Jump to content

When a photon is released, which way does it head?


tar

Recommended Posts

Strange,

 

It is you that is missing simple fact.

 

You have the woman in front of the man when your two machines fire their photon. So she travels a bit before the photon from the right machine hits her first. Then the photon from the left hits her. This is not the complete thought experiment. She is AT the center, directly in front of the man when the photon from machine A and machine B get to the man. Partner photons released from A and B pointed 5 ft above the track would arrive at the point 5 ft above the track infront of the guy at the same time as the woman was in that spot. That means that the woman had not yet reached this spot, when the photons were fired. (or the lightnings struck). You are mixiing instantaneous moments, and considering the two strikes are occuring at the same time everywhere. They are not. They are only happening at the same time for anybody on the plane between, and someone directly between will see them first and someone a ly away, but on that plane, will see them as simultaneous, on year later.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have the woman in front of the man when your two machines fire their photon. ... She is AT the center, directly in front of the man when the photon from machine A and machine B get to the man.

 

That is impossible.

 

She cannot be in front of the man when the photons are fire AND when they reach the man. The photons take a finite time to reach the man. She is moving. By the time the photons arrive, she will no longer be at the same place.

 

With this level of (deliberate?) misunderstanding, I don't know if anyone can help you.

 

 

You are mixiing instantaneous moments, and considering the two strikes are occuring at the same time everywhere.

 

No. Exactly the opposite. They only arrive at the same time for the observer on the platform. Not for the person on the train. That is the whole point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

I just proved the photons must leave the position of the lightning strikes prior arriving at a point equal distant between them.

 

And I proved that the formulation of the thought experiment puts the woman in front of the man, also equal distant from the two strikes, at the moment that the man sees the two strike. Therefore, she is in position to see both stikes at the same time, at least the start of both strikes, and therefore must have been to the left of the center when the strikes occured and got to the center, just when the first photons from the two strikes did.

 

I don't see how this is a problem. It is, I agree, impossible that the woman be two places at once. She is either at the midpoint, along with the man, when the photons from the strikes arrive at the midpoint, some time after the strikes occured, or she is not.

 

Her movement has nothing to do with which strike she sees first, if she is in position to see them both at the same time.

 

Regards, TAR


Similtaneity does not mean mutually inclusive. That is, the left strike and right strike happened at the same time, but that was slightly before the guy saw them. And the photons from the left strike get to the right strike after the right strike strikes and the photon from the right strike get to the left strike after the right strike stikes. From the point of view of the right strike, the right strike happened first, and then the left strike. An nobody is moving.


So you can start, or at least I can start with a universal now, where everything, everywhere is the only instance of the thing that there is, and everything is exactly as old as the universe is. Every peice and part is exactly the same age. Nothing has been around longer than the universe has been, and anything we see, already happened. Once you have this baseline, then you realize that you are just as old as everything else, and what you do next will be the first time that has happened, because the universe was never in this configuration before.

 

And since you know light takes time to travel, anything that is happening 300,000 km from here will be apparent in a second, but we can witness now, what happened over there, a second ago. This means some photons are on their way, inbetween here and there, and each photon also has the attribute of being only one instance of itself, and only present in that one, universal now that everything else is present in. It does not represent an image of the thing. It is an actual photon from the thing. And there are more like it, on their way. If we would travel toward that spot 300000 km from here, we would see all those photons blue shifted and when we got to the spot, it would still be now, and the rest of universe would have progressed the time it took us to get there.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was probably a waste of time. I tried. You are obviously determined to misunderstand. There is nothing anyone can do to help you. It is up to you to open your mind, start again, and read what is actually written.

 

 

therefore must have been to the left of the center when the strikes occured

 

But that contradicts the description. She is in the center of the train. The strikes happen at each end. She is half way between them.

 

You are changing the description to make it fit with your warped idea. Rather than reading what is actually said. Because you don't want it to be true. Well, tough.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

The question is not whether or not she is in the middle of the train, it is "when" the lightning strikes.

