Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi


Doesnt matter when you look at smaller and smaller areas the act of doing so confines the space.You cant have it both ways sorry.

You just keep proving to objective reality, logic, and truth how wrong your thinking is.

Objective reality, physics, (I dont know if it is anymore, but) should be about knowing and understanding objective reality as most exactly as it is in and of itself.

Space should (and does) exist without observing it. The theory of physics, that energy exists at every point of space, SHOULD BE TRUE WITHOUT US OBSERVING IT, THIS IS WHAT OBJECTIVITY MEANS, THIS IS WHAT TRUTH MEANS, IF ALL HUMANS WERE TO DIE TOMORROW, KNOWLEDGE ABOUT REALITY IS SUPPOSE TO MEAN THAT, THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT REALITY, WOULD STILL BE TRUE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO SAY, IT IS TRUE THAT SPACE HAS ENERGY VALUES AT EVERY POINT OF IT. THEN THAT MUST BE TRUE WHETHER WE OBSERVE It, OR LOOK AT SMALLER AND SMALLER AREAS OF IT OR NOT.

THERE IS A REAL DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR STAR AND THE NEAREST STAR. I CAN SAY, HALF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR STAR AND THE NEAREST STAR. I CAN SAY A QUARTER OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN OUR STAR AND THE NEAREST STAR. AND I CAN TALK ABOUT THOSE REAL DISTANCES AND AREAS OF SPACE, WITHOUT CONFINING THEM TO A REAL MATERIAL CONFINED BOX.

THEREFOR I CAN TALK ABOUT AN AREA X WHICH IS ARBITRARY AREA IN INCHES, AND AREA Y WHICH IS AREA X MULTIPLIED BY 100 INCHES.

AND IF WE AGREE THAT ENERGY EXISTS AT EVERY POINT IN SPACE.

AND AREA X THEN HAS ITS FINITE POINTS OF SPACE, WITH ITS FINITE VALUE OF ENERGY.

AND AREA Y IS LARGER THEN AREA X. THEN AREA Y HAS MORE ENERGY. BECAUSE IT HAS MORE SPACE. BECAUSE SPACE HAS POINTS OF ENERGY AT ALL POINTS OF IT. AND AREA Y BEING A LARGER AREA OF SPACE, WITH MORE POINTS OF ENERGY IN IT. WOULD HAVE MORE ENERGY IN IT.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol, that so funny because Copenhagen interpretation is the worst idea. It is however the 'cool' idea and probably good at attracting young kids to physics.

Interesting timing. I was just reading about this here debunkingrelativity.com...

I like that page because it puts into words an idea I've had for a while about this. I don't like the word ether though. It is confusing. EFER - Energetic Field of Electromagnetic Radiation might work though.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol, that so funny because Copenhagen interpretation is the worst idea. It is however the 'cool' idea and probably good at attracting young kids to physics.

Interesting timing. I was just reading about this here debunkingrelativity.com...

I like that page because it puts into words an idea I've had for a while about this. I don't like the word ether though. It is confusing. EFER - Energetic Field of Electromagnetic Radiation might work though.

I actually made a mistake I think. I think the Copenhagen interpretation might be the best interpretation. I got it confused with the 'many worlds interpretation'.

Copenhagen interpretation I believe expresses, what I always intuitively argued for and felt. That quantum mechanics is not an objective description or mapping of objective reality, but the best current tool set man has been able to develop, to predict the fundamental nature, man truly knows little about (fundamentally...there is no reason to expect man to, and there is little hope it is even possible to a posteriori be born in a reality and then comprehend fundamental natures of the reality which 'nothing else/the reality itself' does not even know what it is. Meaning reaching the limit of comparison. Yes something physicists may often say, there is nothing to compare the quantum world to, because it doesnt act like the classical world, and it is the smallest portion of reality, there is nothing outside reality to compare the fundamental nature of reality to. So it is just a tautological existence, whatever 'it' is, 'is' it).

So I believe the Copenhagen interpretation refers to the fact that man has created rules and systems, of recording the way events occur when tampered with experimentally, written down regularities, but these are not the regularities completely and fully of the objective reality, but regularities of their modes of tamperment. How can we comprehend what a gravity field or EM field is, yes we touch atoms with atoms to know what atoms are. We do the same thing with chemicals, and we create or systems of hierarchy and comparisons using quantity and quality (see table of elements, see table of fundamental particles). But when light doesnt react to light, how can we see light, how can we use energy or matter to touch a field, and know a field, what it in and of itself is? How do we proverbially become the field, as one, becoming a man, may know what it is to be a man (though still hardly completely), but still, this is the task of objectivity. If one could know and see and be aware and comprehend everything, everything there is to know and see and understand about something, such as an apple, or the EM field or gravity field, then exactly, what would that everything, of knowing, and seeing, and understanding, entail, what would it be, what would it describe, how is it, what is it, why is it, where is it, when is it?

a reply to: ImaFungi

What do you think about the material at the link in my previous post? debunkingrelativity.com...

It's a short read.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ImaFungi

What do you think about the material at the link in my previous post? debunkingrelativity.com...

It's a short read.

Im skeptical of anyone who so adamantly hates relativity. We share the same opinion on the double slit experiment. Everything 'supernatural', all the hype and hub bub about the double slit experiment, imo, was misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It was surprising to those physicists at the time, the results, of shaking their interpretation on what particles were, what quanta was, what energy was, and how it behaved in relation to other material. But all the 'psychedelic' interpretation of the experiment I believe come out of left field, and arent entirely justified or warranted, so I believe with the guy in the article. I dont think it has to do with anything about Einsteins relativity, because I think Einstein held the same view as that guy, Einstein was a great skeptic and critical thinker, very cautious when handling hot truth.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What a school child. Oh my god. Many worlds interpretation is NO. It equals wrong. A schizophrenic could have burped out the same 'theory' while having a seizure in an alleyway and he would have been just as wrong.

Hypothesis: Noone knows what a field is, how it exists, how it works, how its coupled to an electron, how light propagates from this coupling as the electron is accelerated.

Experiment: If my hypothesis is false, someone who believes otherwise, will show me a diagram, which I hope will prove my hypothesis wrong. I only want to see my hypothesis proven wrong. All I want is to see how a field exists, the Electro and Magnetic components, and how the electron is coupled to it, and how when an electron is accelerated, the field is attached to the electron, and propagates radiation.

Result: Pending

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Hypothesis: Noone knows what a field is, how it exists, how it works, how its coupled to an electron, how light propagates from this coupling as the electron is accelerated.

Experiment: If my hypothesis is false, someone how believes otherwise, will show me a diagram, which I hope will prove my hypothesis wrong. I only want to see my hypothesis proven wrong. All I want is to see how a field exists, the Electro and Magnetic components, and how the electron is coupled to it, and how when an electron is accelerated, the field is attached to the electron, and propagates radiation.

Result: Pending

Again you want simple answers without understanding the science involved. Theres stuff we havnt even discussed with you because we try to keep it general. But we could go into polarons and there effects on magnetic fields for example. See you want a simple answer that involves hundreds of experiments thousands of papers in one diagram.We have tried to give you an over view and your complaint its not specific enough. If we gave you the background you need i might as well charge you for a college course in physics. See a field is simply altered space around an object that can push or pull another object.Its created by the particle being there no particle no field.You are trying to fit it into your beliefs on the universe and then want to tell us its wrong based on your beliefs. Try a diffrent approach you want to learn what science tells us than take the time to learn instead of dismissing it. You claim to know the basics yet you get lost when we try to explain principles. Now is understanding complete by no means we continually make new discoveries but thats science.

No one claims to have all the answers but there is things that we can rule out do to experimentation which taught us laws we can use to describe the universe. But does the universe actually have these laws of course not it is for our understanding of why things are the way they are. Theres not a rule book to the universe when it was created certain interactions were allowed others were not are laws is nothing more than a description of what the universe will and wont allow us to do.

a reply to: ImaFungi

This is not how science is conducted. Much of this is saying "I believe the sky is red, until you show me otherwise then it must be red"

So we point and we say well look at it.

and you shake your head "No Red"

There is really no need for a diagram for this, because a field cannot really be represented in a way that shows physical reality. You want to understand the binding between electrons and fields? and you don't even look at maxwells equations.

You also just tag the word 'relativity' on everything that has nothing to do with relativity.

When you talk about accelerators and how they operate, of course they require to take care of relativistic effects in their design, but all day every day requirements (like 99.99999% of the time) there is no requirement to invoke relativity. The double slit has nothing to do with relativity so it makes me laugh sometimes when people talk about it and talk about relativity because the two are really not one and the same. Double slit is quantum mechanics, and not even relativistic quantum mechanics.

www.docstoc.com...

nice talk about accelerators with field lines drawn etc depending on the diagram, of course i don't expect this to be even read or considered because the diagram you ask for is not drawable because you wouldn't really accept it anyway.

want a nice titbit about optics, magnetics, and electromagnetism, the magneto-optical drive is a great example of tailoring materials and knowing the properties of electromagnetism and the interplay between electro-magnetic fields in order to produce a magnetic storage readable via a laser.

Science doesn't come up with this by being wrong... just thought you might appreciate that a little bit

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I actually made a mistake I think. I think the Copenhagen interpretation might be the best interpretation. I got it confused with the 'many worlds interpretation'.

Yeah I was wondering what the heck you were talking about as your first reply didn't make sense. Thanks for clarifying.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ImaFungi

What do you think about the material at the link in my previous post? debunkingrelativity.com...

I read about 20 pages worth of his stuff in addition to that one page. This guy's view is similar to the relativity denier GargIndia posting on ATS a few months ago, could be the same guy for all I know, but if not they have similar viewpoints.

Anyway my reply to that is similar to my reply to gargindia, which is that one must be woefully ignorant of what is going on at the LHC at CERN to deny relativity. The protons in experiments there would have to be traveling at over 100 times the speed of light at CERN to do what they do without relativity, and these guys seriously don't think we can measure the difference between 99% the speed of light and over 100 times the speed of light? Gargindia was claiming it might be some kind of instrument calibration issue. OK that might explain a miniscule error like the FTL neutrinos at CERN (actually it sort of was the explanation), but not a 100 fold error or over two orders of magnitude; such a large calibration error is beyond any reason. Once you realize that protons are traveling at 99.9999+% the speed of light at CERN and would have to be traveling over 100 times faster classically to do the same thing, the arguments against relativity fall apart. He actually doesn't seem to have much problem with quantum mechanics though which is interesting.

a reply to: ImaFungi
I guess we do agree on some things, as I don't buy into many worlds interpretation either, though if enough proof was presented to me, I could be convinced. I really don't know the correct interpretation, and obviously there's no consensus even among scientists so what hope does a layperson have of guessing correctly? What if the correct interpretation isn't even on the list of options?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Hypothesis: He or she who is asking the wrong question, may never get the right answer.

There is no satisfactory answer because you aren't asking the right question.

A similar question would be "How does all energy we use on Earth come from the sun?"

There is no right answer to that because while some energy like solar and arguably even fossil fuels had solar origins, nuclear power does not.

Similarly there is no right answer to your inquiry because you are starting with a presumption that isn't necessarily true as part of your question.

Just like the solar example which can explain how SOME energy comes from the sun, your question can be partially answered to show how SOME electromagnetic fields can be generated by classical electron motion. But your implied demand that all things be explained classically to your liking will not be fullfilled, because, quantum mechanics has shown otherwise.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn't pay much attention to the name of the website. Just that page interested me. Still does but maybe I'll ask more about it later.

Once you realize that protons are traveling at 99.9999+% the speed of light at CERN and would have to be traveling over 100 times faster classically to do the same thing,

What does that mean? Is it something to do with the distance decreasing with speed?

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: ImaFungi



There is really no need for a diagram for this, because a field cannot really be represented in a way that shows physical reality. You want to understand the binding between electrons and fields? and you don't even look at maxwells equations.

Why cant what maxwells equations are describing be expressed using imagery. THE MATH IS NOT DESCRIBING ABSOLUTE NOTHING IS IT? IF SOMETHING IS NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING, IT MUST BE SOMETHING, AINT THAT RIGHT? SOMETHING MUST BE SOME WAY. PHYSICISTS DO NOT KNOW WHAT FIELDS ARE, IF THEY CANT SHOW WHAT MAXWELLS EQUATIONS EXPRESS IN IMAGERY. THE UNIVERSE (EVEN IF WE CANT SEE IT, IS IMAGERY, IT IS OBJECTIVE, AS IN, OBJECTS, THAT ONE CAN NOT RATIONALLY OBJECT TO EXISTING).

there is really no need for a diagram for this = I have no clue what to imagine in my head when people talk about fields but the math is a useful tool.

EITHER FIELDS ARE A COMPONENT OF REALITY, OR THAT ARE NOT. WHICH ONE IS IT? IS IT MANS TOOL, STRICTLY A MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM TO USE TO POKE AT REALITY, OR IS IT ATTEMPTING TO EMBODY REALITY ITSELF?

IF IT IS THE ATTEMPT TO SYMBOLICALLY AND ACCURATELY EMBODY REAL REALITY, THEN A FIELD MUST BE SOMETHING THAT EXISTS IN REALITY IN SOME WAY. IF TRUE, THAT WAY A FIELD EXISTS IN REALITY MUST BE EXPRESSIBLE. IF IT CANNOT BE EXPRESSED IN IMAGERY, THEN THE THEORY, OR THE USERS AND KNOWERS OF THE THEORY, FAIL TO GRASP, AND FAIL TO PROVE, THAT THEIR THEORY EMBODIES, AND IS A SYMBOLIC REPLICA OF A REAL TRUE REALITY.

When you talk about accelerators and how they operate, of course they require to take care of relativistic effects in their design, but all day every day requirements (like 99.99999% of the time) there is no requirement to invoke relativity. The double slit has nothing to do with relativity so it makes me laugh sometimes when people talk about it and talk about relativity because the two are really not one and the same. Double slit is quantum mechanics, and not even relativistic quantum mechanics.

It makes me laugh aswell, because you would be hard pressed to find one or two examples of me doing this.

www.docstoc.com...

nice talk about accelerators with field lines drawn etc depending on the diagram, of course i don't expect this to be even read or considered because the diagram you ask for is not drawable because you wouldn't really accept it anyway.

If its what I am asking for, why wouldnt I accept it? Is this concedence on your part as to the lack of knowledge man has of the true nature of fundamental field and space? I just take this skwirming and skirting the issue to be fear or a baffled trapped animal seeking to escape a tight line of fire. I dont intend it to be this way, just admit you cannot provide an expression of how the EM field exists in space, and how the electron is coupled to it, and how when the electron vibrates EM radiation is propagated from point of coupling outward. Or show me a semi detailed expression of how the smartest physicists in the world know this occurs in reality.


Yea im not reading that paper, because you have to pay for a subscription, and you probably wrote it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Just like the solar example which can explain how SOME energy comes from the sun, your question can be partially answered to show how SOME electromagnetic fields can be generated by classical electron motion. But your implied demand that all things be explained classically to your liking will not be fullfilled, because, quantum mechanics has shown otherwise.

Are you consciously suggesting that quantum mechanics = we dont know whats going on? If so, I agree, which is why I asked my question. If people are suggesting that fields exist throughout all space. And this is how and why radiation exists. Then they are suggesting that, they know what a field is, they know how a field exists, and they know how it interacts with 'that which causes radiation' (which in my examples I use an electron). I am only asking, them to put their knowledge, into visuals, because even if we cant see it, all things that exist are 'visual, images'. If we were all blind, all things would still be objects, images, the concept of being, real. Just because we can all see, and we can see some stuff, and know them to be objects, doesnt mean the stuff we cant see, doesnt exist. If it exists but in funky and weird ways, show me how you think it exists in funky and weird ways. If you cant do that, you dont know what your talking about. You have not ventured far enough into the problem you have been attempting to solve, and thus creating a new, the burden to continue solving the problem, and you dont fully comprehend how the theory relates to reality, and there fore cannot confidently or realistically, or with detail, express how reality exists, these aspects of reality, which you claim are real, exist, and you know it, and know about them.

Do I really have to start showing you the state of the art digital artists and renders, even artists by hand, do you know the detail they are capable of achieving? You are telling me at know time in the past 100 years of modern physics, has a couple of superiorly knowing physicists sat down at a table with a couple of superior digital and hand drawing artists, to pull the visual and comprehensive knowledge of fields, electron, and radiation interaction, out from the physicists mind, so that they could visually express these fundamental objective quantities and qualities of reality?

My line of questioning and inquiry is innocent, justified, warranted, and correct! The reaction I have received from it, is everything that is wrong with science.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Here is the link where I explained that to GargIndia:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Basically the relativistic energy is over 10,000 times what it would be classically, and since energy classically is proportional to velocity squared, that means the classical velocity would have to be over 100 times faster than the speed of light to have the over 10,000 times greater energy observed at CERN.

The beam is just a limited number of protons and the energy of these protons is being compared to things like freight trains at full speed and aircraft carriers, and this just simply isn't possible without relativity at velocities less than the speed of light. Here's the video talking about the energy of the protons:

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Are you consciously suggesting that quantum mechanics = we dont know whats going on? If so, I agree, which is why I asked my question.

I thought I made it clear already but if not I guess that's a valid question. We know that our quantum mechanical models agree extremely well with experiment, but the point of my posting the sixty symbols video saying that scientists have no consensus about the real interpretation of quantum mechanics was intended to demonstrate just that.

Of course you are not going to read it... because its free actually, not paid for. So who is making assumptions now?

I feel no line of fire, nore do i squirm at this. Its ok if you want to think that to make yourself feel superior, but reality is quite a different story.

www.boundless.com...

is another nice example of explaining how particles move through magnetic fields as an example.

www.katrin.kit.edu... (free also) nice long PDF about a beta decay experiment Katrin, a huge spectroscope, has some mappings of electric fields of their spectroscope, represented as field line intensities and potential differences.

www.quantumdiaries.org...

nice mapping of the magnetic field of a Dipole magnet in the LHC, also free

a reply to: Arbitrageur

But yes there are gaps in our knowledge of science. If there weren't we'd have an awful lot of bored scientists with nothing new to figure out. Just don't use this as an excuse to make up explanations like electric sun which don't fit observation, KrzYma, please.

No, I think you misunderstood me, I'm using EU videos not to convince people the Sun is electric, well, it is actually partially for sure, remember, moving magnet field cause current flow and flowing current produces magnet fields ?

I think scientists shall start working together instead of isolating they work, denying any other theory and splitting everything apart. Everything is connected, everything works together.
Probability is not some random process, it's the result of interaction of everything.
(I don't mean everything as whole Universe, I mean everything that is happening in one particular place)

The problem we have is simple, scientists ignore everything they not interested in in an experiment.
I know it is hard to take everything into account specially if someone doesn't really know how many and what the parts really are or how they really work.

So yes, I post more videos from EU than Sixty Symbols for example, one reason is simple, I get some answers I'm looking for, the other reason is my aversion to MS propaganda. I know they lie so even is something is true what they say, I'm questioning it from the beginning on.

One example:
I've posted previously Dr. Gerald Pollack the Fourth Phase of Water video.
www.youtube.com...
This one explains to me a lot, and I mean a lot !

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: ImaFungi

What do you think about the material at the link in my previous post? debunkingrelativity.com...

It's a short read.

sorry for answering this question, even if you didn't asked me, I would like to comment on this.

Double slit experiment is may favourite example of how MS science is confusing and misleading our understanding of reality.
First of all, light doesn't move as we think of motion of particles.
Secondly, EM wave is not a particle ! (experiments with light)

This experiment proofs that electro-magnetic field exists and interacts with itself and other charged particles.
Particle-wave duality is just stupid description of what is going on.

(Photo-electric effect) EM wave can kick an electron out of atom so you will have a particle (well, Electron is not even a particle like we think of a marble) but we can say it this way. The EM wave is not changing into a particle as told. It is not sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle. It is only a wave, always !

And the worse of what I ever have heard of, is this Observer thing in QT in relation to the slit experiment.
Reality is different if you observe it as if you don't. Observation creates the reality, an all other nonsense ()
You don't need to study or be a scientist to know that.
Of course the result will be different if you take energy out of the system or put some energy into the system, and this is what happens if you "read" the EM wave coming trough one of the slits.
They say the wave function collapse.... NO, the energy has been taken away by "observing" measuring device therefore no interference.



OH, your link, sorry...

1) Inertia and mass: Existence of Ether explains why there is something called inertia and thus explains mass. Ether is probably what represents the Higg’s field and photons the so called God’s particles. The funny thing here is that scientists have disproved Ether only to reintroduce it with a different name and flavour.

agree on that, my thoughts !

Gravity: Just like how a spinning body inside a pond spins the water around it and drags nearby smaller bodies towards it, spinning Ether around the spinning celestial bodies explains the phenomenon of gravity and gravitational waves. And things like star light bending and observations on pulsars can be explained by the same without resorting to the stupid predictions of the theory of relativity.

DS-experimet has nothing to do with gravity...
I don't know... I have a different concept of gravity

a reply to: KrzYma

sorry for answering this question, even if you didn't asked me, I would like to comment on this.

No worries, it's a public forum for group discussion. I look for input from everyone.

I'm only interested in the water wave analogy. I wonder about the possibility of space itself being a kind sea of fluid energy. If vacuum energy is the ground state of space, so to speak.

The double slit interpretations confuse me. I hear about how a single photon goes through both slits. What IS a single photon? IDK. I don't see it as being a particle like a BB where all of it goes through both. I think some strange beliefs arise from that view. I think the photon is a quantity of just say energy, for lack of a better term on my part, that causes the waves in the "sea of space". There's an animated video showing the water wave behavior that I think is analogous to what is actually happening but I don't know enough to be sure or how to find out.

And then, what effect might Rayleigh scattering have if any?

a reply to: DenyObfuscation
Photons act pretty much like waves, not like BBs at all.

The "particle-like" behavior is confusing to some because they think of "BB" as what a particle means, but in this context it means it's a quantized amount of energy, hence the term "wave packet", where the wave describes the wavelike nature and the "packet" describes the particle-like nature.

Wave packet

Quantum mechanics ascribes a special significance to the wave packet: it is interpreted as a "probability wave", describing the probability that a particle or particles in a particular state will be measured to have a given position and momentum. It is in this way related to the wave function. Through application of the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics, it is possible to deduce the time evolution of a system, similar to the process of the Hamiltonian formalism in classical mechanics. The wave packet is thus a mathematical solution to the Schrödinger equation. The area under the absolute square of the wave packet solution is interpreted as the probability density of finding the particle in a given region.

The page you referred to on the relativity denial site operates on the assumption that when mainstream experiments failed to show evidence of aether, the experiments were somehow interpreted wrong, so he's claiming that there is a luminiferous aether after all.

The idea of luminiferous aether basically died after relativity and quantum mechanics models didn't really need it anymore to explain observations (that in addition to Michelson-Morley and similar experiments). He says he's not convinced by the Michelson-Morley experiment but this link lists maybe 30 or so experiments like it with increasing accuracy, so if he's claiming they are all wrong, I'd say he's pretty far out on the limb with 30 chainsaws cutting it:

Michelson–Morley experiment

originally posted by: KrzYma
I know they lie so even is something is true what they say,

Well they made a mistake on the FTL neutrino experiment but it was an honest mistake, and it was self corrected by science, in fact they actually requested help figuring out what might be wrong with the experiment. I have no idea what you think they're lying about, unless you think the sun really is powered by electricity yet they are somehow able to hide the source which would be like more than a gazillion lightning bolts going into the sun a second to provide enough power. It's really the thunderbolts guys who are obviously lying. The facts and evidence speak for themselves, to anyone educated enough to interpret them.

a reply to: ErosA433
Reading those papers will not release endorphins to make the reader feel good, like watching a thunderbolts video and nodding the head while feeling smarter than all the world's smartest scientists will, plus nodding the head while watching a video is a lot easier than doing all that hard math.