How fast is time

[Andiferous]

Anyway, there is a parallel discussion here:

So what is time? And are we truly free?

 

[>< V ><]

1) I'm not an atheist. I have more posts than all but 8 people on this forum.
I am reasonable. I am rational.
I'm not banned because I'm not an idiotic fucktwit that parades around pretending to be better than everyone else by posting half-reasoned scientific questions by today's knowledge standards.

2) You're trolling because your political stance was not even a part of this topic, but you announced that you hold a particularly unpopular opinion on here which was irrelevant to anything said.

3) Idiots vote for Idiots, especially twice in a row - jus' sayin'.

Do I really control your emotions that easily?


Do you have any scientific objections to what I've stated?

Mod Note:

You will keep a civil tongue, or you will be summarily, and permanently, banned.

Anyway, there is a parallel discussion here:

So what is time? And are we truly free?

Physics cannot currently answer that. That is a question for philosophy. Physics can however, answer whether time is constant or not.

 

[Andiferous]

><V>< : Hytegia thinks we are all trolls. And maybe we are? But that's another topic.

I agree that physics cannot answer that. Physics theory tends to crossover somewhat; but the underlying question is still pertinent... and referenced for interest. Or so I think.

Welcome, by the way.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

><V>< : Hytegia thinks we are all trolls. And maybe we are? But that's another topic.

No I don't, Andi. :I
Even then, my batting average is pretty high. It can take a hit.

BTW I eat meat. I know that it's not relevant to the topic, and I don't mean to stir-up any of you vegans out there about how tasty it really is. I'm just saying.

 

[Andiferous]

><V>< : Hytegia thinks we are all trolls. And maybe we are? But that's another topic.

No I don't, Andi. :I
Even then, my batting average is pretty high. It can take a hit.

BTW I eat meat. I know that it's not relevant to the topic, and I don't mean to stir-up any of you vegans out there about how tasty it really is. I'm just saying.

But you do! Your stats on it are much higher than mine. But as I call it, by your definitions, both of us should be labeled "trolls" as well. I'm okay with that if you are.

I do eat meat, but that's a complicated topic.

 

[Prolescum]

:lol:

Another erect member who thinks this is actually a league of pseudo-intellectuals and not a general discussion forum. Why does no one bother to RTFM? The link's at the top of every page...

Of course, the reason is obvious, but it's funny to watching the train plummet in slo-mo. Carry on!

General discussion forum?

Yes. Only the ill-informed or the thick as vegemite think otherwise. There's no plan, no organisation, no clubhouse, no badges, no uniform, no pledge, no height requirement, no employees, no discounts, no orange squash, no secret handshake, and no effing table of achievement. No league.

Have you actually spent any time reading threads across this forum or did you just pick a thread where you could show how unfeasibly large your testicles are and proceed to pronounce the entire membership tainted by your risibly limited preconception? One wonders what your swagger is hiding (besides the comically oversized scrotum)...

Clearly, this is the League of New Age Atheists that are trying to re-label themselves as "reasoned", "rationalists", because apparently, one is only reasoned or rational if they are an atheist.

Clearly. I am not new a "New Age Atheist". I am an atheist. I don't describe myself rational, or reasoned, or sceptical, or any of the other terms the rubes of Youtube apply to themselves without a hint of irony (you can check); Hytegia isn't an atheist (rational, reasonable or otherwise).

There you have examples of two of the four or five members you've interacted with so far. So in the face of evidence to the contrary do you still contend that this is "the League of New Age Atheists"?
Feel free to point out the specific threads where "the league" plot communal labels and I'll have hat for dinner.

Talk about a false dichotomy.

What fun can be had when the kettle decides to speak.

You'll find your new age atheists over at David Icke's forum arguing over chemtrails and fourth-dimensional lizards.

BTW, I voted for George W Bush.....twice.

XVX

So you're one of millions of Americans... Do you want congratulating for making an extremely taxing quadrennial either or choice?

 

[Andiferous]

Well, I'm guessing most of us here only made a first post because they were passionate about a topic. I usually go that way - I won't register until something really grabs me. It usually shows. It's great.

As for the George Bush comment: seems inciting, but who am I to speak. Politics are interesting but seem totally irrelevant here, I guess. Especially American-specific ones. Something to consider.

I hope you do survive the test of prolescum. Just relax about stuff.

We're not as bad as we look, apparently, and are open to rational discussion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

At 2:40, "The most bizarre aspect of traveling near the speed of light, is that time slows down. All clocks, mechanical and biological, tick more slowly near the speed of light. But stationary clocks tick at their usual rate. If we travel close to light speed, we age more slowly then those we left behind." -Carl Sagan

LoL! You half understand it and then claim that it actually supports your view? I see that your knowledge on physics comes from what you hear in pop culture, i.e. bad physics.

Do you really expect someone like myself that has dedicated their life to physics, to advancing physical knowledge, being a true promoter of correct science, to treat someone like Master_Ghost_Knight as an intellectual equal?

Who do you take me for?
Obviously it includes the vision of me as a fool, because I certainly you do not expect me to believe that you can convince me that you are an actual physicist while committing errors, putting yourself in the false stereotypical perspective that scientists are on a fucking pedestal whilst highly suffering from Dunning-Kruger effect.

Mister 1609 posts in the League of Reason, you clearly do not understand the difference between Newtonian mechanics and Einstein's relativity. You "think" you have zero velocity sitting in your chair, but compared to what?

To my own frame of reference at the time of measurement.

You are using the reference frame of the Earth.

Erh.. no! But for sake of argument they are very close and let's just say that it is.

But the Earth has a velocity around the Sun.

In what frame of reference?

The Sun has a velocity around the galactic center.

In what frame of reference?

And the Milky Way galaxy has a velocity around the other galaxies in the universe.

In what frame of reference?

You are not very good at this are you?

You say something can be at rest, but in doing so, you have chosen some reference frame to say the object is at rest in. As you sit in your chair, you are not at rest, but moving through the universe.

Wait isn't this an objection that implies that there is an absolute frame of reference?
And when you say:

One of the monumental breakthroughs from Einstein was proving that there is no absolute reference frame.

You are kind of contradicting yourself. And given that the latter is not yours but actual physics, aren't you kind of wrong?
Do you even understand why I had to put "at the time of measurement" condition?

Newton's second law, when mass is constant, is F = m*a. Force equals mass times acceleration. If an object has no acceleration, then it has no net force.

What? You just bypassed every single question and throw in yet another red herring as if I wouldn't notice that you haven't touched any of it?
Since you want to talk about Newtonian physics now:

Since velocity is a vector, constant motion means, constant motion in a straight line. But constant circular motion requires the velocity vector to change directions and since acceleration is defined as a change in velocity over a change in time, even though the "speed" may be constant, if the velocity vector changes direction, then there must be an acceleration. This acceleration is called centripetal acceleration and can be equated to (tangential velocity squared)/(radius of motion).

There is no "centripetal" force in a orthonormal coordinate system, to have a "centripetal" force you must either use a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system, and the problem with this is that it presupposes a reference frame centered on the pole (not pole as in north and south pole, but a mathematical pole).

As you sit in your chair, in the simplest of pictures, your net force is zero, you have no acceleration and you are at rest. This is what freshmens are taught. But this is NOT the whole picture of physics.

No, this is what they teach you in high school. And I agree, it is to simple.

This is the beginnings of understanding something more complicated, because obviously, as you sit in your chair, you orbit the Sun. You orbit the galactic center. You orbit other galaxies. And orbiting another object demands a change in your velocity vector, demands a centripetal acceleration, which demands a net force. A net force due to gravity.

What this is still high school level physics, and it also happens to be wrong, you can no longer simply invoke the centripetal acceleration to explain the net motion of the objects because you have tangential accelerations as well. Plus it is highly stupid to make the calculations in a spherical coordinate system because the masses of galaxies can be comparable (like the Milky Way and Andromeda) and you have no non-accelerated frames and thus it would not help you at all, in fact it would only complicate the problem. You can still do it, but it is just dumb to do so.

Since the gravitational force is only zero at infinity and the universe is not infinitely large, means all objects in the universe are in orbital motion due to a net force from gravity. Thus, all objects in the universe have, at least, a tangential velocity. And if all objects have a velocity, then no object is at rest.

Again more high school physics, and again wrong. Because you are still thinking in terms of the one body problem. You can still have gravity and yet no net force of gravity and no net acceleration given that the force is balanced out by other bodies with mass, true that it is unstable and impractical to achieve perfection but that doesn't change the fact that you can have that. In fact a derivative of this property is the main principle behind the fixing of the Soho satellite. And not all objects are under the orbital influence from each other, it is true that gravity from distant galaxies still reaches us it is not true that that we orbit them or vice versa. This is because at larger scales the universe no longer resembles the massive concentrated objects separate by vast empty space but it is rather a fog of super clusters each more busy being under the local gravitic influence and space expansion then actually going around a distant galaxy making an effect smaller than noise. In fact it is possible that there are galaxies beyond our local horizon, that because they are so far that the expansion of space supersedes the speed of light, their gravitic effect will never be felt at all and they might as well not even exist.

Notice that no where do I need to refer to a frame of reference.

Except when you say shit like "tangential velocity", "centripetal acceleration", "radius of motion" and stuff of that sort which can only exist on reference frames.
But since you are such an expert on Newtonian gravity, there is a sort of a question that I tend to put to people I suspect to be bullshiting. Tell me using Newtons equation for gravity:
F=G*M*m/(R^2)
And lets imagine that you have a cluster of asteroids with total mass M whit a center of mass on point P.
And this is what I want you to do. You are going to tell me in which coordinate system is the force of gravity expressed in. You are going to select an arbitrary geometry for the distribution of the asteroids with a number not lower than 4, you are going to select an arbitrary geometry that encompasses all asteroids and tell me the expression for the flow of the gravitic force for the geometry you chose.
Fortunately this is not easily found on the web (which is where I suspect you get your knowledge from), if you can give me the right answer then I will not dismiss the next post you make as the ramblings of an ignorant baboon. If you are not able to, then consider yourself busted and you can crawl back to the cave which you have come from.
Hint: it is a softball question.

What Newton wanted to believe (but himself admited was not well established) was that there was a center to the universe, of which all objects orbited. And this "center of the universe" was the absolute reference frame of which all objects could be measured against.
But in Einstein's four dimensional universe, there is no center. With the elimination of the center of the universe, was also eliminated Newton's only hope of an absolute frame of reference.

No, it doesn't do that at all, nothing in the "Einstein's four dimensional universe" claims that there is no center of the universe, what it spouses is that the laws of physics are the same anywhere in the Universe in any frame of reference. And Newtonian physics did not require a center to the universe to have an absolute frame of reference. As far as I'm concerned the 2 are completely unrelated.

I'm curious to know how you measure proper time.

You mean, you don't know? You don't know introductory special relativity, while you sit here and make comments challenging special relativity?

So you mean you can? How tell me then, I will forward you to the Nobel Prize in physics for disproving relativity, because one of the principle of relativity is that you cannot devise any experiment in which you can tell absolute time. What you call "proper time" is in fact the time according to a predefined frame of reference of my choosing. If I perform a certain path in reference to A, in my clock I will measure a time, if I ask for the proper time I asking how much time has it been in accordance to a clock on A.

How do you answer this contradiction you have put forth?

The right answer is, for you time allways "flows" the same from your prespective no matter in which reference frame you are

But yes the fact that clocks run slower in orbit is an observable fact, and that experiment is continuously being performed by satellites in orbit.

So on one hand, time always flows the same, yet, on the other hand, if I sit in a satellite, time runs slower. Which is it?

It is both. And to explain that I would have to answer the question which I have posed to you and you have yet refused to answer. This one:

Do you even understand why I had to put "at the time of measurement" condition?

If you know the answer to that, then you should know why it is not a contradiction. But of course you think it is a contradiction and you don't know the answer to that.

You can replace time with space?

YES!!!!!!!!!! That is what your equations say, that is what space time means!

That is not what I said. This is what I said.

No, THIS is what you said:

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2 -(c*dt)^2

Which means exactly what I said. You can argue what you like, the equations don't lie.

Velocity is defined as the displacement vector divided by the change in time, v = d/t.

That would be V=dr/dt not v=d/t

According to you, space and time are interchangable and thus velocity can also equal v = t/d, which is obviously wrong. Clearly, unit analysis alone should dictate that.

Except of course you forgot the scale factor C. It should be read V=d(T*c)/dt, since C is a constant you should have V= C*dT/dt. So lets do the unit analysis, to aid the view lets use SI units. V[m/s]=C[m/s] dT/dt <=> [m/s]=[m/s]*/=[m/s]*1 =[m/s]. What would you know, it matches.

Did you really think you could get away with this? Who do you think you are fooling?
Since your red herring is addressed. Do you have any rebuttal to the fact that the original question was put into nonsensical terms?
Speaking of which, if you apply the unit analyses to it, you would see that they don't match.
Interesting isn't it?

 

[Dean]

@Leà§i​

The title seems self-explenatory. Does time go at the speed of light?

???

Try: Does time objects travel through time - at the speed of light?

= Yes.

Objects in the universe apparently move through time at the speed of light, though not necessarily through space at the same rate. It's indeed an extremely bizarre concept to grasp, but I have heard this from serious cosmologists.

I recommend this BBC Documentary presented by the articulate Professor Brian. Cox:

"Do You Know What Time It Is?"

 

[Leçi]

@Leà§i​

The title seems self-explenatory. Does time go at the speed of light?

???

Try: Does time objects travel through time - at the speed of light?

= Yes.

Objects in the universe apparently move through time at the speed of light, though not necessarily through space at the same rate. It's indeed an extremely bizarre concept to grasp, but I have heard this from serious cosmologists.

I recommend this BBC Documentary presented by the articulate Professor Brian. Cox:

"Do You Know What Time It Is?"

That's pretty much all I wanted to know, thx. I guess time doesn't travel at the speed of light, everything else travels through time at that speed.

 

[>< V ><]

Clearly. I am not new a "New Age Atheist". I am an atheist. I don't describe myself rational, or reasoned, or sceptical, or any of the other terms the rubes of Youtube apply to themselves without a hint of irony (you can check); Hytegia isn't an atheist (rational, reasonable or otherwise).

There you have examples of two of the four or five members you've interacted with so far. So in the face of evidence to the contrary do you still contend that this is "the League of New Age Atheists"?

I have judged the group based upon a collection of information. According to you, I should judge the group based upon the two of you.

As for the George Bush comment: seems inciting, but who am I to speak.

It's a test I do to see who are the reasonable.

LoL! You half understand it and then claim that it actually supports your view? I see that your knowledge on physics comes from what you hear in pop culture, i.e. bad physics.

You never elaborated on exactly what part of Carl Sagan's comment I got wrong, thus a baseless claim. What part about "All clocks, mechanical and biological, tick more slowly near the speed of light" do you not understand?

There is no "centripetal" force in a orthonormal coordinate system, to have a "centripetal" force you must either use a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system, and the problem with this is that it presupposes a reference frame centered on the pole (not pole as in north and south pole, but a mathematical pole).

Cylindrical and spherical coordinates are orthonormal. They have basis vectors that have length 1 and are mutually orthogonal. You need to pay better attention to detail.

What this is still high school level physics, and it also happens to be wrong, you can no longer simply invoke the centripetal acceleration to explain the net motion of the objects because you have tangential accelerations as well.

Where did I say "net motion"? I clearly said, a centripetal acceleration demands a net force. You need to pay better attention to detail.

Again more high school physics, and again wrong. Because you are still thinking in terms of the one body problem. You can still have gravity and yet no net force of gravity and no net acceleration given that the force is balanced out by other bodies with mass, true that it is unstable and impractical to achieve perfection but that doesn't change the fact that you can have that. In fact a derivative of this property is the main principle behind the fixing of the Soho satellite.

The Soho satellite is in what's called a halo orbit. ORBIT. You need to pay better attention to detail. Yes, there are Lagrange points, but they ORBIT. Even Lagrange points between galaxies are changing in position, because of the motion of galaxies.

For a Lagrange point, anywhere in the universe to be stationary, means every galaxy in the universe has to be stationary. If just one galaxy moves, then so does the Lagrange point. This is what you are arguing for, that every object is at rest, in order to hold onto your belief that there is at least one object "absolutely" at rest. You pay a heavy price to cherish your belief.

But since you are such an expert on Newtonian gravity, there is a sort of a question that I tend to put to people I suspect to be bullshiting. Tell me using Newtons equation for gravity:
F=G*M*m/(R^2)
And lets imagine that you have a cluster of asteroids with total mass M whit a center of mass on point P.
And this is what I want you to do. You are going to tell me in which coordinate system is the force of gravity expressed in. You are going to select an arbitrary geometry for the distribution of the asteroids with a number not lower than 4, you are going to select an arbitrary geometry that encompasses all asteroids and tell me the expression for the flow of the gravitic force for the geometry you chose.
Fortunately this is not easily found on the web (which is where I suspect you get your knowledge from), if you can give me the right answer then I will not dismiss the next post you make as the ramblings of an ignorant baboon. If you are not able to, then consider yourself busted and you can crawl back to the cave which you have come from.
Hint: it is a softball question.

There is no flow of time, but there is a "flow for the gravitic force"? You're going to have to enlighten me as to what your lay person terminology specifically means.

No, it doesn't do that at all, nothing in the "Einstein's four dimensional universe" claims that there is no center of the universe, what it spouses is that the laws of physics are the same anywhere in the Universe in any frame of reference. And Newtonian physics did not require a center to the universe to have an absolute frame of reference. As far as I'm concerned the 2 are completely unrelated.

The laws of physics are the same throughout all space and time is an assumption Einstein used to derive general relativity. According to general relativity, the universe is like an inflating balloon, with the surface of the balloon as representing our universe. And the surface of a balloon has no center. If we were two dimensional creatures living on the surface of a balloon, exactly which direction would you point that would lead me to the center?

What you call "proper time" is in fact the time according to a predefined frame of reference of my choosing.

What I call proper time is what every credible physicist calls proper time. What you refer to is called "coordinate time". Proper time is invariant, coordinate time is non-invariant and is from "a predefined frame of reference of my choosing". I have already stated this previously. You need to pay better attention to detail.

It is both. And to explain that I would have to answer the question which I have posed to you and you have yet refused to answer.

The fact remains, you stated a contradiction and have not yet explained it. Why not just explain yourself? Instead of looking for my comments to see if you can spin them into an error.

Which means exactly what I said. You can argue what you like, the equations don't lie.

If (c*dt)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2, which you are assuming by saying they are interchangable, specifically means the object is traveling at the speed of light, as I stated in my previous post. You need to pay better attention to detail. Clearly, such an exchange is not true in general, which such an exchange you are suggesting, should be. Mass cannot travel at the speed of light and thus your exchange is prohibited when concerning objects with mass. And a person that ages slower when increasing velocity, is an object with mass.

That would be V=dr/dt not v=d/t.

You can't even understand algebraic physics correctly, let alone calculus physics, let alone tensor calculus of general relativity.

Except of course you forgot the scale factor C. It should be read V=d(T*c)/dt, since C is a constant you should have V= C*dT/dt. So lets do the unit analysis, to aid the view lets use SI units. V[m/s]=C[m/s] dT/dt <=> [m/s]=[m/s]*/=[m/s]*1 =[m/s]. What would you know, it matches.

That is obviously trivial. v = (v*t)/t will always be v = v. That is not physics, but mathematics. Interchangable specifically means, d -> t AND t -> d. But that's not what you did. You chose d -> c*t and completely ignored the exchange of t -> d.

Clearly, your exchange d = c*t is travel at the speed of light. Clearly, such an exchange is prohibited concerning an object with mass.



Time has a rate that changes. Instead of just accepting the reality of physics, you will justify your belief with more incorrect physics.

Just like a creationist.

As Feynman said, "...it's the way nature works. If you want to know the way nature works, we looked at it, carefully...you look at it, see? That's the way it looks. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. To another universe, where the rules are simpler. Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy."

http://www.youtube.com/user/IIXVXII#p/f/1/iMDTcMD6pOw

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I have judged the group based upon a collection of information. According to you, I should judge the group based upon the two of you.

Dang it! You so stubborn, mate...

Hytegia isn't an atheist. Which pretty much pwned your whole argument. In other words, a failed ad hominem remark. Deal the fuck with it, I say.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

If (c*dt)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 +dx^2, which you are assuming by saying they are interchangable, specifically means the object is traveling at the speed of light, as I stated in my previous post.

Incorrect. Four velocity is not the time derivative of four displacement. Four velocity is the PROPER TIME derivative of four displacement. That means it includes a dct/dτ component as the first component of the four vector.

Hence four velocity v = <γct, γvx, γvy, γvz> which has the squared magnitude of c^2 under the Lorentzian quadratic form with signature +---. It has this magnitude both for objects traveling at light speed AND objects not traveling at light speed, because accelerations act like a hyperbolic rotation in four velocity space. Every object has the same magnitude of four velocity, just different direction. An object with a higher three velocity traveling in the same direction as an object with less three velocity has the same magnitude of four velocity, but a different direction. Lorentz boosts change direction of four velocity, not magnitude.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

To clarify, you are correct if you think that c^2t^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 defines a light-like, or null displacement vector, and that for general displacement vectors, this does not hold. If that's all you were saying, then I agree, and I'm sorry for correcting you. If you were trying to say something else besides this, then I disagree.

 

[>< V ><]

I have judged the group based upon a collection of information. According to you, I should judge the group based upon the two of you.

Dang it! You so stubborn, mate...

Hytegia isn't an atheist. Which pretty much pwned your whole argument. In other words, a failed ad hominem remark. Deal the fuck with it, I say.

Judging a group based upon one individual is the logical fallacy of composition. Deal with it.

To clarify, you are correct if you think that c^2t^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 defines a light-like, or null displacement vector, and that for general displacement vectors, this does not hold. If that's all you were saying, then I agree, and I'm sorry for correcting you.

Wise decision. Next time, try reading previous posts in a thread to understand the context.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Judging a group based upon one individual is the logical fallacy of composition. Deal with it.

But blanketing a group based upon one's own biases is, itself, one of the most common pieces of fallacious logic in the history of debate and discussion.

I judge people on the individual level - for example, I find you to be a hypocritical twit for saying that anything but your blanket notion of a severely-misinformed insult is itself a fallacy.
Either recant your statement being based upon some kind of rational basis and admit that it is just your petty notions and a need to be sarcastic, or you can just continue to be a hypocritical twit.
Deal with it.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Judging a group based upon one individual is the logical fallacy of composition. Deal with it.

As hytegia pointed out, we're not trying to get you to do that. It's your fallacious generalization and misinformed insult that's wrong here... get it? I'd suggest you admit it or you'll keep being seen as a stubborn, childish hypocrite.

 

[australopithecus]

It's a test I do to see who are the reasonable.

So throwing in non-sequiturs regarding which side of the political spectrum makes you feel special in a thread quite very clearly on the topic of physics is a test of reasonableness?

Methinks you need a better test.

 

[Prolescum]

Clearly. I am not new a "New Age Atheist". I am an atheist. I don't describe myself rational, or reasoned, or sceptical, or any of the other terms the rubes of Youtube apply to themselves without a hint of irony (you can check); Hytegia isn't an atheist (rational, reasonable or otherwise).

There you have examples of two of the four or five members you've interacted with so far. So in the face of evidence to the contrary do you still contend that this is "the League of New Age Atheists"?

I have judged the group based upon a collection of information.

Oh really?

By which criteria do you judge?
How have you measured the criteria against your "group"?
What are the major characteristics of this "group"?
How many of them actively display the characteristics you've given to the "group" to ascertain the legitimacy of your assumptions and where did you obtain this information?
How many non-atheists are required for the description "the League of New Age Atheists" to be considered inaccurate?

How about putting forth the information you gathered to determine this:

Most people here have the intellect of an average atheist

How did you determine "most" and where did you obtain the information?
What is "an average atheist"?
How did you determine the average?
Which scale are you using to measure intellect?

There are many more questions awaiting your response.

According to you, I should judge the group based upon the two of you.

I didn't say that at all so it's not "according to me"; I gave two examples that showed the flaws of your statement that "this is the League of New Age Atheists that are trying to re-label themselves as "reasoned", "rationalists", because apparently, one is only reasoned or rational if they are an atheist."

Your arse-bullets won't be tolerated here, sonny.

As for the George Bush comment: seems inciting, but who am I to speak.

It's a test I do to see who are the reasonable.

This is so cute!

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Most people here have the intellect of an average atheist

Obviously you're an exception