 

The problem assumes and specifies that lightning strikes the two ends of the train, at the same time. This similtaneity can only be determined by a person halfway between the strikes, it is not a condition that exists otherwise. You can not base your understanding of the rest of the problem on the fact that the two strikes happened at the same time, as if that time is instantaneous and globally applicable to the whole problem, as if the strikes happened everywhere in and around the train, at the same time, when your definition requires the central position to determine the similtaneity.

 

Even with the train moving, a dog at the back end of the train will see the rear strike first. A monkey at the front of the train will see the front strike first, and a woman in the middle of the train will see both strikes at the same time. The relativity, the fact that different positions will determine the order of events differently, is the crucial component, the important thing to know about reality. It is not so much the fact that someone is moving that causes this time dilation. It is the fact that one has changed position.

 

In the video, the expanding circle from the front of the train and the one from the back of the train, must touch each other when the middle of the train is in front of the man on the embankment, or the simultaneity of the strikes is forfeit. And if the circles of expanding light were properly drawn, they would arrive at the woman, the same time the woman arrives infront of the man. If you expect some impossible thing to happen instead, then you are changing your definitions midstream. You cannot freeze the train in a central position at the start of the experiment, and also have it in a central position after the circles have expanded. It has to have happened one way, or the other. Either the train was not yet in a central position when the lightnings stuck and was then in a central position when the guy saw the lightnings, or it was in a central position when the guy sees the lightnings, in which case the woman is also in a central position at that time, which means the train had to be not in a central position when the lightnings struck.

 

I can not "go by the words" if the words make no sense and contradict each other. Does the guy see the strikes at the same time, or not? Is the woman at the same spot, halfway between the strikes, when the guy sees the strikes, or not? If she is at the same spot as the guy, at the same time as the guy is there, and the circles of light are converging on the guy in a simultaneous fashion, they MUST as well converge on the woman, or you have goofed up the experiment somewhere, and called something wrong.

 

Regards, TAR


Perhaps the problem would better be stated if the microsecond differences between observers was taken into account and "the same time" defined in a standard way consistent throughout the problem. The end of the train, the other end of the train, the man, the woman and us observing the problem, are not all in the same place, at the same time, and the microsecond differences between each position, in terms of the speed of light, are crucial to take into consideration when defining what is happening at the same time, what happened before, and what happened after what. And the poor observer of the whole problem has an additional handicap, in that he/she can freeze the thing in any configuration he/she pleases, and is not bound by the speed of light, and can see the situation in an instantaneous fashion, "all at once".

 

So, restate the question in a realistic fashion. And we can then figure out what makes the most sense.


In the video, the first time they show the expanding circles from the guy's perspective, they train is right there infront of the guy, and the circles converge on the center of the train, right where the woman is seated.

 

Then the next time when we see the train in motion, the circles converge in some different manner.

 

The two depictions are of different events, not the same events witnessed from two different frames of reference.

 

The video is flawed. The photons were only in the places they were in in the order they were in them once. The circles must converge in the same place, at the same time, no matter who is moving through the scene at any speed, from any direction.

That is reality.


If a photon is emitted from an atom and it goes in a certain direction at the speed of light, it is not all the places in that vector at the same time, it is only one place at a time. It may be vibrating left and right and up and down in such a way as to describe two sine waves orthogonal to each other of a particular wave length and thus a particular frequency, but the photon itself is only at one position on those "waves" at any particular moment. If a yellow photon has a wavelength of 530 nanometers and beats 500,000,000,000 times or whatever every second, which is spread over 186 thousand miles, the photon itself is not all the places on that line at once. It is only one of the places at once. It is either there, or here or inbetween, but it is only one place at a time. It is not spread out, over the entire distance.

 

As the train comes by the first photons from the front strike and the first photons from the rear strike, are available for view in the vicinity of the area in front of the guy. If the center of a train is there, then, then the woman can experience said photons. If it is not there, then she can't.

