Leaderboard

! Moderator Note Menan was banned for breaking the rules, but for this sentence he should be banned from ever touching a computer again. This ignorance is willful.

Just because forest fires have always existed does not mean humans are unable to start them, as well... yet this is the type of argument you're making... that humans are unable to start a forest fire. Strange is right. This is childish. Nobody disagrees the climate has always changed. What matters is the primary forcing agent, which human activity clearly is in modern times.

It is because the climate system is susceptible to change that adding lots of CO2 is such a dangerous thing to do - it would take a climate that is unchanging to be unchangeable. It is the vehicle with bad steering that is most likely to run off the road and crash. Olin - The consistent expert advice - three decades of every institution that studies climate and every expert report governments have gotten on it is that this is a serious problem. Why should I set that aside and believe that you know better than they do? That the consequences of AGW can and will seriously impact human activities and prosperity. Not that it takes a genius to figure that destabilising something as fundamental as our planet's climate system is very unwise and - given that persistent expert advice - dangerously irresponsible. I don't ask or expect anyone to take what environmental advocacy groups are saying on trust, but I do expect them to take what the world's leading science advisory bodies, like the US National Academy of Sciences and UK's Royal Society say about it very seriously. These organisations draw on the world's most accomplished and respected experts. My personal experience - of about 0.5 C of global average warming as experienced in this location - is that vegetation has been effected; perennial weeds that were kept in check by hard frosts are becoming rampant with warmer winters, leading to more work and more costs to deal with them. Bushfires are a real problem here - and that is not new. What is happening is that the 'fire danger season' is, on average, starting earlier and finishing later and the opportunities for 'controlled' fires to reduce fuel loads ahead of the high risk periods are becoming shorter with increasing risk of escaping containment, requiring more vigilance, labour and equipment. Fires could, by picking the right conditions, be expected to go out overnight as dew added a natural fire retardant - but less cool nights, less dew and more fires that don't go out on their own. More work, more expense, more risk.This means less of that hazard reduction is getting done and the consequences in the hot, high risk periods is intensified. That is with a mere 0.5 degrees of global average temperature change; the prospect of 3 to 6 degrees is something I find terrifying. Regions like this could become so unsafe that people cannot live here permanently without an added expense of fire resistant construction and endless vigilance. The appropriate perspective is needed - looking at too short periods, where normal variability appears to overwhelm gradual changes is a common way to get misled. So is looking at too long periods, where historic climate changes of great magnitude can make what is happening now appear inconsequential. Both blurr the reality and make it hard to see that gradual changes accumulate and will have serious consequences with dangerous economic and security implications.

Aren't you mixing up the cosmological constant and the Hubble constant? So I would say the cosmological constant was re-introduced. Well, one should be fair to Lemaître. I don't know if he liked the idea of an expanding cosmos because his theology. But when the pope declared that the proof was there that the universe was created at some moment in time, Lemaître warned him: knowing how science can change when new observations become available, science could eventually prove that there was no such moment, making God's creation a scientific topic. Maybe one could see Lemaître as a early adopter of the NOMA-idea (None Overlapping Magistra): science and religion have different domains, so they cannot conflict.

1- Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have absorbed approximately a third of the carbon dioxide we have produced 2- Anthropogenic ocean acidification to our knowledge, it is at least 10 times faster than any natural acidification event in the past. This current rate of CO2 release is the fastest in at least the past 55 million years. 3- Overall, ocean acidification has been shown to negatively impact more marine organisms than it helps. In particular, marine species that need a compound called carbonate to build skeletons or shells are negatively impacted because as seawater acidity increases, the concentration of carbonate ions in the water decreases. As this happens, it becomes more difficult for corals, shellfish, and other calcifying (carbonate-requiring) organisms to make their hard parts. https://www.oceanscientists.org/index.php/topics/ocean-acidification Conversely, instead of being rhetorical and broadly dismissive in your opinion, can you be specific?

Appeal to Authority is when someone uses their authority in one field in another unrelated field.

"Tolerant" does not mean accepting unreasonable arguments.

So whatever suits your story is literal, and what doesn't is symbolic, or describing a vision????? Enjoy your cherries.

Menan has been banned for not modifying his behavior after his suspension.

There's an important difference between what the government can and cannot prosecute versus what is allowed on a private forum. Once you learn that difference, perhaps you'll be better equipped to make better arguments.

Well said. In 1917, it was widely thought that the Milky Way was all there is, the entire universe. The "Great Debate" didn't happen till 1920. Einstein was working in the dark, compared to today. Anyway, the title to the thread is COMPLETELY wrong, in saying that Einstein was COMPLETELY wrong. It was Einstein's own theory that was used to prove him wrong on the steady state Universe. That's even more impressive than him getting it right first time. It's because Einstein got General Relativity right, that we know he got something wrong.

I realise that. A content populace is more likely to work. yes does it does.

What you're saying contradicts the standard model, since virtual particles are part of the standard model. Quantum physics changed the game a bit. Bingo! Um, what? The only light involved is the light we use to see things. The interaction itself is not the source of that light. Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of how cloud and bubble chambers work. Why don't you go argue with it, and tell it how it's wrong? No, the explanation of Hawking radiation would be the pop science. Reading multiple sources that give the same pop-sci answer isn't the solution here. If you want to know the actual physics behind it, you need to go get your degree in physics, and then get your graduate degree in physics (probably a Masters degree will suffice, since this is not new physics), and study cosmology and quantum physics and thermodynamics. That's about 6 years of study. Or do you think your dozen or so books matches up with 6 years of an academic program of studying physics?

To create power with steam, you do not need temperatures associated with molten rock. A much lower temperature (i.e. a few hundred degrees Celsius) is also still acceptable. Volcanic power is used at quite a large scale. Iceland has a LOT of these power stations. However, it is much better to drill a hole a few kilometer away from the volcano than to use the slope of the active volcano itself. The temperature is still sufficient, but the rocks are more stable.

! Moderator Note Similar threads merged You seem to be ignorant of both the science and the history here. Einstein cam up with the mathematics of General Relativity. Several people then looked at how this would apply to the universe. When Einstein first did this, he set the variable λ to the value required to make the universe static. Because there was no evidence that it was not. (The reason he later called this "his biggest mistake" is because he should have noticed that this is unstable; like trying to balance a pencil on its point.) When Lemaitre did this, he realised that the equations could imply that the universe was expanding (which could also imply that it had an origin, which fitted with his theology). He used the available red-shift data to develop an approximate value for λ - his value was, by modern standards "wrong". The value of λ was later adjusted based on the evidence available. For example, when Hubble published more red-shift data, the value of λ was adjusted. At one point, because of a lack of understanding of how stars work, it was thought that there were stars older than the universe. So the value of λ was adjusted again to make the universe older. So that value was wrong. But then a better understanding of stars was developed and the value was adjusted again. Then the accelerating expansion was discovered and the value of λ was changed again. There were many other people involved at different stages. And many other different measurements or estimates of λ. They were all "wrong". The current value is thought to be more accurate, but two different methods of measuring it, give different results so one or both of them must be "wrong". All scientists are "wrong" nearly all the time. So what is your point? (Apart from some incoherent grudge against science) Yes. This was proved by Newton who therefore concluded that the universe had to be infinite. Again, he was wrong. But that was based on the best information available at the time. You seem to want to criticise people for being wrong, based on what we know now. This is ahistorical and pretty insulting to people who were doing the best they could with the information they had. It is a bit like complaining the the Victorians didn't do laser eye surgery. Here you use the typical religious anti-science argument. You think that because all your opinions are based on religious belief, the same must be true about others. To be honest, scientists don't really care about Einstein when doing science. You won't find a scientific paper that says, "this must be true because Einsteing said so". You won't even find many pop-sci articles that say that (I would hope there are none at all). The only reason that people accept the equations that Einstein came up with is because they work. It doesn't matter that he was wrong about some things. All that matters is the science. And that is (as far as we can tell) correct. If you removed all knowledge of Einstein (the person) from the minds of everyone on Earth, it would make no difference to the science. And, of course he was wrong. But he wasn't "completely wrong." Scientists are always wrong. It's what they do. Although they are rarely completely wrong.

