Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Gravity indeed does warp space and time? Einstein Prediction

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 15, 2007 5:19:58 PM

Quote:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2057529...

Could this discovery eventually help future CPU's to warp time and space to actually accept input and compute results while warping time and space to actually speed up results and present them theoretically before they were requested? ;) 

Irregardless, good reading...


Well, it's clear (to me at least) that ol' Albert was definitely using the effects of his own theories to write them in the first place. For us to be sitting here almost 100 years later and finally proving that everything he said was spot-on really leads you to wonder just how the hell he figured it all out in the first place, unless he got access to some information that wasn't around yet! That's it! Einstein was a time-traveller! :lol: 
April 15, 2007 5:26:16 PM

The man was just brilliant.

I guess putting a high-gravity well of some sort in/around a PC would speed up time for it, thus making it SEEM faster when it is indeed not. For example, if you had a PC and got a 3Dmark score on it and then also encoded a video clip, and then put it inside a gravity well and did the same thing, the 3Dmark score would be the same but the video encoding would seem to go faster.
April 15, 2007 6:11:50 PM

Quote:
The man was just brilliant.

I guess putting a high-gravity well of some sort in/around a PC would speed up time for it, thus making it SEEM faster when it is indeed not. For example, if you had a PC and got a 3Dmark score on it and then also encoded a video clip, and then put it inside a gravity well and did the same thing, the 3Dmark score would be the same but the video encoding would seem to go faster.


But that brings up the obvious thought experiment. Would a 486-25 outperform a QX6800 if the former was travelling at .92C? 8)
April 15, 2007 6:11:53 PM

"Brilliant,Brilliant I say",Einstein was the result of an alien cross bread with the human species....Dosen't the hair give it away 8O .
April 15, 2007 6:16:24 PM

Quote:
The man was just brilliant.

I guess putting a high-gravity well of some sort in/around a PC would speed up time for it, thus making it SEEM faster when it is indeed not. For example, if you had a PC and got a 3Dmark score on it and then also encoded a video clip, and then put it inside a gravity well and did the same thing, the 3Dmark score would be the same but the video encoding would seem to go faster.


But that brings up the obvious thought experiment. Would a 486-25 outperform a QX6800 if the former was travelling at .92C? 8)

It could :lol: 
April 15, 2007 6:23:58 PM

Quote:
It could :lol: 


Hey, we might have stumbled on a way for Hector to have the K10 demo murder C2Q on Wednesday. All he needs to do is get the CPU into a spaceship and... :lol: 

Does Tunisia have a spaceport?
April 15, 2007 6:24:35 PM

Maybe if you would multifply PIE squared X the boiling point of ketchup 8O .
April 15, 2007 6:26:25 PM

Quote:
It could :lol: 


Hey, we might have stumbled on a way for Hector to have the K10 demo murder C2Q on Wednesday. All he needs to do is get the CPU into a spaceship and... :lol: 

Does Tunisia have a spaceport?

My flux capacitor can also generate gravitational fields. I'll loan it to them.
April 15, 2007 6:29:52 PM

I dont mean to double post but Fudd,I always have this gremlin that laughs uncontrolably inside me every other time you post. :lol:  I knew that transporter on star trek was always possible. :D 
April 15, 2007 6:31:06 PM

What are you friggin crazy....you rent those high in demand units.
April 15, 2007 6:34:46 PM

Quote:
I always have this gremlin that laughs uncontrolably inside me every other time you post. :lol: 


Just every other time? Damn. Gotta work harder! :D 

Look, ajfink may be onto something. We know that there are bananas in Tunisia. They allow beer. That's all the fuel that a flux capacitor needs as long as it's connected to a Mr. Fusion! Hector, you're a genius to hire Doc Brown!!! :twisted:
April 15, 2007 6:40:34 PM

Albert Einstein got a pretty good salary this last year according to Parade. Says the deceased physicist made $20 million. Not too shabby.
April 15, 2007 6:58:22 PM

In 50 years this forum might be filled with people oc'ing space and time. 8O
April 15, 2007 7:12:02 PM

Rofl hahaha.... It is going to be funny to just look back on all this the C2D and all the new technology and laugh at how we all were talking about how fast it was when we will prolly have watches with faster/more cores then what we have now in our computer. lol
April 15, 2007 8:00:41 PM

First of all, nothing in this article really says that much about time travel itself. They said that is the part they haven't experimented with as much. But they did say that the rotation of the planets is what would cause the space-time warp. Since the planets have so much mass, It has a slightly noticable effect.

