Einstein Was Right

[skepticalme]

Let's say that SR is true, and we have two clocks, clock A and clock B, such that when they pass, clock A reads, to an observer in the frame of clock B, 2 pm while his own clock reads 3pm. Then by SR, clock B reads, to an observer in the frame of clock A, 2pm while his own clock reads 3pm.

 

You say the readings printed out will be the same. What will that clock reading be?

 

If they record times when they cross paths then the times will not agree because each will think that they traveled father before they crossed. They can not agree on the point on which they crossed

 

PS The Hafele-Keating experiment 1) had a huge clock drift and 2) would falsify relativity if it showed a bona fide discrepancy, by demonstrating that the passage of time is objectively recordable.

 

They performed the very experiment we are talking about. In the video I posted, the moving clock traveled a shorter path than the stationary clock saw it take. As a result, it took 40 nanoseconds less time to get there than the stationary clock recorded.

 

But the one who stays behind is supposed to be the one who sees the universe operate the more quickly.

 

You are mistaken. The traveler returns younger.

 

He is younger precisely because his universe is supposed to operate slower.

 

He is younger because he traveled a shorter distance.

 

If both twins are standing on the Earth, they see the distant galaxy as it was 1 million years ago because it takes light a million years to get here. The traveler sets out on his journey and gets to this distant galaxy one year after he left . He now sees this galaxy as it is in present day because light is no longer taking 1 million years to get to him. To him it appears that he has traveled 1 million years into the future. He looks back at his home galaxy and sees it as it was 1 million years ago. HIs brother is still standing there and he is only 1 year older. On the return trip he again travels 1 million years into the future and his brother has long been dead.

 

Actually I made a mistake in an earlier post. I said that the trip would appear to take 2 million years to the brother that stayed behind. I was wrong, it would actually be only 1 million and 1 years. To the twin that stayed behind, the return trip would only take one year because space is contracted for him as well. My apologies.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Agreed. And I am the only person on this thread who has tried to remain focused on reason, substantiation, justification -- something sadly lacking in those who have consistently tried to deflect the course of the thread or misrepresent my standpoint.

 

Incorrect, Paradox.

Not incorrect, you are the only person on this thread... blah, blah blah.

 

No.

You are incorrect on two other issues that underpin what you are trying to do in this thread, thus making any efforts on your part... futile.

 

First, there is your mistaken assumption that it is enough for you to present your case with water-tight logic and irrefutable lines of argument.

This is not so.

 

Second, there is your mistaken assumption that your definition of accountability is what counts in this forum.

Again, this is not so.

 

In both cases you are mistaken and all that you try to do here will a waste of your time - which is something that you seem to very much dislike.

Now, if you have the humility to ask me to explain what I mean in this message, I'll happily do so.

On one condition...

 

You have to ask me nicely.

 

BAA.

[Foxy Methoxy]

Is there an Einstein was wrong thread on this board?

[Paradox]

Let's say that SR is true, and we have two clocks, clock A and clock B, such that when they pass, clock A reads, to an observer in the frame of clock B, 2 pm while his own clock reads 3pm. Then by SR, clock B reads, to an observer in the frame of clock A, 2pm while his own clock reads 3pm.

 

You say the readings printed out will be the same. What will that clock reading be?

 

If they record times when they cross paths then the times will not agree because each will think that they traveled father before they crossed. They can not agree on the point on which they crossed

 

You haven't answered my question as to what reading will be found printed on the sreen.

[skepticalme]

Let's say that SR is true, and we have two clocks, clock A and clock B, such that when they pass, clock A reads, to an observer in the frame of clock B, 2 pm while his own clock reads 3pm. Then by SR, clock B reads, to an observer in the frame of clock A, 2pm while his own clock reads 3pm.

 

You say the readings printed out will be the same. What will that clock reading be?

 

If they record times when they cross paths then the times will not agree because each will think that they traveled father before they crossed. They can not agree on the point on which they crossed

 

You haven't answered my question as to what reading will be found printed on the sreen.

 

Clock A prints out 3pm but clock B still reads 2pm. Clock B prints out 3pm but clock A still reads 2pm. When clock A sees click B print out 3pm clock A now reads 4pm. When clock B sees clock A print out 3pm clock B now reads 4pm.

 

Lets try this from another angle. Suppose clocks A and B in your example agree to instantaneously stop the moment they cross paths. Clock A reaches clock B at 3pm and stops. Clock B continues on for another hour before it stops. Clock A says to clock B, "What happened? You were supposed to stop the moment we crossed, not continue on for another hour." Clock B says to clock A, "I did stop when we crossed. It was you that continued on for another hour." Both stopped when there respective clocks read 3pm, but they did not stop in the same position and they did not stop at the same time. However both did stop when they crossed the other.

 

The simulaineity of events can not be agreed upon by observers in different reference frames.

 

[Paradox]

Clock A prints out 3pm but clock B still reads 2pm. Clock B prints out 3pm but clock A still reads 2pm. When clock A sees click B print out 3pm clock A now reads 4pm. When clock B sees clock A print out 3pm clock B now reads 4pm.

 

It seems one or other clock has not printed out its so-called proper time, so the printer is bust. Either that or you could take the screen away and let its ink splash all over the other frame. How's that for taking a reading ? It could just as easily do it by a light signal.

 

There is only one instant at which they pass, of course.

[skepticalme]

There is only one instant at which they pass, of course.

 

Yes, but they are in disagreement about when and where that is.

[Paradox]

There is only one instant at which they pass, of course.

 

Yes, but they are in disagreement about when and where that is.

 

No, I have removed observers.

[skepticalme]

No, I have removed observers.

 

This is not a matter of optical illusions. The same is true whether there is an observer or not. If each clock stops when it indicates 2pm, each clock stops and waits for one hour for the other clock to meet it.. Both stopped first and waited one hour in their respective frames. Once both have stopped, both will read 3pm. Both were syncronized when they started, both are syncronized afterward. But the sequence of events was not the same for both.

[Paradox]

No, I have removed observers.

 

This is not a matter of optical illusions. The same is true whether there is an observer or not. If each clock stops when it indicates 2pm, each clock stops and waits for one hour for the other clock to meet it.. Both stopped first and waited one hour in their respective frames. Once both have stopped, both will read 3pm. Both were syncronized when they started, both are syncronized afterward. But the sequence of events was not the same for both.

 

1) In the frame of the screen, they both emit the ink at the same time.

 

2) In the frame of the trigger, they both emit the ink at the same time. The trigger can be attached to the screen (i.e. it has one arm that catches clock A and one arm that catches clock B ), or either of the clocks -- since the clocks brush past each other.

 

Put 1) with 2).

[AlphaToOmega]

Is there an Einstein was wrong thread on this board?

 

 

LOL

No, just an "Einstein is wrong and a plagiarist", poster.

[AlphaToOmega]

And I am the only person on this thread who has tried to remain focused on reason, substantiation, justification -- something sadly lacking in those who have consistently tried to deflect the course of the thread or misrepresent my standpoint.

 

Well, it explains why you can't understand relativity since everyone else is seeing their own "proper view" of this thread but you have an absolute frame of reference.

Paradox the martyr.

How can we ever agree on relativity if you can't even see your part in this thread and just consistently blame everyone else instead.

Page (1) of this thread, the title was "Einstein proved right"

You posted about:

1) Conspiracy theories regarding peer reviewed papers, brought up Jesus and the "Golden testimony"...right on topic...bravo...

2) Started with the ad hominem posts such as, "Genuine physicists—that is to say, physicists who make observations and experiments as well as theories—have always felt uneasy about 'relativity'". So you insult everyone by claiming that if they don't feel uneasy about relativity then they are not genuine physicists. Yet, you fail to see that.

3) You introduced " Herbert Dingle" who has no bearing on this thread, the gravity B probe experiment. He died well before this experiment was completed. He was also discredited and publicly admitted he misunderstood relativity.

4) I pointed out that the experiment was a scientific blind test. You wanted to know what that was then dismiss it because

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I have said about Grossman and so on.

Try as I might I find no reference in this thread of you ever mentioning Grossman prior to that statement. So I'm meant to refute your imaginary claim by explaining to you what a scientific blind test is. As a "claimed student of science" that is something you should know. Its a basic system to avoid experimental bias. Something which you have no experience in whatsoever, by your own admission.

 

Yeah, I call that "focused" as a diffused lamp.

Still, you accuse others of trying to deflect the course of this thread.

So, Jesus, the golden testimony, Herbert Dingle and the big peer review conspiracy are "on topic"????

 

You act like this thread is your's and you think the only valid course is the path you choose. Its quite sad to watch.

[AlphaToOmega]

No, I have removed observers.

 

This is not a matter of optical illusions. The same is true whether there is an observer or not. If each clock stops when it indicates 2pm, each clock stops and waits for one hour for the other clock to meet it.. Both stopped first and waited one hour in their respective frames. Once both have stopped, both will read 3pm. Both were syncronized when they started, both are syncronized afterward. But the sequence of events was not the same for both.

 

 

I really wish you luck but I know your words will not register with Paradox.

You are arguing with a person who refuses to accept that the speed of light is a constant and nothing can go faster than it.

He rejects the scientific experiments that clearly show that it is indeed constant to all observers.

 

To get any hope of getting him to understand relativity, this is the first hurdle to get over.

If one cannot accept that the speed of light is constant to all observers then you have no hope of making a person accept or understand relativity.

 

I liken it to trying to explain multiplication to a person who refuses to accept addition as being valid.

 

 

 

 

[Paradox]

And I am the only person on this thread who has tried to remain focused on reason, substantiation, justification -- something sadly lacking in those who have consistently tried to deflect the course of the thread or misrepresent my standpoint.

 

Well, it explains why you can't understand relativity since everyone else is seeing their own "proper view" of this thread but you have an absolute frame of reference.

Paradox the martyr.

How can we ever agree on relativity if you can't even see your part in this thread and just consistently blame everyone else instead.

Page (1) of this thread, the title was "Einstein proved right"

You posted about:

1) Conspiracy theories regarding peer reviewed papers, brought up Jesus and the "Golden testimony"...right on topic...bravo...

2) Started with the ad hominem posts such as, "Genuine physicists—that is to say, physicists who make observations and experiments as well as theories—have always felt uneasy about 'relativity'". So you insult everyone by claiming that if they don't feel uneasy about relativity then they are not genuine physicists. Yet, you fail to see that.

3) You introduced " Herbert Dingle" who has no bearing on this thread, the gravity B probe experiment. He died well before this experiment was completed. He was also discredited and publicly admitted he misunderstood relativity.

4) I pointed out that the experiment was a scientific blind test. You wanted to know what that was then dismiss it because

I don't see how any of this contradicts what I have said about Grossman and so on.

Try as I might I find no reference in this thread of you ever mentioning Grossman prior to that statement. So I'm meant to refute your imaginary claim by explaining to you what a scientific blind test is. As a "claimed student of science" that is something you should know. Its a basic system to avoid experimental bias. Something which you have no experience in whatsoever, by your own admission.

 

Yeah, I call that "focused" as a diffused lamp.

Still, you accuse others of trying to deflect the course of this thread.

So, Jesus, the golden testimony, Herbert Dingle and the big peer review conspiracy are "on topic"????

 

You act like this thread is your's and you think the only valid course is the path you choose. Its quite sad to watch.

 

 

You are making a complete arse of yourself once more, with more misrepresentation and deflection of the issues I have been trying to discuss. It was *you* who spontaneously moved the discussion to this thread, it having begun on one of the other two recent ones that discussed Einstein. There I discussed Grossman and Dingle and many other things I referenced. As for your

 

Started with the ad hominem posts such as, "Genuine physicists—that is to say, physicists who make observations and experiments as well as theories—have always felt uneasy about 'relativity'". So you insult everyone by claiming that if they don't feel uneasy about relativity then they are not genuine

 

this is yet more pernicious misrepresentation on your part. I made it perfectly clear, there and then, that I was quoting the first sentence of the Brown article. I didn't even say whether or not I agreed with it, I was just saying it to rebut some supercillious comment you had made about anti-relativists.

 

and -- yet *more* mistrepresentation -- as if it were possible all in one post -- I never asked you what a blind test was. You are probably thinking of BAA who said

"I think I can see what you mean about the blind test.

There are simply too many variables for the scientists to accurately predict the guide star's drift w.r.t. Earth ".

 

I don't think I ever so much as mentioned the term blind test, and I am not going to waste yet more time looking through the archives to see whether or not I did.

 

I would find this hilarious were it that it really has got to being past a joke, as I thought I had made clear. Just stop it. Stay away from people who want to make their point through honest methods such as reason.

 

Moderator, do something, please!

[AlphaToOmega]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The results were calculated without knowledge of the path of the guide star making it a blind calculation.

The guide star path was cancelled out afterwards to extract the results.

This makes it impossible to fudge the data or results prior to finishing the calculations.

 

Can you explain this?

 

That was my first post in this thread. How exactly did I move the conversation here?

[ScifiChick]

 

 

I would find this hilarious were it that it really has got to being past a joke, as I thought I had made clear. Just stop it. Stay away from people who want to make their point through honest methods such as reason.

 

Moderator, do something, please!

 

You really expect moderators to stop people from pointing out your misbehavior and flinging of insults while you do exactly what you claim others to be doing? Wow.

 

 

 

[Paradox]

Always amuses me that a successful verification is claimed with these things. even before the data has been released!!!

 

The results were calculated without knowledge of the path of the guide star making it a blind calculation.

The guide star path was cancelled out afterwards to extract the results.

This makes it impossible to fudge the data or results prior to finishing the calculations.

 

Can you explain this?

 

That was my first post in this thread. How exactly did I move the conversation here?

 

 

There were two other threads and the conversation was switching between them for a while. I don't even care. Just check the other threads because I am not going to.

 

I have absolutely no wish to participate in any more of this. The sole reason I am bothering at this moment is because you have got some sick compulsion to persistently misrepresent me. Go and have a word with yourself.

[skepticalme]

No, I have removed observers.

 

This is not a matter of optical illusions. The same is true whether there is an observer or not. If each clock stops when it indicates 2pm, each clock stops and waits for one hour for the other clock to meet it.. Both stopped first and waited one hour in their respective frames. Once both have stopped, both will read 3pm. Both were syncronized when they started, both are syncronized afterward. But the sequence of events was not the same for both.

 

1) In the frame of the screen, they both emit the ink at the same time.

 

2) In the frame of the trigger, they both emit the ink at the same time. The trigger can be attached to the screen (i.e. it has one arm that catches clock A and one arm that catches clock B ), or either of the clocks -- since the clocks brush past each other.

 

Put 1) with 2).

 

That changes nothing. The trigger mechanism is redundant.

 

If the clocks were physically caught and stopped at the screen then you have the same experiment I described earlier with the clocks stopping and waiting an hour for the other to meet it. The screen catches the clocks at the same time. Each clock is caught an hour before the other.

 

Look, I have explained this stuff as simply as I can. If you don't understand it, then you don't understand it. There is nothing wrong with that. You wouldn't be the first, nor would you be in the minority. Now if you really want to understand then the first step is to be honest with yourself and admit that you don't understand as well as you think you do and that you have been given a lot of misinformation by people who didn't understand as well as they thought they did. Trust me, there is a lot of misinformation out there. I couldn't find a single youtube video that gave the correct explaination for the twin paradox. I had to arrive at it on my own. In fact, in a previous post I even found a mistake I had made in my first explaination. So I don't have a perfect understanding myself, I'm still learning to. If you genuinely what to understand, I'll help you were I can.

 

Now if you are unwilling to understand, then there is nothing I can do for you. There is no explaination, no data, no experiment that would ever convince you. But keep in mind, there are literally millions of devices in the world whose operation in contingent upon the speed of light being constant and all those devices work. GPS, laser range finders, radar, interferometers, time-domain reflectometry, spectrometers, just to name a few. There is not a single device whose operation is contingent upon the speed of light being additive. If the speed of light was variant then that would completely rewrite the equations for measuring velocity based from Doppler shift. Every radar gun that uses this principle would give faulty readings.

[Paradox]

If the clocks were physically caught and stopped at the screen then you have the same experiment I described earlier with the clocks stopping and waiting an hour for the other to meet it. The screen catches the clocks at the same time. Each clock is caught an hour before the other.

 

Look, I have explained this stuff as simply as I can. If you don't understand it, then you don't understand it.

 

I don't think anyone would understand it. You seem to think that you can solve it all by inserting some idea about perceptions of time. At the screen, when they pass, both frames share the same proper time and that is all that is important, because by my method that is all that is needed for establishing synchronisation (without observers, of course).

 

 

Trust me, there is a lot of misinformation out there. I couldn't find a single youtube video that gave the correct explaination for the twin paradox. I had to arrive at it on my own.

 

It really doesn't surprise me. From the 1967 Brown article

"... serious contradictions have have arisen which have marred the special theory. Half a century of argumentation has not removed them, and the device of calling them only apparent contradictions (paradoxes) has not succeeded in preventing the special theory of relativity from becoming untenable as a physical theory."

 

In fact, in a previous post I even found a mistake I had made in my first explaination. So I don't have a perfect understanding myself, I'm still learning to. If you genuinely what to understand, I'll help you were I can.

 

One thing I don't think you appreciate is that SR can always be sunk when you start as a metrologist would, i,e, by counting 'ticks' of the clock instead of blindly stating what speed they are running, as did Einstein.

 

Another sure-fire formula (my one of old) for sinking SR is to imagine some kind of mechanical interaction between the two frames, marking distances and instants when specific events happen between the frames. Relativity can't deal with this. Also you can use this method to establish how relativity will violate thermodynamics (something we have yet to come on to, but is no less significant), as was shown by way of the lever paradox (there are other ways of showing it).

 

Incidentallty, I don't want to go back to the twin paradox because, as you may have guessed, I am weary with the way the explanations get spun out, but I'll just say that you said the travelling twin went a shorter distance so is younger, but don't forget the rest-frame twin went no distance at all. Unless you speak relativistically, of course, in which case his motions (and all relativitstic effects related to them) were indistinguishable from the motios of his twin.

 

Now if you are unwilling to understand, then there is nothing I can do for you. There is no explaination, no data, no experiment that would ever convince you. But keep in mind, there are literally millions of devices in the world whose operation in contingent upon the speed of light being constant and all those devices work. GPS, laser range finders, radar, interferometers, time-domain reflectometry, spectrometers, just to name a few.

 

Not a single one of these use theory of relativity. Many devices *do* use equations that are loosely termed relativistic (equations need only make use of the speed of light to be called 'relativistic'), but they bear no connection to the substance of the theory, in the same way that you will never get a clear explanation of how Einstein arrives at his stolen (and classical) E = mc² from the postulates of SR (indeed, under scrutiny, it turns out to be an outright contradiction of them). The best match you'll get is via the tensor of GR, but that's only because Grossmann, who devised the maths for GR, was very cunning with making equations match what was known from astronomy (notably, the secular advance of the perihelion of Mercury). Once again, how, precisely he he arrived at his formulae, given the tenets of GR, remains obscure.

 

There is not a single device whose operation is contingent upon the speed of light being additive. If the speed of light was variant then that would completely rewrite the equations for measuring velocity based from Doppler shift. Every radar gun that uses this principle would give faulty readings.

 

The question is, is the speed of light constant *with respect to the observer*? That little appendage, I'm afraid, is the devil in it.

 

I'll repeat something I have said before on this forum, which is that NASA don't use relativity (you need to read work by the former President of the Institute of Satellite Navigation, Ronald R. Hatch to understand this properly). You might be interested in what's said on this page

http://www.sciencedo.../rochusboerner/

-- which includes a passage on the work of Bryan G. Wallace, who showed how light is emitted on the principle of a Newtonian c+v addition of velocities.

 

In honesty I hope we can bring this exchange to a close.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Paradox, I take it from your silence, that you're just too big to ask for my help nicely.

 

So, I'll cut you a break.

 

Just ask me.

 

You don't even have to do it nicely.

 

In fact I'll reduce the onerous burden on you to one keystroke.

 

All you have to do is punch in a 'Y'.

 

That'll be your code for, 'Yes BAA. I would like you to explain about my two mistaken assumptions.'

 

We can take it from there. Ok?

 

BAA.

[skepticalme]

As I suspected Paradox, you are unwilling. So I see no point in continueing this. Even if I took the time and had the patience to address and debunk every single point you bring up, it wouldn't change anything. You're a "true believer" and nothing will change that. You are obviously not interested in finding truth and instead want to see conspiracies everywhere. So go ahead and wear your tin foil hat, I don't really care anymore. You are exhibiting the same faulty logic that I see in so many other deniers of excepted science. Whether it's evolution, quantum mechanics, germ theory, etc. it is the same. Gross misrepresentation of past experiments and denial of mountains of evidence, in favor of listening to a few so called "experts" .

[AlphaToOmega]

Not a single one of these use theory of relativity. Many devices *do* use equations that are loosely termed relativistic (equations need only make use of the speed of light to be called 'relativistic'), but they bear no connection to the substance of the theory, in the same way that you will never get a clear explanation of how Einstein arrives at his stolen (and classical) E = mc² from the postulates of SR (indeed, under scrutiny, it turns out to be an outright contradiction of them). The best match you'll get is via the tensor of GR, but that's only because Grossmann, who devised the maths for GR, was very cunning with making equations match what was known from astronomy (notably, the secular advance of the perihelion of Mercury). Once again, how, precisely he he arrived at his formulae, given the tenets of GR, remains obscure.

 

And here we go again. Einstein was a fraud, he stole the idea bla bla bla.

You talk about tensor maths but you have trouble understanding simple calculus.

 

*edited to remove part of post as I thought it was the old NASA doesn't use relativity in navigation argument*

[AlphaToOmega]

-- which includes a passage on the work of Bryan G. Wallace' date=' who showed how light is emitted on the principle of a Newtonian c+v addition of velocities.

[/size']

So that dismisses all the other evidence that says otherwise?

Why do you have faith that this is correct and the rest are not?

[Paradox]

And here we go again. Einstein was a fraud, he stole the idea bla bla bla.

You talk about tensor maths but you have trouble understanding simple calculus.

 

Oh, this is no doubt another veiled -- veiled because you know you oughtn't to state it for what it is -- reference to your bizarre idea that ma = m₂v₂- m₁v₁.

 

The question is' date=' is the speed of light constant *with respect to the observer*? That little appendage, I'm afraid, is the devil in it.

 

I'll repeat something I have said before on this forum, which is that NASA don't use relativity (you need to read work by the former President of the Institute of Satellite Navigation, Ronald R. Hatch to understand this properly). You might be interested in what's said on this page

http://www.sciencedo.../rochusboerner/

-- which includes a passage on the work of Bryan G. Wallace, who showed how light is emitted on the principle of a Newtonian c+v addition of velocities.

 

In honesty I hope we can bring this exchange to a close.

 

You crack me up. You really have no idea do you?

Why the hell would NASA need to use relativistic calculations when they only differ significantly from standard Newtonian ones as we approach relativistic speeds but the calculations to give that extra accuracy are far more complex?

NASA DOES NOT send spacecraft out at anywhere near relativistic speeds. How hard is that to understand?

 

The fastest man made vehicle sent out travels at 16km/sec

Light travels at: 29,979km/sec

16 vs 30,000 BIG Difference.

16km/sec makes negligible difference between Newtonian and relativistic calculations. So negligible that they won't make any difference in a practical sense. So why do the hard form for accuracy that is not required?

Sheesh.

 

You just make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. Think of your old friend the rotating optical gyroscope. Sorry to bring it up again, what with its being another example of when you made a fool of yourself initially (by not comprehending very, very basic geometry -- oh, but you thought you were the clever one all along with your 'knowledge' about them and the Sagnac effect) and then yet again with your subsequent flagrant misrepresentation of my standpoint and knowledge (about interferometry). Two in one. Well, with you, it's hardly a turn up for the books. Anyhow, in a rotating gyroscope, the speed of rotation is many orders of magnitude beneath the speed of light. Yet if you think it is insignificant in respect to effects caused, then I am glad you don't design gyros.

 

See, with anything to do with synchronisation, tiny effects become magnified as they become relayed down the line. That's why they have to correct GPS satellites very regularly. Very clearly you haven't read Ron Hatch or anything to do with GPS metrology. I'll tell you another thing -- something you else you evidently have no clue about, for all your knowledge of launching satellites. The so-called time dilation (which is actually just retarded atomic resonance frequency) at any point in a gravitational field is precisely equal to the so-called time dilation attributable to velocity when that velocity is equal to the escape velocity for that point. This is all known about by GPS measurement. But you are simply too arrogant to find out about any of it before opening your big mouth and digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. You've got a weird defence mechanism, the way you subject yourself to this. You crack me up, mate.

 

Do yourself a favour and go elsewhere.

[Paradox]

Redundant posting