Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold] The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?

My body leaves; my core can stay

How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Do I have Disadvantage attacking with an off-hand weapon?

Is there a writing software that you can sort scenes like slides in PowerPoint?

Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?

Can a flute soloist sit?

How to determine omitted units in a publication

Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?

Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?

For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?

How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time

different output for groups and groups USERNAME after adding a username to a group

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

Intergalactic human space ship encounters another ship, character gets shunted off beyond known universe, reality starts collapsing

Why are PDP-7-style microprogrammed instructions out of vogue?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

Button changing its text & action. Good or terrible?

What is the role of 'For' here?

How do I design a circuit to convert a 100 mV and 50 Hz sine wave to a square wave?

Drawing vertical/oblique lines in Metrical tree (tikz-qtree, tipa)

Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?

Python - Fishing Simulator



Is a Black Hole Gun Possible? [on hold]



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Is there a limit as to how fast a black hole can grow?What is the capture cross-section of a black hole region for ultra-relativistic particles?Black hole related questionsWhat happens when one black hole eats another black hole?Is the new Hawking black hole all about photon launch angles?Are black holes in a binary system with white holes, and are they both wormholes?Will a disco ball really end up inside a black hole?What does black hole formation and evaporation actually look like as viewed from far away?Do gravitational waves impart linear momentum to objects? (e.g. Quasar 3C 186)Black hole within a black holeBlack Holes as a collection of unreachable eventsSmallest possible black hole containing any information?










-2












$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop 2 days ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    2 days ago















-2












$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop 2 days ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.











  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    2 days ago













-2












-2








-2





$begingroup$


I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I watched a video on YouTube analyzing some anime fight scene where a guy used a black hole as a weapon or something, and I immediately thought, "how could someone actually use a black hole as a weapon?"
Would it be possible to create and "fire" a black hole from some super-satellite/space station and fire it a few miles above the Earth, above your target, causing massive, if not total destruction?







black-holes






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 9 at 8:17









Jens

2,41611431




2,41611431










asked Apr 9 at 4:48









James S.James S.

112




112




put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop 2 days ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







put on hold as off-topic by StephenG, Jon Custer, GiorgioP, Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop 2 days ago


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Kyle Kanos, Rory Alsop
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    2 days ago












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
    $endgroup$
    – StephenG
    Apr 9 at 5:46











  • $begingroup$
    @StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
    $endgroup$
    – David Z
    2 days ago







4




4




$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46





$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this seem more like a Worldbuilding question.
$endgroup$
– StephenG
Apr 9 at 5:46













$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z
2 days ago




$begingroup$
@StephenG Strictly speaking, that's not a reason to close a question. It's better to have close reasons say why the question is off topic on this site, rather than focusing on whether it may be on topic somewhere else (which is an entirely separate matter)
$endgroup$
– David Z
2 days ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



    There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



    The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      8












      $begingroup$

      The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



      In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



      The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



      Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



      If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



      What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



      Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



      The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        8












        $begingroup$

        The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



        In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



        The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



        Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



        If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



        What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



        Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



        The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



          In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



          The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



          Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



          If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



          What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



          Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



          The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The reason black holes might be interesting weapons is that they work against all kinds of matter, even dark matter. The reason they might be useless is that black holes are small, too hot, and hard to make.



          In principle one can fire a black hole by giving it an electric charge and surround it by electromagnetic fields. This leads to the first problem: an easily accelerated black hole will have a low mass.



          The second problem is that the capture cross section, essentially how "broad" the black hole is, is about $(27pi) G^2M^2/c^4$. That is very small for a low mass black hole.



          Sure, the hole will attract matter in its vicinity and accelerate it, but most matter just swing around the black hole without hitting it. This acceleration is actually what would do most damage by ripping apart nearby objects and irradiating the vicinity by x-rays from accretion.



          If we consider a 100 ton black hole (that can be moved with a cannon-like device) it has a radius of $1.4852cdot 10^-22$ meter and a cross section of $4.6775cdot 10^-43$ square meter. That is about a trillion times smaller than a proton's cross section. It is very hard to absorb matter this way. It does produce a force of about 6 N at a distance of 1 mm, but that is likely too fine calibre to be useful.



          What will do damage is Hawking radiation. The black hole will radiate $3.5609cdot 10^22$ Watt - about 1/10,000 of the total solar output. It will radiate away its entire mass in 0.0841 seconds. That is going to be an impressive weapon - but it will also damage the cannon, and even when thrown at lightspeed it has just range of 25,206 km. So the third problem is handling the Hawking radiation.



          Throwing a big black hole that can actually rip apart macroscopic objects reduces the Hawking radiation somewhat. A billion ton black hole will exert 66 N at 1 m distance, and shine with 84 exawatt of power. But it is still not going to eat planets (since the radiation keeps matter away from it, and it is very rare for a particle in the plasma around it to hit the tiny hole). So this is still damaging to the cannon, doesn't make that big holes, and is now very hard to accelerate.



          The fourth problem is of course how to make the black hole. Somehow enough mass-energy can be compressed into a tiny volume. But if you have that ability, why not just throw the energy at your target?







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Apr 9 at 6:11









          Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

          10.3k21530




          10.3k21530





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



              There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



              The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                1












                $begingroup$

                Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                  There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                  The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Gravity is an extremely weak force. You need lots of mass to do anything worthwhile - and that entirely eliminates any thought of using black hole guns as personal weapons.



                  There's another problem. Gravity affects everything - you can't "shield" against gravity. It's always attractive, so you can't even "negate" gravity. In the end, if the weapon had enough attractive force to do any serious damage to your target, it would also kill you, long before you could fire the weapon. The same thing that makes it interesting (affecting every kind of matter and even particles without mass) also makes it very impractical as a weapon.



                  The closest thing to a gravity weapon that would be practical at all would probably be some space-based "gravity tractor" - a relatively massive spaceship that would keep station "above" an asteroid to disrupt its trajectory to make it hit a planet. Would black holes be better? Not really. Black holes have the same gravity as a non-black hole object with the same mass, as long as you're outside of the radius of that object. And worse, they radiate lots of energy away as they "evaporate" - not only making small black holes extremely unstable, but also once again posing great danger to the operators of the weapon.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Apr 9 at 8:32









                  LuaanLuaan

                  4,5131523




                  4,5131523













                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

                      419 nièngy_Soadمي 19bal1.5o_g

                      Queiggey Chernihivv 9NnOo i Zw X QqKk LpB