Notices

View Poll Results: Do you agree with the theory presented in "The Final Theory" FROM www.thefinaltheory.com ?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    0 0%
  • No

    2 15.38%
  • It contains good points but is a flawed theory

    1 7.69%
  • Its complete rubbish

    10 76.92%
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: >>THE FINAL THEORY

  1. #1 >>THE FINAL THEORY 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Hello,

    Is anyone here familiar with the book entitled "The Final Theory" ?
    www.thefinaltheory.com

    I would like to hear from you especially if you are a qualified scientist AND have read the above book.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    While I haven't read the book, a brief glance through its key features and its first chapter reveals much.

    This central energy conservation law encompasses gravity, magnetism, electricity, electromagnetic radiation, strong and weak nuclear forces, and even matter itself via the energy-mass equivalence, E=mc2.
    Rubbish like this makes you want to think aobut the proliferation of people who barely understand science. The law of conservation states that it is impossible to create or destroy energy; the energy-mass equivalence is only part of the law in nuclear reactions, or particle collisions, or in instances where a particle is forced to give up its mass. The central energy conservation law, as the author puts it, does NOT encompass anything with the mass-energy equivalence.

    And further, many of these everyday phenomena do indeed act mysteriously and continually on their own, with such clearly visible physical energy-conservation violations either overlooked or dismissed with flawed logical abstractions.
    There are NO energy conservation violations that exist in this universe. And exactly what flawed logical abstractions is the author talking about? The author fails to mention even one instance of this.

    Electric charge and magnetism are essentially first-causes unto themselves, acting forcefully, energetically and endlessly on their own despite the energy transformation requirements of our conservation laws.
    This is just plain wrong. An electron emits a photon, which interacts with other charged particles to produce what we will call an electromagnetic interaction. How does that violate the law of conservation of energy?

    The "strong and weak nuclear forces" are actually models of forces that, should they turn out to exist as advertised, also act forcefully, energetically and endlessly without the required underlying energy transformation forces proposed to explain observations that would otherwise contradict todays atomic theory.
    The particle carriers of the weak force have already been observed, which renders more than enough proof for the theory of the weak force.

    As for the strong force, it must exist primarily because if it didn't, the protons within the atom would repel each othewr strongly, causing the atom to disintegrate.

    Since this doesn't happen, a force is needed to explain why the electromagnetic repulsion between protons fails to result in an observable effect. That is the basis of the strong force. Denying that such a force exists would require another explanation, which the author does NOt give.

    Moving from the first chapter of the book, let's look at the book's key features:

    A clear analysis of our belief in Newton's gravitational
    force, showing the many flaws in this belief -- many of
    which are rarely, if ever, discussed. This in-depth
    analysis of Newton's ideas is only possible now from
    the powerful new perspective found in the book, which
    takes a giant step back from today's beliefs and
    shows the true understanding of our universe.
    Newton's gravitational force has withstood many, many tests, the simplest being the fact that we don't float off the Earth. As for the flaws in his belief, there are none that exist. The only possible flaw that the author may be thinking of was that Newton was unable to give the exact nature of the gravitational force, which Einstein managed to answer precisely.

    A deeper analysis of gravity, showing where Newton's
    ideas came from, exposing their origin as little more
    than educated guesswork combined with logically and
    physically flawed assumptions that crumble under
    serious logical and scientific scrutiny.
    Educated guesswork? Would Kepler's Laws be called educated guesswork? Would Newton's Laws of Motion be considered educated guesswork, or his calculus educated guesswork? Newton derived his force of gravity by noting that it was proportional to the masses of the two objects undergoing gravitation and inversely proportional to the square of the distace between them (this, in turn, was derived from the careful study of Kepler's Laws, especially his second). This was certainly not based on logically and physically flawed assumptions.

    A totally new concept, the Geometric Orbit Equation, is
    presented and shown to be the true description of orbits
    that has been overlooked for centuries, showing how
    Newton disguised it in terms of his "gravitational force",
    giving undue credibility to his theory of gravity.
    And this "Geometric Orbit Equation" is based on what, exactly? Does it explain why planets move in orbits around the sun at all, or is it just an equation with no firm basis in theory? Gravity is necessary to even explain why they move in orbits in the first place.

    A big-picture overview rethinking the many observations
    currently attributed to Newton's gravitational force, such
    as falling objects, rainfall, beliefs in anti-gravity, shooting
    cannonballs, the weight of objects in our hands, etc.
    This confirms my opinion that the author is a crackpot. When did rainfall be attributed to Newton's gravitational force? And beliefs in anti-gravity? This is categorically impossible; the whole point of Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is to show just the opposite; every body that has mass will have gravity. If you had negative mass, that would be different. Thankfully, negative mass requires negative energy, which exists in extraordinarily small amounts.

    Now, onward to the summary it offers.

    Gravity has many problems in today's science. The convenient model of an "attracting force" matches appearances rather well, but where does this mysterious force come from? Why does it attract?
    Proof that the author has not even understood Einstein''s theory of general relativity properly. If he had, he would know that Einstein's theory completely removes the necessity of believing in a 'force' of gravity at all, replacing it with the idea that a body is simply attempting to obey Newton's first law in a curved space. The 'attraction' occurs because the curvature is associated with the curvature of a sphere, where, if you draw a straight line, it inevitably curves towards - and not away - from the center of the sphere. The degree of curvature depends primarily on the mass, wshich 'causes' gravity by forcing space-time to curve.

    If the author is attempting to criticise general relativity, he faces much opposition; Einstein deduced all of special relativity from just two postulates, and made use of just one more to generate all of general relativity. If the author can fight logic itself, I bow before him.

    Where is its power source?
    Mass is the 'power source', causing space-time to curve as it does. A simple concept that has evidently evaded the author.

    Arbitrary forces can't simply arise and affect us in our daily lives without explanation, yet that is precisely what today's science says about gravity.
    100% incorrect. Why? Because science has already found the cause and explanation of the origin of gravity, thanks to general relativity.

    The excuse offered by scientists today is that gravity does no work at all, despite holding us on the ground, constraining planets in orbit, and orchestrating all of the dynamics in the heavens.

    An equation known as the Work Equation-- developed over a century ago to quantify the work done in moving an object -- has been seriously distorted and misapplied in a failed attempt to justify Newton's "gravitational force".
    The Work equation states that the work done on a body is equal to the product of the force applied and the distance covered. And no scientist in the history of the world has ever claimed that gravity does no work at all; the work equation itself requires us to conclude that it must do some work.

    The only time work is not said to be done by gravity is when the direction of the force and the direction of the motion are mutually perpendicular to each other, emerging mainly because both are vector quantities, or when the object either covers no distance or feels no force at all.

    That is why gravity does no work at all on a satellite: because the direction of the motion and the direction of the force are mutually perpendicular to each other. Gravity does do work, lots of it, which further confirms my suspicions that the author knows nothing whatsoever about basic Newtonian mechanics.

    This Work formula has been systematically misapplied over the years to ensure it gives a zero result in gravitational situations so that scientists can claim that gravity does no work throughout the universe and so needs no power source, rather than admitting that gravity is a mystery to them.
    The very stupidity of this makes me shudder in horror. Anyone who has even cursorily studied Newtonian mechanics has been forced to solve work equations based on gravity, and the answer very much depends on the vector state of the two quantities involved; you will get a zero answer only in some special cases, never in every case.

    Newtonian gravity also violates the speed-of-light limit -- a current law of physics -- since it has no speed limit at all.
    Firstly, the speed of light limit concept did not even exist in Newton's time; this readjustment of Newtonian concepts to fit the speed of light limit was left to Einstein, and others before him, to work on, and eventually complete.

    Secondly, this has already been corrected, in the form of general relativity.

    Einstein even felt the need to completely rethink the nature of gravity (his warped spacetime concept), while today's scientists are still looking for answers, such as quantum gravity and superstrings, while desperately looking for proof of their theories in hunts for "graviton particles" and "gravity waves".
    No. Newton was never able to give any accurate description of the nature of gravity; he famously made this clear with his statement "I make no hypothesis". It was only until Einstein that gravity was explained for what it really is.

    I'll admit that gravity waves have yet to be discovered; yet even the author cannot be blindingly stupid enough to ignore the case of the binary pulsar system - whose name I currently forget - which has been observed to be losing energy in the form of gravity waves at exactly the rate predicted by general relativity. The reason they have yet to be discovered is their extraordinary weakness, necessitating very sensitive equipment such as LIGO and LISA.

    As for gravitons, their existence is based primarily on applying quantum theory to gravity; it emerges mainly because of the wave-particle duality. TRhis has remained undiscovered for much the same reason gravity waves have yet to be.

