GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Craig Markwardt on 15 Jun 2007 11:11 sean <jaymoseley(a)hotmail.com> writes: > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: .... > Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not > made up imaginary observations as the others do. > > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > > > Where does the theory of special relativity "predict" that light > > cannot be "constant" in a non-inertial frame? Indeed, it is a > > postulate of SR that the speed of light *is* constant, the same > > constant c, in all inertial frames. > I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames. > I said `non inertial frames`. Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. CM
From: sean on 16 Jun 2007 05:56 On 15 Jun, 16:11, Craig Markwardt <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > On 11 Jun, 17:47, Craig Markwardt > > <craigm...(a)REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote: > > > sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> writes: > ... > > Here I use substantiated observations. from MMX and sagnac. Not > > made up imaginary observations as the others do. > > > > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > > > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > > > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > > > Where does the theory of special relativity "predict" that light > > > cannot be "constant" in a non-inertial frame? Indeed, it is a > > > postulate of SR that the speed of light *is* constant, the same > > > constant c, in all inertial frames. > > I never said SR didnt predict it to be c in all inertial frames. > > I said `non inertial frames`. > > Since the theory of special relativity doesn't make any predictions > about non-inertial frames, your claim is erroneous, and thus the > conclusions you draw from it are irrelevant. Maybe "the theory" doesnt. But its proponents do. At wiki and Ned wright pages they clearly make the claim that light does not travel at c in the non inertial frame in the SR model. But Im glad you seem to agree with me that Ned Wright and Wiki got it wrong. As we both know light can and does travel at c always in the non inertial frame as long as thats also the source frame. Sagnac and MM show us this.And in fact as sagnac and MM show us,.. light does not neccesarily travel at c in the inertial frame. Unless that also is the source frame. So in fact SR may not officially make predictions about what light does in a non inertial frame...but its prediction that it always travels at c in the inertial frame is not consistent with observation. Sean www.gammarayburst.com For an correct explanation of how sagnac and MMx can be only explained by classical and not SR see the sagnac simulations at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb
From: sean on 16 Jun 2007 06:48 On 15 Jun, 14:45, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1181913907.030099.86980(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... For a correct description of how sagnac can be explained by classical theory see... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > > On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see.. > >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > >> > On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:1181565742.578060.117350(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >>news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >> >> >> >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > >> >> >> >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > >> >> >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > >> >> >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light > >> >> >> >> >is > >> >> >> >> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > >> >> >> >> > which > >> >> >> >> > is > >> >> >> >> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > >> >> >> >> > is FALSE. > > >> >> >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. > >> >> >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >> >> >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > >> >> >> > Michaelson- Morley. > >> >> >> > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > >> >> >> > body. > >> >> >> > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the > >> >> >> > emitting > >> >> >> > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the > >> >> >> > light > >> >> >> > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This > >> >> >> > isnt > >> >> >> > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can > >> >> >> > make > >> >> >> > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the > >> >> >> > source > >> >> >> > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically > >> >> >> > refuse > >> >> >> > to accept. > > >> >> >> MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should > >> >> >> know.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > >> >> > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > >> >> > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > >> >> Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is > >> >> completely compatible with, and supports, SR- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > >> > Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling > >> > the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its > >> > predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you? > > >> We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not > >> impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is > >> perfectly > >> free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. > > >> But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the > >> local > >> speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment > >> any > >> change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. > > >> The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect > >> experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the > >> time > >> .. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the > >> results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide > >> quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > > assuming > > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try > > to argue. > > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > > observation`. > > I don't recall saying that. You said `negligible`. > But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into > accont Its `big` enough to effect a fringe shift in sagnac. THerefore it must be big enough to effect a fringe shift in MMx . But it isnt measured in MMx. Why? Because in fact light is travelling at c in both the sagnac source frame and the MMx source frame. And this is what classical theory predicts. Which is why classical is more succesful than SR. Classical predicts both Sagnac and MMx whereas SR predicts only one or the other. For instance if SR predicts that light speed difference on the two paths are below measurement thresholds in MMx, then it must also then predict that light speed differences or path differences are not detectable in a 24 hour rotating source in a ring gyro. But this isnt whats observed. In fact a 24 hour cycle rotating source in a ring gyro is detectable . Even though SR just predicted its not detectable. So SR cannot predict results for one experiment without being unable to predict the correct results for the other. You see the big scam about SR is that it predicts two contradictory results for light in non inertial frames. In sagnac it predicts that the light travels at variable speeds in the non inertial rotating source frame and that even over 24 hour cycles this is a big enough difference to effect a measureable fringe shift. But when it comes to MMX the opposite is true for SR. It says a rotating source with a 24 hour cycle does not effect a measureable fringe shift. You cant have it both ways. > [snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really > doesn't make a difference] > > SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not > ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can > be taken into account in the error bounds. Wrong. In the lab situation in sagnac a 24 hour rotation of a light source is detectable.Why then should the very same 24 hour hour rotation of the source in MMx not be detectable? Both sources are in a lab and both rotate once every 24 hours. Therefore both should either give no detection or both give a detection. > MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is > completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text - Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in the MMx source frame. And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations Sean www.gammarayburst.com
