Author Topic: Flat Earth and Fake Space (Read 11104 times)

patrick jane · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2018, 08:47:29 pm »

"Samadhi in Fake Space" (NDE's, Flat Earth & New Age Deception...)

26 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z1YgroiygU&list=WL&index=29&t=94s

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google : https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+

patrick jane · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2018, 09:42:53 pm »

If Star Wars fans learned Space is Fake...

Recently I stumbled across this "Star Wars the Last Jedi - Rant Compilation

11 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl-teDgQneo&index=26&list=WL&t=0s

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google : https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+

patrick jane · « **Reply #15 on:** December 05, 2018, 07:42:31 am »

Landing On A Transparent Moon? ✅

Fascinating Lunar Eclipse From Norway 2018 - Proof The Moon Is Not Solid - Must See !!!

16 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG1VZbF3xoQ

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Google : https://plus.google.com/u/0/113527239869543729835
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100007669219364+

patrick jane · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2019, 06:52:13 am »

Galileo Was Wrong - The Heliocentric Lie

1. In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction because it was required to fit his theory, not because he “discovered” it. It has since been applied to everything under the sun so that the Einstein advocates can claim that everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites are in an inertial frame. The fact is, the light beams traveling east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame. (And if they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied). So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”

2. EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong. (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.

Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate.

3. Not only has General Relativity failed to provide adequate answers for stellar aberration, rotation, and
action-at-a-distance (that is, without resorting to Mach’s “distant rotating masses”), Van Flandern
reminds us that…

“…it is not widely appreciated that this [General Relativity] is a purely mathematical model,
lacking a physical mechanism to initiate motion. For example, if a “space-time manifold” (like
the rubber sheet) exists near a source of mass, why would a small particle placed at rest in that
manifold (on the rubber sheet) begin to move toward the source mass? Indeed, why would
curvature of the manifold even have a sense of “down” unless some force such as gravity
already existed. Logically, the small particle at rest on a curved manifold would have no reason
to end its rest unless a force acted on it.”

“…all existing experimental evidence requires the action of fields to be conveyed much faster
than lightspeed. This situation is ironic because the reason why the geometric interpretation
gained ascendancy over the field interpretation is that the implied faster-than-light action of
fields appeared to allow causality violations [e.g., moving backwards in time, according to the
principles of Special Relativity]….Yet the field interpretation of General Relativity requires
faster than light propagation. So if Special Relativity were a correct model of reality, the field
interpretation would violate the causality principle, which is why it fell from popularity.”

4. It is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand, claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not incorporate gravity or inertial forces.

On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of light because Special Relativity says nothing can go faster than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s speed
is limited to light speed?

Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity, is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is
because General Relativity deals with frames that include gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself
is a non-inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000 mps by Special Relativity which only deals
with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of Relativity contradict themselves.

5. Einstein and Infield wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938) :

“…the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate storeys (sic), the special theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation.”

On this Dr. Kelly comments :

“So, if the special theory loses its basis, the general theory is also without foundation.”

The only original big idea in “Einstein's” so-called theory of general relativity was curved space. Yet through the 1980s and 1990s, and today with the Hubble space telescope, astronomers have methodically and painstakingly developed three-dimensional atlases of the universe. However, they have detected no curvature of space. Theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette observes :

“If space were curved by even the slightest amount, evidence of this would have shown up in astronomical surveys. When the data are checked, however, no evidence of curvature is found. Observations of the density of galaxies found at distant locations of the universe indicate that space is Euclidian out to the farthest limits of observation.”

26 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ugka2mM0Dsc

Please Subscribe! Join my Free Forums for discussion, debate and fellowship
PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/

patrick jane · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2019, 10:08:15 am »

Tycho Brahe's Arguments (see the comment section)

Comment :

What we have in the history of western science is a fully formed highly detailed geocentric cosmology and mathematical astronomy in the form of the Syntaxis Mathematiké from Ptolemaeus from the middle of the second century CE. This lays out in great detail all of the arguments for and against both the geocentric and heliocentric cosmologies known to the Greek astronomers and cosmologist over a period of about six hundred years. Not exactly fragments of ideas!