    Before we can solidly discuss what gravity truly is, we need to understand the origin of our current belief in Newton's gravitational force. This discussion shows that Newton actually invented his force using a flawed analogy of a rock swung by a string, and perpetuated this error by creating an entire system of concepts and equations based on his invented force. It is now possible to see how he did this, revealing the true form of these concepts and equations and showing that Newton's overlay of a "gravitational force" somehow emanating mysteriously from all matter was a completely unnecessary and fatally flawed invention.
    No. Newton only referred to the analogy to make a simple deduction from Kepler's planetary laws, which features as the inverse-square law in Newtonian gravitation. Evidently, he must have been right; the only known deviation from his law was observed in Mercury's perihelion, and even that was a minor deviation. Even that was corrected by Einstein by general relativity.

    I wonder why the author is preoccupied with Newtonian gravity, when for over a century now Einsteinian gravity has been working.

    The fact that objects are held forcefully on the ground or accelerate downward when dropped does not prove Newton's gravitational force. These are undeniable effects -- a weight effect and a downward acceleration effect -- which we experience, observe, and measure, but whose cause has been a mystery for millennia (and remains so to this day in our current science). In fact, even our equations for falling objects and flying projectiles don't involve mass or Newton's gravitational force -- they only model the downward acceleration effect (d=1/2*a*t2), compliments of Galileo.
    The first problem with this paragraph is that it states that acceleration due to gravity and the weight effect are mysteries in modern day science. Gravity is a force; obviously it will produce acceleration. And weight is defined mathematically as the product of the mass and the acceleration due to gravity, and defined physically as the effect of the force of gravity on an object. The weight is directly equal to the force of gravity felt on a person; anybody who has been through a basic physics course in Newtonian graviation knows this.

    The next thing wrong with this is this statement;

    In fact, even our equations for falling objects and flying projectiles don't involve mass or Newton's gravitational force -- they only model the downward acceleration effect (d=1/2*a*t2), compliments of Galileo.
    Of course they will! When an object is in freefall, his mass ceases to matter, thanks to Newton's first Law, or the Law of Inertia. Since his mass ceases to matter, gravity ceases to matter (as Galileo demonstrated), and hence the only thing important is to use the three equations of motion to determine practically any aspect of the object's motion.

    In fact, it would be quite an unprecedented feat for any known force to accelerate all objects with equal ease regardless of mass, yet this is precisely the claim made in our science for Newton's gravitational force, since all objects fall at the same rate.
    And why not? The acceleration does not depend on the mass of the object at all. This follows from simple mathematics. Equate the weight and the force of gravity and cancel out the mass of the object (reflected on both sides of the equation as you'll notice), and viola! The result will be:



    Where g is the acceleration due to gravity, G is the gravitational constant, M the mass of the attracting body and d the distance.

    Since there is no mention of the object's mass at all in the acceleration, we must conclude that it plays no part at all in acceleration. That the author refuses to acknowledge this basic piece of mathematics is just one in many numerous mistakes he has been making.

    Also, why can't we shield ourselves from Newton's gravitational force and levitate?
    Perhaps because trying to do so would mean creating negative mass, which requires negative energy, which will be impossible to get? And why should a shield exist, in any case? Just because we have found shields for other forces doesn't imply that gravity must be so. Just because a cat is black doesn't imply all cats have to black.

    In actuality, gravity is not a mysterious attracting force emanating from matter with no known power source. Nor is it Einstein's warped spacetime concept or any of the other increasingly bizarre theories in today's science.
    Why? Does the author have any proof for his claim, or is he just making it up as he goes along?

    Numerous ideas, often wild and bizarre, are commonly tossed about today regarding gravity and the nature of our universe -- both from inside and outside the scientific community -- but so far none are sensible or even scientifically viable. The true test of any such sweeping new idea is whether it truly explains everything -- consistently, sensibly, and within the laws of physics. The new gravitational principle in this chapter is applied to many of our common daily experiences -- the weight of objects, falling objects, the crushing force within the center of our planet, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, etc.
    So neither loop quantum gravity, twistor theory, or other approaches - all firmly based in modern science - are sensible approaches to quantum gravity? We must assume the author is speaking about quantum gravity because classical gravity has already been well explained.

    Also, the true test of any theory is if it predicts something which agrees with experiment; NOT if it truly explains everything. Every theory claims to explain everything, and even then you can adjust your theory ad nauseam to account for every single discrepancy, so this really cannot be the basis for the true test of any theory.

