do.. Here is an actual picture of pluto.
    Contrary to popular belief, it is more difficult to capture images/ evidence of bodies close to Earth. When we zoom out, the sheer immensity of the far away target appears extremely "crisp".

    Your picture of the satellites of Pluto are images of extremely small objects. Think of finding a needle in a haystack.

    No, you are not being "fooled". But your asking questions is a good thing. Keep asking

    Sure, cameras are farsighted and those images have not been doctored..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    gonzales56: do you have a statement? Or just vague implications?
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Those picture are real, and I think it is Andromeda galaxy(???).
    I found it here after searching about how to find galaxy: How to Find the Andromeda Galaxy: 7 steps (with pictures)
    pyoko likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    You don't need the Hubble to photograph galaxies. This was taken by a poster on another forum, using a motorized mount and a six hour exposure.

    It is galaxy NGC2903. damn it, I can't post it full size.

    ngc2903.jpg
    pyoko and msafwan like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by msafwan View Post
    Okay... after some re-searching I found out that Hubble really do capture pictures of galaxy. It wasn't simple: they need 3 week of camera exposure to get the picture. I think the technique is called "Hubble Deep Field" or something.

    Here's a vid from HubbleSite:
    HubbleSite - Gallery - Behind the Pictures

    REMEMBER: 3 week of space-camera exposure! (if you try that with pluto... it will glow like a sun!)
    The "deep field" that Hubble did was to demonstrate that in a really small piece of sky there are worlds of unimaginable size and magnitude.

    You can see galaxies with simple, cheap light telescopes. In fact, you can see them with a good set of binoculars.

    These are all things we "can see" or "observe" as being real.

    Pluto is relatively nearby. Imagine trying to focus on a little bird that is flying past you. That is what it is like trying to focus on a satellite of a nearby solar system planet. If there is something much larger and a long way away, it is easier to take a photo.

    Keep the questions going
    Pluto is not flying by like a bird. It takes 248 years to go around the sun. This means that pluto is relatively, concerning taking pictures, pretty stable and not a flying bird.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Compared to the galaxies, Pluto is flitting around like a hummingbird.
    pyoko likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Something that is a few light minutes away and flying around is much harder to image than something that is 100 million light years away. Can I have a high-5 on "obvious"?

    In science we like to magically invoke something called angular velocity.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    gonzales56: do you have a statement? Or just vague implications?
    No statement at all other that it is best to look at the actual/real images.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Take a look at the actual image here.

    on edit, never mind, the link only works if you're already signed in to PF.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    gonzales56: do you have a statement? Or just vague implications?
    No statement at all other that it is best to look at the actual/real images.
    So... "scientists" and "pretty smart people" have "looked at" them. Are you calling then naive? Make a statement. Don't be afraid.
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Something that is a few light minutes away and flying around is much harder to image than something that is 100 million light years away. Can I have a high-5 on "obvious"?

    In science we like to magically invoke something called angular velocity.
    If you can take pictures of amazing detail of objects 100 million light years away but cant take a decent picture of something in your own back yard, well then, most would scoff at your claims. And I can take a picture of a speeding bullet or rocket flying past a camera with ease... Beautiful thing about technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    gonzales56: do you have a statement? Or just vague implications?
    No statement at all other that it is best to look at the actual/real images.
    So... "scientists" and "pretty smart people" have "looked at" them. Are you calling then naive? Make a statement. Don't be afraid.
    Not naive, perhaps easily led, over eager or even full of their own ideas/ego.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Something that is a few light minutes away and flying around is much harder to image than something that is 100 million light years away. Can I have a high-5 on "obvious"?

    In science we like to magically invoke something called angular velocity.
    If you can take pictures of amazing detail of objects 100 million light years away but cant take a decent picture of something in your own back yard, well then, most would scoff at your claims.
    I think that this shows you know nothing about optical astronomy or photography. One of the big differences between galaxies and Pluto is that galaxies actually radiate light, and Pluto doesn't. Another big difference is that pluto is very, very, very small.
    pyoko likes this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    You don't need the Hubble to photograph galaxies. This was taken by a poster on another forum, using a motorized mount and a six hour exposure.