 

The video is flawed because the simultaneous nature of the flash requires the flashes to occur, and then be seen by the man. In the first scene the train is stationary and the circles moving. In the second scene the circles are sort of stationary and the train is moving into them and the front circle sweeps through the whole train, and then the rear circle sweeps through the whole train.

 

The two scenes are not consistent with each other, in terms of the envisioned positions of the photons. In other words the two scenes are not of the same events.

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay tar, I'll make this as simple as I possibly can:

 

Bob is on the ground in front of some train tracks, and Alice is standing in the middle of a train that's moving with constant velocity. On each end of the train there is a light bulb. At the moment when Alice is directly in front of Bob (i.e. when the distance between Alice and Bob is the smallest), each light bulb emits a flash of light.

 

Bob is the same distance from each light bulb when the flashes go off, and each flash spreads out at the constant velocity c, so we conclude that Bob sees the two flashes at the same time.

 

Bob sees Alice moving toward one flash, and away from the other. That means one flash will reach her before the other. So Alice must see the two flashes occur at different times.

Edited by elfmotat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem assumes and specifies that lightning strikes the two ends of the train, at the same time.

Wrong. You are obviously not reading what is written (or hearing what is said). You are filtering it through your own prejudices and preconceptions and changing it. This may explain why you are so confused.

 

The whole point of the thought experiment is to demonstrate that there is no (global, unique) meaning to "at the same time". It would therefore be ridiculous to start with that assumption.

 

This similtaneity can only be determined by a person halfway between the strikes

It can be determined by someone anywhere by taking the distance and speed of propagation into account. Einstein places the observers at the midway point purely to simplify the explanation.

 

I can not "go by the words" if the words make no sense and contradict each other.

They don't. It is your deliberate misunderstanding of the words that creates contradictions. The existence of those contradictions should cause you to question your understanding. (But, like all cranks, you are convinced that your are right and everyone else -- and reality -- is wrong.)

 

Does the guy see the strikes at the same time, or not?

Yes. That is the basis for saying that the lightning strikes are simultaneous in his frame of reference.

 

Is the woman at the same spot, halfway between the strikes, when the guy sees the strikes, or not?

Obviously not. The text says ... Let me repeat that as it proves that you are not reading what it says: the text says that the person on the train and the person on the platform are aligned when the lightning strikes:

 

Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes 1 of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train.

The person on the train is moving. It takes a finite time for the light the reach her. Therefore she will no longer be aligned with the platform observer when the light arrives.

 

or you have goofed up the experiment somewhere

No. You need to learn to read.

 

"the same time" defined in a standard way consistent throughout the problem

The "same time" is defined in a single consistent way, as seen by the platform observer:

 

When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A —> B of the embankment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

Well, that makes sense, and is the way I picture it.

 

It is however contrary to the first scene where the circles of light converge on the man, while the center of the train is infront of him.

 

As you say, to be simultaneous the strikes have to reach the man some finite time after they occur. The formulation of the video suggested that the strikes occurred at each end of the train, as the guy saw them, and when the center of the train was infront of him. The first scene shows exactly that. But we both know that can not happen.

 

What is evidently meant, is that the strikes occured "when" the woman was infront of the man, but he did not see the flashes until a brief time later, at which point the train had already moved to the right, and the woman was in position to have already seen the right hand strike, before the guy, and would consequently see the lefthand strike, after the guy.

 

If this is all that the thought experiment is meant to point out, I have understood it, since I first read it in my teens and have factored it into my understanding of reality and time and space.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But we both know that can not happen.

 

No there is only one deluded crank here.

 

The rest of us can read what is written as the definition of the thought experiment.

 

 

What is evidently meant, is that the strikes occured "when" the woman was infront of the man, but he did not see the flashes until a brief time later, at which point the train had already moved to the right, and the woman was in position to have already seen the right hand strike, before the guy, and would consequently see the lefthand strike, after the guy.

 

Close. But not quite there. After seeing the flashes, the woman calculates the time when the two strikes occurred. She knows that they happened an equal distance away, and both flashes travelled at the speed of light. Therefore one happened before the other.

 

That's it. Simple, isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

No, I don't get it. I don't see it like that.

 

And what is this deluded crank bit?

 

Perhaps making sense of the world is not important to you. It is to me.

 

How is it that she knows the strikes were equal distance apart? She sees the front strike first and the rear strike later. The front strike traveled a shorter distance to her than the rear strike did. She traveled down the track a bit toward the right strike, by the time she saw it, so that strike traveled half a train minus the distance the train traveled before she saw it. On the other hand the rear strike traveled half a train, plus the distance the train traveled while the left strike was getting to her. So the distances the light traveled were not the same, as you propose, therefore if she calculated them as having traveled equal distances than she would be in error. Rather, she could add back the distances and the speeds and figure that for the guy on the bank the strikes would have been simultaneous.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that she knows the strikes were equal distance apart?

 

Because (read the description) she is in the middle of train, half way between A & B.

Perhaps the other bit you don't get, is that from her perspective the flashes originated from the front and back of the train. But it is hard to follow what objections you are inventing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

I am not inventing objections. I have objections because certain things do not add up.

 

For instance you say she is in the middle of the train and she knows she is in the middle of the train, she knows the one strike came from the front of the train, and that happened first, and then the strike came from the rear of the train which makes complete sense, except for the fact that we earlier agreed that she was exactly in the middle, between the strikes when the strikes occured and moved down the track a bit before she saw the righthand strike. If this movement is what allows her to see the righthand strike first, then the distance the right hand strike traveled to her eye is less than the distance the lefthand strike will move to her eye, meaning, to me, in not an invented way, but in a questioning way, that the strikes occurred before she and the center of the train got to the point in front of the man. All the beginning assumptions could therefore not have happened "at the same time", and somewhere the travel time of light is being ignored from the vantage point of either the frontstrike position, or the rear strike postiion, or the changing position of the woman, or the stationary position of the man, or the godlike position of the thought experiment imaginer, who can take each position in turn, and attempt to add back what happened in a general, or global way. In order to do this, I choose to take an instance of a photon at a time and track where that photon was throughout the experiment and how far away from each observer it was, and therefore each observer's position throughout the complete scene that unfolded in a thusly referenced "time".

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If this movement is what allows her to see the righthand strike first, then the distance the right hand strike traveled to her eye is less than the distance the lefthand strike will move to her eye, meaning, to me, in not an invented way, but in a questioning way, that the strikes occurred before she and the center of the train got to the point in front of the man.

 

Maybe your confusion comes about from not clearly separating the two frames of reference.

 

The setup explicitly says that the lightning strikes happened at the time that she and the centre of the train are aligned with the man on the platform, in his frame of reference.

 

In his frame of reference the distance to A and to B is the same (because, by definition, he is half way between them).

In his frame of reference the light from A and B reaches him at the same time (as defined in the problem)

In his frame of reference the speed of light is the same for the light from A and the light from B.

In his frame of reference he can therefore work out the time the two flashes occurred (using distance/speed; the distance and the speed is the same for both, they both occurred the same amount of time before he saw them)

In his frame of reference the two flashes therefore occurred simultaneously.

 

The whole point of the thought experiment is to answer the question: "does this mean that they happened at the same time in her frame of reference?"

 

In her frame of reference the distance to A and to B is the same (because she is half way from the front and back of the train).

In her frame of reference the light from A reaches her before the light from B. Because, as you rightly say, she is moving towards the photon/wavefront from A and away from the photon/wavefront from B.

In her frame of reference the speed of light is the same for the light from A and the light from B.