As an ex-rationalist I can sympathise with those who mistake habits of thought for a priori truths. But thought experiments are composed of memories and are ultimately a form of empirical simulation. Einstein was only able to perform successful thought experiments in lieu of observing actual experiments.

! Moderator Note Probably better to report the post to ensure it is seen - but done. With pleasure!

Applying the same logic, how is a creator possible and who gave him or her this knowledge...and who gave this him or her the knowledge that gave the creator the knowledge. You see where this is heading? I believe probably one of the greatest educators of our time put it better then most....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU Simply put, we do not know with any certainty. Isn't this the beauty of science? In that it can, does, and will admit that we do not know, rather then make an even more astonishing claim that some magical supernatural being did it. The BB isn't actually a theory on how the universe was created. It is a theory/model on the evolution of space and time from t+10-43 seconds. Before that point, we have no knowledge. After that point, the model aligns with our current knowledge. It goes roughly like this....[1] space started to expand [why we do not know] [2] In that first micro period of time the four forces were all combined into one superforce. [3] As expansion took hold and pressures and temperatures dropped, this superforce started to decouple into the four forces we are familiar with today...[4] This created phase transitions and false vacuums, and the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, probably quarks and electrons...[5] As temperatures and pressures continued to drop, protons and neutrons formed..[6] At around t+3 minutes the first atomic nuclei were formed...[7] Temperatures and pressures continued to drop for another 380,000 years until temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei and our first elements of hydrogen and other lighter stuff were formed. [8] Under the auspices of gravity huge conglomerations of gas clouds started to collapse until nuclear fusion began at their cores....our first stars were born. [9] These first stars were very large and had short life spans until going supernova, and creating heavier elements. [10] Supernova remnants formed more stars as gravitational collapses continued, as well as planets and such from gaseous nebula that did not undergo fusion. [11] Many billions of years later conditions were such on some of these planets, that a process called abiogenisis started. [12] On one such planet this process evolved and beings such as you and I were able then to contemplate such events. While we have no evidence of anything before the 10-43 seconds, we are able to reasonably speculate about how the universe and space and time evolved from what we are able to determine as nothing....This article speculates on that scenario https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/

Although I understand your position, I don't think your language will endear anybody of a religious persuasion that may be receptive to look into the scientific approach.

Obviously not for everyone. Not for me. The whole intention is to preserve superstitious belief by constantly adapting it, as it begins to look silly with newer discoveries. A step in the right direction would be to accept that the original authors obviously made the story up, not that "a day doesn't have to mean a day". It's just adapting mysticism with more mysticism. Or piling bullshit on top of bullshit, would be my preferred description.

There is no measurement or observation that indicates that it is that thin. While that would be a requirement for the solar sail hypothesis to valid, this does not mean that it actually is that that thin. There nothing about the measurements we have made of it that indicates that it is made from so thin a material. You got the argument backwards. It is "IF the probe were a light sail then it would need to be very thin", not "It is very thin, so it could be a light sail".

It doesn't say that. It says: "the Higgs field is not the universal giver of mass to elementary particles." In other words, it does not give mass to all particles. Says the guy who refuses to provide any support for his claims.

No, they are not. Invar is slightly denser than iron. Bronze is a bit denser than tin, but not as dense as copper- much as you would expect. You can make an argument for lead having a rather low density. It's about as dense as silver, but the atoms in it are about as heavy as those in gold, so they must be spaced out more widely. If they are spaced out more, they aren't densely packed. Back at the topic... If you have some alloy which absorbs hydrogen then that absorption is going to be accompanied by a release of energy. You have to remove that energy as heat when you "refill the tank". Even if the absorption energy is only 1% of the combustion energy that's a lot of heat. Say you want a tank which holds as much energy as the petrol tank in a typical car. That's about 50 litres. Petrol stores about 35MJ/L So the full tank holds 1.8GJ If you "waste" 1% of that as lost heat then you have 18MJ to remove. Filling the tank in 5 min gives you 300 seconds over which to lose the energy. That's about 60KW you have to dissipate in order to store the hydrogen when you fill up. Have fun.

That is not a reference. I have never seen a pop-physics explanation that says that. So ... Please provide a reference which says that virtual particles create a photon and violate energy conservation. Sigh. This has been explained multiple times. 1. They were predicted by theory: https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/ https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ 2. This was confirmed by experiment and observation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Manifestations https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ If you are not prepared to read the explanations or say why they are unsatisfactory, then this is rather pointless. Citation needed. Once the mass of the Higss was known, the decay products were predicted: "Calculations from well-established theory predicts thatHiggs bosonsdecay into pairs of the following particles in the following percentages: bottom quarks (58 percent), W bosons (21 percent), Z bosons (6 percent), tau leptons (2.6 percent) and photons (0.2 percent)." https://www.livescience.com/63455-higgs-decays-to-bottom-quarks.html 1. Those are theories of gravity. The Higgs is not a theory of gravity. 2. The Higgs mechanism is and was the only accepted model for explaining the mass of (most) elementary particles 3. None of that has anything to do with pseudo-science What is wrong with you? The caption for the picture you posted says: "Figure 4: Charmed baryon and neutrino-proton collision in bubble chamber [32]" So there are no photons being emitted. And that is yet another technique. Which, again, does not involve the emission of photons. Please provide a reference to support this claim. Yes, but that is not the same thing. The energy of the two photons (not "a photon") produced equals the mass of the original particles. That is not the case with virtual particles. Citation needed.

No. That's a bubble chamber picture. Charged particles have a curved path because there is a magnetic field. The corkscrew is from an electron, which spirals the most because of its low mass. Photons don't leave tracks, as they have no charge. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/History-of-Astroparticle-Physics-and-its-Components-Cirkel-Bartelt/4c33001f78a9c9bc7292b54df6e45416b309fda5/figure/4 You have been wrong. The people here who have been answering your questions know what they're talking about. So instead of getting indignant at being corrected, maybe take it as a learning experience. You've (potentially) cleared up some of your misconceptions. Most people in science feel good when that happens. The ones who don't probably don't have the temperament to study science. (Incidentally, I have a PhD in physics, and I have to think that my degree > your pop-sci books) You need to get a good handle on the basic concepts if you are going to have any hope of understanding advanced topics. Such as understanding that a photon is not a charged particle and will not leave a track in a bubble or cloud chamber, to name one recent example. Any discussion of quark stars should be in a new thread, but the reason quarks are not seen in isolation is color confinement (I think I said asymptotic freedom earlier; that's a different phenomenon) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement You just agreed that they have no net energy. Why would there be a photon at the end? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Vacuum_bubbles "consider the diagram formed by joining all the half-lines of one X to all the half-lines of another X. This diagram is called a vacuum bubble, because it does not link up to any external lines." (emphasis added) here's what a one-loop vacuum bubble looks like (it's just a circle) https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Feynman-diagram-representing-the-one-loop-vacuum-bubble-contribution-to-the-effective_fig4_242423238

I think it depends on the silicone (functional groups, MW etc... ). But I think it has a pretty low thermal conductivity compared to other building materials. The value will vary though depending on the product and the supplier. I had a quick look and the silicones from Wacker, say, range in thermal conductivity from 0.3 to 4.3 W/mK according to one brochure I looked at... it suggested that the figures were normally below 0.8 W/mK but have been improved with 'modern advancements' - which I assume means more optimised cell structure and porosity, functional group selectivity and so on.

I've often wondered why more use isn't made of volcanoes, but it's probably the unpredictability that puts off investment. The course of flows can change without warning, making it dangerous and financially risky. I don't think you'd have to pump water to the top, you could drill into the side till you struck a significant heat source. Iceland might be a good place to research, they have more geothermal per person than anywhere else, by a big margin.

Please don't do this. It is most definitely and emphatically not what I proposed. It is also what I respectfully submit is what upsets many other responders here. It is also the reason I mentioned the 'level of know' and specifically excluded the interaction between thought processes and sensory perception. This is all a great shame as your following story piece is so much better thought out (not quite what I meant but sure we can talk about that). I won't quote it all since its quite long. Unfortunately your great mission to simplify has lead you to completely miss the difference in 'know' that I am trying to highlight. I apologise if my words are not up to this, but you are the self proclaimed Philosopher so should be better equipped than I am to tease the intended meaning from utterences. The point is that, by corroboration from various sources not least seeing tree diagrams of living creatures in general and insect in particular, I know that experts in this field (not just one dead friend) categorise butterflies and moths differently. The word of one dead friend (however expert) is not enough to say that I 'know'. Nor is it enough for me to believe (although the alleged word of one dead Jesus is enough for some to believe) I chose Red Admirals and Hawk Moths because I see a lot of these and have learned to identify them. There are many varieties that I could not distinguish as either a butterfly or a moth or even identify reliably as one of these varieties and not something else such as a damsel fly. (Are tapeworms insects?) So in summary these are facts: I know a Red Admiral when I see one, from repeated practical experience. By practical experience I can distinguish between a Red Admiral and a Hawk Moth. I believe almost to the extent of 'know' there is a difference between 'moth' and 'butterfly' from corroborative deduction and other indirect information. I know my depth of knowledge is insufficient to identify that difference (There are many small brown moths and butterflies on our moors I can't tell which is which; certainly the obvious differences between the Red Admiral and the Hawk Moth won't do) This is entirely in line with what I first said about this example. I hope the notion of 'depth of knowledge' bring clarification at the expense of reeuction in simplification. Thank you for finally answering my first question Yes, I think adding the missing word would improve the discussion. You may even find that further additions are warranted by the end of the discussion. Yes your answer (predictably) identifies the question of the definition of Forest (and tree). There is a whole discussion to be had about this in the light of my recent experiences. I read in Saturday's Times that London is officially a forest since it has more than 20% tree cover. Last week I was looking at the photographic records of the great storm of 1953 in NE Scotland. Flattened tree trunks everywhere, none standing. Is that still a Forest? But both this and the subsequent question was designed to elucidate Truth and the non binary natature of right and wrong. Most common usage of the statement "There are X Platonic solids" are used to actually mean there are only or exactly X. In fact there are more than three, therefore there are three but that in not all of them. Note again my theme that the method of reduction misses possibilities and that Nature and the Universe is more complicated than our categorisation. This is not to say that Nature does not have a place for things which actually fit the categories, just that she is constantly spring suprises on us.

No you are a fraud, and an ignorant one to boot. Didn't you just have a thread closed based on this same crap? Go learn some science for f%$# sake! Oh and reported.

One of the most sophisticated writers on science I've had the pleasure to discover in recent years is John Ziman (according to the cover jacket: "professor of theoretical physics, member of the Royal Society, etc., etc).On the topic of dogmatism (see my opening post), I quote from Prof Ziman's "Real Science", page 311:"The distinction [between science and religion] is surely valid, but very far from absolute. As we have seen, science rarely lives up to its ideals. Scientific paradigms often become socially entrenched, and are presented as if entirely beyond question. The notion that science is never dogmatic is one of its dogmas!"And..."At the same time, not all religious systems are hostile to originality and scepticism. Hinduism and Buddhism are continually open to new wisdom gained by personal enlightenment. Even a 'revealed' religion such as Judeo-Christianity or Islam, where any line of argument can be closed off by reference to a text provided by an omnipotent deity, can never be systematically fundamentalist. Its teachings are reshaped by Prophets and Saints. Its founder texts become the focus of creative heresy, critical debate and doctrinal re-interpretation. For example, vigorous scholastic controversy within medieval Christendom created a fertile intellectual seedbed for new belief systems, such as Reformation theology, Renaissance humanism and scientific naturalism. The notion that 'religion' is always dogmatic is also a scientific dogma!"

What is this? Some kind of government cover-up? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke or prank or something? I stated this in my original post when I made this thread in the last line of the second paragraph. "This started to become a problem, because this was not the same equation that Einstein developed in his paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, which was \[ t'=t \sqrt{1-v^2/c^2} \] ." It seems like I was unable to present the information in a way you could understand it more clearly or you failed to actually read it. I recommend you go over it and read it again, so you can see the significance of the derivations I was talking about and the actual point I was trying to make. I am simply showing a new derivation in Minkowski spacetime which has been unknown, and that is why text don't use this to explain relativity. Then they explain it using the light clock example which comes out to an inaccurate equation, which is not the same as Einsteins original equation in his paper, but the Lorentz Factor is the inverse of itself. If the object traveling were two spaceships and they launched a beacon at the starting line, they would come back to the beacon showing that both of their clocks no longer showed the same time as the beacon at the starting line or position, if the beacon just remained stationary the whole time. They would both observe each others time slow down as they are moving and this creates the Twin Paradox.

A chimp made it into space before any human did, so chimps appear be evolving very fast. They could overtake humans as the dominant species on earth soon

Then you just don't accept quantum theory in describing this situation. That is one known problem with the theory is that there is no photon that creates the random particle pair. The problem is there is not a deep enough explanation as to why any two particle pairs create a photon. Then it is unknown if it is actually necessary in this situation. The theory assumes that particle pairs can be created without them, since the virtual particles are the exact opposite of each other in positive and negative energy through some kind of means that is different than the normal generation of particle pairs. It would be perfectly valid to say that a photon converts into two virtual particles that then annihilate to create another photon. Energy would be conserved in this situation. Then the original photon has not been able to have been discovered in this situation, so conservation doesn't exist in this one single particular instance of quantum theory. Then conservation of energy existed in science in general when Hawking described it being related to black holes... These free energy particles allow for conservation to exist for a black hole, because he added energy that is popping into existence from out of nowhere. That way physics, as a whole, obeys conservation of energy.

I don't see how this could be viewed as anything other than an intentional sabotage of science at this point. The Higgs Field is supposed to give all the other particles mass by them traveling through it, so it needs to be started to be viewed as such. It should be the leading theory of quantum gravity. I have no problems admitting I am wrong when I know I am wrong. I don't go around trying to act like I know everything when I don't. I don't try to use some kind of job position to show that I am right about everything either. You obviously are having some kind of boyfriend problems, and you just end up trolling me because he has horrible game.

Your link there claims that the Higgs Field is not universal, and I don't believe that is true. Do you guys even use peer-reviewed references? I don't see how this all comes out to being proof when it is not peer-reviewed. Then most papers on the subject that are peer-reviewed don't talk about any details, and they only try to avoid talking about anything in a manner that could be seen as wrong to anyone by using big words with no apparent real world logical connections. Then it doesn't seem like any information about who is actually right or wrong could actually be proven by a reliable peer-reviewed reference. Then our only hope would be a moderator that actually read about Hawking Radiation in a pop science book that often includes an introduction about these random particle pairs, so the reader will know what they are talking about. In other words, we are all doomed.

This must be one of those times when you redefine everyday words to suit your argument. Sometimes withholding forgiveness is NOT holding a grudge! Your position is more unclear.

When they send a monkey into space and it comes back alive 100 years later with a half eaten banana let me know It's a fact that you believe it's a fact, just like Einstein believed that the Universe was going to collapse on itself in a big crunch

The only thing that slows a clock is a power outage...………………. Astronauts come back to Earth a portion of a second younger than if they did not go to space Unprovable, just like dark matter, but you will describe it as though it is real anyway

I have long been aware the numbers could be scattered all over the place. That's why I wrote S\(a) = {x: x ∈ S and a <* x, a ≠ x} and not as an interval. EDIT to my above post: I should check with my analysis book, but 'a' being the minimum of S makes it the greatest lower bound of {x: x ∈ S and a <* x, a ≠ x} which means there is no l. b. for {x: x ∈ S and a <* x, a ≠ x} greater than a, thus {x: x ∈ S and a <* x, a ≠ x} has no minimum with respect to <*. This is what my argument hangs on. OK, I SEE WHAT U ARE SAYING. You're saying if we assume <* to be a WO of reals than it can order (0,1) as you said. I can accept this and this leads to not my result. But, I am saying it also leads to my result which leads to a contradiction.

Are you familiar with the concept of figurative/symbolic language? How do you know that the author was not describing a vision? And you're cherry-picking - do you really think a talking snake and a tree of the knowledge of good and evil were literal too? Have a gander at the last book of the New Testament - Revelation - and try and tell me that the author was being completely literal! Glad to see that you sincerely support freedom of speech

I do not have to show you anything, you called me a fraud for stating the truth. You prove what you said? Good luck with that! PS. Unlike you playing my game, I will not play yours. Next