Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-12-2009, 02:07 AM #1
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
physics and god....ish

so..... if you are given the diameter of a nucleus (say 1*10^-14m) how would you estimate the kinetic energy of an electron trapped within it using hysenberg. (relativistic)

I figure dx*dp >=h/4pi ....... (sometimes h/2pi is used but I am using h/4pi)
we have dx. ( uncertainty in position = diameter of nucleus)

dp=m*dv


since it is relativistic we will have to use the E=K+m0c^2 along with
E^2 - P^2c^2 = m0^2c^4

(where m0=rest mass)

cant figure how to use ..... dv>=XXXX to get energy.


and why did'nt god make quantum mechanics measurable on a macro level?

(I bombed this question on my final today)

Last edited by Dr.Phil.McGraw : 12-13-2009 at 01:22 AM.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2009, 08:26 PM #2
Hk-4-Life (Banned)
OMGORZ I LOVE HK!! (-_-)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: A2
wtf..
Hk-4-Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 05:34 PM #3
FrontMenDie1st
R. Frederickson
 
FrontMenDie1st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 630 chitown suburbs
FrontMenDie1st plays in the PSP
FrontMenDie1st plays in the APPA D5 division
that question is a bit over my physics knowledge, however i ask this in response, how could something that complicated work without a higher being putting it into motion?
__________________
www.RyanFrederickson.net
FrontMenDie1st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 05:38 PM #4
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontMenDie1st View Post
that question is a bit over my physics knowledge, however i ask this in response, how could something that complicated work without a higher being putting it into motion?
how does you car run?

must be God since I don't understand it!
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 05:38 PM #5
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontMenDie1st View Post
that question is a bit over my physics knowledge, however i ask this in response, how could something that complicated work without a higher being putting it into motion?
Why does intricacy inherently imply a higher being?
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 05:50 PM #6
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflvikings View Post
Why does intricacy inherently imply a higher being?
If the human brain can not comprehend something then god exists!
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 07:19 PM #7
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
If the human brain can not comprehend something then god exists!
God must exist in all of my calc classes then.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 07:46 PM #8
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflvikings View Post
Why does intricacy inherently imply a higher being?
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article
Quote:
1 - Gravity. Gravity is the weakest force in the universe, yet it is in perfect balance. If gravity were any stronger, the smaller stars could not form; and, if it were any smaller, the bigger stars could not form and no heavy elements could exist. Only "red dwarf" stars would exist, and these would radiate too feebly to support life on a planet.

All masses are found to attract one another with a force that varies inversely as the square of the separation distance between the masses. That, in brief, is the law of gravity. But where did that "2" [square] come from? Why is the equation exactly "separation distance squared"? Why is it not 1.87, 1.92, 2.001, or 3.378; why is it exactly 2? Every test reveals the force of gravity to be keyed precisely to that 2. Any value other than 2 would lead to an eventual decay of orbits,—and the entire universe would destroy itself!

(Another example would be the inverse-square law, which is often mentioned in connection with the redshift and the visibility of quasars. According to this law, light diminishes exactly according to the square of its distance from the observer, not 1.8, .97, or some other fraction, but exactly 2.)

2 - Proton to neutron ratio. A proton is a subatomic particle found in the nucleus of all atoms. It has a positive electric charge that is equal to the negative charge of the electron. A neutron is a subatomic particle that has no electric charge. The mass of the neutron must exceed that of the proton in order for the stable elements to exist. But the neutron can only exceed the mass of the proton by an extremely small amount—an amount which is exactly twice the mass of the electron. That critical point of balance is only one part in a thousand. If the ratio of the mass of the proton to neutron were to vary outside of that limit—chaos would result.

The proton's mass is exactly what it should be in order to provide stability for the entire universe. If it were any less or more, atoms would fly apart or crush together, and everything they are in—which is everything!—would be destroyed. If the mass of the proton were only slightly larger, the added weight would cause it to quickly become unstable and decay into a neutron, positron, and neutrino. Since hydrogen atoms have only one proton, its dissolution would destroy all hydrogen, and hydrogen is the dominant element in the universe. A master Designer planned that the proton's mass would be slightly smaller than that of the neutron. Without that delicate balance the universe would collapse.

3 - Photon to baryon ratio. A photon is the basic quantum, or unit, of light or other electromagnetic radiant energy, when considered as a discrete particle. The baryon is any subatomic particle whose weight is equal to or greater than that of a proton. This photon-to-baryon ratio is crucial. If it were much higher than it is, stars and galaxies could not hold together through gravitational attraction.

4 - Nuclear force. It is the nuclear force that holds the atoms together. There is a critical level to the nuclear force also. If it were larger, there would be no hydrogen, but only helium and the heavy elements. If it were smaller, there would be only hydrogen, and no heavy elements. Without hydrogen and without heavy elements there could be no life. In addition, without hydrogen, there could be no stable stars. If the nuclear force were only one part in a hundred stronger or weaker than it now is, carbon could not exist—and carbon is the basic element in every living thing. A 2 percent increase in the nuclear force would eliminate protons.

5 - Electromagnetic force. Another crucial factor is the electromagnetic force. If it were just a very small amount smaller or larger, no chemical bounds could form. A reduction in strength by a factor of only 1.6 would result in the rapid decay of protons into leptons. A three-fold increase in the charge of the electron would render it impossible for any elements to exist, other than hydrogen. A three-fold decrease would bring the destruction of all neutral atoms by even the lowest heat—that found in outer space.
I'm not trying to say that this is proof of God but it is interesting (to me) the incredible odds that all seemed to fall into perfect place.

Max Planck—"At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."—*Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the `miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1956), pp. 114-115.

Sir Isaac Newton—"The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;—but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits."—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), pp. 543-544.
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-13-2009 at 07:50 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 07:52 PM #9
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article


I'm not trying to say that this is proof of God but it is interesting (to me) the incredible odds that all seemed to fall into perfect place.

Max Planck—"At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."—*Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the `miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1956), pp. 114-115.

Sir Isaac Newton—"The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;—but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits."—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), pp. 543-544.
You can't talk about odds and the development of the universe. Ours could be standard, or it could be the exception. No one knows since we don't know the laws of any other universes that may exist.

About the scientists quotes, they don't matter. Consensus proves nothing; only evidence matters. Also, Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. He has stated that several times.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 07:56 PM #10
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article


I'm not trying to say that this is proof of God but it is interesting (to me) the incredible odds that all seemed to fall into perfect place.

Max Planck—"At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."—*Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the `miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1956), pp. 114-115.

Sir Isaac Newton—"The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;—but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits."—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), pp. 543-544.
of course they do. You're basically saying "if the world wasn't the way it is, it would be different."

odds mean nothing when it comes to what is true and what isn't.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 10:04 PM #11
madgoat
Troll_Extraordinaire
 
madgoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Homewood, IL
madgoat has achieved Level 3 in PbNation Pursuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
not really an answer but something worth thinking about. The probability of the BBT ending in anything other than sheer destruction are atronomical in every form.

Article


I'm not trying to say that this is proof of God but it is interesting (to me) the incredible odds that all seemed to fall into perfect place.

Max Planck—"At all events we should say, in summing up, that, according to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature in which our tiny planet plays an insignificant role, a certain order prevails—one independent of the human mind. Yet, in so far as we are able to ascertain through our senses, this order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe."—*Max Planck, May 1937 address, quoted in A. Barth, The Creation (1968), p. 144.

Albert Einstein—"Well, a priori [reasoning from cause to effect] one should expect that the world would be rendered lawful [obedient to law and order] only to the extent that we [human beings] intervene with our ordering intelligence . . [But instead we find] in the objective world a high degree of order that we were a priori in no way authorized to expect. This is the `miracle' that is strengthened more and more with the development of our knowledge."—*Albert Einstein, Letters to Maurice Solovine (1956), pp. 114-115.

Sir Isaac Newton—"The six primary planets are revolving about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolving about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets;—but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits."—Sir Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles (2nd Ed, 1686), pp. 543-544.
That quote is an example of making a conclusion then fitting the evidence to support it, completely ignoring the scientific method, which I believe einstein would say is an example of "a posteriori" or effect then cause. Did it ever occur to the author that our abstract idea of numbers is based of the real world, and thus of course they fit into real world examples?
__________________
Honey Badger University Professor of Women Studies, Dean of Student Affairs

Last edited by madgoat : 12-13-2009 at 10:06 PM.
madgoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 11:21 PM #12
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
of course they do. You're basically saying "if the world wasn't the way it is, it would be different."
If I had written that article, your post would have been valid. I was just trying to keep a conversation going.

I believe that there is a God because of my life experiences, not because of how the universe was created. I just find the atronomical odds of creation interesting .
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-13-2009 at 11:27 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 11:27 PM #13
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflvikings View Post
Consensus proves nothing; only evidence matters. Also, Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. He has stated that several times.
Not that this really matters at all but:

Einstein - "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."(Princeton University Press)

** I am not saying that God is real because Einstein did or didn't think something. While being an amazing scientific mind, he has shown no more "spiritual intelligence" (Howard Gardners words; not mine) than the rest of us.
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-13-2009 at 11:33 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 11:34 PM #14
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
Not that this really matters at all but:

Einstein - "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."(Princeton University Press)

** I am not saying that God is real because Einstein did or didn't think something. While being an amazing scientific mind, he has shown no more "spiritual intelligence" (Howard Gardners words; not mine) than the rest of us.
That quote doesn't show he believes in a personal god. He's saying it looks like there is an order. The order itself is god.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2009, 11:46 PM #15
Flying_Dutchman
 
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by 270KIDZ View Post
If I had written that article, your post would have been valid. I was just trying to keep a conversation going.

I believe that there is a God because of my life experiences, not because of how the universe was created. I just find the atronomical odds of creation interesting .

As has been stated, there is no such thing as astronomical odds. The fact that gravity is such that it forms spheres of hot gas as opposed to just clumps of dust has zero objective significance.

What if our universe is really the only one in existence? Then the laws of nature are just THE laws of nature and nothing exists with which to compare them.
Flying_Dutchman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 12:41 AM #16
Laureate
strength beyond strength
 
Laureate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
yeah, 270kidz, that doesn't mean anything. even if it is "rare", it's like the lottery. You have a very small chance of winning, but somebody WILL win.
__________________
ST:F - Playin with the boys
Laureate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 01:07 AM #17
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
oh come on now viking......

I thought you were the physics major wiz up in this mo fo.

using relativistic energy equations, and heisenberg, given (delta) x
estimate the KE of the electron.

the exact question was this....

" estimate the KE of an electron confined within a nucleus of size 1*10^(-14)m by using the uncertainty principle." ( no need for schrodinger)

I am choked that I didnt get this one because I bombed it on the mid term AND the final.

I know everyone here likes to mull over physics and throw out words like "super string theory" without going into extravagent detail, but surely not everyone is a dillitante.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 01:17 AM #18
nflvikings
It's fizzix.
 
nflvikings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Illinois
nflvikings is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Phil.McGraw View Post
oh come on now viking......

I thought you were the physics major wiz up in this mo fo.

using relativistic energy equations, and heisenberg, given (delta) x
estimate the KE of the electron.

the exact question was this....

" estimate the KE of an electron confined within a nucleus of size 1*10^(-14)m by using the uncertainty principle." ( no need for schrodinger)

I am choked that I didnt get this one because I bombed it on the mid term AND the final.

I know everyone here likes to mull over physics and throw out words like "super string theory" without going into extravagent detail, but surely not everyone is a dillitante.
I haven't taken quantum yet.
__________________
Old Feedback
nflvikings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 01:25 AM #19
Dr.Phil.McGraw (Banned)
I am a doctor, seriously!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: at Harpo industrial chem
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflvikings View Post
I haven't taken quantum yet.
hmmm.

well I guess Im up **** creek for now then.

word of advise..... when you get to schrodinger you will have to be proficient in taking derivatives, second derivatives,and integrals, etc. of relatively (pun intended) retarded looking equations so learn to love calculus.
Dr.Phil.McGraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 02:28 PM #20
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by nflvikings View Post
That quote doesn't show he believes in a personal god. He's saying it looks like there is an order. The order itself is god.
I never said that he did believe in a personal god. I was showing a direct quote of him saying what he believes to end the discussion of Einstein. People tend to believe that if a person in gifted in certain schools of intellegence that they are gifted in all of them but in reality Einstein was strongly gifted in one area and that alone does not give him credit as a religious scholar.
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."

Last edited by 270KIDZ : 12-14-2009 at 02:40 PM.
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 02:37 PM #21
270KIDZ
My Boat, My Rules
 
270KIDZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman View Post
As has been stated, there is no such thing as astronomical odds. The fact that gravity is such that it forms spheres of hot gas as opposed to just clumps of dust has zero objective significance.

What if our universe is really the only one in existence? Then the laws of nature are just THE laws of nature and nothing exists with which to compare them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laureate View Post
yeah, 270kidz, that doesn't mean anything. even if it is "rare", it's like the lottery. You have a very small chance of winning, but somebody WILL win.
I don't have the time or the intellegence to argue advanced physics, so I am not going to try to. What I am refering to goes hand-in-hand with Anthony Flew (only pertaining to this concept). I am assuming that I don't have to expain who that is.
__________________
ST:S:F - 2010 Co-UNK Memorial Relentless Troll of the Year

"Originally posted by Nips80: You are the best poster ever! I wish I could be like you!"
"Originally posted by Ninja Mouse: Please teach me how to be as awesome as you!"
"Originally posted by Treghc: You are my hero and my idol. If you were gay like me, I would totally make love to you."
"Originally posted by Umami: Please let me have your babies. I want my children to have at least one parent that isn't retarded."
270KIDZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump