What is all the evidence for an Expanding Universe

[Strange]

Neutrons are specifically puzzling, to me, for if the beginning was akin to steady state and neutrons were a first state of sort, steady state would potentially have even more problems at the starting line. Doesn't have to be steady state tho, but BB rules it out by saying it had to be different. Logic suggests we must be sure and asks, how? How can we be sure?

 

According to the big bang model, the universe has expanded and cooled. It is pretty straightforward to trace that back and use well understood physics to see what the temperature and density would have been at any point in the past. From that we can calculate the physical conditions (at this temperature, atoms would be dissociated as a plasma, etc.)

 

In your model the universe has not expanded and so it has always been the same temperature. So there would be no "start". So I don't know why you are worrying about neutrons; the universe at any point in the past would be just like it is now. (I don't know why you find neutrons puzzling, but let's not get sidetracked).

 

 

I don't recall saying that.

 

You said:

The universe is not expanding, I sincerely doubt it ever has.

Which means you reject GR.

[shmengie]

 

You said:

The universe is not expanding, I sincerely doubt it ever has.

Which means you reject GR.

 

Ahh, ok, I get your logic and further understand my problem.

 

You cannot comprehend a Universe which is neither expanding nor contracting, because relativity says it must.

 

I assert that assertion is flawed.

 

GR does not predict an expanding or contracting Universe, however. Einstein saw that as a problem with GR at one point and resolved it with what he later claimed a BIG mistake. Now the scientific community seems to agree he was wrong about being wrong. I'm saying three wrongs don't make a right, but my math, as you know, is pretty shaky.

I would state that GR doesn't prove BB and conversely it doesn't disprove it (yet) either.

 

I don't think a constant is needed to prove otherwise, but inclined to disagree with one self. We both agree I don't know, my point, one I struggle with not knowing, is that it still needs to be defined. I see this problem a little differently because, I believe I'm NOT the only who doesn't know it.

 

I have a postulation, but I haven't a scrap of proof. The hunt is narrowing. This may help.

 

Right or wrong, isn't the question I'm posing. I'm still hunting for the piece of the puzzle I'm missing, as I have eluded that was the initial intent of the thread.

I thought you agreed with me, when I stated GR wasn't proof of Lambda-CDM. The initial question posed asks for proof of expansion and nobody's stated it was, that doesn't mean my belief is right or wrong, but it does suggest a flaw in your assertion.

Edited March 25, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

I thought you agreed with me, when I stated GR wasn't proof of Lambda-CDM.

 

The Lambda-CDM model is based on GR.

 

 

The initial question posed asks for proof of expansion and nobody's stated it was, that doesn't mean my belief is right or wrong, but it does suggest a flaw in your assertion.

 

There is no "proof" of expansion. There is no proof of anything in science.

 

However, you have already been given the evidence for the expansion: red-shift, CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, large scale structure, etc, etc.

 

There are few or no alternative explanations for these. And there is no alternative model that explains all of them. That is the scale of your challenge.

[shmengie]

The Lambda-CDM model is based on GR.

 

 

There is no "proof" of expansion. There is no proof of anything in science.

 

However, you have already been given the evidence for the expansion: red-shift, CMB, proportions of hydrogen and helium, large scale structure, etc, etc.

 

There are few or no alternative explanations for these. And there is no alternative model that explains all of them. That is the scale of your challenge.

Argh, I misstated the facts slightly. I apolgize.

 

I asked for evidence of expansion. GR wasn't provided as evidence.

 

If Lambda-CDM is based on GR it doesn't require invalidating GR to doubt, question or otherwise falsify expansion.

 

Conversely invalidating GR would invalidate expansion. I might be wrong, shh it happens.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Phi for All]

I might be wrong,

 

Cue the music, get ready for the close-up, switch on the CG light bulb. Welcome to science.

[shmengie]

I said (from old Quote)

I find Lambda-CDM somewhat plausible, doesn't mean its wrong or right.

If you think the Lambda-CDM (big bang) model is plausible (and it is because it is supported by a large amount of evidence) then it is impossible for you to reject cosoological red shift - it is a consequence of the big bang model.

What is this large body of evidence???

I've been asking for evidence. Iterated a list of three items, pointed out it was short and logically invalidated one third.

 

I also produced a thought experiment that didn't garner any evidence for/against, other than "thats the way it is" which isn't evidence, IMO.

 

 

 

Here's another thought experiment. I hope you guys find this stuff engaging. I do, even tho I claim no grasp of math, I like thought experiments.

 

CBMR... really limits the age of the Universe, based on expansion.

 

There's an age or quite a few, the universe cannot be, if expansion is right.

 

It's postulated there is a distance of the universe that exists but we never be able to see because it's distance is further than light will ever travel because expansion is faster than light it's essentially moving away from us.

 

Now there's a lot I don't like about that, but those are the facts as I understand them, according to Lambda-CDM.

 

Now one might assume we wouldn't be able to detect CMBR because it's originating from such a point. But the logic indicates that's wrong, because the universe isn't that old (I think, not quite sure about this).

 

Based on this state of reality, we can detect CMBR because it's originated inside the horizon of light speed expansion inversion.

 

How long until that state of affairs changes and we won't be able to detect it?

 

What is the predicted drop off of detect-ability expected to be like? Is there such hypothesis?

 

Would really shut me up if it happens tomorrow. ;D

 

Cue the music, get ready for the close-up, switch on the CG light bulb. Welcome to science.

I laughed hard when I slipped the explicative in there and you didn't quote it. Crack my laugh pot, y don't u.

 

---

 

Okay, let's suppose the cosmological constant is 0.

 

Does that instantly turn GR into support for steady state, steady space-time or steady distance/space.

 

Back to the "i could be wrong" supposition I think it's kinda like saying there isn't a constant. And the redshift doesn't make sense in this circumstance, therefor its wrong... Ahh... I get it. shhh it happens. tho ... I dont want to say it.... I fear I'm cracking on wrong.

FWIW: I'm not trying to be sarcastic, rude or anything of the nature. I've never had a course on relativity. I've never read a book about it. I did read a biography on Einstein once, but it was such a snooze to read, I can't believe I ever finished it. Can't remember who the author was, but would a been better if it was Einstein. The book I chose, if you read it, you know what I'm talking about when I say it stunk.

 

Never had a course on calculus or trig, but the concepts have been introduced a very long time ago. You don't need to know them to write code. Tho you do need to grasp the concepts to code around them, coding inherently implies calculus, ie. the function. 48 when I finally understood that concept association. DOH I'm 49.

 

I've been trying to grasp relativity for a long time. I *think* I understand the maths, but the transformations baffle me as equally as everything about tensors.

 

I believe the answer to the posed question is distance/space. But I humbly request affirmation.

My thesis has nearly solidified and I might possibly be presenting it to you this month. I'm not going to go the secretive/greedy route. But I think I've figured it out completely tonight.

 

1. bb must be wrong

2. relativity must be right

 

Understanding is simple, once you realize you went along with asking the wrong question... I need to work on details of that.

 

I do have a question which revolves around expansion.

 

Strange question:

 

Data that supports the current and roughly 14 billion years worth of cosmological constant evolution.

 

I'm going to propose tossing any value for cosmological constant for which we cannot substantiate, through evidence. Technically its not invalidating the gamut of bb/expansion, but it does imply that any data that is supported by supposition is either absent or wrong. It's a way to say bb is technically wrong, which doesn't invalidate any of existing observational evidence.

 

Can I do that? LOL... -meant to pose a question, but I realized I was making a lot of statements then made up the question. Theres a lot of implications with bb and my principle, but it really changes no observational data, but the supposition behind bb must be wrong for my postulation to be right.

 

My thesis depends on this. BB must be wrong, IMO.... Has to do with the initial question asked. I told you it was simple... *I*STILL*BELIEVE*IM*RIGHT*. tho I'll be wrong again, soon enough... it happens.

I've been contemplating the universe for decades. Its not like I woke up one day and decided to play a prank on you guys or anybody.

 

That was never a goal. I told you I'm searching for the truth. Don't know any loftier goal than that.

 

There's not one flaw with Lambda-CDM that bothers me. There's a few of 'em. I can't explain CMBR. I have little interest in thermal dynamics, so I'm not real interested in that aspect. While I understand Lambda-CDM has a lot of association with it, I don't believe an alternate beginning must explain it to gain traction. I've not started to try and I don't see the point. Others will figure something out that makes sense, right or wrong won't much matter to me.

