₦airaland Forum

In 10 hours after launch the space craft will separate from the rocket, this will be right above the earth's atmosphere..

[img]http://m.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/02/exomars_2016_fairing_release/15821980-1-eng-GB/ExoMars_2016_fairing_release_highlight_mob.jpg[/img]

The mission comprises the Trace Gas Orbiter and an entry, descent and landing demonstrator module, Schiaparelli, which are scheduled to be launched on a four-stage Proton-M/Breeze-M rocket from Baikonur during the 14–25 March 2016 window.

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ExoMars-pad-1-1.png

1. ExoMars on launch Pad ready for launching.

2. Lift off... Launch was successful... We will be seeing her in Mars in 7months time

The ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter is loaded on an Antonov An-124 transport
plane in Turin, Italy. Credit: Thales Alenia Space...

the components were transported in 3 heavy duty airplanes to the launch site..

https://spaceflightnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/AH_TGO_flight_loading_1_625w.jpeg

Exo Mars under construction..

[img]http://exploration.esa.int/science-e-media/img/b1/ExoMars2016_Baikonur_fairing_encapsulation_20160302_071px_625.jpg[/img]

Picture credits:
http://spaceflight101.com/exomars/exomars-mission-illustrations/


Today is an exciting day as a new Probe is joining the Mars frontier...

The ExoMars 2016 mission is short for Exobiology Mars and is tasked with looking for evidence of life on Mars. It consists of the TGO and Schiaparelli module. The TGO will look for traces of methane in the Martian atmosphere with an eye on learning more about the mechanism that produces it and to determine if this is geological, chemical, or biological. It will also send back images of the Martian surface and search for subsurface ice deposits.

The new rover is on a mission to further probe into the Martian surface for organic signatures (evidence of life) Microbes and colonies of microbes that may be lurking somewhere beneath the surface of the red planet.

That is an exciting possibility and a stepping stone to mankind's quest for extra-terrestrial life forms..

The ExoMars has been launched on a 7 months Journey to the red planet ... Let us go through the stages it will under go on it's journey to Mars..

[img]http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/files/2016/03/Schiaparelli_separating_from_Trace_Gas_Orbiter.jpg[/img]

Weah96:
The creator could also be two children. Lol. He misses the point with that unlettered question he throws around.

You can imagine and he calls them intelligent questions

Isn't it remarkably funny how people who are having personal relationship with universal Creators, who the creator is finding their keys cannot even prove the existence of what they are having a personal relationship with?

When asked for it they start yapping a mary go round coc_k and bull story, asking you to prove otherwise

KingEbukaNaija:
This is Johnydon22's blabbings on the string theory - the M theory in fact . Whatever findings made don't shake anyone's faith . There's a lot more of the universe man has to know about

Oh i am glad you made an effort to check on the string theory even though you ended up going for a NEWS reel and not the actual scientific documentary on String or E-books on it to actually know what exactly strings are about..

The "M theory" is a proposed theory that will unify every and is a product of string theory..

There is more to the universe than man can ever know and that gap does not call to be filled by primitive superstition.

There are different reasons , millions of them , why people believe in God - you need to understand that Johnydon22

Oh i know that very well, there are up to 5,000 God concepts in this world peddled by different cultures and there are many reasons why people entertain these abstract concepts.

-Which is why i have been ringing on since the on set of this thread that you can find some other places to place your god, if you are only going to put your god only at a place that is shielded by scientific ignorance then your god will always remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific advancement.

KingEbukaNaija:
You make weak claims and boast about them . Maybe reply when you've come up with evidence that the universe needs no creator .

Admire my prescience of his reaction : Another tale of how powerful void is and cosmos bla bla without any inherent logical information to gain

Common bro you can do better than this.. "bla bla bla" sounds just like a child would see it when you try explaining Quantum Mechanics to them and am sure you also cannot comprehend it cus it further murders your "god did it" hypothesis.

