Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Knowledge and How-To


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-01-2009, 10:18 AM   #1 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
Speed of light

Something I never got was how this really works. If things are relative then how am I ever going a real speed at all? To the ground I may be moving 5mph but to a galaxy moving away from me I could somehow be moving faster than the speed of light. After all, if two bodies in space are both moving near the speed of light, away from each other... then relative to each other, how are they not moving faster than the speed of light?

Speed seems completely arbitrary under relativity.
Zeraph is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:29 AM   #2 (permalink)
Insane
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Location: Ottawa
All that matters is the frame of reference - no need to concern yourself with how fast you are moving in relation to another galaxy as you describe.
__________________
-- apt-get install spare_time --
JamesB is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:34 AM   #3 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
For the second part, you're missing a crucial part: speed of light is constant relative to the observer. This is where realtivistic effects come into play -- speed being an expression of distance over time, if the speed and distance stay the same the time has to be variable. In other words, a second isn't always a second -- your second may be more of a second than mine. If I'm going fast enough, I may experience hours while you do not, so that when we meet up again significantly more time has passed for me.

You seem to be hung up on the idea of an absolute frame of reference, when in reality there is no such thing. It's all relative, my man.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:39 AM   #4 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Martian, you've got it backwards: if you're going suitably faster than Zeraph, he would experience hours where you would experience minutes or seconds, depending on the differential.

But otherwise, yep, that's it.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:43 AM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
DaniGirl's Avatar
 
Location: Fucking Utah...
A real thought provoking thread. But its not something I really think about. I mean I do think about how small our galaxy is and how insignificant everything is compared to the big picture. I don't think there is faster then the speed of light.
DaniGirl is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 10:49 AM   #6 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
Score one for Jazz...I'm shocked
Yep, if youre going near the speed of light you come back "younger" than the people you left behind.

OK let me rephrase my example.

Imagine three bodies in space stationary relative to each other. One person is on each body, call em A B and C. A and C take off in opposite directions from B. Both go near the speed of light. Looking from B using A as a reference point, how is C not moving faster than the speed of light?

Last edited by Zeraph; 07-01-2009 at 10:52 AM..
Zeraph is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:10 AM   #7 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Now I'll throw a monkey wrench into the whole mess.

The speed of light isn't constant. It can be sped up and slowed down. It can even be stopped.

Putting the Brakes on Light Speed - washingtonpost.com

there's one article that covers it.
shakran is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:14 AM   #8 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
But C isn't moving at C (see what I did there?).

OK, smart-assness over, I don't think you've constructed your question quite right. A and C depart point B at the speed of light in opposite directions. From B, both A and C will always be seen as moving at the speed of light since B is stationary. B is moving at the speed of light as seen from both A and C. That's an important distinction because when A or C looks at each other in reference to themselves, even though they're moving at the speed of light, the other is still moving at the speed of light - which is the same as B. If light departed from one of them back towards the other, it would depart at the speed of light in that direction, which is not zero to compensate for the direction of travel in the opposite direction but the actual speed of light. If the light was shone from C towards A and A wasn't 100% efficient, eventually the light from C would eventually catch A.

At least as I understand it.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:19 AM   #9 (permalink)
Young Crumudgeon
 
Martian's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Thanks for the catch, Jazz, you're indeed correct. Dashing off quick replies about complex subjects? Bad.

And yes, to your analysis. Sums up my understanding on the matter as well.
__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame
Martian is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:20 AM   #10 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran View Post
Now I'll throw a monkey wrench into the whole mess.

The speed of light isn't constant. It can be sped up and slowed down. It can even be stopped.

Putting the Brakes on Light Speed - washingtonpost.com

there's one article that covers it.
Well, sort of kind of. Most of the techiniques that they're using simply trap the light and give the illusion that it's slowing down. It's still moving at the same speed but the medium causes it to appear to move slower. The Harvard experiments were something a little different, but at the end of the day the light basically just has a much more inefficient route to take than normal.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 12:16 PM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Francisco
The speed of light is constant in a vacuum.
The speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

Zeraph, in your example each of A B and C is an inertial reference frame. Time and space in one frame as viewed from any other frame is relative to the velocity of the other frame. Even if, relative to B, the sum of the velocities of A and C is greater than the speed of light, viewed from either of those frames, the velocities of the other frames WILL be less than the speed of light. This seems like a paradox but the way you can look at it is that time and space warp to prevent anything from moving faster than light, in special relativity this is known as time dilation (special relativity does not really get into the case of space warping but it can happen). Basically time slows down for the moving observer relative to the observed frame which causes the relative velocity to be less than the speed of light in any case.
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln
n0nsensical is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 12:23 PM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
Good stuff. Ok, let me re-rephrase my question. something is moving at the speed of light. I'm riding a photon that is shot in the opposite direction of the obj moving at the speed of light. From my perspective on the photon moving "backwards" at the speed of light, wouldn't the object I was shot from seem to be moving faster than the speed of light? If we can only move away from each other at the speed of light then kinetic energy must disappear somewhere in there since it doesn't cancel momentum when I'm shot out backwards...which obviously isn't right so I must not be getting something.

nice answer n0nsensical...ok so time is taking the hit in energy I guess...but then, well, why? why time and not speed like it would normally work at our level...insanity, i dont know how he ever figured this stuff out.

