Author Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1  (Read 765376 times)

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1380 on: 10/04/2014 12:41 PM »
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

VERY nice and exhaustively done !  Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?

There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.

If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear. 
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured.  The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.

Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions.   Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.

Minkowski  uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 01:02 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1381 on: 10/04/2014 12:47 PM »
Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?
They are very  much related as I think you know.  Time travel to the past poses great paradoxes both with causality (killing your grandfather paradox) and information (sending present information to the past).  Also both causality and information can be expressed in terms of entropy of course.

And the reason you asked is ?................

Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong. I'm torn if causality and information are really conjugate variable pairs in the spirit of symmetry in Noether's theorem/or are they thermodynamic. The internet isn't helping me much.

This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. My head hurts. Information/Matter/Energy keep coming back to haunt me and I'm certain they are unified and conserved together somehow. Like how and gates run hotter than or gates. These ideas come full circle.

conjugate variable pairs in the spirit of symmetry in Noether's theorem/or are they thermodynamic

Definitely more thermodynamic.

Information theory provides an approach to study the dynamics which goes far beyond conservation laws and Noether's theorem. The conservation laws are not applicable to the dissipative and open systems.

For example, I am presently modeling the coupled nonlinear differential equations for the magnetically damped inverted pendulum that NASA Eagleworks used for their tests.
I used a Lagrangian to get the coupled nonlinear differential equations of motion.  However, the magnetic damping terms cannot be obtained from the Lagrangian because they are non-conservative, so they have  be obtained separately.

I use information theory for my business in the stock market.  No Noether's theorem There are no conservation laws in finance.  People make irrational decisions.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 12:55 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1382 on: 10/04/2014 12:59 PM »
And the reason you asked is ?................

Rindler horizons. I'm trying to figure it out and prove it wrong...

You are to be congratulated for that.  Trying to prove wrong one's formulation is a true mark of science.  As @frobnicat stated: a scientist should put as much effort trying to prove something worng as she does trying to prove it right.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 01:01 PM by Rodal »

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1383 on: 10/04/2014 01:01 PM »
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

VERY nice and exhaustively done !  Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?

There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.

If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley it all becomes clear. 
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured.  The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.

Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions.   Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.

Minkowski  uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.

Your comments are a perfect transition to what I've been putting together today. My reasoning is that pretty much every idea tossed around here on why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, that has many different solutions that aren't agreed on by everyone on the planet earth so it need examining further, the problem being the origin of inertial mass. It hasn't been figured out using the egghead approach so it needs to be measured experimentally. So I put together a list, not exhaustive, of every intrinsic/extrinsic possible candidate for the origin or inertial mass I can think of. Please help me complete the list. After we're done compiling theories, I intend to design experiments (if possible) to test, or find ones already done and accepted. Also help correct me if I butcher or don't communicate clearly the following.

I'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.

Intrinsic:
Higgs: Rest mass/energy contribute to inertial mass and rest mass because GR predicts they are equivalent.
Newton: It is intrinsic because I said so. It just is.

Extrinsic:
EM ZPF, Haisch et al
Unruh zpf/casimir McCulloch et al
De Brogie Compton resonance Haisch Reuda
Cosmic gravity-Mach
Cosmic gravity modified by Wheeler/Feynman-Sciama
Edit forgot: causal, moving charged particles Bergman
Edit forgot: mass fluctuations Woodward


http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonsensescience.org%2Fpdf%2Farticles%2Finertial_mass.pdf&ei=GOAvVIPWJYSrPJnogIAG&usg=AFQjCNGT5DXFojND6Ft_jpIj4_wg-bhmIQ&bvm=bv.76802529,d.ZWU&cad=rja

http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html




« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 01:14 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1384 on: 10/04/2014 02:05 PM »
For two positive masses, nothing changes and there is a pull on each other causing an attraction. Two negative masses would produce a pull on one another, but would repel because of their negative inertial masses. For different signs there is a push that repels the positive mass but attracts the negative mass.

Bondi pointed out that two objects of equal and opposite mass would produce a constant acceleration of the system towards the positive-mass object.[citation needed] However, the total mass, momentum and energy of the system would remain 0.

