Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By tk421
  • 2 Post By shlunka
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Strange

Thread: Quantum particles and Aether.

  1. #1 Quantum particles and Aether. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    81
    Quantum particles and Aether.

    Maybe you know that surrounding space ( areference frame )
    makes influence on the objects that existthere.
    For example, the fish in the water hasanother form than
    animals which live in the forest or savanna.
    The same is about quantum particles andaether.
    Quantum particles exist in an Aether.
    Thephysical parameters of aether is near to T=0K.
    This thermodynamic condition has influenceon quantum particles.
    =.
    According to Charle’s law and theconsequence of the
    third law of thermodynamics as thethermodynamic temperature
    of a system approaches absolute zero thevolume of particles
    approaches zero too. It means the particlesmust have flat forms.
    They must have geometrical form of acircle: pi= c /d =3,14 . .
    ( All another geometrical forms : triangle,square, rectangle . . .etc
    have angles and to create angles needforces,
    without forces all geometrical forms mustturn into circle.)
    #
    If physicists usestring-particle (particle that has length but
    hasn’t thickness-volume) to understand reality
    (and have some basicproblems to solve this task) then
    why don’t usecircle-particle for this aim ?
    #
    Without to understand what aether is alldebates is tautology.
    ===.
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
    ===.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Sounds like crankery to me
    but I'm only going to point out your most egregious (to a chemist) error.
    Charles' Law says NOTHING about the volume of particles,
    it relates the volume occupied by a gas to the temperature
    this is not the same thing, in fact as far as I remember
    the Law was formulated before atoms/particles were a commonly accepted hypothesis...
    I'm sure people who know more about physics than
    I will be happy to explain your other misconceptions.
    correct
    Charles' Law was formulated in 1787 and
    ' relates the volume occupied by a gas to the temperature'
    . . . . . .
    but because gas consist on particles i take this law to the particles.
    this is my first pseudo-idea.
    and because Charles' Law belongs to the temperature
    of absolute zero T=0K i take this law to the nothingness - vacuum T=0K
    it is my second pseudo-idea
    and because Charles' Law belongs to the theory of ideal gas
    i take this theory to the nothingness- vacuum
    this is my third pseudo- idea
    ==


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    i take this theory to the nothingness
    That seems like a very good idea.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    Quantum particles and Aether.

    =.
    According to Charle’s law and theconsequence of the
    third law of thermodynamics as thethermodynamic temperature
    of a system approaches absolute zero thevolume of particles
    approaches zero too.
    ===.
    To the trash, please.

    Socratus -- learn some science before posting more nonsense. This is utter crap.

    You don't know what Charles' law says. You don't know what thermodynamics is. You don't know what these imply. You just make up random crap, sprinkled with scientific-sounding terms. Play-acting the scientist may be fun, but you do it so badly that one wonders why you persist.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    Quantum particles and Aether.

    =.
    According to Charle’s law and theconsequence of the
    third law of thermodynamics as thethermodynamic temperature
    of a system approaches absolute zero thevolume of particles
    approaches zero too.
    ===.
    To the trash, please.

    Socratus -- learn some science before posting more nonsense.
    This is utter crap.

    You don't know what Charles' law says.
    You don't know what thermodynamics is.
    You don't know what these imply.
    You just make up random crap, sprinkled with scientific-sounding terms.
    Play-acting the scientist may be fun,
    but you do it so badly that one wonders why you persist.

    This link is called 'pseudoscience' (!)

    I don't know, why you need to take part in this link,
    telling me that i am pseudoscientist.
    It is clear.to everybody
    but it is also clear, that you isn't very clever man

    all the best
    socratus
    =.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    This link is called 'pseudoscience' (!)

    I don't know, why you need to take part in this link,
    telling me that i am pseudoscientist.
    It is clear.to everybody
    but it is also clear, that you isn't very clever man

    all the best
    socratus
    =.
    Yes, it is called Pseudoscience, but that does not mean that total crap may go unchallenged. Even in the Trash Can, total crap does not go unchallenged. So, posting in Pseudoscience does not grant you immunity to post nonsense freely. You already have a blog for that, right? Why grace us with your presence, then?

    Whether or not I am (or "is") clever is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that you regularly make assertions that are contradicted by the evidence, and which could be corrected if you expended even a tiny effort to learn science. Had you paid attention in high school chemistry, you would have learned that the ideal gas laws may be derived with the assumption that gas molecules are point particles. To first order, their size matters not at all.