From: Don Stockbauer on 16 Jun 2007 06:57 On Jun 16, 5:48 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 Jun, 14:45, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1181913907.030099.86980(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > For a correct description of how sagnac can be explained by classical > theory see...http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > > > > > > > On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see.. > > >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > >> > On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >>news:1181565742.578060.117350(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> > On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >>news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > >> >> >> >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > >> >> >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > > >> >> >> >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > > >> >> >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > > >> >> >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light > > >> >> >> >> >is > > >> >> >> >> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > >> >> >> >> > which > > >> >> >> >> > is > > >> >> >> >> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > > >> >> >> >> > is FALSE. > > > >> >> >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. > > >> >> >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > >> >> >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > > >> >> >> > Michaelson- Morley. > > >> >> >> > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > > >> >> >> > body. > > >> >> >> > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the > > >> >> >> > emitting > > >> >> >> > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the > > >> >> >> > light > > >> >> >> > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This > > >> >> >> > isnt > > >> >> >> > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can > > >> >> >> > make > > >> >> >> > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the > > >> >> >> > source > > >> >> >> > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically > > >> >> >> > refuse > > >> >> >> > to accept. > > > >> >> >> MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should > > >> >> >> know.- Hide quoted text - > > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > >> >> > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > >> >> > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > >> >> > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > > >> >> Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is > > >> >> completely compatible with, and supports, SR- Hide quoted text - > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > >> > Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling > > >> > the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its > > >> > predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you? > > > >> We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not > > >> impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is > > >> perfectly > > >> free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. > > > >> But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the > > >> local > > >> speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment > > >> any > > >> change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. > > > >> The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect > > >> experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the > > >> time > > >> .. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the > > >> results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide > > >> quoted text - > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > > > assuming > > > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try > > > to argue. > > > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > > > observation`. > > > I don't recall saying that. > > You said `negligible`.> But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into > > accont > > Its `big` enough to effect a fringe shift in sagnac. THerefore it must > be big > enough to effect a fringe shift in MMx . But it isnt measured in MMx. > Why? > Because in fact light is travelling at c in both the sagnac source > frame > and the MMx source frame. And this is what classical theory predicts. > Which is why classical is more succesful than SR. Classical predicts > both Sagnac and MMx whereas SR predicts only one or the other. > For instance if SR predicts that light speed difference on the two > paths are below measurement thresholds in MMx, then it must also then > predict that light speed differences or path differences are not > detectable > in a 24 hour rotating source in a ring gyro. > But this isnt whats observed. In fact a 24 hour cycle rotating source > in a > ring gyro is detectable . Even though SR just predicted its not > detectable. > So SR cannot predict results for one experiment without being unable > to > predict the correct results for the other. > You see the big scam about SR is that it predicts two contradictory > results > for light in non inertial frames. In sagnac it predicts that the light > travels > at variable speeds in the non inertial rotating source frame and that > even > over 24 hour cycles this is a big enough difference to effect a > measureable > fringe shift. > But when it comes to MMX the opposite is true for SR. It says a > rotating source with a 24 hour cycle does not effect a measureable > fringe > shift. You cant have it both ways.> [snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really > > doesn't make a difference] > > > SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not > > ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can > > be taken into account in the error bounds. > > Wrong. In the lab situation in sagnac a 24 hour rotation of a light > source > is detectable.Why then should the very same 24 hour hour rotation of > the > source in MMx not be detectable? Both sources are in a lab and both > rotate > once every 24 hours. Therefore both should either give no detection > or both give a detection. > > > MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is > > completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text - > > Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in > the > MMx source frame. And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore > SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations > Seanwww.gammarayburst.com Boy. That was sure complicated.