    It is galaxy NGC2903. damn it, I can't post it full size.

    ngc2903.jpg
    Nice picture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post
    gonzales56: do you have a statement? Or just vague implications?
    No statement at all other that it is best to look at the actual/real images.
    So... "scientists" and "pretty smart people" have "looked at" them. Are you calling then naive? Make a statement. Don't be afraid.
    Not naive, perhaps easily led, over eager or even full of their own ideas/ego.
    More of a psychological, and perhaps off-topic subject: why do you want to be seen as a fool?
    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    RED FLAG!
    warning warning

    You should not reply. Reader are not idiot. They know you are being emotional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quite simply, Hubble can't focus properly on nearby objects. It was not built for that. I don't know what Gonzales is trying to imply. Yes, NASA "doctors" images, but mostly simply to highlight certain features and different wavelengths of light etc. There is nothing dishonest about that. Gonzales seems to have a general mistrust of science for some reason.
    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  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quite simply, Hubble can't focus properly on nearby objects. It was not built for that. I don't know what Gonzales is trying to imply. Yes, NASA "doctors" images, but mostly simply to highlight certain features and different wavelengths of light etc. There is nothing dishonest about that. Gonzales seems to have a general mistrust of science for some reason.
    I have nothing but trust for science, i just do not like images that are an artist's "interpretation", non visible wavelengths being added in on top of or around visible light/matter, colors being fabricated/made up, etc.....

    Artistic imagination is not science.

    Minus the colors and imaginations, here are actual images produced by hubble... Link
    Last edited by gonzales56; July 29th, 2012 at 06:59 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    You can see Andromeda with the naked eye, or with a set of binoculars. It is obviously a galaxy.

    What's the problem here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by emygirl691 View Post
    We all know it is impossible for human kind to go out of our galaxy. So how in the world (no pun intended) do we know the shape of our galaxy, and if there are other galaxies? How do we have photos? Are those photos we have just paintings or something? Is it possible to send satellites out of our galaxy?
    Great question. I don't know. Its one of those things which I've always wanted to learn. There are many kinds of galaxies and therefore many different shapes for galaxies. How we know which one is ours is beyond me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    pmb
    pmb is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by emygirl691 View Post
    So how in the world (no pun intended) do we know the shape of our galaxy,
    An acquantance of mine is an astronomer. I asked him this question. Here is his response
    Concerning the shape of our galaxy, the spiral arms are pretty well mapped out by radio emissions from hydrogen atoms. In addition it has been possible to get direct evidence for the black hole in the center of the Milky Way. We have known since the 1930s about the speed of rotation around the center.
    I hope that helps you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    794
    I'm not sure what the problem is with colour enhancement to make visible what would otherwise be difficult to see. Astronomical images can and often do include wavelengths of light our eyes can't see - but that doesn't mean they aren't images of real things - Seeing images of the sun in X-rays for example is as real as seeing the interior of the human body with a CAT scan.

    I'm not up on the latest astro-photography technologies but my understanding is that "true" colour final images are still made up of several separate monochrome ones taken through colour filters, so even the true colour images are not strictly true. The images by David Malin at the Australian Astronomical Observatory for example are intended to show 'true' colours as the human eye would see them (if they were capable of it) and the how's of that are described here.

    False colour images can make detail of real things clearly visible that otherwise would be difficult to notice - I suspect that for the scientific purposes intended the choices for such 'enhancement' would not be for the sake of making the images pretty but for the general consumption of non-astronomers I don't have any problem with colour choices that maximise the visual impact.

    Most clear nights I can see the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (besides the main part of our own Galaxy) - not spiral galaxies but galaxies all the same. They are large and bright. Any decent introductory astronomy text should include the history of the when and how galaxies were identified as such.