    Your posts almost always depend on a near-total lack of understanding of science. It's as if you thumbed through a science book, retained a few buzzwords, and then made up your own fantasies about what they might mean. It's a pity that you never bothered to look deeper than that, for the universe is a pretty awesome place (and I mean "awesome" in its original literary sense, not in the present deprecated sense, where one may have an "awesome' hamburger).
    Last edited by tk421; April 27th, 2013 at 02:52 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    Had you paid attention in high school chemistry, you would have learned
    that the ideal gas laws may be derived with the assumption that
    gas molecules are point particles. To first order, their size matters not at all.

    .
    What is pseudoscience ?
    To say that physical particle is a point without size
    and geometricalform - this is pseudoscience.
    =

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    What is pseudoscience ?
    To say that physical particle is a point without size
    and geometricalform - this is pseudoscience.
    Yes. It is in direct contradiction with observational evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    Had you paid attention in high school chemistry, you would have learned
    that the ideal gas laws may be derived with the assumption that
    gas molecules are point particles. To first order, their size matters not at all.

    .
    What is pseudoscience ?
    To say that physical particle is a point without size
    and geometricalform - this is pseudoscience.
    =

    Among your other problems is abominably poor reading comprehension. Nowhere do I say that physical particles have no size.

    Now go back and read what I actually wrote. You might learn something if you open your closed mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Among your other problems is abominably poor reading comprehension. Nowhere do I say that physical particles have no size.
    Damnit, smack me for poor reading comprehension, as well. Sorry about that tk421, I took his post purely at face value and didn't follow along.

    Alright, alright... everyone go to post number 11; point at me and laugh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Among your other problems is abominably poor reading comprehension. Nowhere do I say that physical particles have no size.
    Damnit, smack me for poor reading comprehension, as well. Sorry about that tk421, I took his post purely at face value and didn't follow along.

    Alright, alright... everyone go to post number 11; point at me and laugh.
    No problem at all, Neverfly. I'm too busy laughing at socratus' first post in this thread. It almost sets a record for density of wrong and not-even-wrong information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I'm too busy laughing
    Then you don't need to go out of your way- Come on, I deserve it...

    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,785
    Quote Originally Posted by neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by socratus View Post
    what is pseudoscience ?
    To say that physical particle is a point without size
    and geometricalform - this is pseudoscience.
    yes. It is in direct contradiction with observational evidence.
    hur hur hur hur, what an idiot!
    Neverfly and Dywyddyr like this.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    To derive a logical theory for "particles," you would need to start with "first cause," which inasmuch as space is all-pervasive, probably involved space. The logical model would involve the idea that space is very self-compatible and that in the beginning, spatial points were oscillating uniformly with other points, after which oscillational fatigue caused adjacent point pairs to fall toward each other yin-yang like, which still would have been uniform and symmetric. However, then there would have been a reverse direction re-equilibrational process in which the point pair would go in a reverse direction and this would have destroyed the perfect symmetry by distorting space itself, which in turn would have led to directional, or force-type vibrations from the oscillations. From there, there would have been vibrating "particle capacities" derived from smaller units. So there are no "solid particles," they come from space itself. This model produces an excellent ether model in which vibrational nodes resonate by linking at the elemental level, which means there is no repulsion, only attraction at this most-elemental level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    To derive a logical theory for "particles," you would need to start with "first cause," which inasmuch as space is all-pervasive, probably involved space...
    Thousand Island, please. Thanks.
    Neverfly and PhDemon like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    In reading you reply I wasn't able to make sense of it except maybe for possibly "word play, as in "Thou's and I" or something. But if interested in anything theoretical let me know and I'll dialogue about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    It's not my joke to explain but seeing as tk421 is offline I will...

    It is implying your post is meaningless gibberish, utter nonsense, specious crap - a "word salad" (s)he was requesting some salad dressing to make it more palatable...
    Thanks, PhDemon. Your explanation is much gentler than mine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    I was reticent to discuss my brief theoretical post due to the apparent pointlessness of the comments by tk241 and PhDemon, but I would just say that I believe my (admittedly extremely condensed) post is not barefacedly impossible theory, I still would invite further (more pointed and detailed) dialogue, with anyone PhD or not. Maybe name calling is all you dare?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    I have to give my opinion that Ph Demon is married to concensus concepts and is afraid to argue specific questions posed by my original post. He wants to throw out anything dissident categorically. That's what I think.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    For example, PhDemon: A dissident ether model based on vibrational elementary etheric units produces a model for Time and Gravity, which concensus theories do not. Changes in the rate of time (such as in the case of atomic clocks in motion) would be ascribed to a change in the rate of the vibrations at the elemental etheric level. Concensus theories offer no scientific model of Time. Gravity from elemental etheric vibrational units would involve the interlocking resonance between elemental units, which would be a purely-attractional force. There is no need to try to explain the absence of a balancing repulsive force, as with concensus models involving "spinning particles," "waves,' and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    I have to give my opinion that Ph Demon is married to concensus concepts and is afraid to argue specific questions posed by my original post.
    Maybe if you rewrote it in English ...

