The 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and gravity not being fundamental

[kristalris]

The 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics and gravity not being fundamental

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

 

 

a. The universe is fundamentally built up of nothing, a beginning and an end;

b. The universe is fundamentally built of something and nothing and no beginning or end;

c. The universe is fundamentally built up of something and no beginning or end;

d. None of the above, but………

 

 

These are logically all possibilities. We know that we don’t know which.

 

So, for sake of the argument lets choose b.

 

If it is indeed b then the question arises what this something could be in order that it fits all known measurements / observations?

 

As an in part solution on our way to answer that question we can idealize the question to its most simple form:

 

The entire universe is filled with one sort of object with a volume, a mass and a relative speed vectored to hit other objects. With all these parameters identical. Given b this is a logical deduction for the simplest form.

 

Then we get to the question does this mass need gravity? Not if you can build that gravity using mass, no. How does this then compare to the second law of thermodynamics? Simple at this level that law doesn’t apply because the regime of that law requires the use of objects that exert gravity.

 

Ergo opposing any idea based on b and logically derived from that with the statement that it conflicts with the second law of thermodynamics is committing a fallacy.

 

In fact then the first law of thermodynamics is indeed the first law. The mass is logically thus un-split-able. Then the question arises must it logically be absolutely rigid in order to stay in permanent motion? The answer is no as long as the volume stays the same. I.e. it must have some rigidity.

I.e. it would only stop if there is something else besides this mass and nothing (energy, waves, gravity and what not). Yet it is a logical given – b - that there isn’t, so then the question becomes can one build with this sort of mass everything we observe? (i.e. energy, waves, gravity and what not)

 

Concerning the second law question on entropy or order it depends. Only when the form is above average exactly the same could order logically ensue.

 

So, maybe maybe not, but we can logically conclude that any objection based on either named first or second laws in this respect is a fallacy.

Edited September 18, 2013 by kristalris

[studiot]

I'm having great trouble following this.

 

Where did b come from? Do you in fact mean the option you have labelled 2?

 

If the universe is filled with particles how can any of them move?

 

The idea that the second law requires gravity is nonsense.

A simple counterexample would be allotropy where substances change their crystal structure and therefore their entropy without reference to gravity.

 

Your title suggests that you also have a beef with the first law, but I cannot decipher your penultimate paragraph or how you get from "we are left with the first law" to your alleged beef with it.

[Klaynos]

Science isn't about picking a statement and arguing for it, it's about the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models. Without measurements and maths you have shown nothing, again.

[kristalris]

I'm having great trouble following this.

 

Where did b come from? Do you in fact mean the option you have labelled 2?

 

If the universe is filled with particles how can any of them move?

 

The idea that the second law requires gravity is nonsense.

A simple counterexample would be allotropy where substances change their crystal structure and therefore their entropy without reference to gravity.

 

Your title suggests that you also have a beef with the first law, but I cannot decipher your penultimate paragraph or how you get from "we are left with the first law" to your alleged beef with it.

Sorry just edited the 1,2,3,4 in the intended a,b,c,d. The computer changed what I posted and I didn't notice.

 

B entails something and nothing so filled means there is room for maneuver as a given because otherwise you won't have "nothing"as well.

 

The idea that the second law applies with particles not exerting gravity can not be logically inferred out of the movement of any observed particle because all known observations include gravity. That includes crystals.

 

I don't have any beef with the first law. I don't have beef with the first or the second law. The first one is fundamental and applies at this level the second is a law that doesn't apply at this level.

[studiot]

If you don't mean filled then I suggest you say "populated with particles such that......."

[kristalris]

Science isn't about picking a statement and arguing for it, it's about the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models. Without measurements and maths you have shown nothing, again.

Science and mathematics start off as a logical exercise. Mathematics is the most accurate language of logic so to say. Proper use of mathematics entails you first get to grips with what you want to put into the mathematics.

 

There can be no logical objection to starting of with choosing one of all possible choices and to see where that speculation leads to. Indeed it must lead to a test. Now that isn't a problem.

 

Your demand for use of mathematics in the logical process of deciding what to test is illogical. You want an extreme degree of accuracy that mathematics provide on a choice on what to put into the mathematics that you agree / must agree is knowing that you don't know if choice b is correct. There are several tests that can be applied: the test of logic, the test of mathematics, the test of experiment and observation. On what logic other than a convention is it based to demand the test of mathematics before the test of experiment?

