Discussion on Dark Energy

  • 45 Replies
  • 8069 Views
?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Discussion on Dark Energy
« on: October 20, 2010, 03:31:18 PM »
     I'll start this, to continue another forum about UA. There is no proof that dark energy is related to universal acceleration, It is all speculation supported by the fact that there is no proof that Dark energy exists. So far its been hypothesized but not confirmed to exist. Also only when I add "flat earth" to a google search does any mention that Dark Energy actually pertains to UA appear. Most of the search results were to this site.

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2010, 03:34:57 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2010, 04:05:19 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
Not bad for a self-proclaimed troll. Circular reasoning is nice: Dark Energy exists because some models needs it to explain. The deflection is nice too: Even though FET needs gravity too, point to something unexplained in RET.

Now let's review the UA. It requires more power than has ever existed in the Universe. Could Dark Energy be that source. Sure. But as soon as a theory needs a 'fiat' like that, it's not very interesting. Heck, give me that much energy of just one second of its current output and I'd be practically a god.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2010, 04:09:11 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.
Not bad for a self-proclaimed troll. Circular reasoning is nice: Dark Energy exists because some models needs it to explain. The deflection is nice too: Even though FET needs gravity too, point to something unexplained in RET.

Now let's review the UA. It requires more power than has ever existed in the Universe. Could Dark Energy be that source. Sure. But as soon as a theory needs a 'fiat' like that, it's not very interesting. Heck, give me that much energy of just one second of its current output and I'd be practically a god.
Many would attribute the existence of the universe to God. With God's almighty power, Dark Energy is possible. Amen.

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2010, 04:11:19 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

You and clock wanted to fight so I just sowed the seeds. Also this is a follow up to another thread.

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2010, 04:14:21 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

You and clock wanted to fight so I just sowed the seeds. Also this is a follow up to another thread.
Short of ClockTower disproving the existence of God, this one is already over. He gifted it to me in his opening post. Now, how's about you becoming a flat earther then? Its much more fun, and its simple. You just put a thread in the lounge renouncing all the silly claims you have made about the earth being round. We then paddle you and put you through a gruelling initiation. At the end, you are a flat-earther.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2010, 04:22:42 PM by Thork »

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2010, 04:17:05 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

"Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force?"

So, your logic is that Dark Energy exists because it is necessarily to UA. In Laymen terms: An substance of hypothesized existence exists because it is critical to an unproven theory.

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2010, 04:20:54 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

"Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force?"

So, your logic is that Dark Energy exists because it is necessarily to UA. In Laymen terms: An substance of hypothesized existence exists because it is critical to an unproven theory.

In much the same sense that gravity must exist to explain why masses clump together, yes. ClockTower has trained you well. But it is now time. Let the hate build. You will need it.

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2010, 04:23:35 PM »
"In much the same sense that gravity must exist to explain why masses clump together, yes. ClockTower has trained you well. But it is now time. Let the hate build. You will need it."

Can I see the data you are using to support your point? Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2010, 04:30:48 PM by Danukenator123 »

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2010, 04:25:43 PM »
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2010, 04:32:10 PM »
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.

Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2010, 04:36:33 PM »
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2010, 04:44:20 PM »
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.

Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.
*Huff*
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one.
RE assumes gravity, but can't explain it.
FE assumes Dark Energy but can't explain it.
RE uses gravity to explain why you don't float about.
FE uses Dark Energy to explain why you don't float about.
RE says Gravity is 9.81m/s.
FE says UA is 9.81m/s.
RE says gravity is ue to mass which God created.
FE says UA is due to dark energy which god created.

The parallels are striking. If you have any more futile objections, either another FEr will have to answer them, or I will be back tomorrow. But right here, right now ... its bedtime.
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2010, 04:53:32 PM »
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.
You brought up gravity. I guess you can't answer the challenge.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2010, 04:56:02 PM »
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one. 
False.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2010, 05:08:27 PM »
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth? 

Berny
Just had to call 911
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2010, 05:14:07 PM »
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth? 

Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2010, 05:16:16 PM »
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth? 

Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.

Err they should update the FAQ.  What pushes the sun/moon anti-moon/anti-sun stars/anti-stars and parsifals around?

Berny
Happy he didn't have to deal with the police
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2010, 05:21:40 PM »
I thought it was the Aether that was accelerating the earth? 

Berny
Just had to call 911
Nope. It's Dark Energy. John Davis, username, uses aether is some convoluted manner to explain his infinite slab model.

Err they should update the FAQ.  What pushes the sun/moon anti-moon/anti-sun stars/anti-stars and parsifals around?

Berny
Happy he didn't have to deal with the police
The FEW talks about objects following magical nexus rings. I don't think there is an anti-sun or any anti-stars. The submoon was 'invented' to produce the second tides once FEers realized that "sloshing" was just too silly.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2010, 06:02:29 PM »
I think the key issue  here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

?

Danukenator123

  • 520
  • My Alts: Parsifal
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2010, 08:30:19 PM »
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.