    One of the few things that can be discerned from your original post (which I initially assumed was produced by one of those random text generators as a satire on the OP) is that there are no questions.

    So unless you can write something comprehensible, with some scientific content, there isn't really anything to discuss.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    To Strange: I didn't generate my theoretic model from any "text generator." Of course, any debate concerning ether theories necessarily has to be purely theoretical. Experimental proof is impossible with our quantal technologies. Certain cosmic observations could be cited supporting my kind of model, if you're interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    To Strange: I didn't generate my theoretic model from any "text generator."
    Maybe next time you should. It might make more sense.

    Of course, any debate concerning ether theories necessarily has to be purely theoretical.
    Any discussion of theories must include evidence and mathematics. Otherwise it is not theory but mindless speculation.

    Experimental proof is impossible with our quantal technologies.
    What are "quantal technologies"?

    And, of course, science doesn't "prove" anything. And our current technologies have probed and tested our existing theories to extraordinary limits. Is the same true for your model?

    Certain cosmic observations could be cited supporting my kind of model, if you're interested.
    As it is completely unclear what your "model" is that probably wouldn't help. Perhaps you need to work on communicating your ideas more clearly, prefreably with the appropriate mathematical support.

    To derive a logical theory for "particles," you would need to start with "first cause,"
    Why? Our existing theories of particle physics work well (exceptionally well in the case of QED) without worrying about a "first cause" (whatver that means).

    The logical model would involve the idea that space is very self-compatible
    What does it mean for space to be "very self-compatible"? Can it be slightly self-compatible? Can you define how you would quantify and measure the degree of "self-compatibility"?

    Can space be incompatible with itself? What would that even mean?

    and that in the beginning, spatial points were oscillating uniformly with other points
    What does "in the beginning" mean?

    What are "spatial points"? Why would they oscillate? What does "oscillate with other points" mean? (Are you sure you don't mean osculate?)

    How do you know they were oscillating? At what frequency and amplitude were they oscillating?

    after which oscillational fatigue
    What is "oscillational fatigue"? And what causes it? How do you quantify and measure it?

    caused adjacent point pairs to fall toward each other yin-yang like
    How can points in space fall towards each other? Is this the opposite of the current expansion of space we see? What does "yin-yang like" mean? (Light and dark? Male and female?)

    which still would have been uniform and symmetric.
    What would still have been "uniform and symmetric"?

    However, then there would have been a reverse direction re-equilibrational process in which the point pair would go in a reverse direction
    Why? What forces or energies would have caused this? When would it have happened?

    and this would have destroyed the perfect symmetry by distorting space itself, which in turn would have led to directional, or force-type vibrations from the oscillations.
    What is a "force-type vibrations"? What is the difference between "vibrations" and "oscillations"?

    From there, there would have been vibrating "particle capacities" derived from smaller units.
    Why?

    What are "particle capacities"? What characteristics (mass, size, frequency, energy, velocity, etc) do they have? What are the "smaller units"?

    So there are no "solid particles," they come from space itself.
    Where is the evidence for this?

    This model produces an excellent ether model
    Please describe this "ether model" in appropriate mathematical detail. Please use this to show that the model is able to make useful predictionns about the real world.

    (Note, without mathematics and predictions, you do not have a "model"; you may have the faintest germ of an idea. But I am not even convinced of that, at the moment.)

    in which vibrational nodes resonate by linking at the elemental level
    What forces cause these "linkages"? Please provide a description of these forces, in the appropriate mathematical detail.

    which means there is no repulsion, only attraction at this most-elemental level.
    Why does it mean that? (This is obviously where mathematics would be useful: to prove this rather than us relying on your, apparently baseless, assertions.)


    Those are just some of the more obvious questions that come t mind after reading your post. It appears that the scientific content approaches zero.
    Last edited by Strange; May 1st, 2013 at 09:52 AM.
    PhDemon likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    For example, PhDemon: A dissident ether model based on vibrational elementary etheric units produces a model for Time and Gravity, which concensus theories do not.
    Please show, quantitatively, how time and gravity emerge from your "dissident ether model".

    Changes in the rate of time (such as in the case of atomic clocks in motion) would be ascribed to a change in the rate of the vibrations at the elemental etheric level.
    Can you show that the predictions of your model match those of general relativity (i.e. that they match reality)?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    To Strange (and PhDemon):to the question what are "quantal technologies?" - to a veteran ether-theorist like myself, and a number of others engaged in theories based on the idea of a universal ether, this term refers to our belief that there exists a super-rarified etheric medium which mediates phenomena like Time and Gravity. We believe science fails to grasp these phenomena because they have dismissed the ether-concept. Our earth-based technologies are mediated by vastly-bigger energy units they call electrons, photons, and so on. In my ether model, such units are actually what could be called particle-capacities because they comprise ever-smaller etheroidal and etheric energy units. Gravity is mediated entirely at the most-elemental smallest etheric unit level. With this model, there is no opposing or repulsive force. -For you two critics to see where I'm coming from, it would be best if you were to look into the history and concept of ether-theory, after which we could dialogue more meaningfully. (The concept of a universal ether was accepted in science till the late 19th century. Many theorists besides me want it re-instated, but my model is unique to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    To Strange (and PhDemon):to the question what are "quantal technologies?" - to a veteran ether-theorist like myself, and a number of others engaged in theories based on the idea of a universal ether, this term refers to our belief that there exists a super-rarified etheric medium which mediates phenomena like Time and Gravity.
    How can "technology" (of any form) refer to a belief? (Especially, a belief totally unsupported by evidence.)

    I repeat, what does "quantal technologies" mean? I assume nothing to do with Quantel technologies. (But I am really pleased to see they are still going after all these years.)

    We believe science fails to grasp these phenomena because they have dismissed the ether-concept.
    Because of lack of evidence for any aether.

    For you two critics to see where I'm coming from, it would be best if you were to look into the history and concept of ether-theory, after which we could dialogue more meaningfully.
    I have read extensively about the history of science and technology, as well as taking university courses, so I am reasonably familiar with the history of this concept. Including the lack of evidence.

    The concept of a universal ether was accepted in science till the late 19th century.
    Because of the lack of evidence. And the realisation that it wasn't necessary.

    Many theorists besides me want it re-instated, but my model is unique to me.
    "Theorist" is not the word I would use. You have not presented a theory or a model, or vben a testable hypothesis.

    Where is the evidence for this ether you believe in? Or is it just a religion that you accept without evidence?

    Where is the math for your model? Where are the testable predictions of your hypothesis?

    Basically: it ain't science. I don't know what you are doing wasting everyone's time on a science forum.

    p.s. I notice you didn't answer any of my questions. I assume you are not interested in explaining your ideas. (Or not able to? Your grasp of English seems pretty poor; if it is a second language let me know and I will make allowances.)
    Last edited by Strange; May 1st, 2013 at 02:52 PM.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    manteski@aol.com. I live in Massachusetts
    Posts
    106
    Strange, I refuse to dialogue further about this unless you familiarize yourself more with views of current ether scientists and get a better grasp of their basic ideas. It appears clear to me that you are not familiar with this area of theory from the kinds of questions you have posted. ("Ether" is sometimes referred to as "the aether." It means the same thing, only the spelling is slightly different). I still say that until Science revisits theoretic concepts dealing with a universal ether, we will continue failing to understand Time, Gravity, and first cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Anteski View Post
    Strange, I refuse to dialogue further about this unless you familiarize yourself more with views of current ether scientists and get a better grasp of their basic ideas.
    There is no such thing as an "ether scientist". Sadly, I am all too familiar with the ideas that pass for theories among the crackpots who infect science sites.

    Your inability to answer any basic questions about your model or to provide any evidence or testable predictions puts you solidly outside science.

    "Ether" is sometimes referred to as "the aether." It means the same thing, only the spelling is slightly different.
    Gosh. Really. You don't say. Next you will be telling me that "colour" and "color" mean the same thing.

    I still say that until Science revisits theoretic concepts dealing with a universal ether, we will continue failing to understand Time, Gravity, and first cause.
    You have provided no theoretical or evidential reason why science should revisit this idea, which was discarded for very good reasons. You haven't even brought up the usual irrelevant quotations from Einstein. You are a pretty crap etherist.

    Note that there is one ether theory which works and provides identical results to general relativity. Of course, it is generally ignored as it introduces an arbitrary factor (the aether) for which the is no evidence and no need for outside of that theory. Occam's Razor, and all that.

    I think Science (why the capital S?) should revisit theoretic concepts dealing with phlogiston otherwise we will continue to fail to understand thermodynamics and the first cause of heat.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 99
    Last Post: February 26th, 2013, 10:53 PM
  2. Expansion of Space-Time and virtual (quantum?) particles
    By geordief in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 15th, 2013, 10:43 AM
  3. Problem with the wave theory of quantum particles
    By grandi in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2012, 07:45 PM
  4. Problem with the wave theory of quantum particles
    By grandi in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2012, 01:03 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 7th, 2010, 05:19 PM
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
  •