 

It is only based on a convention. Well science isn't a democratic exercise but one of logic. Ultimately indeed it must be modeled with mathematics.

 

Logic thus dictates you work from inaccurate to accurate: inaccurate in order to choose what to test and accurate in doing the test. You want it the other way round: extreme accuracy before testing and inaccuracy in the test.

If you don't mean filled then I suggest you say "populated with particles such that......."

You're right concerning the "jump off" situation. Yet it is actually because logically filled within a short timeframe. (given the - I should of said) ad random vectors of the beginstate)

 

Thanks for the comment.

[studiot]

Before you can invoke the laws of thermodynamics you need to define your system and decide whether it is open, closed or isolated. The laws have different implications for these.

 

The issue of whether the universe is a closed or isolated system has been undecided for about two and a half centuries.

Edited September 18, 2013 by studiot

[ajb]

On what logic other than a convention is it based to demand the test of mathematics before the test of experiment?

I am not sure what you mean by the test of mathematics, but unless you can provide some quantitative predictions then no-one will take your "theory" seriously. But I think we have all told you this before?

 

How does this then compare to the second law of thermodynamics? Simple at this level that law doesn’t apply because the regime of that law requires the use of objects that exert gravity.

Not true as already pointed out.

 

Thermodynamics and statistical physics don't rely on the interactions being gravitational in nature. You can describe the bulk properties of, lets say an ideal gas (we know you have come across that before), without including the gravitational interaction of the molecules.

[kristalris]

I am not sure what you mean by the test of mathematics, but unless you can provide some quantitative predictions then no-one will take your "theory" seriously. But I think we have all told you this before?

 

 

Not true as already pointed out.

 

Thermodynamics and statistical physics don't rely on the interactions being gravitational in nature. You can describe the bulk properties of, lets say an ideal gas (we know you have come across that before), without including the gravitational interaction of the molecules.

The test of mathematics is (more or less!) exactly what you ask me to do. If I don't provide quantitative predictions (to a high degree so not just saying "it will go to order when you do stated experiment") this fails in your opinion if none is given.

 

The 'no one"you refer to is then the convention that states this requirement. A requirement thus not based on logic but on some sort of majority even when it infringes on logic.

 

You et all - assume - that the second law is irrespective of gravity having particles not stick a bit causing chaos based on what you assume is an accurate enough measurement providing a means to say the effect is cancelled out or negligible. Thus an inaccurate test is provided to oppose where logic dictates an accurate one is required. Yes you can describe the bulk properties in such a way that it at a certain level is accurate enough. That thus doesn't disprove anything stated logically because to do that it must be accurate enough. To establish how accurate is on the claimant to provide as a prediction. This can be done by simply providing a test of which it is nigh absolutely certain that all gravity effects have truly been eliminated sufficiently.

 

Basic very common error in reasoning when in effect applying correct production norms on research questions. In production you correctly demand extreme care before doing anything else than you have been doing even if this doing is illogical or not very accurate. If it works it works. In research it is exactly the other way round. You may test on an inherently inaccurate hunch but when you test it must be up to the required degree of accuracy. In research you may thus make errors. In production you may not.

 

So given that you don't know whether choice - b - is correct or not either, and you don't have any accurate enough test to oppose either, their is then no reason not to investigate further if this chosen route - b - can lead to a useful test.

 

Say with a computer simulation with 1000 x 1000 x 1000 exactly modeled to be as accurate as good billiard balls, being as close as possible absolutely rigid in an as large as possible cube yet providing between 1 and 100 times the size of the length of a billiard table with dito rigid walls go to any kind of order. There is nothing in science to provide an answer apart from doing this - BTW - quantifiable test. It either goes to any sort of order or it doesn't. (= quantified)

 

In effect you then are testing the second law as a truly fundamental law, given as a reason the observation of having more order in the universe than we can explain.

 

No more reason is required than having a practically executable test like this.

Edited September 18, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

kristalris, you are already starting to drift into areas of discussion that have been closed owing to violations of the rules. If this persists, this thread will also be locked.

[ajb]

If I don't provide quantitative predictions (to a high degree so not just saying "it will go to order when you do stated experiment") this fails in your opinion if none is given.

Right, a theory needs to be falsifiable, at lest in principal and that will require some quantitative predictions. Otherwise we cannot say how well a theory matches nature.

 

The 'no one"you refer to is then the convention that states this requirement.

Right, every physicist in the world.

 

Any way this line of thinking is digressing from your opening post.

 

 

You et all - assume - that the second law is irrespective of gravity having particles not stick a bit causing chaos based on what you assume is an accurate enough measurement providing a means to say the effect is cancelled out or negligible. Thus an inaccurate test is prided to oppose where logic dictates an accurate one is required. Yes you can describe the bulk properties in such a way that it at a certain level is accurate enough. That thus doesn't disprove a think logically.

This is a bit garbled. Statistical physics and thermodynamics have proved to be a very good framework to describe bulk properties of matter. By good I mean agrees well with nature. That is the mathematical predictions agree with the observed values to some reasonable degree of accuracy. So, if we are talking about the properties of bulk matter that we can measure in the lab, gravity is not usually included as one of the interactions and yet we still see good agreement with nature. Now that is not to say that in principal one could include gravitational interactions, but they are swamped by electromagnetic ones.

 

As an example the gravitational forces between the constituents of an ideal gas are ignored, in fact all interactions are they are just scattering hard spheres. This is an idealised situation that holds okay at high temperatures and low pressures. You can keep the hard spheres and include an interaction and get better models. The famous one here is the van de Walls equation of state. I would say this is a rather phenomenological model, but anyway there is no reference to gravity here.

 

Very interestingly, statistical physics seems a very universal framework that can cope with a lot of different physics. It gives us some very general constructions and principals.

 

 

Basic very common error in reasoning when in effect applying correct production norms on research questions.

We have established that you do not know anything about research work, so lets bring that back up again.

 

So given that you don't know whether choice - b - is correct or not either, and you don't have any accurate enough test to oppose either, their is then no reason not to investigate further if this chosen route - b - can lead to a useful test.

Right, so go away and formulate this idea properly!

 

First you will need to think hard by what you mean something and nothing. What does this mean in modern physics? Beginning and end also need some thought. Do you mean from a 3d space perspective or a 4d space-time perspective?

[kristalris]

Right, a theory needs to be falsifiable, at lest in principal and that will require some quantitative predictions. Otherwise we cannot say how well a theory matches nature.

 

 

Right, every physicist in the world.

 

Any way this line of thinking is digressing from your opening post.

 

 

 

This is a bit garbled. Statistical physics and thermodynamics have proved to be a very good framework to describe bulk properties of matter. By good I mean agrees well with nature. That is the mathematical predictions agree with the observed values to some reasonable degree of accuracy. So, if we are talking about the properties of bulk matter that we can measure in the lab, gravity is not usually included as one of the interactions and yet we still see good agreement with nature. Now that is not to say that in principal one could include gravitational interactions, but they are swamped by electromagnetic ones.

 

As an example the gravitational forces between the constituents of an ideal gas are ignored, in fact all interactions are they are just scattering hard spheres. This is an idealised situation that holds okay at high temperatures and low pressures. You can keep the hard spheres and include an interaction and get better models. The famous one here is the van de Walls equation of state. I would say this is a rather phenomenological model, but anyway there is no reference to gravity here.

 

Very interestingly, statistical physics seems a very universal framework that can cope with a lot of different physics. It gives us some very general constructions and principals.

 

 

 

We have established that you do not know anything about research work, so lets bring that back up again.

 

 

Right, so go away and formulate this idea properly!

 

First you will need to think hard by what you mean something and nothing. What does this mean in modern physics? Beginning and end also need some thought. Do you mean from a 3d space perspective or a 4d space-time perspective?

I edited the garbled bit, I had to leave in a hurry. I thought I checked it. Sorry.

 

Science holds more than just physics for it includes metaphysics where the OP clearly stems from. I.e. the OP starts off from a question on something inherently immeasurable. Whereas physics sec only concerns itself with what is measurable. Although more and more physicists are thinking about multiverses / the shape of the universe et cetera. Granted they do this via mathematics. The point is logic dictates that you shouldn't only do that.

 

Logic presides over mathematics and not vice versa. In other words mathematics is a tool of logic. A magnificent and essential tool but a tool nonetheless.

 

You approach the OP as only a pure physics problem, whereas it is as said metaphysics and the computer simulation in fact a pure mathematical question. That the model is exact enough for a computer expert of actually doing the test is indisputable. Even agreed upon BTW. That if it goes to any sort of order will have huge ramifications in the sense of immediately causing a paradigm shift in physics on the second law, is undeniable and, doesn't make it a physics test. So why apply physics norms?

 

It is a computer simulation to get to a mathematical formula on a metaphysics question.

 

Maybe not in physics but in science there is only one option left to decide the issue and that is falsify it, by showing it to fail the test of logic, the test of mathematics or the test of experiment; the latter to the degree that is claimed by the prediction and logically not by what physicists assume to be sufficiently accurate. Rule of logic.

 

Ergo, the test is potentially extremely important if it succeeds, it can at this moment not be shown to fail, and the test is very simple.

 

Logic dictates science doing the test by experiment (unless it can show fallacy, mathematical impossibility (you simply don't have the required input for that) or that the test already has been done to the claimed level of accuracy required - which you can't either - or that the effort and cost are prohibitive.

 

Sufficient reason is that we indisputably see more order in the system than current science can explain and this begs the question if we have truly done everything possible to exclude gravity out of the equation? Answer: clearly not. There thus is no logical further reason required not to investigate further.

Edited September 18, 2013 by kristalris

[ajb]

Science holds more than just physics for it includes metaphysics where the OP clearly stems from. I.e. the OP starts off from a question on something inherently immeasurable.

We could quibble about the relationship between science and philosophy all day. Anyway, metaphysics is regarded as philosophy, it does not make the kind of scientific statements that physics does. So given this, you will have to take your ideas up with someone with a better background in philosophy than I.

 

 

Whereas physics sec only concerns itself with what is measurable. Although more and more physicists are thinking about multiverses / the shape of the universe et cetera. Granted they do this via mathematics. The point is logic dictates that you shouldn't only do that.

This thread has some potential to drift off into the philosophy of physics. Anyway, the logic for studying things like multiverses and so on is that the mathematics suggests that these could be real parts of nature. This is different from saying that they are, or indeed are not, but these ideas did not just appear from nowhere. The mathematical structure of the theory together with some interpretation and imagination lead on to new ideas, some will prove to be good others not. So to claim there is no logic behind this is false. You might not agree with the logic and that is fair enough.

 

So, back to your opening post. Talk to someone versed in philosophy as I am far to pragmatic to drift off too far into metaphysics. (I apologise to those who like metaphysics, it is just not my taste, that's all. )

[kristalris]

Before you can invoke the laws of thermodynamics you need to define your system and decide whether it is open, closed or isolated. The laws have different implications for these.

 

The issue of whether the universe is a closed or isolated system has been undecided for about two and a half centuries.

If you have an infinite amount of the particles distributed across the infinite universe and it is a given that these particles are hitting each other then you can take it any way you like. The question then is more one whether or not it is orderly or chaotic or a combination of the two? I.e. the test I propose is a closed box in order to simulate an open system in which any not too small a box has infinitely thick walls.

We could quibble about the relationship between science and philosophy all day. Anyway, metaphysics is regarded as philosophy, it does not make the kind of scientific statements that physics does. So given this, you will have to take your ideas up with someone with a better background in philosophy than I.

 

 

 

This thread has some potential to drift off into the philosophy of physics. Anyway, the logic for studying things like multiverses and so on is that the mathematics suggests that these could be real parts of nature. This is different from saying that they are, or indeed are not, but these ideas did not just appear from nowhere. The mathematical structure of the theory together with some interpretation and imagination lead on to new ideas, some will prove to be good others not. So to claim there is no logic behind this is false. You might not agree with the logic and that is fair enough.

 

So, back to your opening post. Talk to someone versed in philosophy as I am far to pragmatic to drift off too far into metaphysics. (I apologise to those who like metaphysics, it is just not my taste, that's all. )

The proposed test is pragmatic (if it is feasible that is) and has as a test thus nothing to do with metaphysics or philosophy anymore. It only stems from that and will if the test is successful have great ramifications on physics. So nothing to do with that yet. As such because the test describes an idealized computable situation it is in fact a pure mathematical problem. Are you thus calling the simulation of a pure mathematical problem not pragmatic? It is a proposed computed way to get at very relevant mathematics akin the way that fractals were found.