Lets start with evidence for your theory. I prefer the usual peer-reviewed, documented research.
*Huff*
Even ClockTower has seen you are onto a loser here and has bowed out. I have given a theory as comprehensive as the RE one.
RE assumes gravity, but can't explain it.
FE assumes Dark Energy but can't explain it.
RE uses gravity to explain why you don't float about.
FE uses Dark Energy to explain why you don't float about.
RE says Gravity is 9.81m/s.
FE says UA is 9.81m/s.
RE says gravity is ue to mass which God created.
FE says UA is due to dark energy which god created.

The parallels are striking. If you have any more futile objections, either another FEr will have to answer them, or I will be back tomorrow. But right here, right now ... its bedtime.
Data for the existence of God, or data that suggests REr's can't explain gravity. Both are a Google search away.

Quote
Also, I not that weak to give into my hate.
So be it, Round Earther.
I'd like the data that FEers can explain gravity. Somehow, I don't think I'll be seeing that anytime soon. Yet the sub-moon causes the second tide "magically" constantly in FET.
Different Thread. This one is about Dark Energy. You are asking about Moon phenomena.

Don't quote me but....

 "Gravity, is a natural phenomenon in which objects with mass attract one another. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth."

....I think that counts as explaining Gravity, to a basic level of course. (Braces for the impending wave of math formulas)

As for the second part. The origin of mass is unknown. I believe Stephen Hawking has a new book out that attempts to address it. It isn't relevant to the argument at hand about Dark Energy.

EDIT: If you want to talk origins, post a new subject Debate or General. I sure other people would be interested.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 04:36:18 AM by Danukenator123 »

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2010, 07:59:44 PM »
about dark matter
the ua theory states that the earth accelerates up, so if i got a person to jump of the edge of the earth, and another person to jump of the other end, what happens?
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2010, 08:01:18 PM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

isnt that just like saying gravity exists, or else how else do we stay on the ground on a round earth?

if you want to make a precedent of evidence, please add some evidence for dark energy
the earth in FE theory doesnt have to be accelerated by that, it could be electromagnetic, electrostatic, and it could be pressure
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 08:03:39 PM by vhu9644 »
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2010, 05:57:20 AM »
Well I didn't see this thread coming.  ::)
Dark energy is very apparent. How else would the earth be able to accelerate continually without its force? Because the earth is accelerating we can surmise that Dark Energy must be responsible. Exactly as RE would state Gravity exists, without being able to fully explain it.

isnt that just like saying gravity exists, or else how else do we stay on the ground on a round earth?

if you want to make a precedent of evidence, please add some evidence for dark energy
the earth in FE theory doesnt have to be accelerated by that, it could be electromagnetic, electrostatic, and it could be pressure
Don't forget that FET still needs gravity to explain the tides and Foucault's Pendulum (though poorly). So FET needs three unexplained forces: Dark Energy (for the UA), Dark Energy (for the expansion of Universe) and Gravity, while RET needs only two. As a rule, complaining that gravity isn't well explained impugns FET and RET equally.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2010, 01:05:47 AM »
Ya, lets not confuse Dark Energy and the Gravity. The UA is supposed to account for our acceleration towards the Earth in FET, which in RET is accounted for by gravitation. Dark Energy is not required for our local observations of gravitation on Earth. In RET dark energy is suggested to make sense of long distance observations of the universal expansion at large, which is much harder to observe. FET requires Dark Energy to explain how the UA accelerates the Earth, which is a much larger step since we are much closer to the Earth and can more carefully observe it. Because we live on the Earth and we are clearly not affected by the energy of the UA we know that a semi-infinite energy source is not enough to make UA work, the energy source needs to be selective to the Earth.

Hence, RET Dark Energy /= FET Dark Energy, not by a long shot. RET'ers can ignore Dark Energy and still be happy about what is going on in our galaxy. FET'ers need smart Dark Energy to stop from flying into outer space every time they jump.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

Thork

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2010, 02:59:18 PM »
I think the key issue  here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
This is incorrect. Dark Energy is incredibly abundant in the universe. Consider all the matter, stars plantes etc in the universe. It is a tiny proportion of the universe compared with dark energy. There is an almost inexhaustible supply. I hear often that Dark energy would need to be colossal to get earth accelerating towards the speed of light. Well there is a colossal amount of it. It is 73% of infinity.

http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/index.php
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 03:02:40 PM by Thork »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2010, 03:13:32 PM »
I think the key issue  here is that there is no way that dark energy (which in RE at least the amount is roughly known) could provide enough energy to continue to accelerate the earth as close as it would have to be to the speed of light. It would have run out billions of years ago. Unless FET can come up with an unlimited supply of energy, UA is dead.
This is incorrect. Dark Energy is incredibly abundant in the universe. Consider all the matter, stars plantes etc in the universe. It is a tiny proportion of the universe compared with dark energy. There is an almost inexhaustible supply. I hear often that Dark energy would need to be colossal to get earth accelerating towards the speed of light. Well there is a colossal amount of it. It is 73% of infinity.

http://edelweiss.in2p3.fr/Presentation/index.php

Not only are RE'ers unable to find the mechanism for gravity, but they are unable to use gravity in the universe to make celestial predictions or explain observations.