    In addition to showing how the new principle explains all common gravity-related observations and experiences, it is also shown to resolve many mysteries currently surrounding gravity in our science. The power source driving all objects to fall at the same rate is now demystified, the belief that we will some day discover "graviton particles" or "gravity waves" is put to rest, gravity violating the speed-of-light limit is resolved, etc. Finally, the new and proper equation for gravity is developed, showing that Newton's equation is, and always has been, an arbitrary invention of no practical use, replaced now by the true equation of gravity with clear physical justification behind it.
    Great. Now the author is trying to answer mysteries that have already been resolved. I fear for the author's sanity; his continued insistence that his ideas are somehow superior to Newton's reminds me of schizophrenic delusions...

    The new understanding of gravity shows that Newton's hypothesis of a gravitational force acting both at the surface of the planet as well as remotely tugging on distant objects was wrong. The force that we feel while standing on the planet is one component of gravity, while the falling and orbiting effect upon objects at a distance is a closely related but distinct component of gravity. This has sizable implications for spacecraft that orbit and land on other moons and planets, and helps to explain the huge discrepancies that astronomers note between gravitational predictions and observations, which have led them to believe that mysterious "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" somehow rule the universe. It is also revealed that, contrary to today's belief that has persisted since Galileo's time, all objects do not fall equally -- they fall nearly equally, with the differences easily explained and calculated using the new equation of gravity. Also, with the clear understanding of the true nature of gravity, the possibility of anti-gravity is definitively addressed once and for all. A very simple "artificial gravity" device is also revealed, which would not have been considered prior to this new concept of gravity.
    If I may, the author's assertion that objects will not fall equally can be easily disproved. Take two objects of different masses, which are not prone to air resistance, and drop them. He is simply repeating old Aristotelian dogma. And now anti-gravity? Clear evidence that the author is a crackpot.

    The fact that light bends as it passes large objects in space on its way to Earth is also easily explained from the new gravitational perspective, removing the need to explain how Newton's gravitational force pulls on pure light energy, or the need to resort to Einstein's even more mysterious and equally unexplained 4-dimensional warped spacetime concept.
    Again, the author displays his lack of awareness of Einstein's theory. It is anything but mysterious, and it is very easily explained.

    We have become so accustomed to the atomic models we have been taught that even our scientists neglect to consider that these are still mere models, which violate both the laws of physics as well as common sense when taken as the literal reality.
    Assumptions the author makes cannot count as real science. If anything, Rutherford's model was saved by Bohr's intervention, and while it is impossible to actually observe an atom, its predictions have yet to be proved inaccurate.



    There are many, many, many more fallacious arguments in the author's book. Because this post has stretched on, and on, I am not going to point out any more; I'm sure these few snippets will more than suffice.

    My verdict is that this book is written by a crackpot. Do not buy unless you really like reading the work of crackpots.


    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: >>THE FINAL THEORY 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin
    Hello,

    Is anyone here familiar with the book entitled "The Final Theory" ?
    www.thefinaltheory.com

    I would like to hear from you especially if you are a qualified scientist AND have read the above book.
    I read enough to be able to tell that this book, a typical vanity press publication, is utter nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Merlin,
    are you asking because you are thinking of paying some of your heard earned money to buy a copy. Or are you asking because you are the author and are trying a not so subtle means of promoting your book?
    Rgds
    JG.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    Well if I was the author trying to promote the book, I definitely failed..
    Hahaha :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    There appear to be one misconception repeated throughout:

    That gravity and magnetism require power sources to function.

    The energy used in attraction comes from the potential energy that the object/particle has. As you move further away from the Earth, you gain more and more gravitational potential energy relative to the Earth, which is why leaving it requires so much energy. When there is no longer a force acting against the gravity, the potential energy turns into kinetic energy in the direction of the Earth.

    With the fridge magnet example given on the website; for both the magnetic force and the gravitational force, there is no change in distance to the relevant body, so no change in energy of the magnet.

    Compared to, for instance, hovering in a helicopter; here the reaction force from the upwards force causes air to be forced downwards, so that the system is no longer in equilibrium, meaning that an energy input is required to prevent it from falling.

