Center of the Universe

[MacM]

In another string the issue of Red Shift data seeming to point to us being in the center of the universe was outright rejected by James R.

I am not saying here that I believe we are at the center of the universe as normally referred to but I did want to post this to show that there are scientist that claim that is what Red Shift shows.

Are they all wet on their Red Shift Data, is Red Shift all wet or is there another explanation?

Point being this is not something I made up.


***********************************************
According to a 3 March 2003 BBC article by David Whitehouse, "... Max Tegmark, of the University of Pennsylvania, US, ... and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere [Galactic Northern hemisphere shown in the image below]: ...


... "The entire observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of it." ... "Space continues outside the sphere but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. If we could only see another 380,000 light-years we would be able to see the beginning of the Universe," ...".

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/cosconsensus.html
*************************************************

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Once again, you don't understand the data you're presenting.

From <b>any</b> location in the universe, we expect to observe all other distant galaxies moving away. (One way to see this is to observe the red-shift of the light from those galaxies.) This is due to the general expansion of space.

Regarding your specific quote...

"The entire observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of it." ... "Space continues outside the sphere but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. If we could only see another 380,000 light-years we would be able to see the beginning of the Universe," ...

Note the term "observable universe". The picture being presented is the observable universe as seen from Earth. The picture is centred on the Earth because Earth is where we're doing the observing from. It is not because Earth is the centre of the universe. Earth <b>is</b>, however, the centre of Earth's observable universe, obviously.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

Thanks.

Except for this

"Once again, you don't understand the data you're presenting"

ANS: You seem to forget that I predicted this finding while you were still in diapers.

I happen to agree with your answer.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

<i>You seem to forget that I predicted this finding while you were still in diapers.</i>

I assume you have a reference to where you published this prediction.

Please provide it so I can take a look.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by James R
From <b>any</b> location in the universe, we expect to observe all other distant galaxies moving away. (One way to see this is to observe the red-shift of the light from those galaxies.) This is due to the general expansion of space.

OK.

Someone please explain to me where my reasoning fails (if it does).

In order for this to be true, we would have to expect that the universe is expanding in a uniform fashion.
However, the further you get from the center of the universe, the faster the acceleration.

Let's take three galaxies (A, B and C) and plot them A furthest away from the center of the universe, B "behind" A and C the closest to the center.

In order for B to see both A and C accelerating, A must be accelerating faster than B and B must be accelerating faster than C.

I think I have that much correct, right?

So, this implies that either:
1.) There is a massive object (black hole, whatever) at the center whose gravity is "braking" the acceleration, and the further you get from it, the less gravity it exerts on you, and you can accelerate faster.
or
2.) There is nothing at the center of the universe (the singularity of the Big Bang "exploded" and spread out omni-directionally and uniformly, and there is a greater amount of bodies the closer you get to the center all exerting gravity on each other and effectively "braking" each other, and since it is expanding uniformly, you would expect the expansion of matter to continue on this path, therefore the further you get from the center, the less densely populated the universe is (basically an application of the inverse square equation?).

Whichever of those scenarios is true, they both imply the same thing...
There IS a static center of the universe.
All matter that is expanding is expanding away from this point in space.


Wouldn't that point in space be considered at absolute rest?
Couldn't that point be viewed as a Preferred Frame of Reference?
Please explain to me why it is not.

 

[MacM]

one raven,

OK.

Someone please explain to me where my reasoning fails (if it does).

In order for this to be true, we would have to expect that the universe is expanding in a uniform fashion.
However, the further you get from the center of the universe, the faster the acceleration.

Let's take three galaxies (A, B and C) and plot them A furthest away from the center of the universe, B "behind" A and C the closest to the center.

In order for B to see both A and C accelerating, A must be accelerating faster than B and B must be accelerating faster than C.

I think I have that much correct, right?