Just try and read it ... You may understand or continue wallowing in the self induced cognitive dissonance you've been applying ..

" what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must
be eternal?

does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must
need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.
Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to
assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.
-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.

This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...
Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for
nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is
not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.

Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if
nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this
"god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is
.
if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not
connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..
and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more..."

Your ridiculous emulation connotes design is turning to be a hard slap on the face here

taurus25:
gbam!! nail straight on the head.........if a soposed creator of the enormous cosmos doesnt know such little details about his creation......it would be an insult to my intellect to acknowledge it/ or whatever .........worse part is the dude says we gon roast in hell

religions can put their gods anywhere they want.. to scare themselves and derive moral compass, to give themselves meaning or anything that rocks their boat.

But in the face of the entire cosmos these gods fall short and become simply too small..

their use becomes irrelevant and ever receding when faced with the problem of cosmological causality in an era marked by outstanding scientific enquiry...

Out of all the 5000 gods any or all them may well exist like flying unicorns may exist but there are an unneeded hypothesis when explaining the cosmos..

taurus25:
intellectual evolution bro!........chaos? whatever you wish call it, the fact is we all know we came from something!.......now the big question is WHAT?.......some say yahweh.....some say allah.......some say lets find out.

so far so good yahweh or allah did it is shrinking rather too quickly in the face of intellectual evolution and those who maintain that lets find out are constantly getting amazing result that continously send allah yahweh and many others to the pages of books where they rightfully belong

This is very precise and wonderfully put... Thank you brother for this..

There have been more than 5000 gods invented by humanity in the face of Ignorance (the limit of their knowledge)

In the face of Intellectual evolution (scientific advancement) as you rightly put it all these Gods are being buried in one wide grave yard carved out by modern breakthroughs..

that grave yard where all these Gods are being buried is called Mythology and they become nothing more than stories for entertainment.

The superstition ( religion) of today is the Myth of tomorrow..

Have always maintained.. "Let us do away with notion of belief in filling up answers and try to find things out

There is no shame in not knowing, the only problem is when irrational thoughts and ridiculous behaviours fills the gap left by ignorance..

taurus25:
bro....those gods dont know no shit about the cosmos......couldnt even properly state an orderly formation of the earth!......its absolutely no surprise tho , what do you expect from primitive middle eastern goat herders?

Nothing at all my brother.. You can imagine a creator of the universe that thinks Stars could fall, snakes used to talk, vegetation before sunlight, and man that is predominantly Hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen is made of sand (silica).

Like seriously these Gods need secondary diploma.

It has been shown over and over again that "the god did it" hypothesis is a primitive superstition derived to fill in the gap left by the void of human ignorance in the face of the cosmos.

The Ancient greeks thought the milky way band across the sky was a milk spilled from Hera's bossoms..

it is noble poetry but is naive and chastising study to uphold these absurd personal beliefs and superstitions is an insult to human intellect..

And the people having a personal relationship with these creators cannot even relay to us a single unknown fact of cosmological manifestations but rely on science to modify their interpretations of religious books.

Psychosis has never been more obvious

KingEbukaNaija:
And the circumlocution , baseless assumptions , inundation of science myths and the bigoted rants continue ... its interminable ...

Hahahahahaha common don get frustrated when faced with the outright absurdity of your childish arguments.

Your presented the arguement of emulation connotes design and gets slapped right in the face by it

what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must
be eternal?
does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must
need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.
Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to
assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.
-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.
This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...
Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for
nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is
not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.
Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if
nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this
"god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is
.
if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not
connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..
and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more...

Read it over and over again so it can sink in, we understand the evasive tactics ..

KingEbukaNaija:
Lmao ... you didnt see that coming right ? I know . And to hide the shame and disappointment you launch vituperative attack on Christians and beliefs . Johnydon22 ... the false prophet against ad hominem and bigotry

Winner01 ... do you still remember when Johnydon22 was being sanctimonious

So its a design that indeed has an end . With the purpose of bringing a new earth and heavens .