 

My thesis in its present state cannot support it, but it doesn't have to... Lambda-CDM fits with the theories of CMBR, doesn't mean another theory can't as well. I can guess at scenarios that might explain it, but that's a pointless exercise for me, because its not science. You guys are much better equipped for than I, so I'll leave it to you or whomever might choose to do so.

 

I'd like to claim I was the one that spotted a flaw in Lambda-CDM. But it wasn't me, the flaws I know aren't of my own discovery, pop-sci sources and frankly common knowledge. Dark Energy is the biggest of the bunch or more specifically the cosmological -non-static- constant. I think I've figured out a plausible explanation for this.

 

Unfortunately my "plausible" explanation requires a bout as much unsubstantiatable supposition lambda-cdm does to formulate matter.

 

I don't have an explanation for matter. I'd like to say it doesn't matter, but matter matters... Well... oh well... I'm pretty sure I'll get you to believe what needs to change and the missing pieces of the puzzle will find a new way to fit in or they won't. I can't answer a lot of questions. Never claimed to be able to answer 'em all.

 

By engaging me and making me think, you've given me a debt to you, I hope pays off in spades for the sake of progress.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[shmengie]

re: Lambda-CDM, cosmic-expansion/inflation, big bang

 

Then why do you think it is a plausible hypothesis?

 

I term it a plausible hypothesis, because much of it is defined on accepted principles.

 

I question it's validity because I cannot clearly define a clear divine of the supposition from which it is based, from the scientific evidence.

 

 

On several occasions I've been told I don't understand the principles of science. In many instances because I doubt the plausibility of Lambda-CDM. I don't know how much of Lambda-CDM is based on pure supposition. 0% would be ideal, IMO. That would leave little room for doubt. While I don't know Lambda-CDM from head to toe, but like to believe I have a reasonable familiarity with it.

 

I know there is supposition involved. I don't know the full extent. But one key body of evidence for it is based on a degree of supposition. CMBR analysis is based on a lot of scientific principles I don't fully grasp. Its inclusion in expansion principle is, however, to a degree based on supposition(s). I don't know how you view that, but it induces a bit of skepticism in me. I don't understand a lot of Lambda principles, I understand it's basis on supposition and count thereof does not equal to 0 or 1.

 

Now maybe I don't understand how "science" works. But... I could be wrong.

 

The thesis I've been working on for a day or two now, I recognize conflicts with expansion. Probably because I don't understand science. I would beg to differ. But. There are a lot I of things I simply don't know... (Ar my fn bah. (sorry getting a little emotional)). I've known all along it conflicts, but one must draw the arbitrary line once in a while.

 

I've set out a few goals with this thesis. One, you guys induced, math, but I *might* have to forgo not learning more. I think I figured out exactly 1 change in math. In order for my thesis to be accepted a portion of Lambda-CDM must be invalidated. It happens to be the largest portion which relies heavily on supposition. It stems from the wrong question being asked a long time ago.

 

I said it changes everything and almost nothing. Everything that's based on (too much) supposition, will have to be toss and replaced with new suppositions. I didn't choose this as a consequence. I don't like it. There are so many things I cant answer because of it, it's going to make winning my argument difficult.

 

I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, I'm a lousy hack(er). I specialize in logic, with mad debugging skills. I took offense when my logic was called into question, tried not to bitch too much about it. Wanted to bitch more than I have... (can we call it a wash LOL).

 

 

Did I find something new... Maybe... I view it as a bug and I'm gonna debug it best I can. Where it's placed, reminds me of malware. In either event, a reboot will be required.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Mordred]

In one of your statements you stated you weren't interested in the thermodynamic of LCDM.

 

Unfortunately LCDM is mainly a thermodynamic process. No matter which theory I've studied on the Universe LCDM, MOND, LQC etc.

 

They all involve thermodynamic processes. The Einstein field equations also describe a homogeneous and isotropic ideal gas.

 

It's unavoidable. Expansion is a thermodynamic process there is a good chance the cosmological constant is as well.

Why do you think the acceleration equation I posted earlier in this thread includes energy density and pressure terms?

[Klaynos]

I term it a plausible hypothesis, because much of it is defined on accepted principles.