From: sean on 16 Jun 2007 11:44
On 16 Jun, 11:57, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 5:48 am, sean <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 Jun, 14:45, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1181913907.030099.86980(a)c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > For a correct description of how sagnac can be explained by classical > > theory see...http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > > > > On 13 Jun, 00:03, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > For a correct interpretation of the MMx and Sagnac experiments see.. > > > >http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb > > > >> > On 12 Jun, 01:00, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >>news:1181565742.578060.117350(a)h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> > On 10 Jun, 15:56, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >>news:1181306564.752462.62290(a)k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> >> > On 7 Jun, 13:13, "Jeckyl" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > > >> >> >> >>news:1181198111.074796.272940(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > > >> >> >> >> > There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: > > > >> >> >> >> > Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light: > > > > >> >> >> >> Why is the constancy of the speed of light an error? > > > > >> >> >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/"...light > > > >> >> >> >> >is > > > >> >> >> >> > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > > >> >> >> >> > which > > > >> >> >> >> > is > > > >> >> >> >> > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" > > > > >> >> >> >> > is FALSE. > > > > >> >> >> >> Its not been observed as false .. its been observed as true. > > > >> >> >> >> Seehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > > >> >> >> >> Do you have experiemental evidence to the contrary? > > > >> >> >> > Michaelson- Morley. > > > >> >> >> > In this experiment light is emitted at c relative to the emitting > > > >> >> >> > body. > > > >> >> >> > Proof is that if light were not emitted at c relative to the > > > >> >> >> > emitting > > > >> >> >> > body then the observations would have shown that on one path the > > > >> >> >> > light > > > >> >> >> > would be travelling at a different speed than the other. This > > > >> >> >> > isnt > > > >> >> >> > observed. So the only scientific and logical conclusion one can > > > >> >> >> > make > > > >> >> >> > is that MMx shows us that light is emitted at c relative to the > > > >> >> >> > source > > > >> >> >> > in all directions. Something you as a relativista illogically > > > >> >> >> > refuse > > > >> >> >> > to accept. > > > > >> >> >> MM is completely compatible with, and supports, SR .. as you should > > > >> >> >> know.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> >> > If its compatible with SR then why does SR predict that light cannot > > > >> >> > be constant in a non inertial frame. Yet the MMx, being in a non > > > >> >> > inertial frame observes light being constant in all directions? > > > > >> >> Its a vert close approximation to one .. dummy. The results of MM is > > > >> >> completely compatible with, and supports, SR- Hide quoted text - > > > > >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > > >> > Very close has another meaning .. its called fudging it or fiddling > > > >> > the data. You wouldnt accept an alternative theory if it said its > > > >> > predictions werent exactly but pretty close to correct would you? > > > > >> We are limited in our experimental apparatus .. it is impractical (if not > > > >> impossible) to get the apparatus into a frame of reference that is > > > >> perfectly > > > >> free of all gravitational potential so the SR can be tested directly. > > > > >> But a laboratory is close enough for the experiment. GR tells us the > > > >> local > > > >> speed of light will be c anyway, and for the duration of the experiment > > > >> any > > > >> change in velocity of the apparatus is negligible. > > > > >> The problem is not fudging correct data .. its interpreting an imperfect > > > >> experiment within allowed margins of error. Science does that all the > > > >> time > > > >> .. and MM supports SR (which says there should be a null results and the > > > >> results are null within the margin of error of the experiment).