geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Originally posted by Templares
On JPL software etc. etc.

http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf . Tran's JPL lies are on page 5. Still adamant even though youre caught red-handed of lying. Throw enough mud and some of them might stick.

>> Trans doesn't lie. Trans believes in free scientific debate, which must be based on a commitment to truthfulness on the part of all participants, in order to be fruitful. Now it is true that I regret one thing in this debate- having accused you of lying, on this issue, because it has subsequently become clear to me that you simply do not understand what you are reading here.

It is not the first time, and I have said many times that an honest mistake is nothing to be ashamed of. I should not have accused you of lying. I apologize for that. I am now going to show you why this issue is sufficiently complicated that accusations of lying should not have been made, until it was absolutely certain that both parties understood what the other was in fact saying, and both parties understood the excruciatingly complex issues involved in the paper itself.

Since I was the first one to make such an accusation, it falls to me to accept it coming from you in return.
We are highly likely to continue to go for each other's throat in this debate- and I wouldn't change that for anything, I have enjoyed it immensely.

But I was wrong to accuse you of lying on this question.

To business:

First, you quote from the Ruyong/Wang study. Because it is essential to be absolutely precise in this, I am now going to post the entire, lengthy section of the report which will provide the complete context of our disagreement, and also the means for resolving it. The issue is, needless to say, of absolutely crucial importance not only to our debate, but to "Standard Theory" itself, which is based on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames. The paper we will now be citing, provides utterly amazing hard scientific evidence that the speed of light is NOT a constant in all reference frames (or, to put it even more bluntly, that e DOES NOT equal mc^2, since "c" is not a constant after all).

Herewith, the entire context from the paper examining the issue:
http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf

GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims
At this point we want to consider a number of claims that Ashby [4] has recently made in regard to GPS and the Sagnac effect. We address three specific comments which Ashby made and respond to each below.
(1) Ashby claimed, "The fundamental principle on which GPS navigation works is an apparently simple application of the second postulate of special relativity—namely, the constancy of c, the speed of light." This claim has already been addressed above. Clearly, the GPS range equation does not depend on the constancy of the speed of light relative to the receiver, which is the SRT claim. Yes, the GPS equation depends on the constancy of the speed of light relative to the earth-centered inertial (ECI) nonrotating frame—but that is contrary to SRT. A receiver moving in the ECI frame does not see an isotropic light speed of c ."

>>First, note that the authors assure us that the equation used in GPS (no matter which software one might employ) directly contradicts the basic premise of Relativity, by showing that a moving receiver in the ECI frame (Earth Centered Inertial—that is, a mathematical coordinate system where the universe revolves around the earth once every twenty four hours, while the Earth revolves around the Sun once every year.) does not see a constant lightspeed ("c"😉.

"(2) Ashby's second claim is: 'Observers in the nonrotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is propagating.' This claim is a bit humorous. It would have been nice if this were the last claim in contention—since Ashby in effect concedes the argument here. Receiver motion during the transit time is the Sagnac effect . The only way that Ashby can claim that the Sagnac effect is not seen by a receiver in the ECI frame while admitting that the receiver moves during the transit time is to define the effect of a moving receiver differently depending upon the description of the receivers position—a bit of a sophistry."

"(3) The final claim by Ashby, which we contest, is: 'Of course if one works entirely in the nonrotating (sic) ECI frame there is no Sagnac effect.' The only way this claim can be true is if we adopt the definition sophistry of the prior claim"

>>Now we get to the meat of the question:

"But we have even more convincing data that Ashby's claim is false. NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame ."

>>Sleepy's contention is that I have lied, because he says "the entire computation" done in the ECI frame, applies only to the GPS calculation, and not to the deep space probes we will see discussed in a moment. At first I considered this to be an attempt on his part to obfuscate and cloud the issue, but that really isn't necessarily the case. For now, just notice that NavCom has licensed software from JPL, and this software does "the entire computation in the ECI frame".

"Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results,"

>> Very interestingly, we learn here that the standard frame for GPS computation is not the ECI, which JPL uses "for historical reasons", but is instead the ECEF (Earth Centered Earth Fixed) frame. The ECEF frame is identical to the geocentric universe I have been defending in this debate: the Earth neither rotates, nor orbits the Sun, in the ECEF frame.

"we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame."

>>Note well: In both the standard ECEF and the JPL ECI software, the speed of light is NOT a constant in all reference frames, as Relativity requires, but is instead constant ONLY with regard to the chosen FRAME ( in both the ECI and ECEF coordinate systems, that is, of course, Earth ).

" The Fundamental Question
As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to
the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial (isotropic light speed) ECI frame ?"

>>Note well. The authors specify the ECI frame, because that is the frame which the JPL software which they have licensed for this test uses.

"Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame. The receiver position in the range equation is its position at the time the signal is received. This means that the pattern of motion of the receiver during the signal transit time is completely immaterial. The receiver could have moved in a huge series of loops during the transit time. It would not matter— it is the receivers position at the time of reception of the signal which matters ."

>>Please remember the above quote,"it is the receiver's position at the time of reception that matters" because it will resolve the entire dispute between Sleepy and myself presently. Now we see the authors shift their focus from the GPS equation (common to both the ECI and ECEF frames) to another set of equations, this time with respect to another frame, the solar system barycenter. Keep in mind again the fact that " it is the receivers position at the time of reception
of the signal which matters " in ALL frames.

"The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light
is with respect to the chosen frame."

>>So, the deep space probes also are tracked according to equations which violate the assumption of Relativity. Much more importantly, we recall that, in each "chosen frame", "it is the receivers position at the time of reception of the signal which matters."

As I have said repeatedly, since there is no receiver located at the solar system barycenter, it is impossible that the computation done "in the solar system barycentric frame", can satisfy the requirement that " it is the receivers position at the time of reception of the signal which matters ."

The solar system barycentric computation must therefore be based upon the Sagnac effect correction for the "time of reception of the signal". The signal is received only at Earth, and never at the solar system barycenter.

For this reason, we see that it is necessarily the case that "the entire computation", that is to say, not only the GPS, but also the deep space probe navigational computations, MUST be done in the ECI frame, which, we were told above, is the frame which the JPL software uses, for historical reasons.

"In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame. The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from Earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into account. Even the motion of the earth around the moon/earth center of mass is taken into account ."

>>Here is where Sleepy also considers me to have lied, in that the original source I quoted had an ellipsis (…..) and did not include the bolded portion of the quote above. It is not a misquote to employ an ellipsis, and it has never been my point that JPL believes in geocentrism (yet).

My point is, that all of the solar system barycentric equations referred to above are employed ONLY in light of the fact that "it is the receivers position at the time of reception of the signal which matters". And that time of reception can only be calculated with respect to the Earth. Therefore, we see why the authors assure us that "the entire computation" is done in the ECI frame.

"Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac effect must be accounted for on all signal paths ."

>>That "one way Sagnac effect on all signal paths", of course, is with respect to the TIME the signal is RECEIVED in the ONE frame where the Sagnac effect has actually been MEASURED—EARTH.

Given the circumstances it is not at all appropriate for me to have rashly concluded that Sleepy was willfully attempting to lie. The issue is very complicated.

I withdraw the accusation, and apologize once more for having made it.

But the fact remains: the GPS AND the deep space probes are controlled via software and equations which CAN ONLY BE computed with respect to ONE preferred reference frame, the one in which "it is the receivers position at the time of receptionof the signal which matters", that is to say: EARTH.

Yet another shocking evidence for a geocentric universe.

And the SUN STOOD STILL!

What part of that statement don't you unbelieving Christians understand?
Jos.10:13

Okieshowedem

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>I would need to know a little more about the force of the explosion. Unless there is some humongously gigantimous force resulting, my initial guess would be "no way Jose", since the combined force (mass times acceleration) of a rotating Universe would so completely dwarf the force (mass times acceleration) of an Earth-annihilating explosion.

