|
Chronic7

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
The Big Bang Theory...
#8080471 - 02/28/08 06:42 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
How many here believe in this?
--------------------
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8080474 - 02/28/08 06:45 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Its a useful model, who cares if its correct? My view on evolution vs. creationism too.
I think in science its good to be agnostic about things that aren't really practical considerations.
|
Sage.Phish
Guerrilla Farmer



Registered: 02/17/08
Posts: 598
Loc: City 17
Last seen: 9 years, 8 days
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8080558 - 02/28/08 07:48 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
nah, some dude in heaven made everyone out of dust :P
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8080561 - 02/28/08 07:50 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It's currently the best theory we have 
It's a wonderful theory, but it's only that: a theory. Waiting to be replaced by the next.
For the record, I think that based on current knowledge of physics the universe began 15 or so billion years ago, in something resembling a "big bang" type event.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8080627 - 02/28/08 08:25 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
All the evidence points to it, so no matter what we 'feel' is correct we should accept it (unless we observe new, differing evidence).
|
Anno
Experimenter




Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 7 days, 1 hour
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: trendal]
#8080672 - 02/28/08 08:45 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: It's a wonderful theory, but it's only that: a theory. Waiting to be replaced by the next.
Watch this:
|
Annom
※※※※※※




Registered: 12/22/02
Posts: 6,367
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 year, 3 days
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Anno]
#8080689 - 02/28/08 08:53 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything." - Richard Feynman
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Annom]
#8080946 - 02/28/08 10:42 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I did not mean to downplay the importance of what a "theory" in science is, just trying to point out that while it is "currently accepted" we are only ever one discovery away from a new theory.
I think this sums up what a theory is to science: "We regard all these theories as well supported, testable explanations, that provide natural explanations for natural phenomena."
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Anno
Experimenter




Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 7 days, 1 hour
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: trendal]
#8081103 - 02/28/08 11:22 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I wasn't sure, thus I brought this video up so that the ones who don't know the concept of a scientific theory don't think of it as merely some kind of an "idea" or even a "guess".
|
dlepi
Trippin' Billies




Registered: 07/19/07
Posts: 331
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Anno]
#8081130 - 02/28/08 11:28 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I believe in the Big Bang theory which makes sense more then i do that i have great ancestors who were made out of dust and and a male rib. but that's just my view haha.
-------------------- We had two bags of grass, pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shakerhalf-full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multicolored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers. Also a quart of tequila,a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, two dozen amyls. -Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Debunked Marijuana Myths
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: trendal]
#8082304 - 02/28/08 04:56 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: I did not mean to downplay the importance of what a "theory" in science is, just trying to point out that while it is "currently accepted" we are only ever one discovery away from a new theory.
Yea but that new theory will almost certainly be only a slight modification of the current theory. That has been the pattern with new theories so far.
|
trendal
J♠



Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: DieCommie]
#8082768 - 02/28/08 06:33 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
It will probably only be a small modification, keeping in line with other recent discoveries in science
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8084881 - 02/29/08 03:23 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Big Bang is the only convincing way to explain the Cosmic Background Radiation, the Cosmological Red-shift, and other pools of observed evidence.
Until a better explanation for the CBR and CRS shows up, I'll accept Big Bang as the likely correct explanation.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Diploid]
#8084951 - 02/29/08 04:44 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Until a better explanation for the CBR and CRS shows up, I'll accept Big Bang as the likely correct explanation.
I'm with Diploid on this. Couldn't have said it better, myself.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Ginseng1
Elegant Universe



Registered: 09/02/04
Posts: 3,310
Last seen: 9 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Seuss]
#8086815 - 02/29/08 04:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Big bang I think is pretty much right on, but this was not the beginning of All-That-Is... only the beginning of THIS universe. And perhaps not the beginning of this universe but maybe a recycling of it? Anyway, i think its right on but by no means marks the start. Maybe just the birth of a blackhole in another universe?
-------------------- Flowing through beginningless time since time without beginning...
|
Learyfan
It's the psychedelic movement!



Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 34,267
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 18 hours, 52 minutes
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8089678 - 03/01/08 12:38 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
^
-------------------- -------------------------------- Mp3 of the month: Sons Of Adam - Feathered Fish
|
Chronic7

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Learyfan]
#8090546 - 03/01/08 04:35 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about the shape of the universe?
Whats the latest on that lol
--------------------
Edited by Chronic7 (03/01/08 04:41 PM)
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8090846 - 03/01/08 05:50 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
|
angryshroom
Stranger



Registered: 12/18/01
Posts: 7,264
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Diploid]
#8090937 - 03/01/08 06:10 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Diploid said: Big Bang is the only convincing way to explain the Cosmic Background Radiation, the Cosmological Red-shift, and other pools of observed evidence.
Until a better explanation for the CBR and CRS shows up, I'll accept Big Bang as the likely correct explanation.
BINGO!
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Sage.Phish]
#8092556 - 03/02/08 01:58 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sage.Phish said: nah, some dude in heaven made everyone out of dust :P
I don't view the big bang as incompatible with creationism. I believe in evolution for the most part, but that doesn't mean I think its likely we all evolved from a beaker of dissolved gasses.
On some questions, the simplest solution given all known evidence is that a guy in the clouds did make us.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8092575 - 03/02/08 02:20 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
> I don't view the big bang as incompatible with creationism.
To be fair, nothing is incompatible with creationism. God could have created everything just now, and all that I know or remember was simply planted by God to complete the reality of my experience. (I know what you mean; I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of arguing against a fantasy.)
> On some questions, the simplest solution given all known evidence is that a guy in the clouds did make us.
Perhaps the simplest to understand on the surface, but if you start digging into the complexities of "who made the guy that made us" or "why do we suffer", etc, then simple becomes complex. The people that buy into the simple argument tend to use "God's will is too complex to understand" or "it is part of God's plan" type of responses... so much for simple.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Chronic7

Registered: 05/08/04
Posts: 13,679
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Seuss]
#8092743 - 03/02/08 05:38 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I don't view the big bang as incompatible with creationism.
To be fair, nothing is incompatible with creationism. God could have created everything just now, and all that I know or remember was simply planted by God to complete the reality of my experience. (I know what you mean; I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of arguing against a fantasy.)
> On some questions, the simplest solution given all known evidence is that a guy in the clouds did make us.
Perhaps the simplest to understand on the surface, but if you start digging into the complexities of "who made the guy that made us" or "why do we suffer", etc, then simple becomes complex. The people that buy into the simple argument tend to use "God's will is too complex to understand" or "it is part of God's plan" type of responses... so much for simple.
Gods will is the easiest thing to understand in the world, if you stop tryint to understand
--------------------
Edited by Chronic7 (03/02/08 05:49 AM)
|
AbominableShaman
AbominableShamanable



Registered: 01/09/08
Posts: 543
Loc: Alaska
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8092759 - 03/02/08 05:58 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
hahaha Jesus is the way, the truth and white! Blahaha
--------------------

|
Diploid
Cuban



Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW!
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
calgone47
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/06
Posts: 71
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Ginseng1]
#8095120 - 03/02/08 08:15 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ginseng1 said: Big bang I think is pretty much right on, but this was not the beginning of All-That-Is... only the beginning of THIS universe. And perhaps not the beginning of this universe but maybe a recycling of it?
I love this thought. Goes right along with Hindu ideas and really makes you think hard about the Big Crush
Edited by calgone47 (03/02/08 08:16 PM)
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Seuss]
#8095212 - 03/02/08 08:45 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I don't view the big bang as incompatible with creationism.
To be fair, nothing is incompatible with creationism. God could have created everything just now, and all that I know or remember was simply planted by God to complete the reality of my experience. (I know what you mean; I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of arguing against a fantasy.)
> On some questions, the simplest solution given all known evidence is that a guy in the clouds did make us.
Perhaps the simplest to understand on the surface, but if you start digging into the complexities of "who made the guy that made us" or "why do we suffer", etc, then simple becomes complex. The people that buy into the simple argument tend to use "God's will is too complex to understand" or "it is part of God's plan" type of responses... so much for simple.
yep, nothing is incompatible with creationism, I agree. I just don't like the people who conflate creationism with biblical history, the bible's alleged impossibilities donnot disprove creationism in general.
W/ regards to the simpplest solution... yeah, in a way.
But both creationism and the big bang suffer from the same eventual question... who made the creator? Who started the process? In that way, we can never hope to avoid creationism per se.
The emphasis I'd make is upon the actual first-tier solution you agree that creationism applied to life has a real advantage. As said above, both the big bang as teh genisis of life (eventually, w/ no interference by intelligent 'gods') and creationism have problems we can't overcome when reduced far enough.
But only intelligent creationism of life solves the problem of how did we come to be?
Now, I am aware of the fallacy of looking backwards, calculating probability (speaking quantitativly or qualitativly), i.e. you could flip a coin and calculate its exact position vs. time and record such to a certain percision. Another could look at your notes, and decide "this could never have happened! The odds that this coin would travel exactly this path are immeasurably small!"
This is similar to the criticism my theory is most vulnerable to.. just cuz the exact way life began is unlikely, doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that its less likely than an alternative (like the coin's path).
What I'm saying is that it seems hard to buy that all the complex mechanisms for life were the result of chance... that huge DNA chains and the proteins they encode, were the result of chance. That that DNA was made spontaneously along with the proteins necessary to support it, so that the DNA could direct life, and replicate. That seems a hard sell.
But like most things in science, I'm agnostic to a degree. It doesn't matter, and isn't something that needs to be discussed in high school per se, or very much.
I just have a hard time with combining these mechanisms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models
With the smallest genome being still 160,000 base pairs, according to google http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2006/10/worlds-smallest-genome-of-cellular.html
and this organism being unable to survive without its symbiotic partner, its hard to see random chance giving rise to even simple biological necessities.
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8096045 - 03/03/08 01:10 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No i dont believe in it ..
It explains a lot , but it has no relevance itself too me , the component parts that support the 'big-bang" theory stand pretty much on their own in my mind .
Not saying its wrong , just that the psychological need for a theory in regards to this matter is not currently part of my intellectual make-up .
Johnm214 .. the DNA game is more or perhaps less than meets the eye .
What i recall as a theory from 20 years plus ago is that the primary form of genetic information was RNA and that there was a switch at some event to DNA as a storage molecule .
Havent looked into it at all recently , but perhaps RNA//DNA transition was at something like one hundred sixty thousand base pairs .. perhaps it was the increasing size of RNA chains that in part pushed the DNA switch.
Interesting the symbiotic relationship you mention .. i wonder if the early RNA//DNA transition used the pathway of symbiotic relationships as a way of functioning in the new DNA environment .
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
Diglottic_Sun
Stranger in astrange land


Registered: 12/15/07
Posts: 35
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8110603 - 03/06/08 11:34 AM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
the cyclic model of the universe has my attention.
that is, the universe is on cycles of big 'bangs' and 'crunches'
however, general relativity doesn't predict this occurring in the natural universe.
|
AbominableShaman
AbominableShamanable



Registered: 01/09/08
Posts: 543
Loc: Alaska
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
Diglottic_Sun said: the cyclic model of the universe has my attention.
that is, the universe is on cycles of big 'bangs' and 'crunches'
however, general relativity doesn't predict this occurring in the natural universe.
I think we all need a good ole dose of Carl Sagan every once in a while
--------------------

|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
|
Quote:
Snowmansdsm09 said:
Quote:
Diglottic_Sun said: the cyclic model of the universe has my attention.
that is, the universe is on cycles of big 'bangs' and 'crunches'
however, general relativity doesn't predict this occurring in the natural universe.
I think we all need a good ole dose of Carl Sagan every once in a while
Ahmm ,, that hypothesis would have zero nada nil evidence to support it though ..
In a way it comes down to the classic Greek opinion of things being in a everchanging state of flux .. The cyclic model is favoring repetition , but without any evidence - sort of like building without foundations ..
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
Edited by cleeen (03/10/08 07:17 AM)
|
ponetony
Mr. BananaGrabber



Registered: 01/07/08
Posts: 128
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: Chronic7]
#8129378 - 03/10/08 08:51 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
In think thus far with the evidence with big bang theory is sound. it is seeming to stand up well with the new developments in theoretical physics and string theory aswell because sting theory changed a lot about how we now can view the universe.
-------------------- Word to your moms I came to drop bombs I gots more rhymes than the bibles got psalms
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw


Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 11 hours, 11 minutes
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8132383 - 03/11/08 03:17 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
i don't see why not... i mean, without gravity, all you'd have is a big cloud of gaseous substance in space. with gravity the clouds compress together until there is too much gravity and energy is created, you have suns, and then with suns, major reactions through the clouds occur, creating explosions, new atoms, and molecules, and such. When a lot of this cools, planets are formed, and liquids, gases. I couldn't see it any other way...
makes sense to me.... isn't there really no other theory to prove why such energy could exist, and then create elements and atoms and all types of shit, then a planet. WIthout hydrogen fusion explosions, no energy could create new atoms, right?
basically all atoms were once hydrogen, right? until stable fusions occured, which is still a bit of a mystery to me.
it's works like this, right? without stable fusion, all atoms would be radioactive, and thus experse the energy fusing together in the core of the fusion, where the nucleus of atoms fuse, and the electrons gain energy and gather more atoms, right? in a constant give and take and give and take reaction, keeping it stable?
so with the stable fusion, somehow new atoms can be created, and not have overly radioactive properties, all atoms are radioactive, but some take millions and millions of years to break down, being that the radiation it gives is practically nothing. Out of all the food you eat, once a year, a few atoms have broken down and given you radiation, right?
basically, when the gases in space create gravity, all that gravity sucks up atoms and pulls them so closely, that there's fusion, right? when all the energy is used up, the star dies, and there's still a massive amount of gravity at the center of the solar system or whatever, that's so strong is pulls in everything, including light, no more fusion occurs, but everything that is pulled through, is said to come out the other side.
things traveling the speed of light, tend to live in a time frame, faster or slower than those not at the speed of light. so something like a black hole, with enough gravity to pull in light, would probably pull in the fabric of such exitence itself, consuming light, matter, and probably time, if you lived long enough to see what happened in a black hole, you'd probably see yourself slow down, consumed by gravity, time itself would probably feel like it's pulling together and slowing way down. maybe even the fabric of your mind would be pulled together and feel however it'd feel. pretty nuts, your conception would collapse under the immense pressure of gravity. But i doubt you'd live long enough for that, probably crushed way before you got to the center of the black hole.
but who knows, maybe it's so strong when your entering, what is it called, the event horizon or something, you'd feel time slow down, and your mind change, if light is being sucked in, but maybe that's way after you'd be crushed.
wouldn't a ship the size of the titanic entering a black hole end up being completely collapsed into the size of a microscopic dot or some shit? damn, that's pretty heavy.
imagine someone dropping that on you.
anyway, i guess that got carried away, but none the less. It makes sense to me, scientifally it seems hard to disprove.
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
numonkei
Back! From thedigestive tractof dave theiguana!


Registered: 04/12/06
Posts: 2,500
Loc: A Tree
Last seen: 7 years, 2 months
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: johnm214]
#8143354 - 03/13/08 08:35 PM (16 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There is absolutely NO truly convincing evidence that a guy in the clouds made us.
Many of the supporting theories of the Big Bang theory is very suitable and convincing evidence. However, the problem with taking this idea, as is, as a full explanation of the origin and nature of the universe is that such a full belief makes one unmoved by later admission of contrary evidence.
As I stated, much of the model is a strong fit, but it is disturbing when "objective scientists" begin going out of there way to fit the evidence around the theory instead of fitting the theory around the evidence. This is effectively the same danger to rational advance as many fundamentally religious doctrines that allows evidence to be fit exclusively to it's given text.
Basically, is Gluth's theory of primordial inflation a theoretical proposal, or gospel?
~Monk
|
cleeen
Stranger



Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 383
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: numonkei]
#8185101 - 03/23/08 09:51 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Inflation .. lol dont tell me it was a 80's macro-economist who coined that term for physics 
Personally i find it difficult to accept a theory of a universe that began from a single point yet has no centre point/ centre of mass ..
I dont see why the std text book theorists cannot just say .. expanding universe from a single "point of origin" .. with centre of mass loci as yet undefined ..
After all if there is no centre of mass for the universe then ipso facto there is no proof that we are not at the centre of the universe after all ..
-------------------- It's a beautiful lie .. It's a perfect denial . Such a beautiful lie to believe in So beautiful, beautiful it makes me .. Nikopol: You piece of shit! Your objectives are shit. Your filthy rapist god ambitions are shit. You're full of shit, Horus! Horus: Coming from a human, remarks like that don't carry much weight. Nikopol: But all that it is not worth of prodigy of your saliva, Jill.
|
DieCommie


Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: The Big Bang Theory... [Re: cleeen]
#8185134 - 03/23/08 09:58 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
After all if there is no centre of mass for the universe then ipso facto there is no proof that we are not at the centre of the universe after all ..
So if there is no center of mass, we could be at the center of mass? uhhh, no... there is no center of mass that means we, and no other planet is at it. You can put all the fancy latin you want in it, doesn't make it true.
|
|