So, this implies that either:
1.) There is a massive object (black hole, whatever) at the center whose gravity is "braking" the acceleration, and the further you get from it, the less gravity it exerts on you, and you can accelerate faster.
or
2.) There is nothing at the center of the universe (the singularity of the Big Bang "exploded" and spread out omni-directionally and uniformly, and there is a greater amount of bodies the closer you get to the center all exerting gravity on each other and effectively "braking" each other, and since it is expanding uniformly, you would expect the expansion of matter to continue on this path, therefore the further you get from the center, the less densely populated the universe is (basically an application of the inverse square equation?).

Whichever of those scenarios is true, they both imply the same thing...
There IS a static center of the universe.
All matter that is expanding is expanding away from this point in space.

ANS: First I am constrained on this site from discussing my views. Since they are "Unscientific".:bugeye:

However, let me just point out that the observation that we are at the center of the universe has obvious conflicts. That would put earth at the origin of the Big Bang.

Also the uniform accelerating expansion would not appear uniform if you were not at the center of such expansion. To understand that issue draw a series of concentric circles and lable each one with an increasing expansion velocity.

Now if you were in the center of that arrangement you would see what we see. But you can also see that if you place a dot on one of the outer circles you would no longer see what we see. Follow?

The fact that we see what we see is not consistant with a central point origin. They will tell you that it is more like the movement of dots on the surface of an expanding ballon.

But there are also limitations on that view. That view would have uniform expansion rates between everything and it is limited to a 2D surface.

While their best explanations fail in the final analysis, I do believe I know why it is so. But a Crackpot can't give an opinion. You would have to visit my site to know the answer.

Wouldn't that point in space be considered at absolute rest?

ANS: It might but then again what if our Big Bang were but one of many, such as in the "Many Worlds View". It might also have motion relative to others.

Couldn't that point be viewed as a Preferred Frame of Reference?

ANS: In theory it might. But if we can't view it, how can we reference it.?

Please explain to me why it is not.

ANS: I'll leave this one for the experts after they tear into my post.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

You seem to forget that I predicted this finding while you were still in diapers.

I assume you have a reference to where you published this prediction.

Please provide it so I can take a look.

ANS: Nice try. But you already know that UniKEF is unpublished work. But you also know that I have documention of it that goes back just over 40 years.

Make it worth my while and I'll launch a search for the Purdue Professors that wrote the notes about their review which will put it back a few more years and if he is still alive I suspect I can trace down Dr. Allard, physicists; that wrote chapter 5. Then I'm sure some of my old High School chums are still around that will put at 1954 as I have stated.

You don't want to accept it that is fine with me. I know the truth and I have no reason to care to convience you. You really should start to think about all the priori's though. I do.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

<b>one raven:</b>

The solution to your difficulties lies in the fact that the universe has no centre. There is no single point in space from which everything else is expanding. The big bang happened everywhere at once, not at some central point.

What happens in the expansion of space is that the space between any two objects expands uniformly. For example, take three galaxies A, B and C at the corners of an equilateral triangle. To give you a rough analogy, the expansion of our universe is sort of like extending all three sides of the triangle, leaving A, B and C at the corners. All three galaxies see the other two as moving away.

The problem with this analogy is that there is a centre of expansion - the centre of the triangle in this case. That is why we often use the picture of galaxies as dots on the surface of a balloon, where the centre of the balloon is not included in the space under consideration.

BTW, don't listen to anything MacM says on the balloon analogy - it is clear that he doesn't understand that this is a one-less-dimension analogy to the real universe - mostly because he doesn't understand what a dimension is.


<b>MacM</b>:

<i>ANS: First I am constrained on this site from discussing my views. Since they are "Unscientific". </i>

Please don't try to play the persecution card here. You've been given abundant space on this forum to discuss your views.

<i>However, let me just point out that the observation that we are at the center of the universe has obvious conflicts. That would put earth at the origin of the Big Bang.</i>

The big bang happened everywhere.

<i>Also the uniform accelerating expansion would not appear uniform if you were not at the center of such expansion.</i>

The universal expansion has no centre.

<i>The fact that we see what we see is not consistant with a central point origin.</i>

It is, but there's no reason to suspect that the Earth would be this special.

<i>They will tell you that it is more like the movement of dots on the surface of an expanding ballon. But there are also limitations on that view. That view would have uniform expansion rates between everything and it is limited to a 2D surface.</i>

Learn the word <b>analogy</b>, MacM, then realise that the balloon picture is an analogy. The balloon surface is 2D; our real space is 3D. We use the analogy to visualise something which is difficult to picture one dimension higher. But the analogy, like all analogies, is not perfect. We sacrifice some accuracy in using an analogy. The real, relativistic cosmological description includes all 3 dimensions (plus time).

<i>While their best explanations fail in the final analysis, I do believe I know why it is so.</i>

The scientific explanations do not fail. If you think they do, once again you will need to point out where an why, rather than making unsupported claims.

What you really mean is that you don't understand the scientific explanation, so you want to replace it with some simple pseudoscience.

<i>...what if our Big Bang were but one of many, such as in the "Many Worlds View". It might also have motion relative to others.</i>

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

-----

On your other point, I don't really care what you claim to have predicted using UniKEF. That theory has been convincingly blown out of the water. It does not appear to be useful for anything.

 

[one_raven]

Originally posted by MacM
However, let me just point out that the observation that we are at the center of the universe has obvious conflicts. That would put earth at the origin of the Big Bang.

No.
If the interpretation is that we ARE at the center of the universe it would have that conflict.
The appearance that we are at the center of the universe due to the fact that no matter where you are in the universe it appears that way (which is what I think James was trying to point out) would not cause that same problem.

Originally posted by MacM
Also the uniform accelerating expansion would not appear uniform if you were not at the center of such expansion. To understand that issue draw a series of concentric circles and lable each one with an increasing expansion velocity.

Now if you were in the center of that arrangement you would see what we see. But you can also see that if you place a dot on one of the outer circles you would no longer see what we see. Follow?

Actually, that is exactly how I did picture it, and it is consistent.
I tried to convey that with my analogy of the three galaxies.
Take that diagram of concentric circles...
Label each ring coming from the inside out starting at 1.
Dots on ring 1 are expanding at 1 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 2 are expanding at 2 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 3 are expanding at 4 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 4 are expanding at 8 M/s/s.
And so on...

If you are at the center, everything is expanding away from you, right?
Imagine yourself at ring 3 now and keep that perspective.
Look at ring 4.
It is traveling twice as fast as you are, so it would appear to be moving away from you, yes?
OK.
Now look at ring 2.
You are traveling twice as fast as it, so, again, it would appear to be moving away from you, since the distance gets further and further over time, no?

Originally posted by MacM
ANS: It might but then again what if our Big Bang were but one of many, such as in the "Many Worlds View". It might also have motion relative to others.

I have considered that.
However, what would have been the results of OUR "little" bang?
This Solar System, this Galaxy, or all the observable universe?
If it was this Solar System or Galaxy, how would that address our perception that all galaxies are moving away from us?
If it is all the observable universe, functionally that really isn't any different than the Big Bang. How would that change anything?

Originally posted by MacM
ANS: In theory it might. But if we can't view it, how can we reference it.?

Good question.
C-C?

 

[MacM]

one raven,

BY JAMES R: "BTW, don't listen to anything MacM says on the balloon analogy - it is clear that he doesn't understand that this is a one-less-dimension analogy to the real universe - mostly because he doesn't understand what a dimension is.

ANS: Actually it is about time people stop listening to this slanderous diatribe. But slowly I do believe others without their axes to grind are seeing that old Crackpot Mac isn't really a Crackpot at all and knows and understands a hell of a lot more than they want to acknowledge. But I'll leave that to each individual to decide. I'm not here to make friends - Just as well I guess.



James R.,

MacM:

ANS: First I am constrained on this site from discussing my views. Since they are "Unscientific".

Please don't try to play the persecution card here. You've been given abundant space on this forum to discuss your views.

ANS: What a joke JR. Have I made some mistakes. You bet. But have I been out on that limb you and the others always try to put me? No sir. My mathematics is lacking but there is more to understanding these concepts than calculus. Understanding the algebra is adequate for most discussions. That I do understand regardless of the slanderous claims made here anytime I say anything about anything.

I'm still here because I do understand and I can get my message through inspite of the flurry of efforts of those protecting their cherished views.

However, let me just point out that the observation that we are at the center of the universe has obvious conflicts. That would put earth at the origin of the Big Bang.

The big bang happened everywhere.

ANS: Rather obvious if infact the Big Bang was a singularity and was all there was.

Also the uniform accelerating expansion would not appear uniform if you were not at the center of such expansion.

The universal expansion has no centre.

ANS: I already covered that in the ballon analogy.

The fact that we see what we see is not consistant with a central point origin.

It is, but there's no reason to suspect that the Earth would be this special.

ANS: You'll have to do better than just say "it is." You have just said above that it was not a point of origin but:

1 - The big bang happened everywhere.

2 - The universal expansion has no centre.

They will tell you that it is more like the movement of dots on the surface of an expanding ballon. But there are also limitations on that view. That view would have uniform expansion rates between everything and it is limited to a 2D surface.

Learn the word analogy, MacM, then realise that the balloon picture is an analogy. The balloon surface is 2D; our real space is 3D. We use the analogy to visualise something which is difficult to picture one dimension higher. But the analogy, like all analogies, is not perfect. We sacrifice some accuracy in using an analogy. The real, relativistic cosmological description includes all 3 dimensions (plus time).

ANS: Indeed. We all know it is just an analogy and that you are referencing higher dimensions than 2D. But my point was that the "Analogy" fails to provide the accelerating expansion view. It only provides a linear expansion between points. Or have you missed that little failure of the analogy.

While their best explanations fail in the final analysis, I do believe I know why it is so.

The scientific explanations do not fail. If you think they do, once again you will need to point out where an why, rather than making unsupported claims.

ANS: Fine. We await our explanation of the ballon analogy and the failure to produce the accelerated expansion we observe.

Lets see this analogy lets use do away with the origin center concept but then it is 2D and we must think 3D (which puts the center back in) Oh, but we can add to the confusion factor and claim it is 4D and can't be visualized, and the expansion it shows is linear not accelerating. Some analogy.

What you really mean is that you don't understand the scientific explanation, so you want to replace it with some simple pseudoscience.

ANS: Again you seem you seem to have no option but to attack the messenger rather than explain the descrepancies.

...what if our Big Bang were but one of many, such as in the "Many Worlds View". It might also have motion relative to others.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

ANS: I'm not at all surprised by that.

On your other point, I don't really care what you claim to have predicted using UniKEF. That theory has been convincingly blown out of the water. It does not appear to be useful for anything.

ANS: Please show ANY detailed analysis you have made or anybody else here has made. It is hard to blow something out of the water when it has never been considered.

BTW:

1 - What is "q" in UniKEF?

2 - How does "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" Domain Limits function?;

3 - and what predictions did they result in, that have been found to exists?


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[AndersHermansson]

MacM, I'm just wondering from where you've learned most about physics and how you've formed your views. University? Articles? Books?

 

[MacM]

AndersHermansson,

MacM, I'm just wondering from where you've learned most about physics and how you've formed your views. University? Articles? Books?

I have an equivelancy of (4) years college but through an act of congress for the development of nuclear power via the US military.

Taught by degreed professors but not at a university.

Plenty of books and articles. Which is partly why my education is incomplete. We only brushed over calculus lightly since we weren't expected to use it .

When I left the service I was elgiable to have gotten my degree by going to a university for one year rounding out some electives and completing USAFI requirements.

My USAFI science score was 89 pct'l (std score 61, mine was 73).

How I formed my views? That is another question. Einstein was my idol as a youth when I became interested in science. I formed many ideas about Relativity early on.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I'll ignore all the persecution complex nonsense.

<i>ANS: Indeed. We all know it is just an analogy and that you are referencing higher dimensions than 2D. But my point was that the "Analogy" fails to provide the accelerating expansion view. It only provides a linear expansion between points. Or have you missed that little failure of the analogy.</i>

Paint some dots on a balloon. Blow it up at a constant rate. Then you'll have an analogy of linear expansion. Blow it up slowly at first, but then getting faster. There's your analogy of accelerated expansion.

There's no failure of the analogy there. Did you miss that?

<i>ANS: Fine. We await our explanation of the ballon analogy and the failure to produce the accelerated expansion we observe.</i>

Done.

<i>Lets see this analogy lets use do away with the origin center concept but then it is 2D and we must think 3D (which puts the center back in)</i>

Wrong. There is no centre to our 3D universe, just as there's no centre to the 2D balloon surface.

<i>Oh, but we can add to the confusion factor and claim it is 4D and can't be visualized, and the expansion it shows is linear not accelerating. Some analogy.</i>

It's not a confusion factor. It's a fact of life, supported by observational evidence. We must fit models to facts, MacM. That's what science does.

<i>ANS: Again you seem you seem to have no option but to attack the messenger rather than explain the descrepancies.</i>

The only discrepancies are in your head.

<i>ANS: Please show ANY detailed analysis you have made or anybody else here has made. It is hard to blow something out of the water when it has never been considered.</i>

UniKEF is so vague and ill-specified, it is impossible to analyse. It makes no firm predictions about anything. Half the terms used in it aren't even defined.

<i>1 - What is "q" in UniKEF?
2 - How does "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" Domain Limits function?;
3 - and what predictions did they result in, that have been found to exists?</i>

Why should anybody care?

 

[MacM]

James R.,

MacM:

I'll ignore all the persecution complex nonsense.

ANS: Indeed. We all know it is just an analogy and that you are referencing higher dimensions than 2D. But my point was that the "Analogy" fails to provide the accelerating expansion view. It only provides a linear expansion between points. Or have you missed that little failure of the analogy.

Paint some dots on a balloon. Blow it up at a constant rate. Then you'll have an analogy of linear expansion. Blow it up slowly at first, but then getting faster. There's your analogy of accelerated expansion.

There's no failure of the analogy there. Did you miss that?

ANS: Now all the dots move apart at an equal but higher rate. I want to see your ballon have the accelerating rate between dots progressively around the ballon. That is the observation. Your ballon analogy is hog wash.

ANS: Fine. We await our explanation of the ballon analogy and the failure to produce the accelerated expansion we observe.

Done.

ANS: Wrong again.

Lets see this analogy lets use do away with the origin center concept but then it is 2D and we must think 3D (which puts the center back in)

Wrong. There is no centre to our 3D universe, just as there's no centre to the 2D balloon surface.

ANS:Right and that is why this analogy sucks big time. It can produce linear expansion at different rates. It cannot produce accelerating expansion over the surface of the ballon.

Now if your ballon has a flaw and an abrupt bubble forms, the localized bubble would have a differential expansion rate vs the surrounding ballon surface. But you cannot extend the bubble over the entire surface and the affect is only valid at a small transittion zone.

Oh, but we can add to the confusion factor and claim it is 4D and can't be visualized, and the expansion it shows is linear not accelerating. Some analogy.

It's not a confusion factor. It's a fact of life, supported by observational evidence. We must fit models to facts, MacM. That's what science does.

ANS: Seems to me they can't even put together a good analogy.

ANS: Again you seem you seem to have no option but to attack the messenger rather than explain the descrepancies.

The only discrepancies are in your head.

ANS: Right. See above.

ANS: Please show ANY detailed analysis you have made or anybody else here has made. It is hard to blow something out of the water when it has never been considered.

UniKEF is so vague and ill-specified, it is impossible to analyse. It makes no firm predictions about anything. Half the terms used in it aren't even defined.

1 - What is "q" in UniKEF?
2 - How does "Qualitative" and "Quantitative" Domain Limits function?;
3 - and what predictions did they result in, that have been found to exists?

Why should anybody care?

STATEMENT BY JAMES ABOVE:"On your other point, I don't really care what you claim to have predicted using UniKEF. That theory has been convincingly blown out of the water. It does not appear to be useful for anything."

ANS: I think that pretty much clears up all the negative talk about how UniKEF has been convincingly blown out of the water.

In your mind only JR.

You might try actually reading it before declaring it is wrong. At least then your opinion would have some merit.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[math/ace]

center

The fact is, the universe does have a center - it is the four dimensional center of this balloon. If we could go there, we would be travelling backward in time to the big bang.
Think of it this way - four dimensionally, the entire past and future of the universe is "already" there. The complex interactions we observe in matter are just the complex ways that the puzzle pieces fit together four dimensionally. The rules for the way they are laid out somehow constrain our consciousness to only be aware of things that lie on the (relative) interior of this 4-D balloon (the past). They also constrain our consciousness to perceive a "flow" of time, when in fact all past and future simply exists "now", in different layers of the balloon, from a 4-D perspective.

 

[MacM]

one raven,

Actually, that is exactly how I did picture it, and it is consistent.
I tried to convey that with my analogy of the three galaxies.
Take that diagram of concentric circles...
Label each ring coming from the inside out starting at 1.
Dots on ring 1 are expanding at 1 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 2 are expanding at 2 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 3 are expanding at 4 M/s/s.
Dots on ring 4 are expanding at 8 M/s/s.
And so on...

If you are at the center, everything is expanding away from you, right?
Imagine yourself at ring 3 now and keep that perspective.
Look at ring 4.
It is traveling twice as fast as you are, so it would appear to be moving away from you, yes?
OK.
Now look at ring 2.
You are traveling twice as fast as it, so, again, it would appear to be moving away from you, since the distance gets further and further over time, no?

ANS: Fair presentation but it doesn't even get half way.

1 - What happens if you continue to look toward circle #2 and see #1, then Ground Zero and then back out to #1, #2 and #3?

2 - What happens if you look tangent to the circle (which is what we do when we look in any direction). Draw yourself a line from a dot on #3. The only line that has the correct function partially is a radial line.

Our observation is circles within circles from every dot on the circles.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

<i>I want to see your ballon have the accelerating rate between dots progressively around the ballon. That is the observation.</i>

That's what you get when you blow up the balloon at an increasing rate.

<i>Your ballon analogy is hog wash.</i>

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

[(Q)]

Mac

What is your interpretation of the redshift phenomenon?

If we were at the center of expansion, as you suggest, then that would mean our galaxy is not in motion, relative to the expansion, right?

Would you then say that our galaxy, from the perspective of another galaxy, does not exhibit the redshift phenomenon?

But, that can’t be right – even if our galaxy was not in motion, relative to the expansion, those other galaxies would still view the redshift phenomenon from our galaxy – do you know why?

 

[Vortexx]

Ok, so if there is no center, than assuming the big bang singularity being the point that started our universe would be invalid, unless uniform ubiquitous (dark force) accelleration started to happen after the initial inflation period (in wich case the universe must have had a center)

 

[MacM]

Q,

Mac

What is your interpretation of the redshift phenomenon?

ANS: There are apparently a number of things that cause Red Shift.

1 - Relative velocity.

2 - Distance.

3 - Masking by gaseous coulds that absorb some frequencies.

4 - Expansion (related to velocity)

5 - Maybe MOND. I'm not sure on that.

If we were at the center of expansion, as you suggest, then that would mean our galaxy is not in motion, relative to the expansion, right?

ANS: You seem to forget. It is not my suggestion. It is the actual observation.

Would you then say that our galaxy, from the perspective of another galaxy, does not exhibit the redshift phenomenon?

ANS: I don't see how you propose that. If another galaxy displays a rRed Shift to us then we will (or should) display the same Red Shit to them. (Relative Motion).

But, that can’t be right – even if our galaxy was not in motion, relative to the expansion, those other galaxies would still view the redshift phenomenon from our galaxy – do you know why?

ANS: I believe I have already answered that.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.