Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Mystified

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 20, 2007, 10:15:49 PM »
>:(

So I take it you're not joking. Well thanks but no thanks - I can deal with and enjoy discussing FE vs RE theories, how things could work, etc. But I'm not about to stick around while someone actually thinks WWII was a made up "Hollywood" hoax. Too many lives were lost... too many sacrifices made, all to take apart one man's dream of world domination.

It was a war that needed to be fought for sure, but the sacrifice was great. Millions of *our* lives were saved,  from those that were lost.

I sincerely hope as you get older you will come to see the folly of your statements.

Feel free to comment however you like, negative or positive is fine by me since your opinion has dropped to a mere nothing in my observation.

Take care all, it was fun.
John

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distortions in Southern Hemisphere
« on: November 20, 2007, 08:26:47 PM »
Ok, first of all, now I understand your question.
Second, you would find discrepencies everywhere, and much more than 50 miles the further South you went.

Just read back to my previous post and it's just plainly obvious. Try the experiment out for yourself, it's cheap and easy. It's impossible for the measurements we have for land masses, points of origin / destination, and public travel to many of these places to deny the fact that the Earth must be spherical in nature. Otherwise you would end up with an Earth that could arbitrarily change it's continents at will - and better yet break them up and such, then back again to be able to 'trick' people into believing all of our current systems.

If one had the time, all you have to do is pick a spot on the map, use a gyroscopic compass if you're unsure, and start stepping off the distance if you still don't believe it.

It's the most basic principles we have to explain the Earth as a globe. I'm always open for discussion on new / other theories, but this one is pretty much solid no matter how you try to take it down.

I've tried for many days now while on the road, and I cannot create a model that will work both ways. Even the math just doesn't work.

Take care,
John

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 20, 2007, 08:13:26 PM »
Ugh! You people and WWII !!!       >:(So
So, great-grandparents came home in boxes or worse yet - very  small boxes to  provide a hoax?
No matter how evil or deceitful you think our country is, killing thousands upon thousands of it's own people in a short span of time is not on the menu. For God's sake just stop and think about what you're saying. How many lives do you need for evidence?  American lives. You don't even have to include all the hundred+ thousand other casualties.

Please tell me you're joking.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does GPS work in FE theory?
« on: November 20, 2007, 07:45:16 PM »
I like the stratelite theory... it takes care of the earth based transmissions problem. No matter how much upgrading you do... once you get into the GHz range of radio - there is no bounce to speak of. You're not going to bounce a transmission off of a wall or mountain range and then receive it somewhere else... it doesn't work that way. I've worked in radio - and have been a HAM radio operator for many years.

I can't count the number and range of antennas I've personally built or help erect and maintain for personal use, friends, and whatever company I was working for at the time, including satellite relay stations. (Relay meaning nothing more than the dish / antenna receives it at the tower, at the base of the tower is a relay station that gathers the signal so to speak, then either retransmits it on a lower band or just pipes it over land line to it's destination)

Basically there is no way you will get GPS to work without high altitude transmissions that can "see down" into things like canyons, valley roads, etc. Limited perhaps, but you run into the problem of interference with land objects (man made or no). You have to get down into at LEAST 6m frequency before you get any real range due to bounce and it is very limited at that. 2m is great for FM voice radio - plenty of quality left in the signal - but will still bounce around so buildings aren't so much of a problem. 70cm is pushing it but still works (UHF) well for ground transmissions. Most security companies use it with a repeater for walkie talkies. HF which is 10 to 15m is where you start talking to China from the US without much difficulty on good days.

Only problem with HF are the HUGE gaps between bounce. You only transmit  / receive intelligible signals at the Earth based bounce point, in between "Earth hits" the signal is going up to the atmosphere and coming back down so all that in the middle is dead air space to your receiver / anyone listening for you.

Anyway, it's getting long and I'm sure I've bored everyone to tears at this point so I'll leave it at this...
All GPS devices operate in the GHz range. You must have line of sight transmit / receive for them to work (within reason. there is a tiny amount of scatter on any band, but the signal is lost at that point)

I'd be happy to discuss the finer details if someone wants, but I think that's a plain and simple enough presentation of how various frequencies work in a nutshell.