    Or, in other words, it's like why you fall through air but not mahogany dressing tables.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    I found this on the site:

    "We don't know anything. Everything about gravity is
    mysterious." -- Michael Martin Nieto, theoretical physicist, Los
    Alamos National Laboratory. Discover Magazine, October 2003

    "Only a few people understand -- or think they
    understand -- how a permanent magnet works. The
    magnet of everyday life is not a simple thing. It's a
    quantum-mechanics thing " -- Tatiana Makarova, physicist,
    Umea University, Sweden. Discover Magazine, December 2002

    "Gravity may not be working as advertised. Spacecraft
    hurtling through the Solar System have been behaving
    so bizarrely that some scientists wonder whether our
    theories of gravity are wrong." -- Charles Seife,
    New Scientist Magazine, September 1998
    =========================================
    Yet, as eagerly anticipated as this final theory is, it is also a
    very controversial and sensitive area for scientists, for several.
    reasons. First, this state of affairs leaves our scientists in a
    difficult position; on the one hand they are our science authority
    and keepers of our knowledge, while on the other hand they are
    searching for a theory that may well state that everything they
    know is wrong. This is what is meant by a paradigm shift.
    =========================================


    The book is published by Universal Publishers.

    I have obtained a copy now but have yet to read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlin

    The book is published by Universal Publishers.

    I have obtained a copy now but have yet to read.
    Don't bother. You would be better off booking a night in a Holiday Inn Express.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    i stopped reading once i saw that, apparently, the strong nuclear force doesn't even exist. if that's true, the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki would have done about as much damage as a water balloon.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    i stopped reading once i saw that, apparently, the strong nuclear force doesn't even exist. if that's true, the bombs dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki would have done about as much damage as a water balloon.
    No offense, but the strong nuclear force has nothing to do with nuclear bombs. The uranium and plutonium used in those bombs were simply rendered unstable by their collision with slow neutrons; it has nothing to do with the strong nuclear force.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,256
    Except that they were subject to enough energy to overcome the strong nuclear attraction... Ah well, doesn't really matter.

    If there was no strong nuclear force, I somewhat suspect we'd all be made of pure hydrogen,
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    if i remember correctly, i learned that once they became unstable, the strong nuclear force was overcome and e=mc^2 came into effect as a small amount of matter unleashed a massive amount of energy which had been contained by the strong nuclear force. what did i miss?
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    What did you miss? The time you wasted reading this crap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore schiz0yd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Warwick, RI
    Posts
    171
    thanks for the input, but i'm talking about strong nuclear force now, not the nonsense in a book some person is trying to profit from.
    I prefer to use my right brain to study the universe rather than my left brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    627
    if i remember correctly, i learned that once they became unstable, the strong nuclear force was overcome and e=mc^2 came into effect as a small amount of matter unleashed a massive amount of energy which had been contained by the strong nuclear force. what did i miss?
    Uranium consists of two isotpoes: U-238 and U-235. To make a nuclear weapon, you first need to enrich uranium substantially, so that the end product is over 80% u-238. Needless to say, this isotope is highly unstable (I should clarify here: it is already unstable, instead of what I said previously. It was a simplified explanation). The slow neutron simply makes use of this instability, causing it to disintegrate, sending particles all over the place, in turn causing reactions with other atoms, and so on. Note that the unstability of the isotope, and its mass is the key factor: the strong force is already weak, especially in the outer confines of the nucleus. The slow neutron simply tips the scale over.

    Indeed, it is because of the strong force that smaller nuclei, such as helium, for example, are not used in nuclear reactions: breaking it apart would require too much energy, whereas bigger nuclei require a smaller amount of energy to break up. Hence my statement that the strong nuclear force does not really matter too much in nuclear reactions.

    To take a leaf from DrRocket's book, I'd like to recommend The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens. It should explain the nucleear process a lot more clearly. :wink:
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Don't bother. You would be better off booking a night in a Holiday Inn Express.
    Curiously I am presently in a Holiday Inn Express and it seemsmuch more logical than what I can see of the book. Also they have a bar downstairs which I shall go to in 20 minutes time. The beers are on me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm naturally suspicious of a book that goes on and on about all that it has to offer, then only offers criticisms of the existing science in its summary sections.

    If your theory is that good, then you wouldn't *need* to bash the old theories. They'd already become totally uncredible to the reader after hearing what you have to say. If they're doing that, it's probably because they have very little to offer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    51
    You all do raise many good points.

    I will let you know if I ever actually finish reading the book.

    If and when that day comes- I let you know what I think.
    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
  •