Last edited by Zeraph; 07-01-2009 at 12:26 PM..
Zeraph is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 12:35 PM   #13 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Right.

Thought experiment. You are in a vacuum. You are hanging in an empty part of space.

Designate the long axis of your body as UP. Designate the direction you are facing as NORTH.

Shine a YELLOW laser EAST, and another WEST.

From your POV, there are two yellow photons going away from you at C

Therefore from your perspective, the photons relative speed seems to be 2C.

If you were sitting on the yellow photon, looking back past the person shining the light what would you see?

You would see not a yellow photon going away at 2C, you would see a RED photon going away at 1C.

Look up Redshift, and it will help explain.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 01:16 PM   #14 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
Well, sort of kind of. Most of the techiniques that they're using simply trap the light and give the illusion that it's slowing down. It's still moving at the same speed but the medium causes it to appear to move slower. The Harvard experiments were something a little different, but at the end of the day the light basically just has a much more inefficient route to take than normal.
Unless I grossly misunderstand it, which is indeed possible, they actually slowed down the light itself. It took a straight path, but at a slower speed. And the wavelength compressed when it went into the "brake section" for want of a better term.
shakran is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 01:29 PM   #15 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
I'm not a physicist, but when I read this:

Quote:
But that seemingly small degree of braking is nothing less than a means of storing, or "buffering" waves of light. Moreover, the system is tunable. With the turn of a knob the temperature in the chamber can be changed, which alters how much the incoming light is slowed and stored.
it implies - to me - that the light is still moving at the same but through a medium that inhibits its progress. So the speed of light is still constant but these particular photons are spending more time moving throught the cesium. They haven't changed the speed of light, just impeded these particular light particles in a convenient way.

Not trying to split hairs or anything, but when you say

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
The speed of light isn't constant. It can be sped up and slowed down. It can even be stopped.
it's not entirely true, only for the photons involved in this experiment. C (the speed of light) can never exceed 300,000 km/second. You cannot vary C in any way known to man since the photons in these experiments instananeously "accelerate" back to C when they exit the medium - that's because they were never truly slowed down, just taking a much longer route than normal but still at C.

Make sense?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 01:49 PM   #16 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
No, but then I'm a physics layman. If something's moving in a straight line at speed X, and it goes through a medium still in a straight line, and the time it took to traverse that distance indicates that it had to be moving at X-10, and on the other side of that medium it's back to speed X, I don't see how it didn't slow down. I've read other articles on this, that didn't indicate the medium caused the light to take a circuitous path through the braking medium, so I've been assuming that the light travels a straight line through it. Is that where I'm hung up?
shakran is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 03:01 PM   #17 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
I think that's the issue. Again, I'm no physicist, but as I understand it, the light is still moving at it's constant speed but the medium is basically making it move in a more circuitous route. So instead of exiting the medium at the shortest point, it's moving in an arc, or - in this case I think - a series of arcs. Maybe I don't understand the process well enough, but unless they're going to change the nature of a photon, it can't decelerate and then instantly accelerate once it reaches the exit. The fact that they're talking about it still traveling at C once it reaches the other end makes me think that it never slowed down, just took a very long route to get to the end.

Then again, I could be the one who has it wrong. At the end of the day, I suspect we'd need someone intimately familiar with the research to give us the right answer.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 04:42 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeraph View Post
Good stuff. Ok, let me re-rephrase my question. something is moving at the speed of light. I'm riding a photon that is shot in the opposite direction of the obj moving at the speed of light. From my perspective on the photon moving "backwards" at the speed of light, wouldn't the object I was shot from seem to be moving faster than the speed of light? If we can only move away from each other at the speed of light then kinetic energy must disappear somewhere in there since it doesn't cancel momentum when I'm shot out backwards...which obviously isn't right so I must not be getting something.

nice answer n0nsensical...ok so time is taking the hit in energy I guess...but then, well, why? why time and not speed like it would normally work at our level...insanity, i dont know how he ever figured this stuff out.
You're hitting on another aspect of relativity, which is relative mass and energy. Indeed, mass and kinetic energy are also relative and subject to the same rules. You've heard the equation E=mc^2. This is the rest energy of matter. The total energy is the rest energy plus the relativistic kinetic energy. This energy is different depending on the velocity of the two frames of reference. As the velocity approaches the speed of light, the relativistic mass/energy approaches infinity. Another way to say that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light is that it would need to have infinite energy.