 

In physics that means maths. You've openly stated you don't have the maths so this opening statement is just false. It doesn't really seem worthwhile continuing.

[shmengie]

In one of your statements you stated you weren't interested in the thermodynamic of LCDM.

 

Unfortunately LCDM is mainly a thermodynamic process. No matter which theory I've studied on the Universe LCDM, MOND, LQC etc.

 

They all involve thermodynamic processes. The Einstein field equations also describe a homogeneous and isotropic ideal gas.

 

It's unavoidable. Expansion is a thermodynamic process there is a good chance the cosmological constant is as well.

Why do you think the acceleration equation I posted earlier in this thread includes energy density and pressure terms?

 

I've not studied the body of thermodynamics in great detail. The gist of my thesis doesn't depend on thermodynamics. However, CMBR and my lack of therms, I've decide is unimportant to resolve before moving forward with changing everything because in essence I change nothing. There many questions that will have to be reformulated.

 

I've been told I must explain CMBR to propose an alternate to BB. I understand that reasoning, but it is flawed IMO. Others will figure that out, whether I do or not.

 

In physics that means maths. You've openly stated you don't have the maths so this opening statement is just false. It doesn't really seem worthwhile continuing.

 

Well.. physics uses math to support principles doesn't mean that the whole body of physics means maths. When I first realized the issue I was tackling, I didn't know a lot about physics (honestly I still dont) but... I'd agree "physics means principles" It would be more accurate to state "physics implies maths" or "physics applies maths" to understand principles.

 

Einstein said once, to describe principle you need to be able to describe them to a child. (not a direct quote).

 

I've been trying to describe a change in a principle. I discovered a method to describe GR to a child (namely me), uses a similar method as one thats' already been used, by dropping 5 dimensions to 3, instead of 4.

 

Because my philosophy depends on GR this was necessary. Now I can describe the problem in that fashion and why it is they way it is. That was the breakthru I needed to move it forward. Now I gotta write down my description and it can be shared.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Klaynos]

Maths is the language of physics. If you don't talk the language good can you understand what the principles are? Like any translation, maths to English losses lots of information.

 

Ah quoting Einstein, I suggest you read some of his papers, notice all of the maths.

 

You don't understand GR, you don't know the maths, how could you possibly know whether the stories you're telling yourself have any bearing on reality? To do that you need a mathematical model that makes petitions which you can test against observations.

[shmengie]

Waaaaa, it was so easy to toss CDM to the side and ignore it. I've got one supposition that's really bugging me.

 

I'm going to change your view of the universe to be about the same as it ever was. There's one difference. Seems I don't have to toss Lambda-CDM to the side, altogether but I need a reasoning for a state to be a state. I might have to forgo conceiving a reason, i surely don't get it, at present.

You don't understand GR, you don't know the maths, how could you possibly know whether the stories you're telling yourself have any bearing on reality? To do that you need a mathematical model that makes petitions which you can test against observations.

 

I have noticed all the maths. I've even tried to translate the symbols to personal understandings. I have a bit of a hard time with that, doubt I'm in the minority in that respect.

 

Understanding principles requires conceptualization, maths solidify the contextualization by terming them in a language others may communicate in and providing a finite definition of the rules governing concepts.

 

I have a rudimentary understanding of all of the above. For the most part I get it. I discovered a flaw in Lambda-CDM -- not me really -- determined an explanation for that which is decidedly unexplained. Dark Energy -- I don't dispel it instead I define it. But there's a flaw in Lambda-CDM that we're going to have to come to terms with to deal with it.

 

Since I cannot explain the why things are, only that they must have been and remain a certain way. The assertion will have to stand on it's own merit. I think it will, but that's probably going to be the toughest league of the journey.

 

I am going to change your perception of the universe. It has me very excited. It'll receive a lot of flack, but it will achieve "acceptance". And just to really tick some off I won't use any math symbols, merely words and pictures. But once you get it, you might say "oh, now I get it."

 

It requires a alternative view of Lambda-CDM and Steady State. Or more precisely a combination of the two, which indicates an alternative all together, to me.

There is still a piece of the puzzle I haven't quite figured out -- or come to terms with. Don't know if its going to hold things up or not. In the end everything stays basically the same. Only thing that changes is "our" understanding is a little more complete. Unfortunately it does pose more questions, but that's progress for ya. I've enjoyed posing them alone, but I want company

 

Seems Dark Energy has been a conundrum thats sorta going away, by dispelling the mystery behind it. Its still there but once you understand it's cause, it no longer is termed a 'mystery'.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

I've been told I must explain CMBR to propose an alternate to BB. I understand that reasoning, but it is flawed IMO.

 

Please explain why it is flawed? What is the source of the CMB in your model?

[shmengie]

 

Please explain why it is flawed? What is the source of the CMB in your model?

 

I can't. That's been something of a problem. I've somewhat eluded to this. Quite a big quandary, I don't know how to resolve.

 

Started writing another rendition of my thesis. I will attempt to publish it as soon as possible, so we can all enjoy a good laugh.

 

Have chosen to avoid the topic of CDM and CMBR. I don't believe the topic of thesis is pertinent to those.

 

For a short while, I thought I had to invalidate BB... All evidence has been applied to Lambda-CDM and it makes sense. There is a flaw in the logic of one principle of Lambda-CDM which is termed its pillar of evidence. Its only one flaw and my thesis relies upon it and what seems to the primary assertion of Lambda-CDM. These two combined together have produced Dark Energy and "our" lack of understanding it.

 

I like to believe I have got it figured out. But I have to explain it to all the other children. It really does have the effect of changing everything and nothing, which is so much like an oxymoron, I feel like I'm defining myself as such. I hope I can paint the picture crystal clear and we can move on from there. I could be wrong... I know... I could be right... In the end, because it changes a whole lot of nothing, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way.

 

The whole thesis relies on one assertion I cannot prove. But that's quite literally, nothing new.

The assertion is the same the same and different for BB and SS. That's been the conundrum all along, but I'm working on it. I'd love to claim it's resolved, but na, that's too hard for me, I know I'm not that smart.

 

I don't have an answer for anything new. I've charged myself with changing a perception that is based on flawed reasoning. I've identified the flaw, believe I know it's origin and why it exists and persists. It seems to me, others must agree, before I can move on. It's a hurdle, I've been struggling with for a while. I'd like to move on...

 

The question posed as the topic for this thread is not a simple one thing or one principle is right the others are wrong topic... Its complicated, but I've finally narrowed it down, I think the best I can... Soon, I hope.

 

GR is not a simple concept, IMO. It implies many things are relatively simple, but makes it relatively difficult to get everything right.

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

I can't.

 

Can you explain why anyone should take you seriously?

 

 

For a short while, I thought I had to invalidate BB...

 

Nope. You need to support your idea.

 

 

There is a flaw in the logic of one principle of Lambda-CDM which is termed its pillar of evidence. Its only one flaw and my thesis relies upon it and what seems to the primary assertion of Lambda-CDM.

 

You keep referring to a flaw but seem unable to articulate what that flaw is. And what is "the primary assertion of Lambda-CDM"?

 

 

I like to believe I have got it figured out.

 

There is no evidence of that.

 

 

But I have to explain it to all the other children.

 

You have been saying that for days now. Why not actually do it?

[shmengie]

Like the good professor said, it's all relative.

 

I'm in the process of formulating the explanation now and writing it.

 

Reluctant to post the finished product here, until it's been published else where and there's no IP rights involved.

 

Its beautifully simple, so it has to be right, IMO. But the concepts involved are difficult. It all boils down to understanding GR and 1 assertion that must be addressed in the proper fashion. Because it does change everything and nothing at the same time.

 

I will make one assertion I believe correct and I've not fully investigated. But that's a gamble I'm taking for the fun of it. But I'll reference one paper Morded (I think) supplied (to me), as evidence.

 

It supplies all the math for support and I don't have to type one greek letter or mathematical symbol (other than reference nubmers).

Edited March 26, 2016 by shmengie

[Klaynos]

Again, how do you understand a mathematical theory when you don't know the maths?

 

Maths with no symbols... It's difficult to know what to say to that...

[Strange]

until it's been published else where and there's no IP rights involved.

 

What IP rights? You will, of course, own the copyright in the text you write. But there is no protection for ideas.

 

 

Its beautifully simple, so it has to be right, IMO.