Now, is anybody at all prepared to even address the issues raised in my CMB posts?

I mean, really, guys. Aren't you even the slightest bit impressed that you have seen here two scientific studies published within the last three months, both of which devastate the Universe your physics professors are going to flunk you if you question?

My point had nothing to do with explosions. I was trying to figure out why Earth is so special. If you took Earth out of your eqation, then nothing would happen? So Earth, by some accident is sitting at the center of a spinning universe. 😆

Originally posted by chickenlover98
shaky id prefer it if you stop posting. no offence but your posts dont have any scientific information, but rather tiny little claims which even i, a heliocentrist, could quash if i was a geocentrist. please refrain from posting, because i SERIOUSLY doubt you have any evidence against his claims. of course please join me in laughing at him, but allow the knowledgeable people to post the evidence.

Please do not tell me what to do.

My points are simple because it does not take a big argument to crush geocentricity. It is just like trying to disprove Santa Clause; you don't have to prove that Santa Clause does not exists, because he doesn't exist. In other words, I don't have to disprove geocentricity, because it don't exist, and was proved to be wrong hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by Templares
On Tomozawa

Unlike in the study you cited, Tomozawa actually applied his calculations

>>Yes, it is very helpful of you to point out the difference between the two papers. The original paper I posted is a mathematical proof , that is to say, it is published as a completely inescapable conclusion , given the validity of the underlying assumptions.

That is an astounding thing, actually. The physicist author is putting his name up on ArXiv, and daring anyone on Earth to examine his mathematics, because if his mathematics are correct, then anyone who accepts Standard Theory must , from now on, either admit that the Universe has a center - just as geocentrism has always insisted, and just as each and every one of you reading this will be flunked on your physics exam, should you dare to affirm—or else bow down like obedient little sycophants, to the textbook-and-quackademic enforced "consensus" that will give you an "A" in physics for lying that the Universe is acentric, homogeneous, and has no preferred axis, direction, or reference frame whatever. This lying, quackademic-enforced "consensus" is exactly the thing which Sleepy insists is all that protects us from "fringe science".

LOL!
Of course, when Sleepy first showed up here, he believed the notion that the Universe had a center was "fringe science". Now he can't say that anymore. Just like he said quantization of redshifts was "fringe science". But he can't say that either, since he was crushed by the Hartnett study. Just like Relativity had proved that the speed of light was a constant, and any notion to the contrary was therefore "fringe science". But he can't say that anymore either, because the Wang/Ruyong GPS and deep space probe study proves that our spacecraft are controlled by software which does not treat the speed of light as constant, except in one specific preferred frame: Earth.

So what's a poor "consensus" defender like Sleepy to do? Well, I guess all that's left is to go to a paper which the author of the mathematical proof that the Universe MUST have a center, puts forth as his best attempt to determine just WHERE that center might be.

I feel a certain sympathy at this point for Sleepy, who is reduced to arguing that, since Tomozawa and Transfinitum agree to only 99.5% accuracy as to the location of that center of the Universe, he is able to claim…..what?

HEY! DUDE! You are only 99.5% right, you "fringe scientist", you! J

But actually, he doesn't even have the 0.5% to play with, once we recall the significance of the earlier evidence showing quantized redshifts, with objects spherically distributed, not around a position seventy million light years from Earth, but instead around EARTH .

Notice first off that this second paper is not presented as a mathematical proof- because he cannot prove his conclusions as to the location of the center, he can only prove that there MUST be one, under Standard Theory assumptions.

Originally posted by Templares
"to compute for his so called "center of the universe" in the following study:

http://arxiv..org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...1/0701151v5.pdf

The CMB Dipole and Circular Galaxy Distribution
Yukio Tomozawa
Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics and
Randall Laboratory of Physics
University of Michigan and
Ann Arbor, MI. 48109-1040 USA
(Dated: February 4, 2008)

His computations show that the "center of the Universe" is around 22MPc to 25 MPc or around 66 to 75 million light years away from the Solar System! If Tomozawa is right, the "center of the universe" is SO NOT the Earth. Is this really the kind of geocentric proof youre looking for?"

>>Like I say, Sleepy. I am tempted to tip my hat to you at this point, thank you for your energetic participation, which yielded much very useful new scientific documentation for the geocentric position, and agree to disagree over whether Tomozawa is 99.5% right, or whether Transfinitum in 99.5% right.

It would seem to be the gentlemanly way to conclude.

But since you have been decidedly ungentlemanly, and a bigot to boot, I won't.

I will instead point out that Tomozawa's second paper, which is not a mathematical proof, neglects to include in his computation of the universal center, the fact that quantized redshifts of:

1. Galaxies—(note that his computation is based only on anisotropy of circular galaxies., thus he does not include the observational evidence for quantization of all galaxies, which we have shown to be non-randomly arranged with Earth at the center of the distribution)
2. Quasars
3. Gamma Ray Burst Sources
4. Bl Lac Objects
5. X Ray Sources

Are all with respect to EARTH, and therefore Tomazawa's calculation with respect to only one of these represents a very useful, but incomplete, first approximation of the universal center.

It is important to note the scientist Tomozawa himself explicitly admits that his calculation is preliminary and in no way offered as definitive:

"The meaning of this directionality in the distribution of apparently circular galaxies is an important question .The author suggests that the existence of a center for universe expansion is consistent with the presented data and suggests the direction to the center, if not the determination of the distance. "

The author himself admits that his determinations are based upon assumptions regarding both circular galactic distributions and the "peculiar velocity" of the sun. A good look at Theorem 3 in Tomozawa's paper leads one to understand why the author, in typically restrained scientific language, says:

"Theorem 3 suggests an important departure from normal thinking in cosmology."

NOTE: What he means is, Theorem 3 represents a direct contradiction to the Theory of Relativity, since Theorem 3 mathematically computes an ABSOLUTE (as opposed to Relative) motion of the Sun, given, among other assumptions, the assumption that the CMB dipole is a partial, but not complete consequence of the solar system's motion toward Virgo. Needless to say, the very same observations would hold true if the CMB dipole was, instead, a consequence of motion from the direction of Virgo toward the motionless geocentric Earth at the center of the dipole.

But in either case, Tomozawa is, what Sleepy used to call in this debate, back before he got his clock cleaned, a "fringe scientist", since the equation below represents a direct, irreconcilable rejection of the entire basis of the Theory of Relativity:

"Theorem 3 The Hubble flow of the solar system is given by
vH(the Sun) = v(the cmb dipole at the Sun) − vp(the total peculiar velocity of the Sun)"

Tomozawa goes on to say:

"If further information on the peculiar velocity of the GA supercluster is found in the future, a similar procedure should be applied to the new situation. Then, the final result for the center of the universe expansion might be changed ."

It is important to point out, that the very same "final result for the center of the universe" would be changed, if "further information on the peculiar velocity of the GA supercluster" were to be accompanied by "further information on the peculiar velocity of the Earth" with respect to the cmb dipole. Since Tomozawa's calculation ignores the evidence of so many other periodic structures centered upon earth, we can see why the 0.5% difference between Tomozawa and geocentrism can be expected to become a steadily shrinking margin as observations continue to mount.

One last, extremely interesting statement by the author:

"There is a proposal and discussion of a rotation of the universe based on data of polarization of radio waves[7]……….Certainly, any rotation axis of the universe should pass through the center in a simple picture. In fact, the angles reported in the two works are close to each other: For the center of the universe, (l, b) = (310) –> (ra, dec) = (13h17m, - 32d), and for the rotation axis, (ra, dec) = (14h35m,-35d) with an error bar of (30m, 30m)."

Hmmm. A rotating universe????? Now where in the world would we have heard THAT idea from????

And, given the error margins above, the axis of rotation is quite interestingly, perfectly within the margin of error for……………you guessed it.

Earth.

Thanks for the help, Sleepy. You've turned into an excellent researcher for the geocentric position. Kudos to you and your handlers, send them my best regards!

I do believe this is a good point to thank chicken for the invitation, and to thank all the participants.

I will visit from time to time in case anyone has anything further………..

Psalm 119
Mem
97 Oh, how I love your instructions!
I think about them all day long.
98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies,
for they are my constant guide.
99 Yes, I have more insight than my teachers,
for I am always thinking of your laws.
100 I am even wiser than my elders,
for I have kept your commandments.
101 I have refused to walk on any evil path,
so that I may remain obedient to your word.
102 I haven't turned away from your regulations,
for you have taught me well.
103 How sweet your words taste to me;
they are sweeter than honey.
104 Your commandments give me understanding;
no wonder I hate every false way of life.

The bible is just a book.

A book of stories nonetheless

Originally posted by Okieshowedem
And the SUN STOOD STILL!

What part of that statement don't you unbelieving Christians understand?
Jos.10:13

Okieshowedem

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please do not tell me what to do.

My points are simple because it does not take a big argument to crush geocentricity. It is just like trying to disprove Santa Clause; you don't have to prove that Santa Clause does not exists, because he doesn't exist. In other words, I don't have to disprove geocentricity, because it don't exist, and was proved to be wrong hundreds of years ago.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
a GROSS oversimplification my friend. santas ****ing magic, we know for a fact magic doesnt exist. but simple arguments in this case dont do much. we've seen trans answer your arguments, and unfortunately, you dont really add much to this. im sure you wont admit this, but neither of us has a great understanding of the sciences their talking about. im just trying to obeserve right now, instead of making an ass out of myself, by pretending i understand what im talking about. please refrain from posting.

No, I will not stop. Please do not ask again.

Science can be perverted and made to say what ever you wish it to say. For example the Steady State Theory. There were many great scientists who believed in the Steady State Theory, but the Steady State Theory is simply wrong. Lack of information will cause an uneducated person, like your friend, to ignore one fundamental question; why?

If you believe that your friend is well educated in science, then you are truly not educated. I admit that I am not a scientist, but it does not take a scientist to see what is going on here. There are other people who are doing a great job at pointing out the bad science at work. All I am doing is cutting to the underling reason, and that is your friend believes in the bible first. This belief has blinded him the one basic fact; science is bases on observation, not papers or books written by humans. You can have the most eloquent theory in the universe, but if observations of nature do not support your theory, then your theory is wrong.

We send space craft out into space and land them on planets. If we did not understand the nature of the solar system, then we would not be able to do this.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I will not stop. Please do not ask again.

Science can be perverted and made to say what ever you wish it to say. For example the Steady State Theory. There were many great scientists who believed in the Steady State Theory, but the Steady State Theory is simply wrong. Lack of information will cause an uneducated person, like your friend, to ignore one fundamental question; why?

If you believe that your friend is well educated in science, then you are truly not educated. I admit that I am not a scientist, but it does not take a scientist to see what is going on here. There are other people who are doing a great job at pointing out the bad science at work. All I am doing is cutting to the underling reason, and that is your friend believes in the bible first. This belief has blinded him the one basic fact; science is bases on observation, not papers or books written by humans. You can have the most eloquent theory in the universe, but if observations of nature do not support your theory, then your theory is wrong.

We send space craft out into space and land them on planets. If we did not understand the nature of the solar system, then we would not be able to do this.

do you know how many things are discovered by accident? take ****ing ISAAC NEWTON for instance. do you know how he discovered gravity? because an apple fell on his head. many things are believed to be one thing and then are proven to be completely different. for instance, the belief that the world is flat. all it takes is more study to prove something wrong. dont say his "christian faith" has blinded him. that statement is laughable. as many people, besides me have said, he's out on his own here. the catholic church nor the pope, nor the bible state that the earth is the center of the universe. hes making his theorys and his case on science alone. dont be blinded by hate towards christians. his faith doesnt even come in to play

Originally posted by chickenlover98
do you know how many things are discovered by accident? take ****ing ISAAC NEWTON for instance. do you know how he discovered gravity? because an apple fell on his head. many things are believed to be one thing and then are proven to be completely different. for instance, the belief that the world is flat. all it takes is more study to prove something wrong. dont say his "christian faith" has blinded him. that statement is laughable. as many people, besides me have said, he's out on his own here. the catholic church nor the pope, nor the bible state that the earth is the center of the universe. hes making his theorys and his case on science alone. dont be blinded by hate towards christians. his faith doesnt even come in to play

I do not have hate for Christianity, and your friend is not Isaac Newton. He has a steep mountain to clime, and if he can't convince a few posters on a forum, then he will never have his work even considered in the real world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I do not have hate for Christianity, and your friend is not Isaac Newton. He has a steep mountain to clime, and if he can't convince a few posters on a forum, then he will never have his work even considered in the real world.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
statistically its harder to change someones mind whos older. i still dont believe in geocentrism but give him a chance. i hardly understand redshifts and the like and i dont think you do either. correct me if im wrong

But remember I watch South Park. 😆

I don't understand a lot of what he claims, and it is not because I am ignorant of the subject matter. For example, he has used the word Relativity as a way to say that you can see the universe anyway you wish too. That is not Relativity. I understand Relativity, but I don't understand how he applies it. Another example: he referees to people how are trying to mix Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that cannot be done. Do you see what I mean?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But remember I watch South Park. 😆

I don't understand a lot of what he claims, and it is not because I am ignorant of the subject matter. For example, he has used the word Relativity as a way to say that you can see the universe anyway you wish too. That is not Relativity. I understand Relativity, but I don't understand how he applies it. Another example: he referees to people how are trying to mix Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and that cannot be done. Do you see what I mean?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
sorta. but what hes saying is in relativity there are no preferred reference frames, therefore they are all equal. thats actually one of the basic parts of the theory of relativity. which IS relativity lol. i didnt say u were "ignorant" i said you dont know most of the subjects hes talking about which is completely fine. neither do i. but i get what hes explaining. im learning. however hes still wrong lol. GOD DAMN MONGOLIANS

I understand what he is saying and it sounds like a logic mistake. I can't pin him down because he will not address my questions, but there is a flaw in his logic.

However, on the topic of Relativity; He claims that the Earth is the frame of reference. So, why would he say there is no frame of reference? I indirectly asked him that question, but he answered some other question that was not asked. I don't think he reads what people write.

the point that still ruins his argument is the fact that he considers the whole universe to rotate aroud the earth which is impossible, even in reletavistic scenarios. ironic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the point that still ruins his argument is the fact that he considers the whole universe to rotate aroud the earth which is impossible, even in reletavistic scenarios. ironic.

Does he really believe that? 😱

yes. he tried to give evidence for it being possible, but it isnt. reletive MOTION is possible but the rotational property of earth makes it unviable to being the centre of the universe. any POINT can be considered the centre of the universe but a point doesnt rotate. and according to trans, the earth is the stationary frame of reference therefore, it is the entire UNIVERSE which revolved around the earth. and he further tried to prove faster than lightspeed orbital speed of the resultant celestial masses by posting psuedo scientific babble of how in so and so's mind, faster than lightspeed travel COULD be possible, also mistakenly pointing to the expansion of the universe having faster than lightspeed, {forgetting that even if the example WERE true in the sense he posted, he still hadnt made even a WILD connection with the theory he was proposing} but forgetting that lightspeed refers to objects INSIDE space and time, and not space time ITSELF in higher dimensions. his stratergy is this.

a: this line is continuous, see it has no discontinuous points
trans: no you see, i dont have faith in that, and i will further elaborate{with flawed psuedological examples} how such and such great mathematician proved that lines COULD be{doesnt explain the connection between those exceptions and how THIS specific line in question is part of those few exceptions} in very rare cases discontinuous but look to the observer to be continuous.
a: so how does that flawed example{even taken at face value} translate to THIS specific line being discontinuous?
trans: your so stupid liar, my logic and intelligence is superior to yours, if you cant understand that its discountinuous than its your own fault.
trans 1, wrest of the scientific world 0 , yayy.