If you're mathematically inclined, look into the Lorentz Transformation for the mathematical explanation of special relativity. Some people can visualize equations better than words. From that and other equations, such as Maxwell's equations, and a whole lot of experimental data, is how physicists figured this out. Some of the consequences of relativity were observed before anyone had any idea what was going on. Other parts were beyond the accuracy of instruments of the time. (It's pretty hard to measure time dilation without an atomic clock) Most prominently Einstein, but he stood on the shoulders of other giants. Other physicists really made the important discoveries separately, Einstein just put all the pieces together into a few neat papers. Then he moved on to General Relativity which is a whole other can of worms that even fewer people understand.



Light really does slow down when it travels through matter, and it travels in a straight line (actually the precise motion of individual photons is a statistical distribution, but the whole distribution travels straight on average), but there isn't much of a why about it, it just does. I'm not sure it can be explained in macrophysical terms. It can be modelled in different ways by some complex quantum mechanics that I wouldn't have the slightest clue about. The simplest way I could explain it is that different media are differently susceptible to the application of electric and magnetic fields, and light is a moving electromagnetic field. (Electricity and magnetism are equivalent through relativity) It's similar to the way sound travels faster in water, because the speed of sound waves is dependent on the density of the medium. It's similar for EM waves, but somewhat more abstract, because they don't necessarily need a medium to travel at all whereas sound waves do.

So the speed depends on the properties of the medium in which it travels, sometimes expressed as electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. (They are really just one number but if you're not into tensors and things it's usually more convenient to express them separately) In a vacuum, these are known as the permittivity and permeability of free space and are simply some magical universal constants the square root of the inverse product of which is equal to c. The permittivity and permeability are different in various media, and even within a single medium can vary with the field strength and frequency.

The reason that visible light does not travel through usual matter is that the permittivity is approximately 0 at the appropriate frequencies; the energy is either reflected or absorbed. The permittivity of air is very close to that of free space and I think the permeability is equal. (There are some wave equations that can tell you what will happen to light at the boundary of media but I didn't do too well in that part of electromagnetics and ended up with a C-. Hehehe. I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about. =P) But glass has an unusually high permittivity. In (some?) nonmagnetic media, the permeability is exactly equal to the permeability of freespace and thus the speed of light is only dependent on the permittivity.
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by n0nsensical; 07-01-2009 at 07:40 PM..
n0nsensical is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran View Post
No, but then I'm a physics layman. If something's moving in a straight line at speed X, and it goes through a medium still in a straight line, and the time it took to traverse that distance indicates that it had to be moving at X-10, and on the other side of that medium it's back to speed X, I don't see how it didn't slow down. I've read other articles on this, that didn't indicate the medium caused the light to take a circuitous path through the braking medium, so I've been assuming that the light travels a straight line through it. Is that where I'm hung up?
Think of someone walking through a crowd.

Before you get to the crowd, you take a 1m step each second, meaning you travel at 1m/s.

When you hit the crowd, you take a 1m step each second, but instead of straight line, you now have to jink and bob through the people, so your speed is still 1m/s, but your progress through the crowd has dropped to >1m/s.

On the micro scale, your SPEED is unchanged, but on a macro scale your VELOCITY has dropped.

Latices that trap photons are like this - the photons move at C, but because they bounce back and forth past atoms in the lattice, their path length is massively increased, and so they take longer to get through the lattice than L/C, where L is the external size of the lattice.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 11:23 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_ View Post
Latices that trap photons are like this - the photons move at C, but because they bounce back and forth past atoms in the lattice, their path length is massively increased, and so they take longer to get through the lattice than L/C, where L is the external size of the lattice.
Ahh, is this a property of all matter or only certain types? If the latter, what is different about it to cause this kind of behavior? Is this the entire reason for varying permittivity and permeability of different media? Is there any sort of delay associated with bouncing off an atom or is it simply because of the additional distance? This is where my knowledge starts to get really hazy, I am horrible at microelectronics and microphysics, why I ended up as a computer scientist than a EE, EE is practically turning into material physics and quantum mechanics these days as circuits shrink and shrink.
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by n0nsensical; 07-01-2009 at 11:33 PM..
n0nsensical is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:50 AM   #21 (permalink)
Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It!
 