In her frame of reference she can therefore work out the time the two flashes occurred (using distance/speed; the distance and the speed is the same for both, they each occurred the same amount of time before she saw them)

In her frame of reference the flash from therefore also A occurred before the one from B (because they travelled the same distance at the same speed but she saw the one from A first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a bunch of observers, all in a field lets say, and have each with a different colored light that they could flash once whenever they felt like it, but should record the color of the flashes they saw and the order and timestamp of each. We give them state of the art sensing equiptment that can discern the difference in time between his/her own flash reflected off a mirror 1 meter away and a mirror placed 2 meters away.

 

All the observation points gathered together in a close cirlce before the experiment and synced up their clocks with a clock in the center of the circle.

 

After the experiment, no two observers would have the same account of the order of flashes, color, and timestamp. It is impossible for a red flash on the left edge of the field and a blue flash at the center of the field to be logged as having flashed on the same timestamps on the log of the left flasher. the center flasher and an observer out on the right.

 

So what are we calling the "same time" in this field experiment. We can only take the data and add everything back and then each observers position and record of flashes will add back exactly and make sense.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's imagine 30 men wearing different types of hats...

 

No. Let's not. Let's just work through this one very simple example until you understand it.

 

What is the point of adding more and more complexity to hide the underlying concept, if you can't even understand the simple version? You will only confuse yourself more. I assume this is a deliberate tactic to avoid actually admitting that relativity is correct.

 

Why not focus on the problem (perhaps actually reading what it says).

Why not explain at which point you disagree with the explanation - then it might be possible to address that specific misunderstanding.

 

I have spent months trying to explain this very, very, very simple thought experiment to another crackpot who insisted on making up ever more complicated ways of refusing to understand it. I'm not sure why I am doing it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

Don't you see, that if she is in the center, when the guy sees the flashes, the light has already traveled to the center from both ends, She has already seen both flashes. You can not then have her proceed to the right to meet a photon she has already experienced. It makes no sense to do so. Your initial conditions have to be internally consistent, and you have to stick to them, you can not carry one thing from one reference point to the other without carrying everything from one reference point to the other. EVERYTHING has to add back and fit. That is the way the world works.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you see, that if she is in the center, when the guy sees the flashes

SHE ISN'T.

 

Please, please, please read the description of the experiment.

 

She is in the center, aligned with the guy on the platform, WHEN THE FLASHES OCCUR.

 

Look:

 

Just when the flashes [as judged from the embankment] of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

I should add, that I think his description is a bit wordy and confusing. I'm sure there are better ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange,

 

Who said I don't think relativity is correct? It is absolutely correct. The video is wrong.

 

Regards, TAR

 

So, if you don't like my light flashing thought experiment, lets just take a crowd at a stadium and have two people (a man and a woman at different ends of the stadium) shout when they see the clock hit 2:14.00. Relativity would tell us (if we let sound stand for light), that the order of the shouts will be heard by people on the left side of the stadium opposite the order the people on the right will hear the shouts. And the inverval between the start of the shouts will be small at the center of the stadium and large near the ends, with a smooth ratio holding between time and distance in each case.

 

So if the woman is running down the field, and she hits the 50 yard line at 2:14 she will hear the shout of the fan on the right first because she will be on the 48 yard line. But if she hits the 50 when a fan with a seat on the 50 yard line hears the shouts, she willl hear the shouts together, as well, but it will be a little after 2:14 when the fan and her hear the similtaneous shouts.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading the words. The guy on the embankment judges the flashes a simultaneous. That means he has seen the flashes. If he is there, she is there and the photons are there, then she can see them just as easily as him.

 

There is a time it takes the light to get from either flash to the center. Is this time period prior the judgement ot the guy? Absolutely. It has to be. You can not rerun this time period again from the point of view of the woman, and say the light from the righthand flash is just starting out again.

 

Regards, TAR


It's the implications of it, and what actually must occur if it is true, where you and I seem to be at odds.

 

For instance, you do not accept a "universal now", and I think there has to be such, or we would not just now be getting photons from an event that happened 3 years ago. That is, there has to be something happening now in a universal sense, for us to see it later.


Strange,

 

Not quite fair of you to post and animation, that you did not even check for accuracy or correctness. It was the visual assumptions and words of the video I was questioning, not Einstein's words.

 

There are some deep philosophical questions of objectivity, subjectivity, observation and imagination that are involved here. And if one is to check their model of the world against the world and the observations and models of others, it is important to be percise about the defintions, and know when it is you are questioning what.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Besides the world, and how it operates can not be incorrect. Only our model can be at fault. True things remain true regardless of what we say about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading the words.

But not understanding them, apparently.

 

The guy on the embankment judges the flashes a simultaneous. That means he has seen the flashes. If he is there, she is there and the photons are there, then she can see them just as easily as him.

What?

 

She is opposite him when the flashes occur. Not when he sees them.

 

Let M' be the mid-point of the distance A —> B on the travelling train. Just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M

He sees them later, when they arrive at his location. They both arrive there at the same time. Therefore, in his frame of reference, they are simultaneous.

 

But by then she has moved and is no longer opposite him.

 

You said:

Who said I don't think relativity is correct? It is absolutely correct.

But now you say:

For instance, you do not accept a "universal now", and I think there has to be such

These statements are mutually contradictory.

Not quite fair of you to post and animation, that you did not even check for accuracy or correctness.

I watched it years ago the first time I tried to explain this very simple concept to a relativity denier.

 

I just watched it again, just for you. It describes, as I remembered, exactly the same scenario and reaches exactly the same conclusions for exactly the same reasons.

 

The only minor criticism I would make of the animation is that it is "not to scale". It exaggerates the differences in timing of events to make things clear. But apart from that I see nothing wrong, nor any differences, in the scenario described.

 

EDIT:

OK. There is one misleading sentence in the video "As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear."

 

Arguably, that should not say, "sees". In everyday life, it would be reasonable (on these scales) to talk about seeing things at the same time as they happen. But because that is what is being analysed, it would have been better if they said the two flashes "occurred" at that moment (which is what the original says).

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly my point. There is a difference between when something is seen, and when it occurred, which is directly consistent with and proportional to the distance between the observer and the event.

 

This distinction establishes the basis for relativity. If it is not clearly stated this way, the meaning is lost and people can make jumps between the frames inappropriately.

 

Where my twist comes into play. that causes my perculiar take on the situation, and your lumping me in with relativity deniers, is that certain implications of relativity can be incorrect, if you lose your baseline. If I see someone has gotten the implications wrong, where my model does not say the same thing, I have to bring it up. Not to discount relativity, but to understand better what it is saying and what it is not saying.

 

In this, certain words are crucial. like the difference between occur and see. Or the difference between shorten and appear to shorten. As I have said before, I am trying to help understand reality, not picture it in some impossible imaginary way that does not have all the elements fitting together. I am looking for the ways to view it, so that everything makes sense. I believe this is possible. to achieve such a view. We are in and of the thing, it is not surprising that we might have the ability to understand what it is like.

 

Many things, like light cones, are described and imagined with a dimension dropped off, for better visualisation. The actual light cone, is exactly like my imagined half spherical shell eminating from my match when I was 13. That event is over, around here, but has not yet been withnessed outside the shell. Quacky perhaps. But not deluded. To consider two nows. One consistings of everything currently occurring, and one consisting of everything currently being seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was thinking about this issue yesterday, of the train, and considered a difficulty with imagining, and properly defining the "now" at two ends of a solid thing. There is only one instance of the thing, yet its two ends are separated in space.

 

If we could build a solenoid with a plunger that extended a meter out, and the solenoid had a throw of 10 millimeters and we fired the solenoid out at a target 9 mm away from the end, and retracted it, and sent a pulse of light from the solenoid area to a sensor around the target area, just when we activated the solenoid, would the target be breached by the projection of the solenoid prior the arrival of light at the target area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you agree that simultaneity is relative and that events that are simultaneous for one observer are not necessarily simultaneous for another?

 

If not, perhaps you could explain what is wrong with the thought experiment as described (rather than your mangled version of it).

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.