₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: Smh. No rebuttal yet.
Like this meat is too hefty to grind. You've tried but your best wasn't good enough. I requested that this be forwarded to the frontpage for a reason.
This is a challenge to everyone who agrees with the big bang theory and other gibberish some mentally retarded scientists have spewed and still spewing. The deal is, I will embrace atheism if anyone of you can answer this questions. Three only
1. What lies between two universes?
2. How can anything be expanding into nothing?
3. How does a singularity produce plurals without distorting the first law of thermodynamics?
If you have nothing to offer, just shift.

OMG.. are you really this dumb?? I've just wasted two days of my life on you

I have explained to you what is known and what isn't known, what is speculation and what is probability. Yet you still want me or anyone else to tell you what isn't known!! *Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!!*

question one and two have no direct answers and I've spent the last two days trying to explain why that is so.

I have dealt with your question three which really is stupid. I asked u to show me how the first law of thermodynamics you keep throwing around was derived as well as its meaning and you said nothing. I'm sure you have no freaking clue only to throw it around and sound like you know what you are saying. You cannot equate Known laws in the world we live in to time we have limited understanding about.. This third question you pose still shows how you have completely refused to understand the cosmic inflation i tried to explain... Gosh!!!



I then put it to you, If you have a better explanation for this with facts, please let me know. I will be very glad to hear them. please don't tell me god did it because all three questions you pose also kill your god

Reyginus: This is a challenge to everyone who agrees with the big bang theory and other gibberish some mentally retarded scientists have spewed and still spewing.

If you don't believe what scientists tell you, log off your internet, go buy yourself a camel, make the journey to Jerusalem and wait for your messiah there. You are not permitted to use any invention that science brought us. The same scientific method that makes sure you get from your house to work, the same method that makes sure you can come online and tout your beliefs is the same one working to answer fundamental questions of our origins. Not sitting down and saying god did it

You don't know it but you are a slave to your religion if you keep talking this way..

its been there all along. People only like to choose what they like and discard what they dont like..

Same with everything else in the bible.

But then again, we all know religion was invented by a select few to control the majority. so this type of discrepancy is expected from chapter to chapter from people who had no zerox machine. Well, 2000 years plus and they're still going strong.. you've got to give them some credit.

[quote author=bobby.L]Can the universe expand into nothing? Shouldn't there be space for it to expand?

Anyway, all theories and arguments have tried, I am sticking with Christ till the end.[/quote]funny u decide to stick with the one that has no evidence or proof whatsoever

but discard the one that has something going for it

alfaman2: Here I was having a nice discussion and then it hit the front page.

who took it to front page? haba!!! great minds cannot discuss in peace anymore

Reyginus: @Areaboy.
1. First of all, I made no assumption. Those are the implications of the big bang theory. The moment a statement like this is made:'So to answer your question there, The law of
thermodynamics only apply inside that grapefruit of a baby universe and "everything" else isn't
included' you are already buying to the idea of isolating the law of thermodynamics. Another thing is, that a universe is a 'baby universe' is a logical contradiction. More like calling a child a baby man when all the qualities of a man are yet to be made evident in the child.
Now, I'm not getting you. The singularity cannot even be all there is and still has the tendency to expand. I don't know if you get me. It is a logical contradiction for anything to be all there is and still expanding. The two cannot go together.
I'd like to correct this assumption. Yeah, I think it is: 'you have already concluded
there must be something out there before you
even start your analysis'. From this point, I begin wonder if you are actually following. I tried to follow your argument of a multiverse.
What I'm only saying is that we wouldn't have payed more attention to the analyses of the materials outside our universe if not for your multiverse.
And my question still stands.
What lies inbetween two universes? Be brief and to the point.
2. To be sincere with you, I don't understand how the argument you are replying to amounts to :"If you see a
wrist watch washed up on the beach that no
one has ever seen before, the only logical
conclusion is that someone or something made it.
hence someone must have made/created humans
too". Their is no correlation. Not at all.
And to suggest we don't boundaries to explain the big bang also deviates from the question. The question now is, how can anything be expanding into nothing? Please be brief.
3. 'Simple, space is expanding but the galaxies
remain the same with respect to each other in
this example. Does it make any sense now?'.
Not yet. You know why this example will not work. We're are not about galaxies here. Our universe, from a galaxy, is the subject in this case. I sense you substituted space to cover the position of the universe. Lol. For the sake of clarity, this spaces that you claim expand are found where? Inside or outside their respective universes?
Above all, I'm still trying to figure out how anything can be said to be expanding when it is not expanding to something. Na wa o.

My multiverse input was just a side note.. and i explicitly mentioned it was a discussion for another day..

Now I give up. I'm trying to make you understand that there are steps to go through before we can ask and quantify that question. You are asking me "why is god omniscient?" When we haven't even established that a god exist?. It is just the same question mate,

We cannot even tell if the universe is finite or not. Keeping that in mind, we have to fully understand the universe we have now in other to predict more accurately what the singularity expanded "into" if any.


To be honest, I do understand and like the question, but the prevailing presumptions (namely:it must have been finite and hence expanded into something) are unnecessary. Granted, there are parts of the theory that needs more work. No one human being on earth can give you all the answers you're looking for on this topic. At the moment, it is the best we've got and it is holding water so far with more recent discoveries like results from the WMAP satellite that also confirm the bang. what caused the bang, and what happened before the bang is still a mystery.


If you have got a better explanation though, I would love to hear it.



To the entire thread so far: it is shortsighted to discredit an entire theory because one part of it isn't fully understood. Newtons gravitational law had its problems at the time. They were not sure however if mass or energy was the attraction to gravity, but the equation worked and everyone was happy. Now we know it is only an approximation and general relativity is far better

ijawkid: And here we have all the I too KNOW's trying to convince alfamann on what they never saw happen nor which any of them out of there own experiments and intense study were able to confirm...........

What ever the scientists who are bent on belÍeving there is no God feeds them with garbage like the bÍg bang they unhesitatingly accept it and paste them here...............

Kudos to all big bang supporters.......

you are a fanny.

Search: Father George lemaitre on google

wiegraf: @areaboy

Thanks for the lectures brah. They're, as always, enlightening

no worries mate. I do my best to explain as little as makes sense to me. alfaman is bent on twisting everything on its head

musKeeto: So what do you mean 'delayed'?

lol.. good question.. so he should keep waiting.

Jesus(in a mexican accent) will still come again

oh god!! Mate, your questions are starting to give me a headache

Hang on, I did answer the direct question u asked. you're now asking something else.

It is called Observable because that is as much as we can see. It is not possible that we are in the center of the universe. since we can see about 13.8 billion light years in all direction and all indications point that we have a flat universe (which is the model that allows our universe to actually come from nothing), then we cannot be in the center and hence there is much more to it (unobservable universe).

So to answer this question, indications show that the universe we have both observable and otherwise must have originated from the bang.

on your second part of the size at singularity being finite: You have a good point here... since the universe was very tiny just before the bang, then it indeed must have been finite (bar any wrong presumption we haven't noticed). I have no direct explanation as to why this could be true, false or unnecessary but I will find out and come back to it

alfaman2: Coming to your offer to explain troubling parts of the Big Bang, here goes: Knowing the size of the universe at a few seconds after the big bang, factoring in cosmic inflation, and knowing the rate of acceleration of particles since then, how big, approximately, to the nearest billion parsec, is the universe?

I'm not sure how this is a serious question . Or you are just trying to see what I know?

Simply put, we dont even know if our universe is finite or infinite. So the idea of universal size can only be approximated under the "observable" universe clause. Taking into account the expansion of space over the 13.8 billion light years, physicist have found the observable universe to be about 90 billion light years across

since one parsec is about 3.25 light years, we can do a simple one over the other to get 27.6923***billion parsecs that which is 28 billion parsecs to the nearest bil parsecs

Reyginus: @Areaboy
First of all, the ideal gas equation PV=nRT will not apply in the beginning. The conditions of the singularity cannot be obtainable with the equation. We can try it if you want.
The law of thermodynamics cannot and has never operated in isolation. So long anything is within our dimension, that it doesn't fit into the law, makes the law incomplete, which is not true. But before I continue with this lane, I'd like to understand what you classify as 'everything'?.
I think the more reason we must figure out what is outside our universe is due to the inadequacy of the multiverse and big bang's theory. My worry is that if there are multiverses, what lies in their boundaries cannot be space, since space came after.
This forms the bulk of my third question.
What bounds the universes together.

You made an assumption and I gave you an example why your assumption was wrong. I never said pv=nrt was the equation used during baby universe.

you keep shouting laws of thermodynamics law of thermodynamics. If I ask you to show how that law was derived and what it really means, you will have problems as well. It is wise to thread with caution before throwing in complex laws to explain even more complex concepts.

No one said anything about isolation here. if the singularity is all there is then how can it be isolated? from what?

I classed two things when I say "Universe"

1. Observable
2. Everything there is (or whole universe)

The second one is impossible to quantify or know. So science works with the first one alone and model equations based on it. Implying that what works for the known must also work for the unknown is pretty much a shortsighted approach.

let me quote you here " the more reason we must figure out what is outside our universe"... same problem mate. You have already concluded there must be something out there before you even start your analysis . I don't even know where to start explaining anymore.


Unto your third query

Reyginus: You also didn't consider that an expansion of any body of matter within a closed system without a proportional system expansion, will surely result in straining of the system walls creating cracks and eventual breakdown of the system walls.
To the big problem. The statement:'we are expanding into nothing' is so not true.
First of all, for the singularity to experience no expansion will result in no universe, unlike we have it now. Because, the universe as we know it, is a function of the singularity's expansion.
Secondly, that our universe is expanding into nothing(as long as nothing here is not used in the metaphoric sense) is equal to our universe not expanding at all.

your argument is similar to this one: "If you see a wrist watch washed up on the beach that no one has ever seen before, the only logical conclusion is that someone or something made it. hence someone must have made/created humans too"

I'm sorry to say but that's what your argument sounds like: "we know that expanding objects will result in boundary strains, hence an expanding singularity must strain its boundary or containing medium." How can you use laws of the known to describe laws of the unknown? that's some branch of science i've never heard of. You miss the part that I mentioned it is mathematically possible to show space as an expanding medium without any expansion into a higher dimension. so basically, we don't even need those boundaries to explain what the big bang theory is all about.

In a sense, if you keep holding on to your argument then i'll be led to believe that what you actually mean is "what was before the big bang".. This actually is your questions since you cannot fathom the idea of expanding singularity into nothing. Then the answer to that question is no one knows

Reyginus: To expand implies, an increase in size, which can be felt by the deviation from the normal size.
Their cannot be an increased size if their is no medium to accomodate the change.
What you are saying is synonymous to saying that the universe is not expanding at all. If actually it is, then it must be occupying a position in some other thing.

*palm to face*. Ok, let me use this illustration to explain what i mean.

Lets say you are an intergalactic warrior (lol) and you wana measure the distance between two galaxies with a measuring tape. You some how attach your measuring tape to the other galaxy and stretch it to yours. The tape reads 1 million light years. You leave the tape there over the next few weeks to see what happens. When you come back, the tape still reads 1 million light years. You are now baffled and say "wow! there isnt any expansion afterall". Then you reel in your tape and u discover that if compared to another tape you had all along, the calibration of your test tape seem to have doubled but no values have been changed. In actual sense, your old tape is no twice as long as your new tape but it still reads 1 million light years at your reference point.

Whats the problem here?

Simple, space is expanding but the galaxies remain the same with respect to each other in this example. Does it make any sense now?

alfaman2: The simple answer is you don't know. When you scientists start accepting that you don't know, we might start advancing.
How sure are you it is expanding into nothing? It could well be expanding into a liquid or solid or another matter that we have no concept of. That we don't know what it is doesn't mean that it is not likely to exist.

if you took your time to read and understand, you'll notice me mention that we cannot comment on what we can neither measure nor observe. so the whole idea is pointless. you are just doing what the religious people do. fill in the gaps with what ever you want. science will always be the first to own up and say they dont know. All i did there was try to make you see that the question did not hold.. simples

Hahahaha. Of course you are invited as well. And you have really great questions too. Lets tackle the second one first since that one is much easier to warm us up for the first one. but first let me explain cosmic inflation as simplistic as possible

https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2012/10/heic0805c1-590x389.jpg
I'll start up with this interesting picture to give a visual interpretation of what we are on about when they say cosmic inflation. At one end you see a telescope peering down through time all the way to the "big bang". We realise that the "observable" universe is about 90 billion light years across, and its age is roughly 13.7 billion years old. Since nothing should travel faster than the speed of light, we have a problem. How can the universe come from one point and seem to have traveled 6 times faster than the speed of light. This will imply a lot of things including;

1. our universe cannot be uniform (hence, there would have been poor communication from one side to the other)
2. we cant have any reference frame on universal age.
3. The flatness of our universe will only be an illusion

Cosmic inflation solves this problem and accounts for a rapid expansion which irons out all the problem in the standard model.Of course the full detail of how this may have happened isn't known. but all we have is time and we'll figure it out soon

First of all let me correct your assumption: You already assumed that if something has to expand then the number of matter will increase as well. Remember P1V1 = P2V2, PV =znRT??. Good, now lets continue


Well, just like you mentioned the singularity.. The whole idea of that concept is that it is infinitely dense and infinitely small. We all know that high density means "more stuff in same volume". So it basically had everything it needed to expand and expanded very rapidly. Say from the size of a proton to the size of a grape fruit or strawberry in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction ........ of a second. with time, that expansion smooths out to allow distribution of its "gut" fairly evenly around the baby universe. That distribution allowed matter to interact at a different energy level and bring us what we have here today. Imagine a tiny seed that grows up to a big tree, it has all the GENETIC formula it needs to grow up to a sequoia tree or whatever tree it is. Granted, the tree will need external energy and forces to grow but I hope u catch my drift.

So to answer your question there, The law of thermodynamics only apply inside that grapefruit of a baby universe and "everything" else isn't included. Hence there was no increase in matter


Now to the more tricky one. There isn't any one clear cut answer to this question (no one size fits all here) but i'll try to iron out the possibilities and the ifs and if nots. I guess this is us again thinking outside the realm of what is possible in the world we know and equating it to the world we do not know. Mind you, other possibilities have hinted that the big bang itself may have bee a collision of two universes to form one. If that's true then we don't need to worry about what is outside of it cause we'll be in a multiverse. But that's a discussion for another day.

So to your question. The concept of expanding universe is one very complicated one. I can stop you even before you ask the question and say the universe (as the name rightly says) is all there is. so even when it was in a singularity, that's all there was and up until now it is all there is. Hence SPACE is expanding but not the universe. This indeed is a very unsatisfactory answer because it causes more queries than it answers. But the truth is, that answer is not far off from what is believed to be the case.

The problem is, everything that we have measured or can measure is within the confines of our dear mother universe. Looking at the universe as a balloon model (3D-spherical universe) is presumptuous and unnecessary. Our universe may indeed be flat, without edges or direction, no up nor down and so on. Without an edge, we cannot define a boundary and an external entity. Mind you, it is Mathematically possible to describe space as an expanding entity without that entity having to expand into a higher dimension.

If you notice, I've spent the last three paragraphs dealing with the question itself rather than giving you a definite answer. That's simply because, the answer to that question is at the moment not necessary to help us understand the big bang. This is because we as observers are inside that medium and have no clue of what else if any. So our standard model will describe the universe we live in and not the other way around.

Simple answer is Nothing. we are expanding into nothing and so did the singularity expand into nothing because our universe is everything there is.

phew!!!

All that junk just to say nothing .. but i hope you understand my line of reasoning though.

@OP, this is what they tell you in your place of worship or something similar online and you swallow them hook line and sinker without doing further research for yourself. I guess that's why you are in a religion and I'm not


You're problem is simple, you simply equate your knowledge of our world around us with the entire universe. In space, there is no Up or down (the universe is Isotropic). that alone throws your idea of counter clockwise or clockwise out the room. Let me explain;

get a spinning top or gyro if u can get your hands on one, spin it on a glass table. Now look above the spinning device and notice its direction of motion, do the same thing now looking from under the glass table and notice the direction of motion, you realise that they oppose each other. Now which of them is the right frame of reference?

So can you please re-write what you just did, but this time tell use your frame of reference or reference point


Mind you, using earth as a reference point, half of the spiral galaxies spin anti-clockwise and the other half spin clockwise, so that's your number 8 being a blatant lie. Using the same reference point, Venus and Uranus rotate in a different direction from all other planets about their axis.



Go tell your lies to children. That's the only way you can get people to believe your nonsense

wiegraf: This is a great post, on many levels, thanks. I've always loved the bolded description, I think it, poetic(?). I'd love to hear from any experts on DM as well, I'm certainly not one

We are going too deep into the realm of the unknown physics. Big bang as it is is fairly easier compared to DM.

No one has seen or observed dark matter and if anyone tells you otherwise, he's selling you a 3310. However, from Logical conclusions we can predict that there must be something that we cant see or observe at work in the universe. This conclusion is easy when we consider gravity. The effect of gravity from dark matter is all over the universe particularly evident in holding galaxies together or else stars and nebula and the rest will fly off in different directions, some into the black hole and others to oblivion. Since this doesn't happen, some energy/entity must be present. some sort of...... witchcraft, some... DARK stuff. Hence the name

The mathematics involved in it is way to complex for even me to understand. I hate to put up equations i even don't understand

ok alfaman. I clearly see the problem now. You actually have never taken the time to read carefully the ins and outs of the damn theory.

you make the mistake of saying "our world" and "other world". You see, the laws of physics apply to our "observable" universe. That includes planets, stars, galaxies and the whole lot. It is that same physics we used to get Curiosity on mars and cassini into saturns orbit. Or you dont count those places as space too? Newtons first law; A body continues in its state of rest or constant motion unless acted upon by another force. Clearly there must be some "force", "energy" or even "entity" opposing stars from being consumed by the core of their galaxies. And yes, most of the assumptions you have stated have been considered and tested. The only one coming back with positive result is the idea of an opposing force "dark energy".

The thing is, Einstein predicted it over 70 years ago, and not up to 20 years ago it has been confirmed with experiments. So there really is no "assumptions" here.

Like I said, point out one particular aspect of the big bang theory that troubles you so I can clarify it for you. I'm a member of my local astronomical society so I do have a fair idea of what i'm talking about. If I cant answer, I'll pass the question down to my colleagues and have them get an answer.

How does that sound?

The same way you have seen bacteria evolve under the microscope, I've seen galaxies shooting off in various direction confirming the expanding "observable" universe.

come on mate, dont play the religion apologetic card here. what do you mean by "the big bang theory is just a theory (aka fabrication)" ?.. that doesn't tell very well of you mate.

can you please let me know what factors you put into the big bang theory and it doesn't make sense?

what a fcking load of toss!! the audacity these people have to call everyone fools. I swear if any one close to me, family or friend that believes in this bullshit, that person is dead to me .

The idiots predict bullshit and pray for it. and it still happened? Are they not ashamed?? That means god didn't really give a fck despite their prayers. bunch of fannies

^^

Wrong! and what is the message to the dead people?

secondly, he did not create a perfect world? hmmmm so you are saying he is incompetent?
since prayer and fasting make no difference then they become useless don't you think?

What this thread simply brings out is people making excuses for a false idea of a god that does not exist. simples

starting your post by interchanging my clear words with yours of choice already tells me alot about how you think.

I cant be bothered getting into an argument at this time. its almost 11 and my insomnia is acting up, so completely in no mood.

I will leave you with one thing however, the problem with religion is you are either here or there. if you define your god as something we do not know then you're just an agnostic and pretty much same as most of "us" no believers. The point i'm making here is you either ascribe to a god or you don't. I'm guessing you're with a certain Yaweh.. Problem with your stance is he gave you a book and clearly states in that book how he thinks and what he wants. you cannot make up silly analogies to help explain his position or "lack" of. I thought he made you in his image and likeness? hmmm

lol. great, you know a little bit about types of arguments so you bold it to assure yourself that you've puzzled out what my intentions are with my earlier statement. I wonder who's having the toddler tantrums now.. ok lets change that with 10 ugly children.. lol.. make any fcking difference?


Your analogy is a bad one, absolutely disgraceful that you think like that. take it or leave it.. take your time and come up with a better one.. Sounds like a tyrant you worship that owes you no fcking explanation what he does. I guess that explains why you worship him . If I have a "loving, caring god", he must fcking explain to me if he "cares"!!

lol!! they are scared of sound logic and pure good ol debunk juice

look at the date i registered mate..

Before Abraham, I was

As Bart Ehrman will always say. Jesus was an Apocalypticist..


SO nothing new. He wasn't the first and certainly not the last. No one is coming again we are here on our own and for the long run. The earlier people get that into their thick skulls, the better for everyone on our little planet.

^^^

Terrible analogy. I'm even sick reading it!!

Now change that city of lego and say "If i had 10 beautiful children and I decide to kill one......"


see your problem now?

kambo: how dyu know he was a jew? And how dyu know he wasnt happy about it(were u in his mind) . How dyu know his disciples werent happy abt it?

ermmm.. I'll like to know the bible you are reading mate

Pastor Olu T: Typical, instead of answering the question you resulted to insult, how dignified?

well, I can see where he is coming from. There are tonnes of threads on this forum dealing with that same complaint. so maybe take some time and research a few so you'll see how imperfect your perfect world is

oh and I remember someone said something about how do they know the universe is expanding? actually he said earth (which is also expanding but in a diff way)

its bad to spoon feed so i'll encourage you to read about the doppler effect and redshift in light. That will explain easily how they know the universe is expanding

hmmmm.. a lot of ideas and misunderstanding flying around. the truth is, it is always important to understand the fundamentals of any theory before branding it "made up"

Op,
In simple words the big b@ng theory explains everything from approximately 13.7 billion years ago until now. Everything else is around the realm of speculation. But isn't that how science works? people come out with ideas and others prepare experiments to test out those ideas or observations to verify/discredit them. The crucial difference with scientific "guessing" and spiritual guessing is that the scientists acknowledge that it is merely a possibility and that a proper application of the scientific method is required to achieve certainty. Religion on the other hand tells us with certainty that their guess work is fact.

So they got the time from the big b@ng off by 80 million years. is that really a big mistake? Think about it; Add 80 million to 1 billion and you will get 1.08 billion. not much off here if you ask me.

it isn't fair to conclude that something is blatant nonsense when you really don't know the maths involved. If I ask you to derive the standard model equation and explain it, we'll be here until next year.

Dark energy on the other hand is very simple if you understand anything about gravity. Our sun orbits the milkyway at a speed of roughly 200km/s. The massive gravitational pull in the center of our galaxy (caused by the black hole there) pulls in everything towards it since gravity sucks. There must be an opposing force to prevent everything from crashing into that black hole and that thing is dark energy. No one knows what it is because it cannot be seen but it can certainly be measured and they are sure it is there. with that explanation you can clearly make sense of dark matter as well.

Don't let the name fool you, it is only a fancy name when they don't know what it full is. Bring two magnets together and watch them repel or attract themselves, can we see this force? No but we certainly can measure it.


To be honest, your religious side is acting up here. Cos you really do not know the ins and outs but you discredit. how different are you now from the church goers that tell you evolution is crap?

lagerwhenindoubt: God Fails and ensures Success.. He is responsible for Death and Life. He is the Head and the Tail
If you understand his dual nature, you will not be confused ever.. you are damned if you do, damned if you don't

catch-22 doesnt get anymore personified than that

Honestly cant be bothered about any religion, but I just have a side note to make.

I noticed your comment on why people condemn an entire religion because of a crazy few.
The question rather is, what has the Islamic community done in response of these "crazy" few?. I don't think I've ever heard of any peaceful protests by Muslims to condemn terrorist actions? or how many very highly placed Muslim clerics/leaders have come out to say "I do not condone these behavior neither does Islam, anyone that kills another man must face punishment by god"? and go ahead to enforce it in some way? how many??

Its easy to say Islam is an evil religion, Its also easy to say Islam is a peaceful religion. Sadly, all we see is evidence of the former. The ball is in your court my Muslim brothers; Do something about terrorism!!!!! stop giving us words...

ooman, you are wasting your time.

When a guy uses a quote from the bible as proof that the 7 day week was from "god", you should know what you're dealing with

He started his argument by saying nothing can create itself, but excluded his god from the same rule,

Used the law of thermodynamics to assure himself that the universe is losing energy, but never bothered to explain where this energy "goes". Also failing to understand the law of energy conservation

Finally compounding everything by quoting his bible again as an answer to how the universe came into being and that must be the only answer.
Failing to realise that if everyone had that attitude, he wouldn't have the computer he is typing on right now.

olaadegbu, Do you honestly believe the sh1t you are spewing? really?


you sir, have just earned yourself a troll certificate

onyfrank: ok. Can u tell me what u guys think is prayer?

Mate.. I reckon the onus is on you to tell us