These arguments are logically argued scientific hypotheses based on solid empirical observation made by Babylonian and Greek astronomers over a period of approximately nine hundred years. Thanks to Ptolemaeus we know exactly why geocentrism was the standard. A standard that was accepted and defended in the works of Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers and mathematical commentators. This standard was also maintained and defended by many, many Islamic philosophers and astronomers from about 800 CE into the Early Modern Period.

The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.

However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought.

Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.

10 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKOyGNLL58&t=384s

Bladerunner · « **Reply #18 on:** April 14, 2019, 09:01:48 pm »

Quote from: patrick jane on April 13, 2019, 10:08:15 am

Tycho Brahe's Arguments (see the comment section)

Comment :

What we have in the history of western science is a fully formed highly detailed geocentric cosmology and mathematical astronomy in the form of the Syntaxis Mathematiké from Ptolemaeus from the middle of the second century CE. This lays out in great detail all of the arguments for and against both the geocentric and heliocentric cosmologies known to the Greek astronomers and cosmologist over a period of about six hundred years. Not exactly fragments of ideas!

These arguments are logically argued scientific hypotheses based on solid empirical observation made by Babylonian and Greek astronomers over a period of approximately nine hundred years. Thanks to Ptolemaeus we know exactly why geocentrism was the standard. A standard that was accepted and defended in the works of Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers and mathematical commentators. This standard was also maintained and defended by many, many Islamic philosophers and astronomers from about 800 CE into the Early Modern Period.

The geocentric hypotheses of Greek and Islamic cosmology and astronomy were not based on religious beliefs but on solid empirical observations. The religious views of the astronomers and cosmologists who presented those hypotheses did not play a significant role in their work.

However the three main players in the introduction of heliocentric cosmology in the Early Modern Period Copernicus, Kepler and Newton (contrary to popular opinion Galileo only played a very minor role) were all deeply religious and the religious views of two of them did play a highly significant role in their scientific thought.

Copernicus was a cannon of a Catholic cathedral. Kepler trained for the priesthood in a Lutheran seminary and remained devotedly religious all of his life believing that he was serving his God through his astronomical work. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who believed that he had been special chosen by God to reveal the secrets of His creation.

10 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKOyGNLL58&t=384s

Fake, Fake, Fake... like the news media...we have been force feed all our lives.

Blade

patrick jane · « **Reply #19 on:** May 09, 2019, 06:32:26 pm »

Cosmology Has Some Big Problems

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/

What do we really know about our universe?

Born out of a cosmic explosion 13.8 billion years ago, the universe rapidly inflated and then cooled, it is still expanding at an increasing rate and mostly made up of unknown dark matter and dark energy ... right?

This well-known story is usually taken as a self-evident scientific fact, despite the relative lack of empirical evidence—and despite a steady crop of discrepancies arising with observations of the distant universe.

In recent months, new measurements of the Hubble constant, the rate of universal expansion, suggested major differences between two independent methods of calculation. Discrepancies on the expansion rate have huge implications not simply for calculation but for the validity of cosmology's current standard model at the extreme scales of the cosmos.

Another recent probe found galaxies inconsistent with the theory of dark matter, which posits this hypothetical substance to be everywhere. But according to the latest measurements, it is not, suggesting the theory needs to be reexamined.

It's perhaps worth stopping to ask why astrophysicists hypothesize dark matter to be everywhere in the universe? The answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that is not often remarked. For a crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid.

Each new discrepancy between observation and theory can of course in and of itself be considered an exciting promise of more research, a progressive refinement toward the truth. But when it adds up, it could also suggest a more confounding problem that is not resolved by tweaking parameters or adding new variables.

Consider the context of the problem and its history. As a mathematically driven science, cosmological physics is usually thought to be extremely precise. But the cosmos is unlike any scientific subject matter on earth. A theory of the entire universe, based on our own tiny neighborhood as the only known sample of it, requires a lot of simplifying assumptions. When these assumptions are multiplied and stretched across vast distances, the potential for error increases, and this is further compounded by our very limited means of testing.

Historically, Newton's physical laws made up a theoretical framework that worked for our own solar system with remarkable precision. Both Uranus and Neptune, for example, were discovered through predictions based on Newton's model. But as the scales grew larger, its validity proved limited. Einstein's general relativity framework provided an extended and more precise reach beyond the furthest reaches of our own galaxy. But just how far could it go?

The big bang paradigm that emerged in the mid-20th century effectively stretches the model's validity to a kind of infinity, defined either as the boundary of the radius of the universe (calculated at 46 billion light-years) or in terms of the beginning of time. This giant stretch is based on a few concrete discoveries, such as Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe appears to be expanding (in 1929) and the detection of the microwave background radiation (in 1964). But considering the scale involved, these limited observations have had an outsized influence on cosmological theory.

It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional beasts invented to uphold the model along with empirically valid variables, mutually reliant on each other to the point of making it impossible to sort science from fiction.

Compounding this problem, most observations of the universe occur experimentally and indirectly. Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything—they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. And so, despite the advanced technologies and methods involved, the profound limitations to the endeavor also increase the risk of being led astray by the kind of assumptions that cannot be calculated.

After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.

Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?

A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations."

As I discuss in my new book, Metaphysical Experiments, there is a deeper history behind the current problems. The big bang hypothesis itself originally emerged as an indirect consequence of general relativity undergoing remodeling. Einstein had made a fundamental assumption about the universe, that it was static in both space and time, and to make his equations add up, he added a “cosmological constant,” for which he freely admitted there was no physical justification.

But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and Einstein's solution no longer seemed to make sense, some mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the atom also explain our universe?

From the outset, the theory only spoke to the immediate aftermath of an explicitly hypothetical event, whose principal function was as a limit condition, the point at which the theory breaks down. Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity.

On top of this undemonstrable but very productive hypothesis, floor upon floor has been added intact, with vastly extended scales and new discrepancies. To explain observations of galaxies inconsistent with general relativity, the existence of dark matter was posited as an unknown and invisible form of matter calculated to make up more than a quarter of all mass-energy content in the universe—assuming, of course, the framework is universally valid. In 1998, when a set of supernova measurements of accelerating galaxies seemed at odds with the framework, a new theory emerged of a mysterious force called dark energy, calculated to fill circa 70 percent of the mass-energy of the universe.

The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.

In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.

Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term from technology studies, has become path-dependent: overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.

This article is based on edited excerpts from the book Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the Universe, published by University of Minnesota Press.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Please Subscribe! Discord Sucks! Join my Forums for discussion, debate and fellowship - FREE
PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/

patrick jane · « **Reply #20 on:** May 18, 2019, 09:06:25 pm »

Why Did We Test Nukes in Space?

14 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcTrOGS3TyE&list=WL&index=8&t=0s

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/

patrick jane · « **Reply #21 on:** August 12, 2019, 01:43:45 pm »

She Wants To Be Your Girl Not One Of Your Girls

33 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8t7KYeFPo&list=WL&index=9&t=189s

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube back up: patrick jane forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/patrick_jane_ephesians6/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Gab : https://gab.com/patrick_jane
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/mentalist3169
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/

Bladerunner · « **Reply #22 on:** August 12, 2019, 08:17:21 pm »

Quote from: patrick jane on August 12, 2019, 01:43:45 pm

She Wants To Be Your Girl Not One Of Your Girls

33 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh8t7KYeFPo&list=WL&index=9&t=189s

PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Patreon : https://www.patreon.com/patrick_jane3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums : https://theologyforums.com/index.php
Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube back up: patrick jane forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/patrick_jane_ephesians6/
Twitter : https://twitter.com/patrickjane3169
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Gab : https://gab.com/patrick_jane
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/mentalist3169
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/

What will they think of next.

Blade

patrick jane · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2019, 05:09:32 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pCtAwqzR88

Bladerunner · « **Reply #24 on:** November 26, 2019, 08:29:48 pm »

Quote from: patrick jane on November 23, 2019, 05:09:32 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pCtAwqzR88

a good one.

patrick jane · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2020, 10:53:32 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHqrD-7Tfk

Patrick Jane Forums | Anthropology, Theology, Conspiracy

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: Flat Earth and Fake Space (Read 11104 times)

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

Bladerunner

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

Bladerunner

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

Bladerunner

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

patrick jane

Re: Flat Earth and Fake Space

Related Topics

Recent Topics