Try again bro
I am really enjoying this !!!!

Hahahahaha its obvious you are not just trying a last clutch to hang on

It was not even in the least a surprise cus we are used to religious interpretations and how they are desperately tried to be hooked on science for basis .


Just like the muslims claimed Quran talked about gravitational waves

I know you have learnt something new on cosmology, no need to thank me...

We understand your desperation to hang on the fairy tale of heaven and earth passing away and a new jerusalam coming

The cosmos is bigger than that and when discussing cosmological fate please stop disgracing yourself by invoking such religious fairy tale...

Looks like you are trying to run away from the stupi_d design argument huh?

taurus25:
naah...i aint going nowhere.....truth is ur arguments that because man designs some aspects of nature, therefore god must have designed nature holds exactly thesame amount of water as an empty basket

KingEbukaNaija:
Well that's your opinion - inferred from assumptions . Good to know . You do realise that there is no evidence being tabled here . Just assumptions.. as usual

Assumptions? Further showing you are just a kid when it comes to Physics...

In all established knowledge of physics about the cosmos, we have no need for a freaky humanoid..

Ranging from planetary motions to energy transformations and the fundamental basis of universal manifestations.. ....

find somewhere else to place your "god" gone are those days when appeal to ignorance is ever applied to fill up a void left by scientific ignorance.

it is just too weak and poor.

KingEbukaNaija:
A design that has a violent end ? I think the bible said that a new earth and heavens will come after the old one has passed away . So I think the assumption agrees with the bible . I wonder how that eluded me the first time

Hahahahahahahaha ... Earth and heaven with a new Jerusalem That's the biblical version

The cosmos is a not a fairy tale of ignorant Jews.. It's just too big for your fairy god and book.

The same bible that thinks satyrs, unicorns exists .. Rainbows are reminded for an all knowing deity.

we understand the desperate clutch, all religious books try that laughable and pitiable last clutch when trying to add a pinch of science to feed their delusion...

we get ya

KingEbukaNaija:
By an eternal conscious creator ? Yup .

what if the universe requires a designer, does this mean this designer must be eternal?

does this mean it can not be a race of intelligent beings? they surely must need a plain to exist unless this creator is just a conscious nothingness.

Not only is the assumptive creator hypothesis vague you also need to assume up it is eternal and not also a product of natural development.

-it is a humanoid
-has a son
-likes burnt flesh
-having a personal relationship with you.

This your "god" is simply too small for the cosmos ...

Your argument is that artificial entities are inspired by nature there for nature must have been also being designed just like artificial entities... it is not only weak but absurd and even kills your god hypothesis.

Because your belief pictures a god whose being also inspired nature, so if nature is designed because artificial mechanisms emulates nature then this "god" whose complexity nature emulates must also be designed as nature is .

if you argue it was not designed then you have shown emulation does not connote the emulated was also designed like the emulator ..

and your argument is killed by your own baseless assumptions more...

KingEbukaNaija:
Im tired of all these assumptions by bored scientists . Whatever leaves you drowning in delusion tho

The stupi_d design hypothesis remains quite boring that's why we leave it to sunday school brain washing classes where ancient superstitions are being peddled as truth.

Only study can illuminate and not dogmatic superstitions... Lets go on..

KingEbukaNaija:
What you have been bombarding us with are assumptions . And there is no proof that the universe needs no creator . God did it through whatever means - its left for science to find out how .

Scientists trying to understand the mystery of the universe is like perusing over a code written by someone else . Its left for you to detect what the code does , how it was written , in what programming language it was written etc. Your findings do not preclude or rule out the programmer who wrote the codes .

Im not sure why this is tough to understand

Wooooow... Now the ringtone is "god did it through what ever means it is left for science to find out how" ... seriously?

This is becoming poorer by the minute

You have been shown universal causalities do not need the actions of any humanoid freak talking to himself or vomiting the cosmos..

"God did it" will forever remain a poor pitiable answer in the face of a philosophical enquiry.

No wonder the black cat analogy likened religion to be being a dark room, looking for a black cat without any light and shouting 'i've found it "... very precise and it fits ..

It is a relic of ancient superstition, a recipe for perpetual ignorance and such ridiculous appeal to ignorance is detrimental to human intellectual development.

Just like your bible thought Rainbows were designed and was put up there by an all knowing deity as a reminder .. (How in the world does an all knowing entity need a reminder )

Well but that "god did it hypothesis" has been shown to be wrong and no humanoid is needed in the equation of rainbow formation.

If you are ever looking for answers about nature and is relying on ancient religious books filled with ancient superstition, myths and folklores, you have got the wrong answer..

Ignorance is never a gap meant to be filled with assumptions... there is no shame in not knowing..

If you keep your "god" only behind the curtain of scientific ignorance, we have shown it will remain ever receding and irrelevant in scientific enquiry..

You need to place somewhere else ...

You can try again

KingEbukaNaija:
This is a non sequitur to what I posted . I doubt you understand the argument .

Classical evasive tactics that has become very cliche and boring, we have heard that evasive line countless times ... You can do better ..

KingEbukaNaija:
Why are you so good at circumlocution . You need to be commended . I think you fully understand the argument but somehow , just somehow you use too many words with the purpose of evasion .

Like I said , which apparently you have not refuted :

1. Processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

The desired result of this supposed creator is for the universe to reach a catastrophic end?

From every cosmological knowledge the universe has only one fate A violent end This design is so random that it brews a recipe for disaster .

what a design, Neil Degress Tyson calls that The stupi_d design hypothesis

Face it the universe remains not only random but imprecise, spooky and flat out shows no evidence of an intelligent mechanics is needed...

2. An observer can see processes as random , chaotic even violent , as you put it (lolz) but not necessarily to the designer .

I think these are arguments you need excogitate on then present cogent rebuttals

..The last clutch to stick on to the stupi_d design hypothesis

Since the universe remains a random event of chain reactions it shows it is not a catalogued plan of a super complex intelligent plot but unsuspecting natural parts reacting to distinct vibrations of string compositions.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

again Your "gods" may fit in sunday school classes but never in a science classroom.. Gain a better argument ..

Try again

KingEbukaNaija:
Bro .. how is it ignorance ? Acknowledging the efforts of a creator is not ignorance . Stop yarning dust ma guy .

Read the post again

filling up a gap left by your ignorance with "god did it" is a ridiculous way of solving problems and it is detrimental to human intellectual development.

"I don't know how that happened, Uuhm God did it"..

The only way to know is to actually study and remove variables that doesn't fit from the equation..

Man does not know the origin of the cosmos is a call to study not fill up with the ridiculous appeal to ignorance ..

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific
knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god
(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific
discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level
of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

You may find places to place your Gods hypothesis but when it comes to the limits of human knowledge as regards the cosmos such hypothesis is not needed and such appeal to ignorance is vague to study.

Read the post again

KingEbukaNaija:
For the umpteenth time , to the observer processes can be random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer . This is the same argument atheists bring up everywhere . Na wa oo !

And again , processes can be designed to be random and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

Smh . Try harder

Hahahahahaha we have seen natural manifestations are not the folktales found in your religious books of creating Stars four days after earth.

We have see natural manifestations are not factory settings of a freaky humanoid immeasurable, imperceivable but a subject of human emotions and mind.

Natural interactions as i have explained times and again with the most basic fundamental particles strings do not run as a programme..

Randomness and spookiness of nature pays homage to the unplanned manifestations of it's mechanism in relation to the bits of nature factors in the board.

Energy as a universal value has never shown to be a creatable value so if that is so there is no need for your "god hypothesis"

you can find somewhere else to place it..

try again?

KingEbukaNaija:
Physics may not be my strong suit but the truth remains that the cause of the universe is still unknown to Science , man still knows very little about the universe and there are theists who have far superior knowledge of Physics and are still believers in their respective religions .

So bombarding threads with assumptions which get modified frequently and upholding them as truth is ludicrous . Let me save you the embarrassment : There is no proof the universe needs no creator

The popular example I use is the formation of the moon . Five theories . FIVE . Not one or two . FIVE . Funny enough God may have created the moon differently from the five theories which science has presented .

Be Open Minded bro . Stop enshrouding your self from possibilities

.."Gods did it" is never a placeholder for ignorance in modern science, first nobody knew exactly the mechanisms of simple celestial movements..

Ptolemy invoked intelligent design, a deity to explain the immerse depth of what he could comprehend and what was elusive to him : “I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral. But when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of
the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch the earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus myself and drink my fill of ambrosia.”

He invoked zeus because he was at the limits of his knowledge..

Even Newton did same when at the limit of his knowledge in explanations concerning celestial motions and orbits... His calculations has reached a limited point.

Pierre-Simon Laplace went beyond what Newton knew, travelled beyond's newtons limit in his work of celestial mechanisms.

and when asked "where does God(s) fit it?" he simply answered "i have no need of that hypothesis"

That was because he has broken the limit, the barrier Newton and Ptolemy were limited by..

Newton and Ptolemy reached the highest point of their knowledge, they were confronted by their ignorance and then invoked "god did it" as a placeholder for their ignorance.

Laplace shattered that and provided a more reasonable intel on how things were and God(s) were discarded in explanation of celestial motions.

Man does not know "how something is" yet is not a call to be filled by assumptive gods .. (those gods too even though products of assumptions becomes a subject of question and evidently cannot be measured becomes complete bogus)

Reaching the limit of your ignorance is never a call to invoke gods and fill up the gap left by your ignorance with it.

If you are only going to be placing your "god" only at the limit of scientific knowledge then surely as it has been shown through out history your god(s) will forever remain an ever receding factor in the face of scientific discoveries.

It will continue to be discarded and continue to be moved to the next level of human enquiry just to stay relevant in religious classes.

You are the one that needs to stay open minded and stop filling gaps left by ignorance with absurd superstitions and primitive assumptions

that you do not know means you don't and is a call to study not fill up with a dogmatic assumption..

KingEbukaNaija:
Lmao ... It seems you are back to your senses . So lets continue . Like I said Computer Science is in the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences and we apply studies in Nature .

We understand Nature better than ever because we emulate it and have artificial replicas - models , artificial systems , algorithms etc .

So when I say its blatant dishonesty to assert that nature needs no designer with no evidence I know what I'm saying .

Oh crap not again!!! **Face palm**

You have fuc_king not the slightest clue of natural sciences, Nature is never same as a computer programme.

When you are equating Computer sciences to Natural sciences it is obvious you have not the slightest idea ..

Natural manifestations are random, chaotic and spooky..

If you need to have a little insight of nature, try basic natural sciences like Physics cus you seriously need know what nature is about.

You actually don't know what you are saying because recreating a sand dune artificially does not make a natural sand dune a design of invisible artists .. Common!!!

Poor logic try again..

KingEbukaNaija:
My God ! The department is Natural and Applied Science . Computer Science basically applies studies in Nature . What the hell is wrong with this one

This is so shameful

Hahahahahahahaha aaaaaaaah calm down and don't freak yourself out... You have already murdered yourself trying to lay claims to natural sciences using computer science as a basis.

Applied sciences bank on already know scientific knowledge, computer science is even a secondary applied science as a matter of fact.

Next time don't disgrace yourself by trying to gain a little credit in natural sciences using a department as a basis..

You are still a kid when it comes to natural sciences I wonder who is ashamed

"It's a department!!! "

KingEbukaNaija:
Dark Energy is theoretical . Most of this gibberish you are spewing here are scientific assumptions which get modified or are changed completely . I am impressed you are in line with the latest modification

There are no generally accepted theories about the genesis of the universe . DEAL WITH IT

When using the word "theory" understand that theories are explanations built on observed facts in that regard.

Dark energy are called so because it is unknown as of today's knowledge but are calculable even from measuring large scale wave patterns of universal mass density ..

Science is not a religious dogma or belief, when a scientific thesis is falsified it becomes discarded as bogus and thrown in a trash can of nonsenses, but when a religious claim is falsified it becomes allegory, metaphor

we all know the most dependent method of truthful deductions are ones open to scrutiny, accept ignorance and never establish a dogma which is science.

Your "god" can never be used as a placeholder of scientific ignorance, man has gone pass that stage of lunacy..

Again man emulates nature and describes it as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - you seem not to understand this , one bit .

Haaaaaaaa.. Just like Rubber flower indicates biological flowers must have been assembled in a workshop

KingEbukaNaija:
Lmao ... I said computer science is under natural and applied science - its a department in Universities ,which off course you dont know about

Again ... I said I apply studies in nature .

You have been running around with your own misconceptions like a headless chicken - though its embarrassing , I found it hilarious though .

A department in the University

Now let i that has never been to the university teach you that little thing.. Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of science.

That you have Natural and Applied science as a department means your university placed all disciplines of scientific inclination on one umbrella (department)

Learn this today, that it is under Natural and Applied science department does not mean Natural and Applied science are the same or used together, it is just the name of a department.

Natural sciences does not include computer science but only sciences that deals with nature..

..I have laughed my head off hearing someone equate Computer science as natural science because of the name of a department in a university ..

I wonder the embarrassed one here Seriously how do you pass exams when you have no idea the name of a department does not make computer science a natural science

if you like when asked next time what branch of science is Computer science ... The answer is not Natural and Applied science .. Nooo the answer is simply Applied Science

When it comes to Natural sciences you are just a complete juvenile that thinks computer programmes is same as natural manifestations..

Chai

KingEbukaNaija:
Where did I say the universe is orderly ? I said designed . Man emulates nature and describes his emulation as intelligently designed but denies that nature is intelligently designed - that has been my stance , which none of you have refuted .

Johnydon22 , resorting to lies is demeaning . Again , rationally , the universe obviously requires an eternal creator - it has a beginning , it has a cause , the functionalities of its systems and constituents etc etc etc

.. It has been shown times and numbers again and again that nature does not need an assembly line but derive results from random reactions.

Man evidently enough develops the systems that he regards intelligently designed and draws basic inspiration from his environments.

This does not equate the source of inspiration into the same circle or level with the product of inspiration.

A rubber flower can never be equated to biological flower... One developed from a simple state to a complex one in response to varying factors the other didn't..

Times and again the universe has been shown not to require any freaky humanoid, it has a cause which also is a simple fundamental energy known as a Dark Energy in science and the universe also heads towards a violent end.. what a design

The random manifestations remain subjects of random interactions and so nature defines itself and needs no external help ..

It is very fine for you to try fix your "god" myth in your sunday schools, it never enters the science class... that's just the best part..

find somewhere else to fix your "god" there is no need of it to explain the cosmos Sorry

try again?

KingEbukaNaija:
Computer Science is under natural and applied science ... Guy , Don't embarrass yourself . Its now certain you didnt pass through a university



Rotfl ...

Hahahahahahahahahaha Computer science is an Applied science oooo... Applied sciences utilize the already know scientific knowledge to develop more practical applications like technologies and inventions.

Please Natural and Applied science are distinct branches of human science not the same ..

Jesus christ and you are in the university we need to get the Lecturer and shoot him in the head for this

Who ever taught you computer science is under Natural Science Branch of science that studies nature really got you slow.

You need a refund