If there is no end to the space

[Spyman]

...local frames of reference do not describe the global reality of the situation...

It seems like Owl ignored my post #196, so I don't expect to get any reply but...

 

I would like you to consider the following questions, because I think your "global reality" sounds a lot like an Aether.

 

If Leonardo, in the middle, holds the laser and toggles the on/off switch so that the light pulses then:

 

1a) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to him?

1b) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to Raphael going right?

1c) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to the "global reality"?

 

2a) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to him?

2b) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to Leonardo in the middle?

2c) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to the "global reality"?

 

If Raphael, going right, holds the laser backwards and toggles the on/off switch so that the light pulses then:

 

3a) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to him?

3b) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to Raphael going right?

3c) How fast will Leonardo measure the light travels with respect to the "global reality"?

 

4a) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to him?

4b) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to Leonardo in the middle?

4c) How fast will Raphael measure the light travles with respect to the "global reality"?

 

And finally does the Earth's speed through space at approximately 1 235 000 mph affect our real measurements?

Edited March 6, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

I agree that this is going nowhere. You guys will not consider an alternative to frames of reference (local viewpoints) as the only descriptions of reality we have. It is ironic that relativity is so absolutist as to claim that "everything is relative."

So the "global reality" or overview I tried to introduce is simply ignored as you all pound away on frames of reference as the ultimate/only possible view of reality.

 

I thought I had addressed SR reasonable. Regardless of how any frame of reference "sees it" it, in and of itself, an actual phenomenon independent of observation/viewpoint, light traves at the universal constant, "C."

I do wonder why a speeding ship can't push it faster... but too insubstantial to push I guess. I also wonder why everone sees it going "C" regardless of the traveler's direction or speed. But if there were a transcendental perspective on the little skit, one would see it exactly as I said, point by point.

But the absolutism of frames of reference perspective would need to be suspended first, and no one here can/will do that.

 

I saw no reason to continue beating a dead horse with you, Spyman. Tedious repetion of "see, its all relative to frame of reference."

Enough already.

[IM Egdall]

I thought I had addressed SR reasonable. Regardless of how any frame of reference "sees it" it, in and of itself, an actual phenomenon independent of observation/viewpoint, light traves at the universal constant, "C."

I do wonder why a speeding ship can't push it faster... but too insubstantial to push I guess. I also wonder why everone sees it going "C" regardless of the traveler's direction or speed. But if there were a transcendental perspective on the little skit, one would see it exactly as I said, point by point.

 

The universal speed of light has nothing to do with how substantial the speeding ship is. Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship.

 

I sympathize with your "I wonder why everyone sees it going 'C' regardless of the traveler's direction or speed". It is a very hard concept to accept. But all kinds of tests, observations, experiments have shown that this is just how light behaves. It reminds me of Feynman's comment, which went something like: Nature doesn't care whether you believe her or not, this is how she behaves. Sure it violates our common sense, but we have to accept what measurements tell us.

 

The reason why we all talk about frame of reference ad nausium is because this conception works! Einstein's great vision of how the world behaves is not accepted by scientists because it is so clever (which it is), but because it gives such accurate predictions.

Edited March 6, 2011 by I ME

[Spyman]

I agree that this is going nowhere. You guys will not consider an alternative to frames of reference (local viewpoints) as the only descriptions of reality we have. It is ironic that relativity is so absolutist as to claim that "everything is relative."

So the "global reality" or overview I tried to introduce is simply ignored as you all pound away on frames of reference as the ultimate/only possible view of reality.

 

I thought I had addressed SR reasonable. Regardless of how any frame of reference "sees it" it, in and of itself, an actual phenomenon independent of observation/viewpoint, light traves at the universal constant, "C."

I do wonder why a speeding ship can't push it faster... but too insubstantial to push I guess. I also wonder why everone sees it going "C" regardless of the traveler's direction or speed. But if there were a transcendental perspective on the little skit, one would see it exactly as I said, point by point.

But the absolutism of frames of reference perspective would need to be suspended first, and no one here can/will do that.

 

I saw no reason to continue beating a dead horse with you, Spyman. Tedious repetion of "see, its all relative to frame of reference."

Enough already.

Thats OK, you don't have to concede to Relativity, you are free to have your own opinion and belief.

 

...

 

BUT I think the people trying to help you deserves better than your judgement.

 

It is not us guys here that refuse to consider alternatives, it is you that ignore your own ignorance.

 

Throughout this thread different persons have tried to argue and explain for you how you are wrong without success. While our explanations might not have been of the highest quality, it is still you who are the one failing to understand. The responsibility for your knowledge are not ours and as long as you refuse to accept the probability that your view of Relativity is incomplete, it will be impossible to elevate your comprehension further.

 

IMO you should really reevaluate that you actually could be wrong and in need to learn more...

[owl]

I ME:

"The universal speed of light has nothing to do with how substantial the speeding ship is. Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship....

 

The reason why we all talk about frame of reference ad nausium is because this conception works! Einstein's great vision of how the world behaves is not accepted by scientists because it is so clever (which it is), but because it gives such accurate predictions."

 

First statement: Another example of your misinterpretation of what I said. I spoke of how insubstantial light is, as an explanation of how a speeding ship can not "push it faster" than "C," as per ship's velocity plus "C." I have repeatedly stated the same thing as your, "Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship." Yet you inform me of it anyway.

 

Second statement: Of course it works for describing what local frames of reference "see." You have not even heard me. My point by point reply to the above very pedantic "Socratic" teaching devise was not even heard, as you all keep pounding on "see, it's all relative to frame of reference." 'FOR' is NOT ABSOLUTE. Regardless of the relativity doctrine that local point of view is all there is. My "thought experiment" from global overview was totally ignored.

[Iggy]

I spoke of how insubstantial light is, as an explanation of how a speeding ship can not "push it faster" than "C," as per ship's velocity plus "C."

 

An airplane also doesn't "push" sound faster the faster it goes. That isn't the point of relativity. It's completely beside the point.

 

Second statement: Of course it works for describing what local frames of reference "see." You have not even heard me. My point by point reply to the above very pedantic "Socratic" teaching devise was not even heard, as you all keep pounding on "see, it's all relative to frame of reference." 'FOR' is NOT ABSOLUTE. Regardless of the relativity doctrine that local point of view is all there is. My "thought experiment" from global overview was totally ignored.

 

The speed of light is constant which means that all inertial observers measure light at 670 million mph.

 

In your thought experiment a person floats weightless in deep space. He shoots a laser and one hour later finds the beam 1210 million miles away.

 

If you cannot understand the contradiction between those two things then everything else is moot.

 

Your only response has been to call the inertial observer "confused" and to point out that there is another inertial observer somewhere else doing something else and that guy measures the beam at c.

 

I'm sure you feel like no one is understanding you or listening to you. You don't realize how very simple and simply flawed your assertions are.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Iggy

[Spyman]

My "thought experiment" from global overview was totally ignored.

No, it was not, it's you who are ignoring the replies that where given.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment showed no such global overview.

 

 

I have repeatedly stated the same thing as your, "Light always travels at the same speed no matter what the speed of the ship."

In reference to what do you consider light to always travel with the same speed?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

A piece at a time:

Me:

"I spoke of how insubstantial light is, as an explanation of how a speeding ship can not "push it faster" than "C," as per ship's velocity plus "C.""

Iggy:

"An airplane also doesn't "push" sound faster the faster it goes. That isn't the point of relativity. It's completely beside the point."

 

Whose point? My point was that, unlike the cumulative speed of a bullet and a speeding ship that fires it straight ahead, a speeding ship firing a laser straight ahead will not add the ships velocity to the light's speed. Point: "C" is constant and will not go faster because of the ship's velocity.

 

"The Michelson-Morley experiment showed no such global overview."

 

No kidding! That experiment shows local frame of reference perspective. I'm presenting global or "overview" perspective... non-local.

 

"In reference to what do you consider light to always travel with the same speed?"

 

You simply can not even imagine "life without a local frame of reference." You are totally deaf to what I'm saying. Light travels through space, whether past different viewpoints or just plain going through empty areas of space... at the constant speed, "C" in whatever units... 670 million mph in recent context.

 

Iggy:

"In your thought experiment a person floats weightless in deep space. He shoots a laser and one hour later finds the beam 1210 million miles away....

If you cannot understand the contradiction between those two things then everything else is moot."

 

Huh? That was YOUR thought experiment! A laser was fired to the right from a central point. One guy went right at 540 million mph (beside the point here) and another guy left at same speed. Light obviously went 670 million miles in the same hour that right and left guy went 540 million miles in opposite directions. That is how YOU presented the thought experiment. I said that, no matter what left guy thinks he sees, the distance between him and the end point of the light after an hour is 1210 million miles, BUT light did not travel 1210 million miles in that hour... obviously. His journey to the left accounted, obviously, for the other 540 million miles of distance.

 

But I said this already, and now you are putting contradictory words into my mouth. There is absolutely no communication going on here!

[Iggy]

A laser was fired to the right from a central point.

 

The laser was fired by the guy on the left from his position.

 

I said that, no matter what left guy thinks he sees, the distance between him and the end point of the light after an hour is 1210 million miles, BUT light did not travel 1210 million miles in that hour... obviously.

 

Those two statements contradict each other and you are incapable of understanding why. If someone shoots a laser and one hour later the light is 1210 million miles away then the speed of the laser is 1210 million mph. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what "speed" is which I think is probably the case.

 

His journey to the left accounted, obviously, for the other 540 million miles of distance.

 

He didn't journey left away from himself. All inertial observers must figure that light travels at c--not just one person. You think the center observer is special? You think everyone in the universe should figure the speed of light compared to this one special guy? How do we find this guy?

 

In this thought experiment the speed of light is not constant. In the real world the speed of light is constant (for inertial observers). The only reason you can't recognize this is because you can't understand it. I'm not sure if you want to understand, but I can guarantee that if you try to debate people who try to explain it to you then you never will.

[Spyman]

"The Michelson-Morley experiment showed no such global overview."

 

No kidding! That experiment shows local frame of reference perspective. I'm presenting global or "overview" perspective... non-local.

You are presenting a personal perspective that is NOT in agreement with scientific consensus and observations.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that observers non-local speed is not interfering with their local measurements.

 

You don't seem to understand what implications that have on your "global overview".

 

 

You simply can not even imagine "life without a local frame of reference."

I can imagine a lot of things, however neither life or the world are as in fantasies.

 

If you want to propose a new theory of relativity, then it's on your responsibility to explain it properly.

 

I suggest you read through this short thread: So, you've got a new theory...

 

 

You are totally deaf to what I'm saying.

No, I am NOT, since I am responding.

 

You can claim that I don't understand or misinterpreter you, but not that I am "totally deaf".

 

But continuing doing so will end up with it getting true...

 

 

"In reference to what do you consider light to always travel with the same speed?"

 

Light travels through space, whether past different viewpoints or just plain going through empty areas of space... at the constant speed, "C" in whatever units... 670 million mph in recent context.

I did not ask for whatever units we are measuring light speed in.

 

I want to know "in reference to what" or "in respect to what" or "relative what" does any observer measure the speed of light to be constant according to your view.

 

 

There is absolutely no communication going on here!

Well, people are for sure trying, although I am beginning to have strong doubts about you.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Spyman

[owl]

feb 25 post 126 Iggy:

"Get two metal rods that are each 540 million miles long. Lay one to your left, pointing to your left, and another to your right, pointing right. Send someone down the length of each rod at 540 million mph. After one hour each person will be at the end of each rod. Yes? Everyone will agree on this, yes?

 

mar 1 post 182:

You introduce the laser as a red arrow originating from the center, or central stick figure.

You say:

"Good. Thank you. Only two more questions then. If they shoot a laser to the right at the onset, then after an hour everything is positioned like this?