You have to put something really extremely heavy into a computer to make it be affected by a space-time warp. Something unrealistically heavy. And If you could get something with enough matter to do this, it would disrupt the planets paths and mess everything up. You would need something with more mass than the Earth has on it. And you would have to make it spin, which you need a great deal of energy.

So pretty much, It's is almost impossible to make a device that would warp space and time.

Quote:
personally i think einstein is the most overrated person ever. perhaps it is because i do not know enough physics or perhaps it is that i do not believe in time and cannot figure out why light would be so important.


Finally! I haven't ever met anyone that shares my nonbelief in time. Time does not exist. Time is a made up measurement that we use to make sense of the world. It is not a tangible thing. So how can you bend or distort something that is not tangible? It just really doesn't make sense.

I am not very familiar with Einsteins work, so I would not go as far as saying he is overrated. But I do know that his IQ was "only" about 160. It is still high and he was a genious, but usually a genious has an IQ of at least 180.

I would also like to say that all of what I said is just theory. I am only 16. I have not even taken Physics yet in high school. I just have my own theories about how things work, so please do not take what I have said too seriously. I would not like somebody to take what I have said as fact unless I really knew what I was talking about.

I just wanted to give people something to think about.
April 15, 2007 8:12:04 PM

Well, first of all, I challenge anyone alive today to forward a physics theory that will be proven correct but only over a hundred years from now. This man was working fifty years before the invention of the slide rule! IMHO: Anyone who criticizes Einstein is broadcasting his own stupidity.

As for time not existing, I published an article about that in the 1980s. It blew the doors off dimensionality in general and postulated the illusion of self-determination in a static universe. It was enthusiastically welcomed by the scientific community of the Baffin Island Chapter Of The Flat Earth Society and sank under the waves without a trace. :cry: 
April 15, 2007 8:15:09 PM

Einstein is probably one of the most abstract thinkers who has ever lived. I don't think he's overrated, it's just that a lot of his theories are hard to picture and fully understand. Much like quantum theory (And BTW, he was the first scientist to suggest the name quanta to describe the energy transfer between different molecular excitation states).

Einsteins "General Theory of Gravitation", is one of his most profound and yet least understood theories. Basically, it redefines gravity through acceleration and mass. Einstein pointed out the you can not tell the difference between gravity and acceleration in a closed system. He then goes on to explain the connections between acceleration, mass and inertia. He does this in a very elegant, logical, and verifiable way.

Einstein's theory basically binds the universe in a huge 'space/time' tapestry, with the limit being the speed of light (in a vacuum). This important limitation, the speed of light, gives different results than Newton in high-speed/ high-energy situations. It still works like Newton on the smaller/slower scale, but helps to better understand truly galactic events. And also explains small high-speed ones: Scientist noticed early on that certain short-lived, high-speed particles seemed to last longer than they were predicted to. Eventually, it was discovered that this was due to the time-dilation effect of their high speed, as predicted by Einstein. Once the equations were altered to account for the speed (as laid down by Einstein), they fit perfectly.

The other limiting factor in Einstein's theory was mass. Truly massive objects 'bend' the space/time fabric of the universe. Any object that travels through this 'bent' area has it's path likewise 'bent'.

Imagine a trampoline, with a heavy cannon ball near one side. Now imagine rolling a coin, on it's side, in various directions across the trampoline. If the coin rolls close enough to the cannon ball, it will follow the 'bent' fabric and will likewise be redirected, as it tries to follow the 'path of least resistance'. This helps explain both gravitational lensing, where the light of a galaxy is 'split' in 2-3 paths around another galaxy, and black holes, which are so massive that even light can't 'get across'.
April 15, 2007 8:19:19 PM

Ripperr... now just think of the world that Albert came up with this stuff in. No computers and a horseless carriage as high tech. And he was doing this on his spare time as he was working at the Patent Office just to keep food on the table. I don't know about anyone else but that just sends shivers up my spine. Einstein was a man out of time or space or anything else we can think of.
April 15, 2007 8:43:13 PM

I started my ideas and theories about time and time travel like probably 10 years ago. I was pretty young. I know for a fact that time travel does not and can not exist. Unless of course there is something I am not thinking of or I do not realize can affect my ideas. I always acknowledge the fact that I really do not know very much, and that although my ideas are logical to me, that does not mean they are undeniably true.

I said earlier that time does not exist, but I still talk about time. Although time does not exist, the idea of time does. There are really two different parts of time. There is a part that you can change and "bend" which I do not believe exists. And then there is the part we talk about and use daily. We can not mix these things up. Really what I talk about is more time travel, which is what I mean when I say time is not tangible. You can make something happen faster or slower, but that is the measurement we use daily. It is not true "time".

I do understand Einsteins work (at least what I've heard of), and I believe what he has said is correct. I believe gravity behaves as he has described it. And I suppose this can warp thing to make things happen faster or slower. I do not know.

I just know that time travel doesn't work. That is what I think of more when I say time doesn't exist. You can't go through time. If time travel ever would exist, we would see people from the future coming back already. Some people say that they wouldn't because we haven't invented it yet, but we can't think of time as a linear thing. It doesn't really even exist. We can't think of ourselves at the fromt of time. All time occurs all the time and we just percieve it as happening linearly.

But of course, there may be a different part to time and it may behave differently than I expect. There is just so much that is unknown about time.

I am sorry about my post. It isn't very clear and organized. I just wrote the things as they came to me, and they might not make a lot of sense. I juse fell like this post is very unorganized, just as my thought were.
April 15, 2007 9:05:13 PM

To me, Time is just a tool, nothing more, nothing less. In a physical life, we tend to depend on what we call... time.

Is it time to go to werk?

Is it time for breakfast, lunch, or supper?

Is it time to go to bed, or wake up?

So, where were you on the time of the murder?

How much time does it take to cook this 45lb turkey?

When was it the last time you did anything fer me?

ect.. ect.. ect.
April 15, 2007 9:12:09 PM

Quote:
I know for a fact that time travel does not and can not exist.


That is essentially not true, unfortunately. When astronauts go to the space station for a couple of months and return they have actually aged a few seconds more than the rest of us due to the time dilation factor of their speed. That has been proven with superaccurate atomic clocks. The more the speed, the more the dilation. It is within the grasp of our own technology to send an astronaut on a very long space mission and have him return to Earth twenty years later, but to find that everyone he has ever known is long dead.
April 15, 2007 9:12:58 PM

Quote:
To me, Time is just a tool, nothing more, nothing less. In a physical life, we tend to depend on what we call... time.

Is it time to go to werk?

Is it time for breakfast, lunch, or supper?

Is it time to go to bed, or wake up?

So, where were you on the time of the murder?

How much time does it take to cook this 45lb turkey?

When was it the last time you did anything fer me?

ect.. ect.. ect.


We know one thing about the speed of light. It gets here too early in the morning - Alfred E. Neumann. :lol: 
April 15, 2007 9:18:57 PM

Quote:
the lifespan of your bodies atoms obey the laws of time and physics. Time is more than a state of mind.


Errr..

What about certain kids that are born with a rare condition, that causes them to age very fast?

The condition doesn't have to do with time, but genetics? So to me, time is not exactly more then a state of mind.

What about a normal life span, but a person dies before that time? Certainly the laws of time will not help that person.

To measure something that is over 100 years old, is really hard to comprehend, especially if it has lasted over a billion years. :lol: 

And while you dream, do you keep track of time? In that state of mind, its only in your mind.
April 15, 2007 9:33:56 PM

Through the measurements of accurate timepieces kept on board and compared to earth equivalent measurements....
This is a fact.
April 15, 2007 9:34:48 PM

Quote:
they still obey the laws of time given the disease that causes it.


Can you give me the laws of time?
April 15, 2007 9:43:48 PM

Quote:
I know for a fact that time travel does not and can not exist.
That is essentially not true, unfortunately. When astronauts go to the space station for a couple of months and return they have actually aged a few seconds more than the rest of us due to the time dilation factor of their speed. That has been proven with superaccurate atomic clocks. The more the speed, the more the dilation. It is within the grasp of our own technology to send an astronaut on a very long space mission and have him return to Earth twenty years later, but to find that everyone he has ever known is long dead.

I am aware of this experiment, but that is not what I would call time travel.

I forgot to mention that I believe you can go forward in time, depending on your definition of going forward in time. Like you can freeze someone for a thousand years and have them wake up. To them it would feel like time travel, but it really wouuldn't be. (I am not really sure this is possible though.)

I am not trying to prove you wrong. You are actually right. I just would not call that time travel myself.

But going backward in time is completely different. That is what I know for a fact is impossible.
April 15, 2007 9:58:09 PM

Quote:
But going backward in time is completely different. That is what I know for a fact is impossible.


There has been many a hungover morning when I woke up and realized what was sleeping next to me and prayed to go backwards in time. Never quite worked! :lol: 

That may or may not be quite as impossible as you might think. There are ample quantum experiments that prove effect then cause.

Freezing someone for years is not time travel. That's just cryogenic biological suspension. Frogs do the same thing. It's hardly time travel.

The only way to gauge time travel is by having two independent and identical extremely accurate synchronized time gauges. You leave one at rest and you do "whatever" to the second one. If there is a discrepancy either forwards or backwards at the end of the experiment, that is time travel.
April 15, 2007 10:27:55 PM

I know freezing someone is not time travel, I was just using that to show that what might seem like time travel may not be. It depends on how you define time travel. I would not define the two clock scenario you describe as time travel.

Well, actually I would, but not the same kind of time travel. I'm talking about going thru time. And ending up in the future or the past. What you have been talking about is manipulating the clocks in certain ways so that they have aged different amounts. Which I agree is a type of time travel, but not the same kind as I was talking about.

Quote:
That may or may not be quite as impossible as you might think. There are ample quantum experiments that prove effect then cause.


So you are saying there are experiments where something happens before what caused it happens? I can not conceive of that happening, although I do not doubt you. Can you give some examples? It sounds interesting.
April 15, 2007 10:52:26 PM

Quote:
ye, well i have not heard anything that proves his theory and i reject the idea that light has any part to play in the way the universe works, the idea is silly and chiuldlike IMO.

IMO, humans are far too primitive to even begin suggesting theories about the universe when we know damn all about the earth we live in or even the human body.

i KNOW that his theories are full of holes and i also know that instead of looking at what actually exists, people try and prove his theories by twisting things to work.

people do not look at evidence and think what it means, they look at evidence and think how it fits into his theories? that is not right.

can anyone tell me why light would be so important, if we saw the world through radio waves would radio waves then be the speed barrier of the universe? is there more to light being chosen of radio waves than we see by it?



Light is the highest form of energy with the smallest per/cm effect. That's why it's described as both a wave and a particle. I have done simulations that show that just as given wavelengths can transmit heat energy certain other wavelengths can remove it.

And though I never read this particular description of his theories, I can say that it does seem to bolster my own theory of the Big Bang and prior nanoseconds.

While I don't really believe in time travel - at least backwards - I do believe it might be possible to be in a bubble where time passes differently inside than outside. But because time is such a relative concept, we'd be better off learning how to live together and


GETTING THE WAR OUT OF MY PC.


This has been a public service announcement from Nirvana.
April 15, 2007 10:59:02 PM

BTW, the theory states the the force IS NOT gravity but the rippling of the spatial matrix in bewteen celestial bodies. I would really say that the terms are nearly interchangeable, though, as the forces between bodies was proven during the height of the NASA program.

You can consider localized effects like a fractal equation where proximity determines direction for an insignificant mass ( apollo capsue vs. Moon).

Wow, I should make a new blog post after a long time.


As far as the locality effects allowing portions of CPUs to operate "faster than light" it would take a definitive "boundary" as the IO portions of the CPU would need to be "real-time."

Highly doubtful application.
April 15, 2007 11:27:42 PM

Great reading, but I still have a little trouble with some of his theory's.
Time is constant, it will always remain the same regardless of how fast or slow you are traveling. If we could travel at the speed of light it will still take about seven minutes for us to get to the sun. the people in the ship will be seven minutes older and so will the people on Earth and any other planet they are on. I would like to find more info about the atomic clocks on the space station.
As far as the bending of the fabric of space, to me that theory always seemed a little short sided for Albert's intelligence level. Space is multi dimensional, the idea that heavy object bends space around them seems unidimensional unless he presumed that space was composed of multi layers of "fabric" in that case there you be a distortional gap between the top of the sun and the subsequent layers of space.
April 15, 2007 11:43:33 PM

Quote:
the reason light is described as both a wave and a particle is because it behaves as both. also, don't gamma rays have a higher energy and affect a smaller area, the wavelenghts of it are far smaller than light aint they.

also, wouldn't the heat cancellation be down to deconstructive interference if that is what you are talking about.

nothing you said explained why light is so important.


I'm not sure why you don't see the effect of light as your eye takes in different wavelengths that allow for "visual perception." I guess then the importance of light is so that our optic nerves have something to do or perhaps our optic nerves give light something to do.

Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. I never want to sound too smart or too stupid.

I was admittedly confused as to what importance you want to attribute to it.
a b à CPUs
April 15, 2007 11:53:53 PM

Hmm... spinning matter creates a drag force...
Maybe that is where my carpet disappeared last week, after my Delta Screamer fan spun at 6000RPM in my PC!
It probably created a mini black hole and sucked the carpet in! I should either start nailing things down in my house or get a smaller fan, lol!
April 15, 2007 11:56:32 PM

Quote:
I am only 16. I have not even taken Physics yet in high school.
Congratulations on completely discrediting yourself. :trophy:
April 16, 2007 12:00:12 AM

Quote:
I am only 16. I have not even taken Physics yet in high school.
Congratulations on completely discrediting yourself.

That was actually my point. I don't want people to think I think I know what I'm talking about, because I don't. It's all just ideas and theories I have. And If I myself admit that I am not credible, then my opinions can not be diminished by other people.
April 16, 2007 12:23:54 AM

I am a physics undergrad and some of your comments are just so stupid.

Firstly, most of you will have no idea at all about the work that Albert did. You think that because you know about E=Δmc^2, or about time dilation that you have a clue as to the difficulties behind all that work. Einstein’s work on gravitational laws were pretty much formulated by him, and him alone. Most other physicists were working on quantum mechanics, and other new fields. Einstein, not only did quantum theory, he also rewrote the book on gravity. If you want to even know how much of a genius Einstein was you need to do the following...

1) study physics for a few years

2) get your mathematical skills above and beyond the level attainable by ANY undergraduate degree in the world. His maths skills were sometimes mocked, the only reason being that most people could not understand them.

3) then look at his papers. if you can even follow the maths, then and only then will you realise just how smart the man was.

He even invented new maths techniques which were not even known. Inventing your own maths?!

So before you say that Einstein is overrated, do some physics and then you will say to yourself..."shit, the guy was a genius"



NOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light good read
April 16, 2007 12:32:33 AM

Quote:
i do not believe in time and cannot figure out why light would be so important.


What do you mean you don't believe in time??? Its not one of these things that you can say I don't believe in all willy-nilly-like.

Time is probably the MOST important part of Physics. Something can still happen on one or two dimensions and without light, but without time, there is no ∆. If there is no change, there is no point to anything. It is also probably the most tangible of all the dimensions as well. Assuming that you could still function without time, when you pulled the trigger of a gun, nothing would happen, flip a light switch... nothing, push the power button on your computer... still nothing, wait four the sun to rise/set, it might be a while. I think the reason that you are so unimpressed by time is the fact that it is so constant throughout our part of the universe. there is nowhere within our reach where time is noticeably faster or slower and you grow to be complacent and just assume that time will continue to move forward.

Sorry for being so angry about it, but this is wayyyy up on my list of pet peeves...
April 16, 2007 12:53:37 AM

You are right, a vast majority of people accept time as the hours, minutes & seconds that tick away on our clocks. It does get a little frustrating sometimes, but you just have to shrug your shoulders and move on.

Albert was ahead of his time.. :wink: ...

For me, I will need to see hard physical proof that time is not constant before I could accept it.
April 16, 2007 12:59:21 AM

Well said,

to all others who are "willy-nilly- and retarded about time, Time is relative this means, it can be seen differently, but if we look at Einsteins first postulate, it states that all references are in the same laws of physics, therefore time doesn't change it appears to change, so if you OC' your computer it won't beat another if it was "in gravitational pull" it would appear to.

Furthermore, Einstein was great, yet not great at all, it's the way one thinks that differenciates tthemselves.

Time travel is therotically * i don't give a shit about spelling* possible, as stated by Stephen Hawking, but you need a singularity blah blah with positve energy, but point being, it is possible, but no one knows what happens at the singularity, personally, you can go and try for yourself, but i doubt you will be coming back to tell us.


Also, yes space is "bent" by spacetime, but it is a four demensional field, and us as three demensional beings can not imagine that in our tiny macromolucle brains, thus it can be explained by a ball on a sheet, and the sheet bends due the "gravity" of the ball. It was a theory, not a prediction, he wasn't predicting anything, spacetime just is.

and to further baron matrices comment, you need infinite energy to surpass the speed of light :wink:

It is possible for "Time Travel" but it is Time dilation that people experiance, i could go on forever but i will conclude, time dilation is just time passing slower if you will, as one reaches the speed of light.

If you want more info, just contact me on AIM, if you would like to critize me , correct me , even slander me, go right ahead, im all ears.
April 16, 2007 1:06:34 AM

Quote:
Time is probably the MOST important part of Physics. Something can still happen on one or two dimensions and without light, but without time, there is no ∆. If there is no change, there is no point to anything. It is also probably the most tangible of all the dimensions as well.


Time does occur, and time goes by. Things take time to happen. We can measure time. That does not make it tangible. According to Dictionary.com, tangible means, "capable of being touched; discernible by the touch." You can see the other definitions here.

IMO, by saying time is not tangible, it is saying time can not be bent or moved. We can not touch it and change it. We can perceive time, but that is because we made it up. To make sense of things. While time may be important in physics and life in general, it is not tangible.

I know you weren't quoting me, but I just wanted to clarify what I mean when I say time doesn't exist.

And again, it sounds like you know more about physics than me, so I just want people to realize that I am just sticking with logic and avoiding facts. Becasue if this turns into a battle about facts, I wull surely lose.
April 16, 2007 1:30:33 AM

I heard about some test where they put an atomic clock on a plane and an atomic clock on the ground and flew the plane about half way round the world and found that the clock on the plane was slower than the one on the ground.
Btw atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks.
And also (not 100% on this heard different takes on this) Einstein didn't believe in quantum theory and set about trying to disprove it and create a theory of everything which didnt include quantum theory.
Which leads onto string theory which is an attempt to unite relativity and quantum together but that gets abit mental with 11dimensions.
Sorry rambling on a bit there.
April 16, 2007 1:37:19 AM

he didn't like it becuase of the uncertainty principle (hence the qoute in my profile)such as Feyman's Path, if you know what that is, and if ya in to quatum physics check out the hans bethe videos at cornell colleges, i got links, but anyways, i don't think he woudl disprove it, i think he would discard it, since GR, General Relativity and Newtonian physics, does break down at atomic level...but then again, only a singularity is GR and Quantum phyiscs comparable
April 16, 2007 1:44:42 AM

no, only a radioactive isotope that is unstable...which it releases particles until it reaches a stable isotope...etc etc
April 16, 2007 1:55:21 AM

ah good job then, i forget we must dumb up for some people on here...
April 16, 2007 2:02:37 AM

Quote:
i don't believe in time

Pray tell, what the hell do you believe in? Next you'll be saying you don't believe in gravity man.
April 16, 2007 2:29:47 AM

The Uncertainty Principle pretty much invalidates any possibility of real-world application of this test.

However, I'm not sure about gravity, but I do think that girlfriends have the uncanny ability to warp spacetime to their will... which actually would be a pretty amazing ability, however, its most often used not for saving the world from disaster or rescuing friends from car accidents, but to annoy me.

I was supposed to watch the Sopranos with friends tonight (as we always do) in the neighborhood bar. At about 8:30, she says she needs "10 minutes" (i.e. girfriend minutes) to get ready. 45 minutes later... she's still playing with her bangs. When I yelled at her, she say "oh, no big deal, it's only a couple blocks away..." (the bar actually takes 15 minutes to get to). Damn.

So yeah, I got to watch about 10 minutes of tonights episode. To add insult to injury, the satellite cut out right before the ending because of the Day After Tomorrow rains here.
April 16, 2007 2:31:29 AM

StrangeStranger is strange indeed!
April 16, 2007 3:16:22 AM

or late to the party...
!