 

More confirmation that you have no interest in science.

[shmengie]

Again, how do you understand a mathematical theory when you don't know the maths?

 

Maths with no symbols... It's difficult to know what to say to that...

I don't claim to "know" mathematical theory. Tho I do, to an extent. One cannot write a mathematical equation without. I've written many in several different computer languages. One common aspect of them all is their mathematical representation.

 

In order to associate a concept, with a greek symbol, one must ascertain the concept and then associate it with the symbol. Doesn't quite work the other way around, as best I can fathom... Just because I don't know all the symbols and their matching concepts, doesn't mean I cannot grasp them, does it? I suppose an argument could be made, but it lacks some substance.

 

What IP rights? You will, of course, own the copyright in the text you write. But there is no protection for ideas.

 

 

More confirmation that you have no interest in science.

Ahh.. hmm.. tough argument.

 

I suppose it would be the "right" to publish. One scientific principle that's considered a practice... We all get to practice till we get it right.

[Strange]

I suppose it would be the "right" to publish.

 

There is no such right.

[Phi for All]

Reluctant to post the finished product here, until it's been published else where and there's no IP rights involved.

 

This is two threads now where you talk about this idea, and claim you've overturned science, and now you're using the "this is my big science idea that makes up for snoozing in Physics, so I want full credit" stall tactic. More rigor, please, more meat and less waffle would be nice. We all get tired of these "pre-discussions" so you can feel up the crowd before committing to actually showing us something.

 

I think you have two choices, my friend:

 

1. Put up.

2. Shut up.

 

Take the plunge. It will be better for you to ask questions (in your real thread), but I know you don't work that way, so please be prepared to support any assertions you make. If you're going to tell us, "This is the way things are!", you need to show why, with evidence.

[shmengie]

I've never published a paper. I have an AA in Data Processing, from a community college. When I studied, IP wasn't coined as a generally understood acronym at the time, tho the concept existed the GNU GPL was of more interest to me than most other copyrights.

 

I've searched for an invention of my own for a long time. The idea I'm struggeling with isn't an invention of my own, per se. I've only logically reasoned it out. There's an invention of a sort, but not really. It's more akin debuging human knowledge. I've tried to explain it in that fashion, but it's hard. Its a very basic concept of relativity but because it requires a strong understanding of relativity, its quite complicated.

 

If you read all threads I've started, understood relativity better than me, you'd be able to piece it all together and might be able to publish before me, tho I'm working on changing that possibility.

[Strange]

Stop waffling. Either tell us what your idea is or go away until you are ready.

[Klaynos]

... it requires a strong understanding of relativity, its quite complicated.

 

Without maths... Relativity is inherently a mathematical theory.

 

Also, can you define what you mean by logic? The branch on mathematics?

[shmengie]

I think you have two choices, my friend:

 

1. Put up.

2. Shut up.

 

I intend to very soon.

 

I've been struggling with this concept for a long time. None of it is my own work, its revolved around my understanding others work.

 

I have an explanation for the source of the energy termed "Dark Energy"

 

I believe its gravity. We've missed comprehending one consequence of GR and it's caused some confusion. This affects understanding of one tenant of Lambda-CDM model and one misunderstood pillar, considered evidence for expansion. Its all terribly confusing, IMO, but I've eluded to it and I could be wrong, but I'm not.

 

I apologize for being cryptic, if it's seemed as such, but this is no simple problem I'm trying to contend with. You all have been a great help progressing my thesis.

 

I intend to avail it to you at the earliest possible convenience.

 

For now, THANK YOU ALL. You have been a tremendous help.

 

The last time I rendered my idea I was still missing a piece of the puzzle this thread helped resolve. I'm working on a clear(er) rewrite, I intend to have published. I wanted to publish that, but there are a lot of missing pieces, I didn't realize they were missing when I composed those words. There was a earlier rendition on this board. I've only started a few threads. The first thread I started (here) contained the first rendition (about a year ago).

 

The definition of Dark Energy has been slightly modified (in my mind's eye). The next rendition will spell it out more definitively.

 

In the interim, you're welcome to read/review its previous rendition, if you like, respond here/there, up to you (FWIW my name is Joe Brown):

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66046.0

Edited March 27, 2016 by shmengie