 

You conclude that post with a graphic showing the laser to have traveled 670 million miles to the right while left and right guy each traveled 540 million miles in opposite directions. You show 1210 million miles between left guy at end of his rod and light beam to the right after its hour of travel. You say: "Do each of our thought experiment cosmonauts agree that this is the position of everything?"

 

I reply "yes," that I'm good with that picture.

 

Then in your next post, mar 2, post 186 you you contradict what I agreed to and claim I am contradicting myself, as follows:

 

"

The distance between the left guy and the light changes 1210 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 1210 million miles per hour.

 

The distance between the center guy and the light changes 670 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 670 million miles per hour.

 

The distance between the right guy and the light changes 130 million miles in one hour. He finds the speed of light to be 130 million miles per hour.

 

By assuming that distance, time, and simultaneity are constant (in other words, those things are the same for all observers) we have found that the speed of light is not constant (it is not the same for all observers). Since you have said that you believe the speed of light is constant you should see that you are contradicting yourself."

 

The 1210 million miles is not, by your graphic, how far light traveled in that hour. To beat a dead horse, left guy went 540 million miles left of center, and light went 670 million miles right of center in that hour.Your conclusion, " He finds the speed of light to be 1210 million miles per hour."... is ridiculous, and your claim that I agreed to it is even more ridiculous

 

So in your last post you write:

"The laser was fired by the guy on the left from his position."

The record shows that it was fired from the center, by your own account.

 

Then I wrote (yet again):

.........

I said that, no matter what left guy thinks he sees, the distance between him and the end point of the light after an hour is 1210 million miles, BUT light did not travel 1210 million miles in that hour... obviously.

.......

And finally you replied:

"Those two statements contradict each other and you are incapable of understanding why. If someone shoots a laser and one hour later the light is 1210 million miles away then the speed of the laser is 1210 million mph. If you don't understand that then you don't understand what "speed" is which I think is probably the case."

As the above history shows, you are confused. If someone (center guy) shoots a laser to the right, and it goes 670 million miles in an hour, and another guy goes left at 540 million miles an hour for the same hour and turns around and sees that the distance between his position and laser's end position is 1210 miles, if he concludes that it traveled 1210 million miles in that hour, he is as confused as you are.

I'm done with it.

Edited March 10, 2011 by owl

[Iggy]

If someone (center guy) shoots a laser to the right

 

I never said that the central observer shoots the laser. They can all three shoot a separate laser and the results will be the same. They all start the thought experiment in the same location.

 

the distance between his position and laser's end position is 1210 miles, if he concludes that it traveled 1210 million miles in that hour, he is as confused as you are.

 

Under your system of absolute distance and time the person on the left must conclude that light travels 1210 million miles in one hour. He also, under your system, must believe that light travels 670 million miles per hour. This is a contradiction. Do you understand what a contradiction is?

 

Your beliefs contradict themselves. This thought experiment demonstrates that fact.

 

I'm done with it.

 

In other words, you are unable to solve this paradox in the confines of your beliefs.

 

Absolute distance and time feel right to you and you accept that the speed of light is constant. But, you've never done any mechanics based on those assumptions so you don't really know what they entail.

 

I'm telling you that a constant speed of light means that every inertial observer must figure the distance between light and himself changes at 670 million miles per hour. This thought experiment which uses your ideas of distance and time has an observer figuring that the distance between himself and light changes at 1210 million miles per hour.

 

The speed of light is not constant in your description of reality. The speed of light is constant in reality. Your description of reality is therefore wrong.

[Spyman]

In other words, you are unable to solve this paradox in the confines of your beliefs.

I couldn't have said it better myself, well phrased.

[Iggy]

Thank you, Spyman.

 

It may also help you, Owl, to see the thought experiment from both perspectives.

 

This is the world according to the center observer:

 

 

 

This is the world according to the left observer:

 

 

 

The speed of light is c according to orange (the first image) and 1.8c according to blue (the second image). The red arrow, in other words, moves faster in the second image. This shows that absolute distance and time mean a variable speed of light. Some people have to see this to get it.

 

Real world measurements show that the red arrow should move c in both frames of reference (ie in both images). In other words, two people who are drifting away from each other can each consider themselves at rest and find that light moves 1c away from themselves or toward themselves. That is not the case in this thought experiment.

 

Your response has been to ignore the world according to blue, to call it "confused", and talk only about the world according to the orange guy. I believe that all people--orange and blue alike--are created equal. I know that all inertial observers--orange and blue alike--find that light recedes 670 million miles in one hour. That is not the case in this thought experiment.

 

This thought experiment demonstrates the very first thing that a person has to understand before they begin to learn relativity. The first postulate of relativity is that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (ie for all inertial observers). The description of reality that this thought experiment is based on is inconsistent with that postulate and it is inconsistent with the real world.

 

That is why everyone objected when you said that the speed of light is constant and that distance and time do not depend on reference frame. People objected that the two statements contradict each other like I did in post 146 and Sisyphus did in post 140. In post 160 you asked "how exactly do my statements contradict each other". It has taken dozens of posts to answer that question in a way that you might understand, and I sincerely hope that you do now understand.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Iggy

[THoR]

You are right and that was considered proof of a finite universe some time ago -- the skies would have had to be infinitely bright.

How many opaque particles are there in 15 Billion light years? Why would we not expect some shade?

However, there's two ways it doesn't really work that way. First, we now know the universe is finite in time (15 billion years, give or take), so that light from some stars would not have been able to reach us.

Only something that exists can change - act or be acted upon. This means cause and effect is a function of existence - a derivative of the phenomenon of being. No phenomenon can be the result of its own subordinate derivative - be the result of its own cause - so the reverse is not true. Existence is NOT the result of cause and effect. It is not temporal in nature (time is simply the measurement of change). Existence did not 'Begin'.

More importantly, however, is that space is expanding. For each unit of space, some time later there will be a little more space there, and the numerical value of that is the Hubble constant. It also means that the distance between two points can increase faster than the speed of light if they are far enough away (this is not motion but expansion of space). And when the distance between two points is increasing faster than the speed of light, nothing can travel from one point to the other, not even light. And so we are limited to the observable universe.

Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers from distant galaxies being Doppler related, and it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears. At the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.

 

This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. This is speculation, not hard science.

 

Astronomers tend to presume that between any given source and observer, all light travels the same distance at the same speed. But light bends in the presence of gravity. Observe a simple prism and you will note the red wavelength bends less than violet. Forget stars and planets, how many mass-laden Hydrogen atoms are there in a billion light years? Light at lower wavelengths has a more distant trajectory from source to observer when it is repeatedly exposed to gravity and would take longer to traverse the distance. Could this 'wavelength lag' alter elemental absorption markers toward the red end of the scale? Could there not be other conditions that can alter the absorption spikes perceived from light sources billions of light years away?

 

I have little argument with the data Big Bangers cite, but I have a BIG problem with their interpretation of that data. The sound of galloping hooves doesn't mean the Unicorns are stampeding.

[michel123456]

(...)

 

The correct relativistic animation would be instructive.

[owl]

You can dress the little guys up in cute costumes and make them do the tango as they make their moves, but that will still not contract the lengths traveled just to keep lightspeed constant, which it is.

If you say a guy goes 540 million miles in an hour and a light beam goes 670 million miles an hour in the opposite direction, the total, 1210 million miles does not mean that light traveled 1210 million miles in that hour. It's just that simple, no matter how it looks from "left guy's" frame of reference.

 

But to bring it back to the real world... I'll just stick to "length contraction," in this case, the old familiar distance to the sun. (Understood, it varies with earth's position in it's elliptical orbit.)

 

If extreme frames of reference from which that distance is measured actually made the distance change, earth would actually move closer and further away from the sun, as some "fly by at near lightspeed" measures would indicate. But we do not fry or freeze as if we actually moved way closer or way further away from the sun.

 

So, if we can abandon our little stick figures for a moment and deal with asrtonomical reality... as distance to the sun... If all this length/distance contraction were the real thing in the real world, how come we don't get the ice and fire effect above as the distance changes... depending, of course, on extreme inertial frames of reference as "just as valid/accurate" as our close up and relatively at rest frame, from which we get all that astronomical consensus about sun-earth distance

Edited March 13, 2011 by owl

[Iggy]

You can dress the little guys up in cute costumes and make them do the tango as they make their moves, but that will still not contract the lengths traveled just to keep lightspeed constant, which it is.

 

If you reject length and time dilation as means of solving the paradox then you must introduce some other means of solving it. You have not done and cannot do that.

 

If you say a guy goes 540 million miles in an hour and a light beam goes 670 million miles an hour in the opposite direction, the total, 1210 million miles does not mean that light traveled 1210 million miles in that hour. It's just that simple, no matter how it looks from "left guy's" frame of reference.

 

According to the diagram, the blue guy will measure different values of speed depending on his speed compared to the special orange guy. According to the diagram and the thought experiment we set up, only the orange guy will measure c for the speed of the ray of light. This means that the speed is not constant. We humans have been to many different frames of reference and we have noticed that the speed of light is always c. This means that your view is inconsistent with reality and inconsistent with a constant speed of light.

 

You have to understand this inconsistency before you even begin to understand what relativity does. You also need to understand basic mechanics and I'm not convinced you do.

 

But to bring it back to the real world... If extreme frames of reference from which that distance is measured actually made the distance change, earth would actually move closer and further away from the sun, as some "fly by at near lightspeed" measures would indicate. But we do not fry or freeze as if we actually moved way closer or way further away from the sun.

 

The distance does not contract in earth's frame. Using the correct relativistic physics (relativistic thermodynamics--eg Tolman 1934) the person in the non-earth frame would not suspect earth's temperature to be anything other than what it is.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Iggy

[Spyman]

It's just that simple

No Owl, you are actually wrong and you don't seem to understand or be willing to accept this.

 

Do you want to learn and understand why you are wrong?

(Refusing to answer again will be interpreted as "No".)

[michel123456]

The correct relativistic animation would be instructive.

 

9

[Spyman]

9

Iggy, or any one else for that matter, doesn't get paid for helping people here and is therefore under no obligation to answering your questions, furthermore whether he choose to do so or not doesn't make any arguments right or wrong, thus you are in no position to make demands and ultimatums.

 

As such, IMHO, your "countdown" seems rather childish...

 

Ask polite with patience, not everyone have the opportunity to drop everything else in their lives to spend lots of time on customizing a reply to your specific desires and then be grateful IF you get a good explanation - animation or whatever asked for.

[michel123456]

Don't take that too seriously.

Yes it is childish, but it has effect. Think that my post was only one number: what power!

And I think my previous posts were polite.

The deep question is that it has been showned that previous animation was wrong. It is a very bad habit to show to a child what he cannot do. You always must show the right way, not the bad one.

 

I am patient.

Edited March 14, 2011 by michel123456

[owl]

No Owl, you are actually wrong and you don't seem to understand or be willing to accept this.

 

Do you want to learn and understand why you are wrong?

(Refusing to answer again will be interpreted as "No".)

We have beat the stick men to death to no avail.

I want direct answers to direct questions about sun-earth distance. Does it change with changes in inertial frames of reference from which it is measured? If so, why do we not experience heating up and cooling down because of the changing distance?

 

Also, does "Lorentz transformation" actually claim that the sun changes size and temperature as measured from "different frames of reference?"

[Iggy]

The correct relativistic animation would be instructive.

 

9

 

I was sure you were being sarcastic. I animated frames for relativistic velocity addition for you a few days ago in your Minkowski / twin paradox thread. It is post #61.

 

The deep question is that it has been showned that previous animation was wrong.

 

Which animation do you mean?

 

We have beat the stick men to death to no avail.

 

The blue guy's reference frame measures the wrong value for the speed of light. If you can't solve that problem or understand why it is a problem then you have no hope of discussing any matter of relativity.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Iggy

[Spyman]

We have beat the stick men to death to no avail.

I take that as a "No" then, not possible to interpret it in any different way.

 

 

I want direct answers...

Sure you do, but since you obviously are not capable to understand them nor interested to learn, why would I waste my time?