- Hide > > > >> quoted text - > > > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > > SR predicts the null result. But how does it predict it? IT does so by > > > > assuming > > > > that the experiment does not rotate during observation or as you try > > > > to argue. > > > > You say... `that this rotation is not measureable during > > > > observation`. > > > > I don't recall saying that. > > > You said `negligible`.> But it is a relatively small effect .. the margins for error take that into > > > accont > > > Its `big` enough to effect a fringe shift in sagnac. THerefore it must > > be big > > enough to effect a fringe shift in MMx . But it isnt measured in MMx. > > Why? > > Because in fact light is travelling at c in both the sagnac source > > frame > > and the MMx source frame. And this is what classical theory predicts. > > Which is why classical is more succesful than SR. Classical predicts > > both Sagnac and MMx whereas SR predicts only one or the other. > > For instance if SR predicts that light speed difference on the two > > paths are below measurement thresholds in MMx, then it must also then > > predict that light speed differences or path differences are not > > detectable > > in a 24 hour rotating source in a ring gyro. > > But this isnt whats observed. In fact a 24 hour cycle rotating source > > in a > > ring gyro is detectable . Even though SR just predicted its not > > detectable. > > So SR cannot predict results for one experiment without being unable > > to > > predict the correct results for the other. > > You see the big scam about SR is that it predicts two contradictory > > results > > for light in non inertial frames. In sagnac it predicts that the light > > travels > > at variable speeds in the non inertial rotating source frame and that > > even > > over 24 hour cycles this is a big enough difference to effect a > > measureable > > fringe shift. > > But when it comes to MMX the opposite is true for SR. It says a > > rotating source with a 24 hour cycle does not effect a measureable > > fringe > > shift. You cant have it both ways.> [snip whole lots of waffle about measuring rotation of the earth that really > > > doesn't make a difference] > > > > SR predicts what happens in an ideal situation .. the laboratory is not > > > ideal. However it is a good enough approximation and any discrepancies can > > > be taken into account in the error bounds. > > > Wrong. In the lab situation in sagnac a 24 hour rotation of a light > > source > > is detectable.Why then should the very same 24 hour hour rotation of > > the > > source in MMx not be detectable? Both sources are in a lab and both > > rotate > > once every 24 hours. Therefore both should either give no detection > > or both give a detection. > > > > MM in no way invalidates or contradicts SR .. the 'null' result is > > > completely consistent with SR.- Hide quoted text - > > > Not if you consider that SR predicts that light should be variable in > > the > > MMx source frame. And it is not observed to be variable. Therefore > > SR predictions are not consistent with MMX observations > > Seanwww.gammarayburst.com > > Boy. That was sure complicated.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well I put it more simply earlier but here it is again... SR predicts that light from a source that is rotating must travel at variable speeds relative to the source . But in the MMx which is an experiment where light from a rotating source travels and returns down two paths, the light is observed to be travelling at the same speed on both paths contrary to what SR predicts. But what Jeckyl then was trying to argue was that the difference in speed on these two paths in MMx was too small too measure because the earths rotation was too slow too measure . And to that point I responded that if the earths rotation is too slow to measure then why is it that we can measure its rotation using fringe shifts in ring gyros? In other words Jeckyls and relativistas intention that its too slow to measure is not backed up by observation. You can see this illustrated at.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Sean |