Take care all,
John


5
Aside from all of this, bit still in reference to it... nobody has answered my simple experiment posts either so... I wouldn't hold my breath. Very simple experiments that anyone can do at home with a sphere or cylinder - a couple of pieces of Styrofoam, 2 pins or pencils, and a thread - can basically eliminate a flat earth model.

I've tried to break the experiment myself for the last week and can't. You simply cannot explain away distance problems between various places on the Earth. And I'm not talking about Antartica specifically. Or even Australia which people seem to have a difficult time with. However any transatlantic, or near equivalent ground distance just doesn't work. And if you try to adjust the position of the continents to account for one measurement... alll the other measurements are now screwed up.

If you keep truing to change things to make known distances line up, you just keep making things worse. It doesn't work. The Earth has to be a globe / sphere. It can't even be 'slightly curved'. There is no other way for our geography to work out period.

I welcome theories, I've just never gotten any responses aside from Diego who actually took the time to respond seriously, but I was not able to prove that theory correct.

Take care,
John
 

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Velocity
« on: November 17, 2007, 08:25:55 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Sorry, but it does exist in 'both worlds' ;)


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 15, 2007, 11:02:36 PM »
Ok, no problemo... kinda hard to tell in here sometimes. ;) I'm whooped. Finally settled in at the hotel. Niters all.

Take care,
John

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 15, 2007, 10:15:56 PM »
try that website i mentioned: "satsig.net". it has CURRENT satellite pictures of the ENTIRE WORLD, updated every 10 minutes
Where do you come up with this stuff?  Does it at least make sense in your head?  Those 'satellite' photos are not updated every 10 minutes, it is more like every three years...

Is this in response to my post? If it is, I can assure you that although there are many topographic and geographic maps that aren't updated very often... Satellite's can and do send live information and imagery depending on their design. Think about that for a second. Satellite TV doesn't update but once every 10 years? Come on seriously... (this with the assumption satellites exist) The only reason you see several minutes delay between the snapshots meteorologists use to show you on the screen is so you can see the changes and movements rapidly.


9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 15, 2007, 09:55:31 PM »
I still fail to see what data the satellite is providing that decreases time, that can't be replicated by all the stuff aforementioned (you know, the whole reason this was brought up). An image of what is happening does not constitute data used in the prediction model.

How can you say that? Observation is the first and most paramount form of data when available, especially if it precedes data known to be impending because of it.

Just think about what you are saying for a second.

No satellites: We have ground tools (radar, etc.) and spotters. What can you gather from them? Lot's of stuff to be sure, but only what people can see over their heads as far as they can see, and what your instruments report back to you on what's going on with wind directions, and probable development.

With satellites: On top of all of that, you now have overhead live imaging (there is a delay just due to distance called latency however minute, I grant you that it does exist) that gives you a picture of what the fronts are actually doing (in movement and shape) and therefore where it's best to "point" your equipment, your spotters, etc. Cuts down on time wasted scanning for naught. You can't replicate an image (not to mention other types of imaging such as IR and near IR) from that altitude giving you constant updates with any other equipment.

Sort of like aerial surveying for property lines. It's great to go through court records and go out to farms, find markers, and walk out everything on the ground, surveying your way there so to speak once on site. However, it's much easier to lay out new property divisions using an aerial photograph, then just go in knowing your survey points. Cuts way down on your time and expenses.

I hope that helps, but I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. Perhaps someone else can - I'm not the best at doing plain language, but I try.

Take care,
John






10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ATTENTION FUCKING NEWBS/TROLLS!!!!
« on: November 15, 2007, 08:00:29 PM »
I'm imagining Cpt. Picard screaming that on the bridge.... ROFL!!!! ;)

Point taken, but still... LOL


11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experimental Evidence
« on: November 15, 2007, 07:14:48 PM »
It's really not that difficult to impose those onto an FE model. If all continents were right next to each other, it would be different. To be truthful, though, the FE response would simply be that the current maps we have are incorrect, and that continents look different than we believe they do at the moment. The only thing left to explain would be the distance between the continents differing. As for that, I'd say, we really just don't know the distances exactly. I mean, it's just a huge expanse of blue. How easy would it be to measure that?

~D-Draw

Thanks D, I appreciate your candour. The only problem I have getting past that is we do know the distances between the places we travel. Especially main ports of call that are travelled to regularly both by air and sea. Even let's say give 50 miles for a variance for whatever reason, the continents would still not work out - especially at the edges where you can get the most consistent measurements from any source because of both air and sea travel. And yes, I do agree if the continents were squished all together kind of like one big Pangea, it would be easier to extrapolate a way to line things up, however you would have a more difficult time on land based distances, especially the further you get from the equator. Like I said... the string droops no matter what you do.  ???

I'm still thinking on it.
Thanks,
John

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:59:48 PM »
How does a present image of a hurricane change the actual data that ends up being collected and used in the prediction model? And how does that reduce times exactly?

As stated - 'Forecasting is exactly that, forecasting. It involves prediction and computer simulations based on physics and the data collected. Do you know those images that weathermen show you of a forecast? Do you know why they only show a brief timeline into the future on the weather? Because "the errors in a forecast will inevitably grow with time due to the chaotic nature of the atmosphere."'

Well it's simple really... Satellites DO offer real time imagery as far as the weather and communications satellites go. If you can see the storm forming before standard radar picks it up, you can start working on gathering more information, targeting in on the location.

Constant updating between what you are getting from satellite - especially the infra red, and combining it with what you get with ground level radar and visual information from spotters reduces the time in the end. The earlier the start you get, the more time you end up with in the end since you started gathering data sooner. That's just the simple truth. Aside from that - without the IR data you would have the gaps to fill in just like we used to without it and that wastes time.

More data - more knowledge - better results. At least in these cases.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Experimental Evidence
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:44:20 PM »
Well to be honest, I am trying to disprove the experiments I posted in a thread just a bit earlier. Not that they don't work, but that they would somehow NOT prove a round earth.

Since we can (or should anyway. There are many different references, pick which ones you trust) agree on the actual measurable distances between cities and towns in countries and accross oceans to other cities whichever you prefer... then it doesn't work out on an FE model.

Above the Equator, the closer you get to the North pole, things start getting squished, and South of it, they get spread out. It doeasn't matter how big or small  you make the FE... no matter how you twist or move the continents around... if you force one city to line up with another from one continent to the other, then all of your other measurements are off. These are very simple and easy to perform experiments. And there are no optical illusions or anything to interfere.

What do you guys think? Seriously... If there is a way to throw these out, I'm interested in it.

My 2 cents..
 

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the world is round
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:37:20 PM »
So Tom... tried those experiments out yet? ;)

Sorry can't help it.. I'm punch drunk tired waiting on yet another (and thankfully my last of this trip) plane.

C-me!
John

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE sun is impossible
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:33:58 PM »
i don't understand relativity, but i still believe in gravity.
I'm an idiot.

But at least i'm correct.

I think you've misread some things. Although sometimes misstated on the forum, most people here "believe" that gravity does not exist *as a force* - not that it just doesn't exist at all. General Relativity actually describes Gravity in and of itself... Newtonian theory  counts on mass whereas General Relativity accounts for curvatures in space time ALSO (it still includes the Newtonian theory by default because of mass having an effect). That's very simplified but accurate enough I think. Anyone is welcome to tidy it up, but don't go overboard - no need for equations and such for this.

C-me!
John


16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Great Circle Route
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:11:18 PM »
Hi Ladon, I didn't think before I responded.. didn't mean to answer for you there.

As far as I know, there is no agreed upon map perfected for FE, and there is no explanation or currently perfected theory for how the "Souther Routes" would work. It's a pretty well debated topic in the forums. I would suggest running a search and you will find several threads / posts on the subject with many different ideas and theories as to how it might or might not work.

Take care,
John

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Great Circle Route
« on: November 15, 2007, 06:07:55 PM »
I would assume by him stating 'his maths applied course' he would mean his 11th school year, as in he would be a last year High School student in the UK or Australia's last 2 years, or a similar structure of some kind. Many places do not use the K through 12 pre-college standard as most areas of the U.S.

They have several Mathematics and language arts to choose from and students are really pushed in the last year or two in these systems.

Take care,
John







18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the world is round
« on: November 15, 2007, 05:54:21 PM »
Tom, I've never posted in direct reply to the "experimental proof" before, but since nobody including youself has responded to this, I am going to quote myself here... Read the whole thing, including the edit, before commenting please.

Quote:
...
I hate to use an analogy here but I can't think of a better way to do it... to simplify this experiment take a cylinder (or globe if you want, that's fine too) and place upon it a couple of Styrofoam blocks or shapes of some kind.. relatively thin is fine and glue them down good and tight. place them relatively close even.. the more so the better to prove the point. Farther away and it will be more of an effect, but this shows the minor differences you were pointing out also.

Now stab a pencil or needle or what have you into each block wherever you choose, string a thread tight between them, then cut the cylinder along the backside, and lay it out flat. You will notice that the thread now droops. This would be an example of a northern discrepancy between known current distance between two points and if you were to flatten out the earth.

For the south pole, all you have to do is reverse the concept, cut the cylinder from the front and the thread either springs tight trying to keep it together or snaps.

Hope that helps, if not let me know... I'll try to do better.

Take care,
John

Edit: Also, in case the last part doesn't seem feasible, take a circle or disk, wrap it into even a gentle cone and repeat the same experiment, attempting to flatten the cone back out into a disk... the string will tighten out or snap sue to the distortion.

Before anyone says this proves nothing but experimental shapes, these are only experiments to prove distance variances - take into account we ALL know how far it is from say Tokyo to LA, or in common discussion here; say San Francisco, CA to Sydney, Australia - 7408 miles (11922 km) (6438 nautical miles) [a long haul I make at least once a year to see my brother... ugh!]

If you try to alter the map (as in move and/or twist continents around) to make the distance work... then you are off on all your other distances to elsewhere in the world. try to adjust that also... then you just start making it worse and worse.

Take care,
John

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just a quick thought
« on: November 14, 2007, 11:36:14 PM »
Actually.. I agree with you as well, because the latter part of my post got chunked off for some reason... either that or I just imagined typing it (could be I guess. I need more coffee and I'm tired of waiting for my plane).

My ending tag line was..............

[Or, it might start a huge backlash unseen since Hubbard!]

C-Me!

P.S. My post, including this one, is in it's entirety a joke people. I only jest because I care. ;)

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« on: November 14, 2007, 11:15:59 PM »
I agree with the aforementioned statement about force being what a lot of the confusion is about. And as I said we all grew up with certain notions and terminologies, so it gets cumbersome.

Think of it this way.. in either model.. is the Earth "forcing itself" into you? In RE the closest thing you could say would be you're being pulled into it, and on FE the Earth is accelerating towards you so to speak.

The definition of the word "force" In physics, is that which tends to cause a body to accelerate.

So as you said - it is playing with semantics, but ohhhh so nasty of them. lol



21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why Argue Semantics?
« on: November 14, 2007, 10:53:17 PM »
I think the simplest thing to say.. just to clarify what people are 'upset about' regarding gravity is to think of the concept of gravity as we remember growing up with... most people think that in laymen's terms - Gravity is caused by the mass of an object attracting other objects to it, according to it's size - or 'massiveness!'

General Relativity 'produces' gravity - if you will - by the fact that Mass (amongst other things) curves space time.

Simplest way I can think of to put it is this... get a trampoline out.. that's space. Set a bowling ball in the middle of it... that's now a large object curving space time around itself. Now try to roll a marble or some other object in a straight line past it... you can't. Because of the curvature in space-time created by the bowling ball, anything passing near it, that doesn't "outweigh it" will just be pulled right into it. Larger bowling ball - as it passes by, it will pull the already existing one into it, but since heavier, will keep on track. Works both ways back and forth and in between.

I don't know if this is even close to what you are looking for, but I hope this helps some. Just remember that the trampoline is a 2D representation of space itself and the objects upon it are "distorting space" therefore the trampoline is simply a way to observe what WOULD be happening all around the object.

So Newtonian Gravity as described by General Relativity is what causes that little marble to sway back into the bowling ball - Not ONLY because of it's greater mass, but it's effect on space time also. The latter being specific to GR.

I hope I didn't just make it muddier, but I tried.

Take care,
John

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Clouds
« on: November 14, 2007, 10:21:40 PM »
Boy .. you gave up awfully quick. Not all contrails are flat straight lines you know.. what about those? (Not that aerial patterns are going to get you much, but still)

Ah well. Don't give up so easy, just because people shoot down your post or theory, doesn't mean you can't fire back with different answers or questions about THEIR answers. Might learn something that even helps you out on your own case.

I've learned a few things from ol' Engineer and others on here, just catching myself in "DUH"s and even stuff I just knew was right, but found out... wasn't. And I work in applied sciences every day! LOL

Take care,
John

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Doctored Photos
« on: November 14, 2007, 10:13:03 PM »
Ah yes, but you can always look 'back' at your older photos and say "Oh that? That's just an artefact left over from photo processing. You know how technology was back THEN!" or even from another machine as you say. It can all go 'round in circles no matter how many times you say it.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Just a quick thought
« on: November 14, 2007, 10:09:36 PM »
Are you kidding? They'd be ridiculed, called a phoney, taken in for questioning, laughed out into the streets, then screamed at from all four corners of the earth that they were full of crap and keep walking MORON!

... or something like that. Besides, do you really think the government would LET this person reveal their secret after so many years of a deal like that?

I mean just think man, they torture you for tax refunds - what would they do to you for spilling the beans?!?!?!? ;D

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the space shuttle "conspiracy"
« on: November 14, 2007, 09:59:19 PM »
quote: Satellites in the end, are not required in regards to weather forecasting.

Yes, but a high speed connection isn't required to connect to the internet. A modem will do.
In fact the internet isn't necessary for worldwide network communications via landlines - Bulletin Board Systems, combined with radio until the major onset of the internet did this quite well. Just slower and without the fancy graphics.

My point being this... I can use a modem, but I'd rather have high speed since it's available.

I'd also rather have the warning times on tornadoes and hurricanes reduced by as much as 15 minutes, rather than not. Satellite imaging COMBINED with scatter and Doppler radar have reduced warning times drastically over the last few years.

Take the satellites away, and you tack at least another 10 min back onto warning times in many cases. So, in my opinion they are invaluable at this point in time in our society for a number of reasons, not just weather in fact.

Does this prove or disprove an Earth theory? I don't know... I just know what I've said. :)

Take care,
John

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distortions in Southern Hemisphere
« on: November 14, 2007, 09:14:10 AM »
Ok I'm out on the road for a bit. Will have the laptop but sporadic opportunity to log back in. Lemme know if this was satisfactory or not. I'll try to tinker with some stuff in my down time - since it's incredibly boring on stop overs.. LOL

Take care,
John

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: YOU GUYS ARE SERIOUSLY F**KED IN THE HEAD
« on: November 14, 2007, 09:08:14 AM »
There is no reason to be such an ass. I've said more than once I happen to believe in a spherical earth, but the point is, this site is open to debate (note... *debate*) on both sides, which I try to participate both ways on principal and interest.

If you want to be one-sided, that's fine. But, when you make an initial post such as this, you are proving yourself to be... well the content of your message.

My 2 cents,
John

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eclipses, Moon, Sun
« on: November 13, 2007, 04:31:30 PM »
Actually, you can look forward to the next total lunar eclipse:

2007 Aug 28    Total     1.481     01h31m    e Asia, Aus., Pacific, Americas
2008 Feb 21    Total    1.111    00h51m    c Pacific, Americas, Europe, Africa
2008 Aug 16    Partial    0.813    -    S. America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Aus.
2009 Feb 09    Penumbral    -0.083    -    e Europe, Asia, Aus., Pacific, w N.A.
2009 Jul 07    Penumbral    -0.909    -    Aus., Pacific, Americas
2009 Aug 06    Penumbral    -0.661    -    Americas, Europe, Africa, w Asia
2009 Dec 31    Partial    0.082    -    Europe, Africa, Asia, Aus.
2010 Jun 26    Partial    0.542    -    e Asia, Aus., Pacific, w Americas
2010 Dec 21    Total    1.262    01h13m    e Asia, Aus., Pacific, Americas, Europe

And as far as one not occurring in the last 150 years??? There was one earlier THIS year guys... come on... I included it in the list.

There are enough in there for everyone's observation, including 2 total eclipses - 1 of them being the beginning of next year!! :) I guess we can all collaborate on our collective locations, record data, and share our results eh? ;D




29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distortions in Southern Hemisphere
« on: November 13, 2007, 03:43:19 PM »
Also, I think the vast differences being referred to would the fact that if you were to take a known distance on the RE map or globe from point A on one continent to point B on another, then randomly select another transoceanic segment on the opposite side of the map especially south of the equator, you have 2 known lengths of travel right?

Well now, 'flatten out' the earth, reconfigure it however you like, and odds are - unless you totally mess with the orientation of the continents, the measurements don't work out the same. Not to mention if you move the continents around to make up for it, then all your other measurements are off now.

So in effect - it really isn't possible for the measurements from one continental location to another (if that far) to work out on a flat map. It is especially noticeable 'south' of the equator.

Anyway, gotta git down the road here - sorry if I missed something or didn't word that well enough. Gotta go!! :)

Take it easy,
John


And where would such possibly minor distances errors be accurately noted?

I'm not sure I understand your question ... do you mean where would short distance errors would occur? Or that anything I mentioned would be a minor distance error?

I will assume the latter. I'm trying to think of a better way to describe it for you. I hate to use an analogy here but I can't think of a better way to do it... to simplify this experiment take a cylinder (or globe if you want, that's fine too) and place upon it a couple of Styrofoam blocks or shapes of some kind.. relatively thin is fine and glue them down good and tight. place them relatively close even.. the more so the better to prove the point. Farther away and it will be more of an effect, but this shows the minor differences you were pointing out also.

Now stab a pencil or needle or what have you into each block wherever you choose, string a thread tight between them, then cut the cylinder along the backside, and lay it out flat. You will notice that the thread now droops. This would be an example of a northern discrepancy between known current distance between two points and if you were to flatten out the earth.

For the south pole, all you have to do is reverse the concept, cut the cylinder from the front and the thread either springs tight trying to keep it together or snaps.

Hope that helps, if not let me know... I'll try to do better.

Take care,
John

Edit: Also, in case the last part doesn't seem feasible, take a circle or disk, wrap it into even a gentle cone and repeat the same experiment, attempting to flatten the cone back out into a disk... the string will tighten out or snap sue to the distortion.

Before anyone says this proves nothing but experimental shapes, these are only experiments to prove distance variances - take into account we ALL know how far it is from say Tokyo to LA, or in common discussion here; say San Francisco, CA to Sydney, Australia - 7408 miles (11922 km) (6438 nautical miles) [a long haul I make at least once a year to see my brother... ugh!]

Take care,
John

 
 

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: weather?
« on: November 13, 2007, 02:52:32 PM »
Actually, much to my surprise and recently - because of it - much research on the subject, toilets, drains, storms, tornadoes, etc. actually DON'T rotate the opposite 'south of the border' specifically. It is a common myth. In fact - storms can rotate both directions in either location on rare occasions.

The Coriolis effect does exist, and does effect the environment - and at measureable levels, but none so noticeable as reversing rotations on a scale readily visible to the naked eye without instrumentation.

I know... me too. ;D

 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4