In order to make celestial predictions they need the vast majority of the universe to be filled with "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" which they use to account for gravity's shortcomings. The existence of Dark Energy and Dark Matter in the RET universe is due to gravity's utter inability to make predictions or explain our observations of the universe.

It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 03:20:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2010, 03:31:30 PM »
It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.

 Stick to the scales. RET model isn't the model of the entire universe. It's only model of the shape of the Earth and workings in the local scale. And isn't it totally absurd that the FE hasn't even worked out the working model yet? Which can explain how things work locally. Like seasons, day, night, sunset, sunrise and so on.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2010, 03:52:05 PM »
It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.

 Stick to the scales. RET model isn't the model of the entire universe. It's only model of the shape of the Earth and workings in the local scale. And isn't it totally absurd that the FE hasn't even worked out the working model yet? Which can explain how things work locally. Like seasons, day, night, sunset, sunrise and so on.

The seasons, day, night sunset, and sunrise have already been explained long ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe. Also see the Wiki for explanations.

And yes, the RET model is a model of the entire universe. Due to Astronomical Parallax on a spherical body the size of the universe is inferred.

On a Flat Earth the sun can be calculated with Astronomical Parallax to be a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. On a Round Earth the sun can be calculated to be 95 million miles from the surface of the earth. Very fundamental properties of the heavens were inferred based on astronomical parallax and an assumption of the earth's shape. One assumption of the earth's shape tells us one thing about the size and extent of celestial bodies in the heavens, and another shape of the earth tells us another thing.

Most people are unaware that our perception of the universe is tied to the shape of the earth and the theories of gravitation. Nothing about the universe or celestial bodies have been measured directly in the Round Earth Model. Their properties are inferred based on Astronomical Parallax on a spherical surface and fundamental assumptions of gravity. The size and properties of the universe in Round Earth Model is a direct extension of the earth's shape.

Many people assume that we discovered that distance to the sun and other celestial bodies independently of the earth's shape, but it was not. With Astronomical Parallax the angle of the sun in the sky means one thing on a Round Earth and another thing on a Flat Earth. On each earth the distance to the sun is computed out to different values, which is how we can compute the sun's distance out to a few thousand miles on a Flat Earth. The shape of the earth affects the size and properties of the heavens.

I will look into creating a Wiki page in explaining this more thoroughly.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 04:12:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Discussion on Dark Energy
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2010, 08:44:36 PM »
It is absolutely absurd that RE'ers continue to cling onto gravity and and explain away its failings with invisible matter and undetectable energies. It is really just a failure of the RET model as a whole.

 Stick to the scales. RET model isn't the model of the entire universe. It's only model of the shape of the Earth and workings in the local scale. And isn't it totally absurd that the FE hasn't even worked out the working model yet? Which can explain how things work locally. Like seasons, day, night, sunset, sunrise and so on.

The seasons, day, night sunset, and sunrise have already been explained long ago. Please read Earth Not a Globe. Also see the Wiki for explanations.

And yes, the RET model is a model of the entire universe. Due to Astronomical Parallax on a spherical body the size of the universe is inferred.

On a Flat Earth the sun can be calculated with Astronomical Parallax to be a few thousand miles from the surface of the earth. On a Round Earth the sun can be calculated to be 95 million miles from the surface of the earth. Very fundamental properties of the heavens were inferred based on astronomical parallax and an assumption of the earth's shape. One assumption of the earth's shape tells us one thing about the size and extent of celestial bodies in the heavens, and another shape of the earth tells us another thing.

Most people are unaware that our perception of the universe is tied to the shape of the earth and the theories of gravitation. Nothing about the universe or celestial bodies have been measured directly in the Round Earth Model. Their properties are inferred based on Astronomical Parallax on a spherical surface and fundamental assumptions of gravity. The size and properties of the universe in Round Earth Model is a direct extension of the earth's shape.

Many people assume that we discovered that distance to the sun and other celestial bodies independently of the earth's shape, but it was not. With Astronomical Parallax the angle of the sun in the sky means one thing on a Round Earth and another thing on a Flat Earth. On each earth the distance to the sun is computed out to different values, which is how we can compute the sun's distance out to a few thousand miles on a Flat Earth. The shape of the earth affects the size and properties of the heavens.

I will look into creating a Wiki page in explaining this more thoroughly.
We've already explained to you that your calculation of the distance from the Earth to the Sun is bogus. I agree that RET is the basis of measurement of the Universe. So let's see your calculation of the distance to the stars and galaxies and how fast they're retreating. I expect you to dodge with a plea to ignorance, by the way.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards