Is the direction of the electric field relative to the magnetic field in an electromagnetic wave a...












6














In an electromagnetic wave.



EM wave



Could the magnetic field be mirrored around the xy-plane? Is there a specific reason that the 2 fields are oriented this way? Is it just a convention?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    Please, report the source of the picture.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago
















6














In an electromagnetic wave.



EM wave



Could the magnetic field be mirrored around the xy-plane? Is there a specific reason that the 2 fields are oriented this way? Is it just a convention?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1




    Please, report the source of the picture.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago














6












6








6


2





In an electromagnetic wave.



EM wave



Could the magnetic field be mirrored around the xy-plane? Is there a specific reason that the 2 fields are oriented this way? Is it just a convention?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











In an electromagnetic wave.



EM wave



Could the magnetic field be mirrored around the xy-plane? Is there a specific reason that the 2 fields are oriented this way? Is it just a convention?







electromagnetism waves electromagnetic-radiation polarization






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Qmechanic

101k121831151




101k121831151






New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









Alexander Ameye

312




312




New contributor




Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Alexander Ameye is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1




    Please, report the source of the picture.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago














  • 1




    Please, report the source of the picture.
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago








1




1




Please, report the source of the picture.
– Massimo Ortolano
1 hour ago




Please, report the source of the picture.
– Massimo Ortolano
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2














The direction of the fields of an electromagnetic wave is not conventional but it's determined by Maxwell's equations. For the particular case of a plane electromagnetic wave of angular frequency $omega$ in vacuum, which can be represented by the picture you posted, Maxwell's equations require that the wave vector $boldsymbol{k}$, the electric field $boldsymbol{E}$ and the magnetic flux density $boldsymbol{B}$ obey the relationships (the dot represent the scalar product and the cross the vector product)



$$begin{align}&boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{E} = 0, \ &boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{B} = 0, \ & boldsymbol{B}=frac{1}{omega}boldsymbol{k}times boldsymbol{E}.end{align}$$



This means that $boldsymbol{k}$, $boldsymbol{E}$ and $boldsymbol{B}$ are three orthogonal vectors and that the direction of any one of them is determined by the other two. Therefore, no, you cannot mirror the magnetic field in the picture.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago












  • Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
    – HolgerFiedler
    1 hour ago










  • Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
    – my2cts
    37 mins ago



















2














If you were to flip the direction of the magnetic field in the above picture, it would describe light propagating in the opposite direction—so no, in this way, its direction is not a convention.



However, it's important to keep in mind that the direction of the magnetic field is a convention at a more fundamental level. It represents an oriented plane perpendicular to its direction via an orientation rule. If we all decided to use the "left hand rule" instead of the right hand rule for the cross product, then the magnetic field would point in the opposite direction. It is a bivector, or a pseudovector, field.



The electric field is a true vector field. At least in the three-dimensional description, which is itself a (very decent) convention, as long as we acknowledge that this picture depends on our reference frame.



In the four-dimensional picture, electric and magnetic fields can be understood as a single bivector field, such that a choice of reference frame determines a splitting of this bivector into independent "timelike" (electric) and "spacelike" (magnetic) planes.



That may be more than you were originally looking for, but I think this question makes for a good entry point to many of the other choices of representation that we make in physics.






share|cite|improve this answer































    -1














    Electrons in an antenna rod, accelerated in one direction, all emit photons with the same spin of their electric and magnetic field components. This is obvious, since the receiving antennas could be made of a rod to receive the changing electric field or could be made of a ring (available in the German wiki only) to receive the magnetic field. If accelerated in the same direction electrons would have spin clockwise and anti clockwise one would not be able to use the magnetic component (because both variations will cancel out each over).



    I’m not sure but think that protons and positrons will have the opposite spin to electrons and antiprotons. Clarification from specialists will be nice.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      This question is not related to spin.
      – my2cts
      35 mins ago











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Alexander Ameye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451751%2fis-the-direction-of-the-electric-field-relative-to-the-magnetic-field-in-an-elec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    The direction of the fields of an electromagnetic wave is not conventional but it's determined by Maxwell's equations. For the particular case of a plane electromagnetic wave of angular frequency $omega$ in vacuum, which can be represented by the picture you posted, Maxwell's equations require that the wave vector $boldsymbol{k}$, the electric field $boldsymbol{E}$ and the magnetic flux density $boldsymbol{B}$ obey the relationships (the dot represent the scalar product and the cross the vector product)



    $$begin{align}&boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{E} = 0, \ &boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{B} = 0, \ & boldsymbol{B}=frac{1}{omega}boldsymbol{k}times boldsymbol{E}.end{align}$$



    This means that $boldsymbol{k}$, $boldsymbol{E}$ and $boldsymbol{B}$ are three orthogonal vectors and that the direction of any one of them is determined by the other two. Therefore, no, you cannot mirror the magnetic field in the picture.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
      – Massimo Ortolano
      1 hour ago












    • Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
      – HolgerFiedler
      1 hour ago










    • Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
      – my2cts
      37 mins ago
















    2














    The direction of the fields of an electromagnetic wave is not conventional but it's determined by Maxwell's equations. For the particular case of a plane electromagnetic wave of angular frequency $omega$ in vacuum, which can be represented by the picture you posted, Maxwell's equations require that the wave vector $boldsymbol{k}$, the electric field $boldsymbol{E}$ and the magnetic flux density $boldsymbol{B}$ obey the relationships (the dot represent the scalar product and the cross the vector product)



    $$begin{align}&boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{E} = 0, \ &boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{B} = 0, \ & boldsymbol{B}=frac{1}{omega}boldsymbol{k}times boldsymbol{E}.end{align}$$



    This means that $boldsymbol{k}$, $boldsymbol{E}$ and $boldsymbol{B}$ are three orthogonal vectors and that the direction of any one of them is determined by the other two. Therefore, no, you cannot mirror the magnetic field in the picture.






    share|cite|improve this answer























    • You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
      – Massimo Ortolano
      1 hour ago












    • Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
      – HolgerFiedler
      1 hour ago










    • Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
      – my2cts
      37 mins ago














    2












    2








    2






    The direction of the fields of an electromagnetic wave is not conventional but it's determined by Maxwell's equations. For the particular case of a plane electromagnetic wave of angular frequency $omega$ in vacuum, which can be represented by the picture you posted, Maxwell's equations require that the wave vector $boldsymbol{k}$, the electric field $boldsymbol{E}$ and the magnetic flux density $boldsymbol{B}$ obey the relationships (the dot represent the scalar product and the cross the vector product)



    $$begin{align}&boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{E} = 0, \ &boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{B} = 0, \ & boldsymbol{B}=frac{1}{omega}boldsymbol{k}times boldsymbol{E}.end{align}$$



    This means that $boldsymbol{k}$, $boldsymbol{E}$ and $boldsymbol{B}$ are three orthogonal vectors and that the direction of any one of them is determined by the other two. Therefore, no, you cannot mirror the magnetic field in the picture.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    The direction of the fields of an electromagnetic wave is not conventional but it's determined by Maxwell's equations. For the particular case of a plane electromagnetic wave of angular frequency $omega$ in vacuum, which can be represented by the picture you posted, Maxwell's equations require that the wave vector $boldsymbol{k}$, the electric field $boldsymbol{E}$ and the magnetic flux density $boldsymbol{B}$ obey the relationships (the dot represent the scalar product and the cross the vector product)



    $$begin{align}&boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{E} = 0, \ &boldsymbol{k}cdot boldsymbol{B} = 0, \ & boldsymbol{B}=frac{1}{omega}boldsymbol{k}times boldsymbol{E}.end{align}$$



    This means that $boldsymbol{k}$, $boldsymbol{E}$ and $boldsymbol{B}$ are three orthogonal vectors and that the direction of any one of them is determined by the other two. Therefore, no, you cannot mirror the magnetic field in the picture.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 1 hour ago









    Massimo Ortolano

    1,8751615




    1,8751615












    • You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
      – Massimo Ortolano
      1 hour ago












    • Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
      – HolgerFiedler
      1 hour ago










    • Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
      – my2cts
      37 mins ago


















    • You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 2




      @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
      – Massimo Ortolano
      1 hour ago












    • Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
      – HolgerFiedler
      1 hour ago










    • Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
      – Bruce Greetham
      1 hour ago






    • 1




      @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
      – my2cts
      37 mins ago
















    You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago




    You may want to start with "Having defined the direction of B by the Lorentz rule ... " (BTW -1 was not me).
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago




    2




    2




    @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago






    @BruceGreetham The point is that the magnetic field is defined in that way: once you have a certain definition, you cannot mirror the magnetic field (which is, I think, what the OP is asking).
    – Massimo Ortolano
    1 hour ago














    Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
    – HolgerFiedler
    1 hour ago




    Massimo, agree with you. But, both cases - left handed and right-handed spin - are a solution.
    – HolgerFiedler
    1 hour ago












    Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago




    Yes I think that is what OP is asking too.
    – Bruce Greetham
    1 hour ago




    1




    1




    @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
    – my2cts
    37 mins ago




    @HolgerFriedler This question is about a trivial redefinition of B, not about spin.
    – my2cts
    37 mins ago











    2














    If you were to flip the direction of the magnetic field in the above picture, it would describe light propagating in the opposite direction—so no, in this way, its direction is not a convention.



    However, it's important to keep in mind that the direction of the magnetic field is a convention at a more fundamental level. It represents an oriented plane perpendicular to its direction via an orientation rule. If we all decided to use the "left hand rule" instead of the right hand rule for the cross product, then the magnetic field would point in the opposite direction. It is a bivector, or a pseudovector, field.



    The electric field is a true vector field. At least in the three-dimensional description, which is itself a (very decent) convention, as long as we acknowledge that this picture depends on our reference frame.



    In the four-dimensional picture, electric and magnetic fields can be understood as a single bivector field, such that a choice of reference frame determines a splitting of this bivector into independent "timelike" (electric) and "spacelike" (magnetic) planes.



    That may be more than you were originally looking for, but I think this question makes for a good entry point to many of the other choices of representation that we make in physics.






    share|cite|improve this answer




























      2














      If you were to flip the direction of the magnetic field in the above picture, it would describe light propagating in the opposite direction—so no, in this way, its direction is not a convention.



      However, it's important to keep in mind that the direction of the magnetic field is a convention at a more fundamental level. It represents an oriented plane perpendicular to its direction via an orientation rule. If we all decided to use the "left hand rule" instead of the right hand rule for the cross product, then the magnetic field would point in the opposite direction. It is a bivector, or a pseudovector, field.



      The electric field is a true vector field. At least in the three-dimensional description, which is itself a (very decent) convention, as long as we acknowledge that this picture depends on our reference frame.



      In the four-dimensional picture, electric and magnetic fields can be understood as a single bivector field, such that a choice of reference frame determines a splitting of this bivector into independent "timelike" (electric) and "spacelike" (magnetic) planes.



      That may be more than you were originally looking for, but I think this question makes for a good entry point to many of the other choices of representation that we make in physics.






      share|cite|improve this answer


























        2












        2








        2






        If you were to flip the direction of the magnetic field in the above picture, it would describe light propagating in the opposite direction—so no, in this way, its direction is not a convention.



        However, it's important to keep in mind that the direction of the magnetic field is a convention at a more fundamental level. It represents an oriented plane perpendicular to its direction via an orientation rule. If we all decided to use the "left hand rule" instead of the right hand rule for the cross product, then the magnetic field would point in the opposite direction. It is a bivector, or a pseudovector, field.



        The electric field is a true vector field. At least in the three-dimensional description, which is itself a (very decent) convention, as long as we acknowledge that this picture depends on our reference frame.



        In the four-dimensional picture, electric and magnetic fields can be understood as a single bivector field, such that a choice of reference frame determines a splitting of this bivector into independent "timelike" (electric) and "spacelike" (magnetic) planes.



        That may be more than you were originally looking for, but I think this question makes for a good entry point to many of the other choices of representation that we make in physics.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        If you were to flip the direction of the magnetic field in the above picture, it would describe light propagating in the opposite direction—so no, in this way, its direction is not a convention.



        However, it's important to keep in mind that the direction of the magnetic field is a convention at a more fundamental level. It represents an oriented plane perpendicular to its direction via an orientation rule. If we all decided to use the "left hand rule" instead of the right hand rule for the cross product, then the magnetic field would point in the opposite direction. It is a bivector, or a pseudovector, field.



        The electric field is a true vector field. At least in the three-dimensional description, which is itself a (very decent) convention, as long as we acknowledge that this picture depends on our reference frame.



        In the four-dimensional picture, electric and magnetic fields can be understood as a single bivector field, such that a choice of reference frame determines a splitting of this bivector into independent "timelike" (electric) and "spacelike" (magnetic) planes.



        That may be more than you were originally looking for, but I think this question makes for a good entry point to many of the other choices of representation that we make in physics.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 23 mins ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        Luke Burns

        284515




        284515























            -1














            Electrons in an antenna rod, accelerated in one direction, all emit photons with the same spin of their electric and magnetic field components. This is obvious, since the receiving antennas could be made of a rod to receive the changing electric field or could be made of a ring (available in the German wiki only) to receive the magnetic field. If accelerated in the same direction electrons would have spin clockwise and anti clockwise one would not be able to use the magnetic component (because both variations will cancel out each over).



            I’m not sure but think that protons and positrons will have the opposite spin to electrons and antiprotons. Clarification from specialists will be nice.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              This question is not related to spin.
              – my2cts
              35 mins ago
















            -1














            Electrons in an antenna rod, accelerated in one direction, all emit photons with the same spin of their electric and magnetic field components. This is obvious, since the receiving antennas could be made of a rod to receive the changing electric field or could be made of a ring (available in the German wiki only) to receive the magnetic field. If accelerated in the same direction electrons would have spin clockwise and anti clockwise one would not be able to use the magnetic component (because both variations will cancel out each over).



            I’m not sure but think that protons and positrons will have the opposite spin to electrons and antiprotons. Clarification from specialists will be nice.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              This question is not related to spin.
              – my2cts
              35 mins ago














            -1












            -1








            -1






            Electrons in an antenna rod, accelerated in one direction, all emit photons with the same spin of their electric and magnetic field components. This is obvious, since the receiving antennas could be made of a rod to receive the changing electric field or could be made of a ring (available in the German wiki only) to receive the magnetic field. If accelerated in the same direction electrons would have spin clockwise and anti clockwise one would not be able to use the magnetic component (because both variations will cancel out each over).



            I’m not sure but think that protons and positrons will have the opposite spin to electrons and antiprotons. Clarification from specialists will be nice.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Electrons in an antenna rod, accelerated in one direction, all emit photons with the same spin of their electric and magnetic field components. This is obvious, since the receiving antennas could be made of a rod to receive the changing electric field or could be made of a ring (available in the German wiki only) to receive the magnetic field. If accelerated in the same direction electrons would have spin clockwise and anti clockwise one would not be able to use the magnetic component (because both variations will cancel out each over).



            I’m not sure but think that protons and positrons will have the opposite spin to electrons and antiprotons. Clarification from specialists will be nice.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            HolgerFiedler

            4,15431134




            4,15431134








            • 1




              This question is not related to spin.
              – my2cts
              35 mins ago














            • 1




              This question is not related to spin.
              – my2cts
              35 mins ago








            1




            1




            This question is not related to spin.
            – my2cts
            35 mins ago




            This question is not related to spin.
            – my2cts
            35 mins ago










            Alexander Ameye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Alexander Ameye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Alexander Ameye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Alexander Ameye is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f451751%2fis-the-direction-of-the-electric-field-relative-to-the-magnetic-field-in-an-elec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

            Ross-on-Wye

            Eastern Orthodox Church