Daniel_'s Avatar
 
Location: Southern England
Quote:
Originally Posted by n0nsensical View Post
Ahh, is this a property of all matter or only certain types? If the latter, what is different about it to cause this kind of behavior? Is this the entire reason for varying permittivity and permeability of different media? Is there any sort of delay associated with bouncing off an atom or is it simply because of the additional distance? This is where my knowledge starts to get really hazy, I am horrible at microelectronics and microphysics, why I ended up as a computer scientist than a EE, EE is practically turning into material physics and quantum mechanics these days as circuits shrink and shrink.
Don't know, I'm a chemist.
__________________
╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗
Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air,
And deep beneath the rolling waves,
In labyrinths of Coral Caves,
The Echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand;
And everthing is Green and Submarine

╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝
Daniel_ is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:54 AM   #22 (permalink)
Banned
 
Zeraph's Avatar
 
Location: The Cosmos
hah, awesome thread.
Zeraph is offline  
Old 07-26-2009, 03:27 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master Thief. Master Criminal. Masturbator.
 
SSJTWIZTA's Avatar
 
Location: Windiwana


read it, thank me later.
__________________
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller
SSJTWIZTA is offline  
Old 09-02-2009, 02:04 PM   #24 (permalink)
Upright
 
Isn't the speed of light in relation to the direct surroundings?
TUDelftstudent is offline  
Old 10-22-2009, 09:45 PM   #25 (permalink)
Upright
 
First, picture a two coordinate grid. (The kind you used to plot equations in school). A length of exactly one whatever, call it a foot, lying horizontal takes up one foot horizontal and no space vertical. The same length vertical takes up on vertical foot, but no horizontal space.

Take that length, and lay it at an angle. Now, it takes up space both vertically and horizontally. You are familiar with perception in two dimensions, and so you can easily see this. If the length tilts more towards the horizontal, then it takes up less vertical space and more horizontal space. However, at all times the length is exactly the same.

Now, imagine that acceleration can be plotted onto a coordinate grid instead of a vertical spatial measure. After all, time is a measurable dimension, and acceleration and speed are simply functions of time compared to a physical distance. So call this new coordinate (y*t). You are unfamiliar with perception into this new dimension, and so your brain attempts to explain them in terms of your familiar three coordinate system. However, when it does this, things don't sync up perfectly.

A length at rest (that is, horizontal) appears exactly the same in this new grid as it did in the old grid. When you start applying acceleration to that length (tilting it up), It starts to take up less space on the x coordinate and more on the (y*t) coordinate. Your brain will continue to think of this coordinate in spatial terms, and so will be unable to intuit why is doesn't act the same as plain old y.

This mental grid helps to explain temporal dilation as well. An object exactly at rest (perfectly horizontal) would be experiencing no time. This is effectively impossible (or performed only by things like photons; take your pick). Objects subject to a greater acceleration experience more personal time than those subjected to less acceleration, or, alternatively, experience less distance.

This isn't an exactly correct way of describing relativity, but perhaps it's a helpful mental exercise nonetheless? Hopefully at some point your brain will just click, and then you'll understand it fine.
Soshi Aroso is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 02:38 PM   #26 (permalink)
Upright
 
Tesla's Avatar
 
Location: In a galaxy far far away
And what about the mass affecting space-time fiber? If an object with mass accelerates, it's mass increases accordingly. And when it approaches near the speed of light, it gains almost infinite mass, that means no matter what force is applied at the object, it can't gain the speed of light, because of the mass increment. And I have heard about an interesting theory about the Higgs boson, the particle "accused" for giving mass to things. It's more like ether(oh yeah, ether enters the physics once again) that prevents objects with that burden from moving without force applied(like photons).
__________________
That's the spirit!
Tesla is offline  
Old 11-10-2009, 06:03 PM   #27 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeraph View Post
Good stuff. Ok, let me re-rephrase my question. something is moving at the speed of light. I'm riding a photon that is shot in the opposite direction of the obj moving at the speed of light. From my perspective on the photon moving "backwards" at the speed of light, wouldn't the object I was shot from seem to be moving faster than the speed of light? If we can only move away from each other at the speed of light then kinetic energy must disappear somewhere in there since it doesn't cancel momentum when I'm shot out backwards...which obviously isn't right so I must not be getting something.
Let v be your velocity and w be the object you were fired from. let u be the observed velocities by a neutral observer. Let c be the speed of light in a vacuum.

U=[(v+w)/(1+vw/c^2)]

To convert your frame of reference to their frame of reference, you need to apply the Lorentz transformation. You're thinking in relativistic velocities in terms of standard mechanical velocities.
MSD is offline  
 

Tags
light, speed

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360