    A spiral galaxy in Antlia, NGC 2997 by David Malin, AAO - as the human eye would see it -

    Attached Images
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; July 29th, 2012 at 06:41 PM. Reason: Tried to delete unwanted thumbnails - but failed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post

    If you can take pictures of amazing detail of objects 100 million light years away but cant take a decent picture of something in your own back yard, well then, most would scoff at your claims.
    Not if they understood something about the apparent visual sizes of the two. If you divide the distance from Earth to Pluto by its diameter, you get a factor of 2506052. If you do the same for the Andromeda galaxy at 2.5 million ly, you get 11.4. For a galaxy of similar size and 100 million ly, you get 454. This means that if you compare images taken of pluto and the galaxy taken with the same equipment, the image of the galaxy will be 5520 times larger with that much more resolution


    And I can take a picture of a speeding bullet or rocket flying past a camera with ease... Beautiful thing about technology.
    For which you need very strong light to make up for the short exposure time. You do not have that luxury with astronomical objects, you have to work with the light available. And for Pluto, that it very little. In fact, at its brightest, it would actually be ~ 1/8 as bright as the galaxy 100 million ly distant. The galaxy may be much further away but it is lit by the light of 100's of billions of stars, While Pluto is only lit by one star and that one is billions of kilometers away( and then that reflected light must travel billions of km to reach us).

    This means that you would need even a longer exposure for Pluto than you would for the Galaxy. So for example, if you needed a 6 hr exposure for the galaxy, Pluto would take a 2day exposure.

    However, Pluto rotates in ~6 days, so during your exposure, Pluto will make about 1/3 of a rotation, and you will get a blurred image. (the galaxy, which takes hundred of millions of yrs to complete a rotation will have not changed noticeably during its exposure.


    Thus it is actually easier to get an image of a galaxy 100 million light years away than Pluto in both image size/resolution and brightness/exposure time.
    Paleoichneum likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by pyoko View Post

    You can see galaxies with simple, cheap light telescopes. In fact, you can see them with a good set of binoculars.
    In fact, M31, the Andromeda Galaxy, pictured in post #5 can be seen with the unaided eye under dark skies. Of course your eye does not magnify or collect photons over a long period of time as that image does, so it's not as spectacular.

    Still there's something quite satisfying about seeing something 2.5 million light years away with just your eyes!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I have a coffee table sized book of photographs, titles simply Galaxies by Timothy Ferris. It was published in 1980, before the Hubble, and all the images were produced by ground based optical observatories.

    I wish I could post some of them here, because they are simply spectacular images.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I have split off Mother/Father's off topic posts and replies thereto to a separate thread in pseudo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I have split off Mother/Father's off topic posts and replies thereto to a separate thread in pseudo.
    Thanx Harold, I just didnt have the energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I have a coffee table sized book of photographs, titles simply <u>Galaxies</u> by Timothy Ferris. It was published in 1980, before the Hubble, and all the images were produced by ground based optical observatories. <br>
    <br>
    I wish I could post some of them here, because they are simply spectacular images.
    <br><br>

    I have that book, but mine is a reprint in 1982.

    Here's a scan of one of the images. it is of the Triffid Nebula
    Attached Images
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Looking a little closer, I see that mine is a 1987 edition.

    It's a stunning book. And my four year old granddaughter is entranced with it.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. The form of the galaxies
    By onerock in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: October 21st, 2009, 09:57 AM
  2. Stars and galaxies
    By leohopkins in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 4th, 2008, 01:14 PM
  3. centre of all galaxies
    By beats666 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 27th, 2007, 06:25 AM
  4. Regeneration of Galaxies
    By Mike C in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 5th, 2007, 09:53 AM
  5. When Galaxies Overlap
    By cleft in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 8th, 2005, 01:52 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

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
  •