This behavior is completely inconsistent with a common-sense approach and the expected behaviour of 'normal' matter; but is completely mathematically consistent and introduces no violation of conservation of momentum or energy. If the masses are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign, then the momentum of the system remains zero if they both travel together and accelerate together, no matter what their speed:


And equivalently for the kinetic energy :


Forward extended Bondi's analysis to additional cases, and showed that even if the two masses m(-) and m(+) are not the same, the conservation laws remain unbroken. This is true even when relativistic effects are considered, so long as inertial mass, not rest mass, is equal to gravitational mass.

This behaviour can produce bizarre results: for instance, a gas containing a mixture of positive and negative matter particles will have the positive matter portion increase in temperature without bound. However, the negative matter portion gains negative temperature at the same rate, again balancing out. Geoffrey A. Landis pointed out other implications of Forward's analysis,[2] including noting that although negative mass particles would repel each other gravitationally, the electrostatic force would be attractive for like-charges and repulsive for opposite charges.

Forward used the properties of negative-mass matter to create the diametric drive, a design for spacecraft propulsion using negative mass that requires no energy input and no reaction mass to achieve arbitrarily high acceleration.

mm, from your understanding (or maybe stated by Forward himself ?) such a diametric drive is a cheap energy generator ? Not free as total mass-energy would be kept constant at 0, but cheap as locally unlimited steady power source.
If such arrangement can accelerate, surely it can push at no acceleration (no ?) : push at constant speed (relative to a massive ground) can create energy. Make it on a circular track around the earth for instance, store the recovered energy : this mass equivalent output of this generator must be compensated by an increase (in absolute value) of the negative mass that is chasing the positive one ? Or the positive mass decreased ? What that theory would have to say as to how mass is kept constant overall in this thought experiment ? I suspect this leads us to a possibility of a device that can forever radiate both negative and positive mass, the later could be converted to energy while the former would just be let free to escape far away. Getting unlimited energy source by just radiating away tons of negative mass as debt never to be paid. This is brilliant ! That should easily find some financial backer.
I think Bondi and Forward would both say that yes, since this system self-accelerates, it could be strapped to a flywheel and used to generate electricity, but the electricity is not free.  I'm not sure who showed the math first, it may have been Woodward; but generally, the accounting is done by the rest of the universe being accelerated in its expansion.  Basically, when you harvest gravinertial momentum, you are stealing momentum from the future of the universe.  This is why Tom Mayhood, when he was Woodward's master's student back in the 90's, posted on the door of the lab "Tomorrow's Momentum Today".

That said, what you're suggesting here seems quite unworkable to me.  Remember, this is gravitational force, not inertial.  To get useful forces using gravity, you need enormous masses.  If you want for example a ship that can accelerate at 1/6 Earth gee, you'd need a negative mass the size of the moon rigidly connected to a positive mass of equal size.  As it turns out, enormous negative masses are hidden all around us and you could generate a negative mass that size, but what are you going to use for the positive mass?  You'd need to strap the Moon to a generator.  Not a practical solution.

IMHO, it is not the gravitic consequences of M-E physics that are the most immediately exciting, but the inertial consequences.  The MET uses the ability to fluctuate inertia.  That's our first application.  One could argue the construction of a wormhole generator is more exciting, but my guess is that's a 15 year project.  Assuming Crammer is right in how to steer a wormhole, it would still take us 15 years to learn how to build reliable wormhole generators.  MET's we can build right now and start traveling our planetary system in earnest.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1385 on: 10/04/2014 02:29 PM »
.....This problem is related to a whole other obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe. ...
Concerning Wolfram's "A new kind of science," do you use Wolfram's Mathematica ?  I use Mathematica a lot since version 1, was quite happy with version 9.  Disappointed with all the bugs in initial version 10.  They just came out with a patch for version 10, and I'm testing it now, while I continue to use my version 9 programs for my work.

_____

Concerning "where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe" one problem is that ultimate reality seems to contain continuous fields: it is not just a discrete computation.  But of course, this is fairly philosophical, since we don't even have a satisfactory theory to encompass both quantum mechanics and general relativity.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 02:34 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1386 on: 10/04/2014 02:34 PM »
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

VERY nice and exhaustively done !  Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?

There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.

If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear. 
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured.  The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.

Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions.   Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.

Minkowski  uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
I didn't want to quibble with Dr. Rodel when he made this kind of statement the other day, but I would point out this seems to confuse the differences between a constitutive equation, which describes properties of a specific material for instance, and a constitutive relation, which can before general.  The statement that solid bulk mass stores energy in its interatomic bonds that changes under deformation is to the best of my knowledge true of all solids.  It is in fact a property of solids.  And there is no onus on a theoretician to measure this in order to form a proper generalization or induction.  Once one understands the mechanism, one can be perfectly justified in inferring that mechanism operates for every member of its class, namely solids.  What one can't do, is form an actual equation with specific quantities, because these are unique to the materials themselves.  But it's quite fair game to say solids experience delta internal energy during deformation.  That or you'd have to throw out inductive reasoning from science, which I for one am not willing to do.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1387 on: 10/04/2014 02:43 PM »
Gravity is a how not a why.

Two points for Gryffindor on that one.

Still, isn't it a property of matter?  If it should be a property, then the question is, how does it work.  If not a property, then I don't know the question to ask.

I marked up the Nasa paper with a line showing where to lop off the bell pillbox because it makes no difference.

Then what's the function of the "pillbox" after all?  It would seem that the very geometry of the apparatus is not conducive to maximizing the anomalous thrust.

Maybe we'd be better off using sound instead of rf and use a sound room to create boundaries.

I'd like you to expand on that idea a little bit.  Sound is at least metaphysically fundamental on one level, and physically all around us on another.  Plus, it can be used to levitate or manipulate objects in certain environments.  One question I would ask, is, at what frequency does sound no longer exist?  Both high end and low end.

Silly question and may sound of topic but I assure you it is relevant. Are causality and information conjugate variable pairs?

There is some kind of connection between information and causality. 

This is my intuition.  The obvious, extreme interpretation of that connection, from a pragmatic standpoint, should it be confirmed, would be teleportation.

The internet isn't helping me much.

This problem is related to a whole other nother obsession I had since I learned about "A new kind of Science" where I was trying to make sense of information and computation giving rise to the universe.

Fixed that for ya.

The problem that I had with Wolfram's book is that he has to assume that there is a preexisting "matrix", and that there has to be sufficient time for his single celled spreadsheet (Or whatever it's called) to create a universe.  It's a Godelian problem, I'd say.  That was my takehome from the book.

As an aside, a related problem, in my mind, would be the apparent irreducible complexity of the DNA molecule.  One faction insists on the faith that random matter, immediately upon it's creation at the big bang, embarks on evolution, which can only and inevitably, in the one universe that we witness, results in DNA and intelligent life.  This, despite there being no possible mechanism nor sufficient time to so evolve from randomness.

...why emdrive might have produced a small force really boils down the one fundamental problem, ... the problem being the origin of inertial mass.

What I bin sayin'.  Start with Sciama '53.

Quote
I'll keep an edit on this thing til we have it nailed down.

Thank you.  What I bin askin' for.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 03:04 PM by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1388 on: 10/04/2014 02:43 PM »
A circular stream of tachyons... my brain hurts, any contradictions with causality?

Too much Stoli?   
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9162
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 610
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1389 on: 10/04/2014 02:46 PM »
...negative mass is not likely to exist in reality.

Later today, I'll be virtually enjoying laying down more mass in the camo shed.  Pix to follow.

You have your own mixologist?

What?  You don't?  In the interests of cultivating what are known as "greener pastures", as was written in an recent portion of the Akashic record, and in saving on flight costs to LA, I do. 

People going to Mass.

Real people go to real Masses.

Of course, there's the Higg's boson which went to church.  Priest said, "We don't serve your kind here."  The boson replied, "Why not? Without me, there is no Mass!"

You guys jsut keep handing me the material, and I'll work with it.

I use information theory for my business in the stock market.  ...  There are no conservation laws in finance.  People make irrational decisions.

And yet, people exist in the universe, so there has to be some kind of as yet mysterious connection between irrationality, which is a form of information, and the causal universe.  Which ties into my brief comments to Mulletron about Wolfram above.

Mathematica

Do you happen to have an older version that would run on Win95 or Win2K?  That you could share or sell?  They wouldn't sell me an older version some years ago, when I asked.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1390 on: 10/04/2014 03:03 PM »
Took a while to find this again.
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html

VERY nice and exhaustively done !  Have you seen the same sort of thing for dielectric resonators ?

There is a huge volume of information concerning Abraham Minkowski momentum and I've found it all to be contradictory and not helpful. They just gotta measure it and see.

If you include "hidden momentum" as done by Shockley (the inventor of the transistor) it may become clear. 
A theoretician cannot decide a constitutive law from an armchair, it needs to be measured.  The most a theoretician can do is (using frame-indifference and thermodynamics) is to narrow done the choices for proper stress and stress rate measures, and conjugate measures of strain and strain rate.

Similarly with the Abraham and Minkowski expressions.   Abraham forced symmetry from the beginning because on purpose he chose a symmetric stress tensor.

Minkowski  uses an unsymmetric stress tensor.
I didn't want to quibble with Dr. Rodel when he made this kind of statement the other day, but I would point out this seems to confuse the differences between a constitutive equation, which describes properties of a specific material for instance, and a constitutive relation, which can before general.  The statement that solid bulk mass stores energy in its interatomic bonds that changes under deformation is to the best of my knowledge true of all solids.  It is in fact a property of solids.  And there is no onus on a theoretician to measure this in order to form a proper generalization or induction.  Once one understands the mechanism, one can be perfectly justified in inferring that mechanism operates for every member of its class, namely solids.  What one can't do, is form an actual equation with specific quantities, because these are unique to the materials themselves.  But it's quite fair game to say solids experience delta internal energy during deformation.  That or you'd have to throw out inductive reasoning from science, which I for one am not willing to do.
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.
Is glass a solid?
How about polymers? are polymers solid?
Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.
What is a glass transition?

How about rubber? is rubber a solid?
How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.
Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?
Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 03:04 PM by Rodal »

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1391 on: 10/04/2014 03:27 PM »
Now I'm enjoying this ...........................

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1392 on: 10/04/2014 04:19 PM »
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system. That mechanism is just polarization of charge. Lipo batteries don't gain weight and neither do caps. Their volume may expand but no more mass. Any effect of momentum transfer is something else. I don't know what. Scattering maybe. Like billiard balls impacting. Higher energies still, begin to ionize. Finally mass energy comes into play. Gamma rays ftw or Mhz /ghz for a neat toy.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 04:40 PM by Mulletron »
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1394 on: 10/04/2014 04:47 PM »
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 04:52 PM by Rodal »

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1395 on: 10/04/2014 04:51 PM »
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.
Is glass a solid?
How about polymers? are polymers solid?
Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.
What is a glass transition?

How about rubber? is rubber a solid?
How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.
Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?
Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
All definitions are arbitrary.  They are mere conventions.  According to the convention in English usage today. Solids are firm and stable in shape, do not include fluids and liquids and thus undergo internal energy changes under deformation.  You may call this arbitrary to stipulate, but stipulate we do.  Please let me know of you discover some exception to this convention.

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5838
  • USA
  • Liked: 5919
  • Likes Given: 5261
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1396 on: 10/04/2014 04:53 PM »
Well quibble you do, because it is all contained in the arbitrary definition of what is a solid.
Is glass a solid?
How about polymers? are polymers solid?
Aren't the dielectric materials we are discussing here (for the NASA Eagleworks tests) polymers like PTFE ? These are not perfect crystals.
What is a glass transition?

How about rubber? is rubber a solid?
How about non-newtonian liquids with elastic properties? They are not really liquids nor solids, yet they exist.
Even in metals, what if it is easier (as it often is) for energy to pile up dislocations, than for the energy to go into elastic deformation?
Is anything that is not a perfect crystal out of consideration ? Certainly not.
All definitions are arbitrary.  They are mere conventions.  According to the convention in English usage today. Solids are firm and stable in shape, do not include fluids and liquids and thus undergo internal energy changes under deformation.  You may call this arbitrary to stipulate, but stipulate we do.  Please let me know of you discover some exception to this convention.
So, are polymers (like the PTFE dielectric resonator) according to you solids? Yes or No?

Offline Mulletron

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Liked: 776
  • Likes Given: 1013
Challenge your preconceptions, or they will challenge you. - Velik

Offline Ron Stahl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 210
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: EM Drive Developments
« Reply #1398 on: 10/04/2014 04:55 PM »
Last thought before I take a break and sleep is that there is no way that dumping energy into a dielectric, be it a cap or piezoelectric electroactive polymer or whatever, the qed vacuum even, will contribute to the mass energy of that system.
Actually it does, by definition.  E=mc^2.  When you put joules into a cap, it weighs more.  It's just that c^2 is such a large number we would normally not notice the delta mass, but indeed delta there is.  This is the whole concept behind internal energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy


Offline Notsosureofit

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 1364
« Last Edit: 10/04/2014 05:01 PM by Notsosureofit »

Tags: