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 - Jingle Jangle

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
31
Hmmmm.... I guess this is the only possible alternative... There is a hidden mystery to this which I might reveal in greater detail at a later date...

32
It looks fine to me; however, something is in the back of my head... It tells me otherwise...  I try to place this on a globe of some sort... It does not come out properly aligned...

33
Ok... Here comes the pic...



Mr. Blob at noon looks at the sun at about 50 degrees...  Do we expect the arc to travel in this way with the absence of the tilt of the earth...  the sun should go though the same path everyday though the year...

Note: the angles are an approximation...

34
Yep, exactly... the sun would be perpendicular only at the equator... I just needed to see if the sun's arc north of the tropic of cancer would be a straight up arc that only reaches as high as 50 degrees in the sky at noon...  The height in the sky would be effected, sure, however would the arch in the sky appear straight up... I might need a picture for a demo... I will get the paint program if I am not explicit enough....

35
I asked this question in flat earth Q and A... However it needed to be repeated just for clarity...  I could not input any other comments..

If I live in the northern hemisphere and the earth did not possess any tilt whatsoever, the appearance of the arc of the sun would form a straight arc in the sky with no northern or southern deviation...  I drew a few pics of a man looking out at 49 degrees to the sun's center (taking the tangent into consideration as well)... the sun only traveling east to west with no northern or southern movement would have to form a straight arc that looks like it rises up perpendicular but smaller and further out than at the equator...


36
If the earth possessed no tilt in respect to its rotation, would the sun's arc trace a path perpendicular to the ground?  There should be no southern or northern deviation in its chord, so I had thought... 

Let us work with the northern hemisphere above the tropic of cancer...

Muchisimas Gracias....

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 04:31:29 PM »
All in all, sad to say, the information by many professionals in the field differs only because of shallow personal view.  However, this information needs to be dragged into the open limelight...

Quote
an article from John Hartnett in TJ (Technical Journal — An Answers in Genesis Journal) vol 19(1) 2005 states,

 “This is what Edwin Hubble concluded; his observations of the galaxies’ red shifts indicated to him that we are at the center of a symmetric matter distribution. But Hubble rejected his own conclusion — that we are in a very special place — on philosophical grounds. And Hubble wasn’t alone in realizing the situation: “people need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only excluded on philosophical grounds. In my view there is actually nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 12:19:49 PM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

I said the above while back.  I found the book where the info was said...

Quote
Stephen Hawking in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” seems to be tripping over the truth. He reports:

Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

Unfortunately, sometimes he attempts to run away from the information...  However, no one can run away from the redshift data...

I love how you forget to post the part of that Brief History of Time quote where he shows very succinctly why a uniformly expanding universe would appear the way you are interpreting it.  Regardless of what your feelings are on Hawkings interpretation of data, he most definitely does not believe we are in the center of the universe.

If one reads Stephen's own quote, he gives the information about the Redshift.  It expands equally in all directions...  The alternate explanation never does occur in real life.  Something in the center will always be in the center.  Something with an equal rate of expansion in all directions outward, will always be centered.

If the position changes, the results change as well...  Its simple logic and prediction.  No made up theory covers up this simple precept.  The hypothesis that it looks the same in all other galaxies only poses a counter-intuitive scenario. 

He says he wishes to pursue modesty;however, his character leaves a pessimistic mark of arrogance.  His statement contradicts the concrete facts.  I cannot attack what he believes; however, belief should never cloud the hard data and evidence.


Once again, the redshift data fails to lie, while people do.  A general center still acts as a center.

39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 11:39:28 AM »
I could not even quote RR, because of some sticky wicked 404 error...  There was a error document issue and some other error protocols... I just left the above post.

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 11:38:15 AM »
Crank astronomy?  You are not being serious... I just presented this quote from one of Stephen Hawking's books... It should answer all the questions.  I did not even twist or remove information...

These websites stand as false websites that just invent false arguments to cloud the obvious.  This cycle must stop at some point.  The redshift data never does lie.  The answers come so simple.

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 11:32:50 AM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

I said the above while back.  I found the book where the info was said...

Quote
Stephen Hawking in his book, “A Brief History of Time,” seems to be tripping over the truth. He reports:

Now at first sight, all of this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in, might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

Unfortunately, sometimes he attempts to run away from the information...  However, no one can run away from the redshift data... 

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 11:29:41 AM »
In one of his past books, he talked about how redshift data places the earth at a point near the center of the universe...

I just forgot which book it was...  I forgot the page number as well... It was a while back; however, the information here touches on the same subject.

I just posted it all here in order to show the information and prove how its not my imagination...

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Lapse (Stars)
« on: October 02, 2013, 09:00:20 AM »
Hi Guys,

A mountain I often climb... Was sent as a warning to stay away this weekend.

So if we do this at a few different locations either side of the equator, what then?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Mt Barney Burning SD

Or is it the Universe rotating around us because we are the centre of the Universe?

Numerous pieces of evidence exist which prove the earth sits at the center of the universe...  Even Stephen Hawking admits to the puzzling position of the earth's position from time to time.

Check out this website...

http://evidencepress.com/short-answers/are-we-in-the-center-of-the-universe/

Look at quantum red shift

Galaxy distribution density

and more...


44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 04:01:51 PM »
It falling on the mouth once presents sufficient evidence.  Even Two feet in comparison to several thousand feet stands as sufficient proof...

45
You are in the river of Egypt man...  Tunguska stood decimated to the core with intense heat and light, and now, after all that information, you want to start denying the sheer, brutal force of the event.

Tunguska did reach that far, spanning the lands with light without land interference...  So, the earth exists as a vast, irregular plane.

Another quote from a Russian Eyewitness...

If London and Europe saw lights, these guys saw them for a while as well.  If Moscow saw lights, so did everyone else in Russia.

Quote
Undated correspondence cited by A. V. Voznesenskii:

The population of Nizhne-Ilimsk and surrounding villages was alarmed today (17 June) by an unusual phenomenon. At 7:20 in the morning, above Nizhne-Ilimsk, by very good weather conditions (the sky was covered with cloudlets here and there), there was heard approaching the village an out-of-the-ordinary noise, which went over into the rumble of thunder as it drew nearer. After the rumbles, throughout the whole district there resounded a most powerful crash, evoking a near-panic in the population.

I was sleeping. When the rumbles of thunder were heard, I woke up and, at the moment of the crash, felt how my house began to sway; in the kitchen, the dishes came crashing down, and the chair standing close by the wall was moved a couple of inches[4] toward the middle [of the room] by the vibration of the wall; a servant who happened to be standing on a bench nearly fell from the shaking.

Quickly getting dressed, I run out on the street, I read great alarm on the faces there, here and there the population have climbed on the roofs of houses and are looking in the direction where the crash resounded. One approaches me and reports that he saw, before the thunder rumbles appeared, that some sort of fiery body resembling a beam rushed headlong over the earth and vanished; all at once the crash resounded. Some other muzhiks[5] reported the same thing, having seen it together with a contractor. A fellow rides up astride a horse and reports that he also saw some sort of fiery body, saw how in that place where it fell there appeared at first a fire, and then, when the crash resounded, instead of the fire there appeared smoke.

My father and two brothers were about 6 versts[6] away from Nizhne-Ilimsk on a fishing trip and distinctly heard how before the powerful crash there were two thunderclaps, not as strong, while after the crash there were heard very many less strong crashes — up to 100 and in different places in three directions. One of [my] brothers, having been to war, compares what happened to that moment when the enemy opens fire and the big military weapons roar ...

A muzhik who rode up to us from a village 7 versts away also saw the fiery body. The body rushed from the south to the northwest, and everyone who saw it unanimously confirms that, indicating the direction exactly.

— translated by Bill DeSmedt

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:30:30 PM »
JJ, in all your raving, I only found one relevant point:

...a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle.

Yep, if you launch a cannon ball on a perfect vertical, it will fall back to earth somewhere away from the cannon.

But in Rowbotham's experiment, it fell straight down on the cannon again.  Thus, no rotation exists.

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:28:56 PM »
h can just approach 0 in calc.  It never can actually arrive at the exact figure... The formula does not exist.  zero is nothingness.

Zero may exist, however, zero never goes into another number.  In calc many numbers can be used... I know this... 

Once again, zero never goes into another number.  Come on buddy, it is simple enough...

The idea that zero does not go into another number being simple....is obvious. The POINT is that what this MEANS observationally (which is what we are concerned about...it is the purpose of FE) is NOT simple. It is conceptually challenging, which is why I was asking you to think about the paradox. One does not understand this paradox just by understanding that 1/0 is an undefined quantity. It is an overly simplistic understanding of a much richer idea.

Address that idea. Then we learn.

In the past, I experienced all the variations of logic and understanding which tag along with the formula for calc.  However, the explanations leave many gaping holes, many glaring discrepancies.

Untold numbers confess the story of calc, talking about his dark side and the warnings he received about his formula, speaking about how the formula cannot exist yet does.

They will eventually know (along with every soul) that calc just leads to the downfall of simple mathematical logic.

Hats off to trig though.  Hats off...

I believe you are messing with me. But let us assume for the moment that you indeed understand all the logic of calculus, and have found it lacking.

My question is them simple: solve Xeno's paradox using the logic of calculus. Then explain the discrepancy of the solution.

i must differ... I am so very serious and not even pulling a single leg.  I do not play reverse psychology, nor am I the type of guy that just wastes time...

48
The light did not even come from above them in London.  No readings appeared on the magnetic measurement devices, great light was seen in all directions.

The account states that it could not have been an aurora of any type... 

I gave all the accounts of the light occurring because of the Tunguska tragedy...  Do not complain just because the accounts answer every single possible question at every single angle...

Until you can prove that there was light above Tunguska days after the blast, your words are worth nothing. You prove nothing Jingle.

I never said a light sphere of levitation just hovered above the area for that long...  You just carried the conversation straight into the dung heap.  I did say, however, that the entire area lay clothed in an immense light...

The accounts state that light was all over Russia and Tunguska.  Do not debate what cannot be debated.  The light shined directly from that area, so brightly that it touched Europe... 

If the light occurred after the explosion, then Tunguska stood as the epicenter of the entire event, and thus the source.  How can you deny that the event occurred.  You just make me disappointed in you, because you deny the light's intensity.

Why do you ignore reality and choose a lie for the truth?

This effect only occurs on a flat plain.  Not on some sort of ludicrous imaginary sphere that everyone spat out of their head; a sphere which possesses such curvature, the likes of which make viewing an event like this impossible.

49
Abnormal light was reported throughout Western Russia and Europe.  Tunguska only receives usage as a word to describe the event.  Western Russia saw all of it...  That is a report...

I gave the report, you cannot be a sore loser...

I gave the testimonies, you cannot just be a whiner and complain continuously over your spilled milk.

You cannot prove that there was light in Tunguska days after the blast, can you? And you know what Jingle? If you cannot prove there was light around Tunguska days after the blast, then you cannot prove the earth is flat using Tunguska. Can you at least understand that?

I refuse to understand you, when you fail to make any sense whatsoever...  The evidence presented comes solid and clear, quick to the point.

The light emitted came from the Tunguska area and spread in all directions.  This bright light stemmed only from the great heat of the impact, and the plethora of fires throughout the vicinity. 

I mentioned how in Moscow the light was brighter than a magnesium flash.  I also talked about the light in London not being as bright.  This information proves the light shined more brightly in the immediate area of Tunguska and then became less intense as distance from the impact increased..

Do not try to make things complicated... All accounts rule out an aurora above London and all other areas...  Logic rules out dust particle reflection (the moon fails to reflect that brightly, a tiny dust trail cannot do the same thing.)

50
The light did not even come from above them in London.  No readings appeared on the magnetic measurement devices, great light was seen in all directions.

The account states that it could not have been an aurora of any type... 

I gave all the accounts of the light occurring because of the Tunguska tragedy...  Do not complain just because the accounts answer every single possible question at every single angle...

51
Abnormal light was reported throughout Western Russia and Europe.  Tunguska only receives usage as a word to describe the event.  Western Russia saw all of it...  That is a report...

I gave the report, you cannot be a sore loser...

I gave the testimonies, you cannot just be a whiner and complain continuously over your spilled milk.

52
Another quote

Quote
The nights following the Tunguska meteorite were anomalous. Abnormally bright nighttime illumination was reported throughout Europe and Western Russia to the extent that people could read news print at midnight without artificial lighting (Kridec 1966).

Tunguska lies in Russia.  Western Russia validates the event and the production of light...

 Once again, Western Russia and the areas surrounding Tunguska admit to the sheer horrific terror of this instance. 

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

Nothing in any of these reports says the bight nights was seen over Tuskanga but not in Europe. It seems to me like the light was seen in Europe, not FROM Europe. People in Europe saw the lights over them. The fact that they could read confirms this. They certainly were not reading newspapers thanks to light coming in at an angle from a source 3000 miles away. It seems to me that the light source was directly over their heads.

I meant 'from' as in individuals who saw the event from that location.  They saw the event from Europe just implies, even in Europe, Tunguska lay plain to see...

53
Why do you keep asking the same questions?

Are you searching for individual accounts?  Because I have a plethora of individual accounts on Tunguska, they describe what occurred only immediately before and after impact.  They all agree on the power of the event and the light produced.