[studiot]

 

If you have an infinite amount of the particles distributed across the infinite universe and it is a given that these particles are hitting each other then you can take it any way you like. The question then is more one whether or not it is orderly or chaotic or a combination of the two? I.e. the test I propose is a closed box in order to simulate an open system in which any not too small a box has infinitely thick walls.

 

 

Perhaps unfortunately, perhaps fortunately the user is not at liberty to take the laws of any universe any way he or she likes.

 

A closed box to simulate an open system?

 

Grow up and read some textbooks before continuing this discussion.

[kristalris]

 

Perhaps unfortunately, perhaps fortunately the user is not at liberty to take the laws of any universe any way he or she likes.

 

A closed box to simulate an open system?

 

Grow up and read some textbooks before continuing this discussion.

Indeed you are not a liberty to take anything you like as being true or not true on MN. You are of course at liberty - and even scientifically required - to check by experiment and observation as primary method anything you feel like. That is the basis observations and thus not mathematics.

 

 

The hypothesis is that the balls will go to order. If so then any (not too small a) virtual box of space can be seen as a box with infinitely thick walls. If it fails it is irrelevant.

 

This as a dictate of logic. I don't think any textbook deals with this idea because it is new as far as I know. And I don't need a textbook for the logic. Do you?

Edited September 18, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

Indeed you are not a liberty to take anything you like as being true or not true on MN. You are of course at liberty - and even scientifically required - to check by experiment and observation as primary method anything you feel like. That is the basis observations and thus not mathematics.

 

 

The hypothesis is that the balls will go to order. If so then any (not too small a) virtual box of space can be seen as a box with infinitely thick walls. If it fails it is irrelevant.

 

This as a dictate of logic. I don't think any textbook deals with this idea because it is new as far as I know. And I don't need a textbook for the logic. Do you?

 

!

Moderator Note

As I have warned once already, this thought experiment is part of a locked topic, so we are not discussing it in this thread. Stick to the topic of the OP: the laws of thermodynamics and gravity.

[Bignose]

The hypothesis is that the balls will go to order. If so then any (not too small a) virtual box of space can be seen as a box with infinitely thick walls. If it fails it is irrelevant.

So, I asked you in your other thread and didn't really get any answer: what steps are you taking to actually do this model?

 

I.e. what literature about the current models are you reading? What are you doing to set up this simulation? Have you picked a programming language? Or maybe one of the commercial pieces of molecular simulation software?

 

In other words, it is time to stop just talking about how wonderful this idea is, and actually put it to the test. I provided you avenues to start pursuing making your own models. I also told you that in my experience, if the simulation is done properly as you've laid it out, I don't think anything will happen.

 

But, really, let's see what happens. You really should be working on this if you believe so very strongly in it.

[kristalris]

So, I asked you in your other thread and didn't really get any answer: what steps are you taking to actually do this model?

 

I.e. what literature about the current models are you reading? What are you doing to set up this simulation? Have you picked a programming language? Or maybe one of the commercial pieces of molecular simulation software?

 

In other words, it is time to stop just talking about how wonderful this idea is, and actually put it to the test. I provided you avenues to start pursuing making your own models. I also told you that in my experience, if the simulation is done properly as you've laid it out, I don't think anything will happen.

 

But, really, let's see what happens. You really should be working on this if you believe so very strongly in it.

Will what you say that I should do further bring the idea any closer to it being tested on what I'm already very sure it requires a simulation on a supercomputer? Most certainly not.

 

Only trying to get backing or put someone on the idea who does have the means to do so is a possible route.

[Bignose]

Will what you say that I should do further bring the idea any closer to it being tested on what I'm already very sure it requires a simulation on a supercomputer? Most certainly not.

How can you be so very sure that it requires a super computer?

 

What literature about the current models indicates that that is necessary?

 

What specific particle interaction model are you using? What are the equations? Again, what programming language do you plan on using?

 

10 years ago we could do models of 100's of thousands of granular materials flowing through hoppers on a state of the art desktop computer; it would take a few days to run. 10 years is a ton of time in computer technology -- I almost feel like the phone in my pocket could probably replicate that today.

 

At the barest, barest minimum, you can set up a small scale model on a desktop -- something with only 1000s of particles -- and test the code to get it ready for this super computer. You can look into using Amazon Web Services to rent distributed computing power on an as-needed basis. A small scale version of the simulation will help you estimate just how large scale it may need to be.

 

But again, all I see are excuses why you aren't actually working in it.

 

Do you actually want to try to do science? Or do you just like pontificating on what you think science should be and not actually doing anything?

[Klaynos]

I still fail to see why the logic of a group of app descendants on a small green planet orbiting an unremarkable star should have any bearing on the universe. Which is why science requires accurate comparisons to observations, which requires numbers thus maths. I'm therefore done with this I don't think it is in any way worthwhile.

[kristalris]

How can you be so very sure that it requires a super computer?

 

What literature about the current models indicates that that is necessary?

 

What specific particle interaction model are you using? What are the equations? Again, what programming language do you plan on using?

 

10 years ago we could do models of 100's of thousands of granular materials flowing through hoppers on a state of the art desktop computer; it would take a few days to run. 10 years is a ton of time in computer technology -- I almost feel like the phone in my pocket could probably replicate that today.

 

At the barest, barest minimum, you can set up a small scale model on a desktop -- something with only 1000s of particles -- and test the code to get it ready for this super computer. You can look into using Amazon Web Services to rent distributed computing power on an as-needed basis. A small scale version of the simulation will help you estimate just how large scale it may need to be.

 

But again, all I see are excuses why you aren't actually working in it.

 

Do you actually want to try to do science? Or do you just like pontificating on what you think science should be and not actually doing anything?

I would love to react and feel and am obliged to by the rules yet I'm not sure that it would be deemed off topic by the interpretation thereof.

[kristalris]

How can you be so very sure that it requires a super computer?

 

What literature about the current models indicates that that is necessary?

 

What specific particle interaction model are you using? What are the equations? Again, what programming language do you plan on using?

 

10 years ago we could do models of 100's of thousands of granular materials flowing through hoppers on a state of the art desktop computer; it would take a few days to run. 10 years is a ton of time in computer technology -- I almost feel like the phone in my pocket could probably replicate that today.

 

At the barest, barest minimum, you can set up a small scale model on a desktop -- something with only 1000s of particles -- and test the code to get it ready for this super computer. You can look into using Amazon Web Services to rent distributed computing power on an as-needed basis. A small scale version of the simulation will help you estimate just how large scale it may need to be.

 

But again, all I see are excuses why you aren't actually working in it.

 

Do you actually want to try to do science? Or do you just like pontificating on what you think science should be and not actually doing anything?

I guess I'm not allowed to react on whose job it is to do science, so I'll leave that be.

 

After some thought on what would be deemed on topic, I'll react to that: I don't exactly know how much computing power is needed. But that is beside the point.

 

Question one is it important? Well if it goes to order yes extremely even => extreme norm applies for science as a whole in order not to follow any lead.

Question two can current science exclude the possibility that it would go to order? No, all that has been stated is that ideal gasses have been used that inherently involves gravity and not extremely accurate computer models.

Question three: is there a lead? Yes, actually science should be testing this and keep on testing this every time a better computer comes along to check as matter of course (in US lingo: as a SOP) whether it goes to order at a higher attainable regime of accuracy until science has - maybe otherwise - found out where the unexplainable degree of order in the observed universe is coming from.

 

AND last but not least it remains as has been acknowledged basically a simple test to do for any computer expert. All the more reason to keep at it, and not sit back assuming that science already knows the answer. I don't claim that by the way. I just say do the bloody test and keep at it, until you - maybe otherwise - do know!

 

 

(BTW I gave the norm of a good billiard as required norm what would convince me that it is busted. Science should set even higher standards I guess.

BTW 2 the sim is easier than a real billiard in the sense that the ball doesn't have to roll. Just a near as possible perfect absolutely rigid sphere and extremely accurate angels is what is needed.)

Edited September 19, 2013 by kristalris

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Ah, I see I have been ignored.

Ka-chunk goes the big lock. Do not reintroduce the subject. (or, to be pedantic, re-reintroduce it)