Check out this website.

http://www.vurdalak.com/tunguska/witness/fowler_prof.htm

I have quotes and testimony from whole groups of people about the light which lasted for days.  Some eyewitness testimony from London...

The bright light and absence of magnetism made them think the event was not auroral.

Quote
Professor Fowler, South Kensington, England

“The Recent Nocturnal Glows,”
The Times of London, Saturday July 4, 1908

The remarkably ruddy glows which have been seen on many nights lately have attracted much attention and have been seen over an area as far as Berlin, There is considerable difference of opinion as to their nature. Some hold that they are auroral; their colour is quite consistent with this view, and there is also the fact that Professor Fowler of South Kensington predicted auroral displays at this time from his observations, which showed great disturbances in the sun’s prominences. There was a slight, but plainly marked disturbance of the magnets on Tuesday night, and this materially strengthened the auroral theory, as the two phenomena are very closely correlated. However, this was shaken on the following night, when the glow was quite as strong, but the magnets were exceptionally quiet....

54
Another quote

Quote
The nights following the Tunguska meteorite were anomalous. Abnormally bright nighttime illumination was reported throughout Europe and Western Russia to the extent that people could read news print at midnight without artificial lighting (Kridec 1966).

Tunguska lies in Russia.  Western Russia validates the event and the production of light...

 Once again, Western Russia and the areas surrounding Tunguska admit to the sheer horrific terror of this instance. 

Nothing in the immediate vicinity of Tunguska survived...

55
It went on for weeks....

here is another quote.

http://www.grandunification.com/hypertext/Tunguska_Explosion.html

Quote
"An unusual night sky brightness persisted for nearly two months after the event"

The power of the blast was so great... It was the heat and fire from the impact area... The heat was so great that rocks and trees were turned molten, thus no impact crater manifested.

Reflective cometary dust cannot be the answer as well, because the moon, when full, never provides that much light.  One cannot read under moonlight, impossible.

56
What do you mean?  The second quote describes exactly what occurred many days after the blast...

The Tunguska event presents a very simple case, where testimony exists as to what happened.  Why do you make this so difficult?

From above...

Quote
There were hundreds of letters from people reporting identical lighting conditions that went on for weeks after the Tunguska explosion.

It went on for so, so long....  Like forever...

57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 02:05:54 PM »
the air moves wildly in the plane as well.

If you take a bag of potato chips and leave them closed inside of the plane, the bag expands dramatically... Air bounces energetically in every direction, hence, its low density.  This scenario happens on a plane as well.

Without this tendency, the oxygen from the on-board air filtration systems fails to circulate throughout the entire plane.

The kinetic energy of a molecule holds a great deal of energy...  Check this out.

 He answered the question about speed of air molecules...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524162753AAa2nDs

Quote
use the formula:

V = sqrt(3*R*T/M), where R is Boltzmann's constant (8.31 J/mol-K), T is temperature in Kelvin (use 293K for room temperature, and M is the mass of one mole of oxygen in kilograms (.032 kg).

The answer is about 478 meters per second, which you can convert to about 1720 km/hr.

Air molecules move faster than the planet in RE theory, and in every single conceivable direction... The great energy of the atmosphere prohibits them from even being held by the forces of gravity, and stops the idea that they speed up with the earth in a predictable direction...

Once again, since we have calm. windless days, no rotation occurs.  Air particles levitate in the air, practically free from gravity.  Relativistic motion fails to apply to their case.

58
Not intentional deception, just a simple mistake with a tribal name...

http://www.slemen.com/tunguska.html

Quote
Almost 350 miles to the north of the train, the nomadic hunting tribes of the Evenki people felt the ground shake violently as they witnessed what seemed to be a second sun racing across the heavens. Only this sun seemed to be cyclindrical. By now, the immense apocalyptic object had been seen to change course as if it was being controlled or steered. After passing over the terrified travellers of the trans-Siberian train, the object made a forty-five degree right turn and travelled 150 miles before performing an identical manoeuvre in the other direction. The tubular shaped object then proceeded for another 150 miles before exploding over the Tunguska valley. The detonation occurred at a height of five miles, and the 12-megatonne explosion (it might have even been 30 megatonne) destroyed everything within a radius of 20 miles. Herds of reindeer were incinerated as they stampeded away from the explosion, and all wildlife in the area was ignited by the searing heat blast. Thirty-seven miles from the blast, the tents that the frightened Evenki people had taken refuge in were lifted high into the air by the resulting atmospheric shock wave, and the Evenki's horses galloped off in terror, dragging their ploughs with them. At the centre of the explosion a monstrous mushroom cloud rose steadily over Siberia. Such a strange and unsettling sight would not be witnessed for another thirty-seven years at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But this explosion was even fiercer than the A bombs which were dropped on the Japanese cities. The blast from the Tunguska explosion felled trees as if they were matchsticks for 20 miles around and set whole forests alight. The shockwave generated by the mysterious cataclysm travelled around the world twice and shook the recording pens of the microbargraphs at three meteorlogical stations in London, where they were interpreted as seismic jolts from some distant earthquake.


They found out only later than the furious object stood as the primary cause of every single deleterious event...


Quote
The first reports of a strange glow in the sky came from across Europe. Shortly after midnight on 1 July 1908, Londoners were intrigued to see a pink phosphorescent night sky over the capital. People who had retired awoke confused as the strange pink glow shone into their bedrooms. The same ruddy luminescence was reported over Belgium. The skies over Germany were curiously said to be bright green, while the heavens over Scotland were of an incredible intense whiteness which tricked the wildlife into believing it was dawn. Birdsong started and cocks crowed - at two o'clock in the morning. The skies over Moscow were so bright, photographs were taken of the streets without using a magnesium flash. A captain on a ship on the River Volga said he could see vessels on the river two miles away by the uncanny astral light. One golf game in England almost went on until four in the morning under the nocturnal glow, and in the following week The Times of London was inundated with letters from readers from all over the United Kingdom to report the curious 'false dawn'. A woman in Huntingdon wrote that she had been able to read a book in her bedroom solely by the peculiar rosy light. There were hundreds of letters from people reporting identical lighting conditions that went on for weeks after the Tunguska explosion. Scientists and meteorologists also wrote to the newspaper giving their opinions about the cause of the strange skyglare which ranged from the Northern Lights to dust in the upper atmosphere reflecting the rays of the sun below the horizon. No one connected the phenomenon with the strange object which had come down in Siberia to explode with the fury of a H-bomb.

59
sorry, I got them confused with another tribe... It was the Evenki tribe.  Everik was for something else...

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Deflection of Falling Bodies"
« on: October 01, 2013, 12:57:08 PM »
...
an airplane would possess a large speed advantage going against the direction of rotation. 
...
a cannon ball launched directly in the air would not come straight down, it would come at an angle. 
...
However, you contradict yourself by denying how a free-flying plane at 30,000 plus feet does not pick up speed dramatically in flights.

These are incorrect assumptions. Imagine that you are in a plane that is travelling at a cruising speed of 500 mph. All objects inside the plane - you, your seat, other passengers, the air you breathe, etc - are travelling at the same speed as the plane. You don't find it easier to walk to the back of the plane or to the front. If you throw a ball upward while in the plane, your ball will fall back to your palm and not hundreds of yards behind you. When you break wind on the plane, your fart doesn't fly backward at 500 mph. Your fart is actually travelling at the same speed as you, as the plane. This is how you should imagine being on a rotating earth. All objects on Earth travel at the same speed as the earth. There is no 1,000 mph wind in the opposite direction of the Earth's rotation because the air is travelling at the same speed as you. When the air is produced for the first time such as when plants produce oxygen, it is produced by an object that travels at the same speed as the Earth's rotation so the newly produced air travels at the same speed as the object that produces it (see the fart analogy above).

First of all, of course someone travels at the same speed as a plane when inside of it.  Your feet possess contact with the inner plane's surfaces.

However, an airplane presents an entirely different scenario.  The plane does not have contact with the ground... Nothing holds it to the earth... 

Do not mention how the air in which the plane travels possesses relativistic movement and carries the plane along with the rotation.

Do not say the air just listens to the reigns of gravity. 

This concept never possesses the potential to occur with the air particle physics of science.  A big contradiction appears if one denies this.  Just read below...

Air can never rotate with the earth 100%, it contains so much energy that the particles bounce around in every direction randomly.  They just do not stand in formation and move with the surface of the earth during rotation.  Not even after millions of years does this ever occur.

Air particles do not behave like solid matter (soil) or liquid (water).  Only soil stands still, water barely.

Air particle movements come wild and random, moving in all conceivable directions, not even having inter connective forces...
.  No still days would exist with a rotating earth... period....

You treat air as a substance which at a molecular level moves uniformly.  Unfortunately, air expands, diffuses, mixes readily with other gases, and moves in all directions.  It bounces like tiny balls at great speeds...  It can never be tamed.

Do not blame me, tis the physics of air particles...

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10