On self-reference, contradiction, and logic

[PGTips]

It's funny, you guys are so motivated to defame me, why?

Because you make a lot of claims and back nothing up. You bark and bark and bark, but have no bite.

Seriously whats got you guys so worked up over some supposed punk kid with no degrees, and a mouth full of profanity?

I don't care if you're a "punk kid" or your mouth of full of profanity (I swear all the time too). I'm a kid without a degree as well, so I can hardly consider you lower than me in that respect. What gets me worked up if your constant "I'm right, you're wrong." "No really, I'm right, you're wrong." "I told you, I'm right, you're wrong", but without any evidence. When pushed for evidence you ignore people. When you do open your mouth about mathematics or physics its so far off the mark its worrying for someone who "claims" he's about to overturn physics.

Is it entertaining to act like you're better, must you try to tease those that don't fit into your ideals, or image of the way things are, or 'should' be for you?

Since I started university I've met many people who are unassuming, quiet and have some humility but have intellects that stagger me. I have no "preconceptions" on how people should be, or what kind of person you have to be to be good at mathematics or physics, all that counts is ability and results. So far we've seen neither from you, so you can hardly blame us for having doubt.

If you'd quietly worked away at a theory, then actually published it then not one person in this thread would have a problem with you. Instead you've mentions on many occasions "I've got a superior theory!!" but shown nothing for it. That is annoying, because you constantly keep dropping it into conversations, then depart, hoping people will think "Wow, he must be clever!" but you never return to back up your claims.

Because they see the tremendous potential in your work, David, and are provoking you to give them hints so they can steel it from you! And bastards have bribed a hostile administrator to help them. Infamy has no limits...

Its true, Bluelight is all a huge conspiracy in an attempt for me to steal David's revolutionary new theory!

Or instead we're just tired of his bullshit. Either he puts his theory where his mouth is or every time he sticks his head into a physics discussion, it'll end up like this. Personally I never get tired of asking for people to back up their claims of grandeur.

 

[michael]

no no, we're the ones with delusions.

 

[qwe]

Is david giving a humorous example of "self-reference, contradiction, and logic"? if not, i think all these posts need to be moved...

 

[David]

^^Yes, because I started this discourse. Blame the guy that's not the butt buddy.

If you'd quietly worked away at a theory, then actually published it then not one person in this thread would have a problem with you. Instead you've mentions on many occasions "I've got a superior theory!!" but shown nothing for it. That is annoying, because you constantly keep dropping it into conversations, then depart, hoping people will think "Wow, he must be clever!" but you never return to back up your claims.

I've been working on it for how many years now, can you remember? We've had that discussion. I only came out with it parts of it on chat about two years ago, sorry you weren't there when I was working in a IRC room with a few physicists actually in the field, and working with accelerators. They helped me lay the initial groundwork. Yes, I said IRC where I used to do a lot of warezing as well.

Yes, that equation makes no sense if you continue to think about it the way you have been taught I know, because it didn't make sense to me at first.

I've also never said anything in that tense, ever. I claim it was inaccurate, as always, and I had a way to fix it... Many physicists have been claiming the same thing for the past 100 years, get it right Alpha, I'm not the only one. If I was, there wouldn't be thousands of physicists people with sooo many opinions, and theories on it. There wouldn't be people still tweeking the original theories to make new ones work. Patchwork makes for sloppy quilts, reality, and the universe are not that sloppy. Albeit persistence of vision smoothes it out for us, but the fact remains.

Again you are a reactionary, and over-react to every post I make on the topic, which hasn't been that many here. Take a look at your own peddling of attitudes, and elitism here. I never went around, and claimed anything that I can't back up. I drop hints, because it's all I was wanting to do. Strike curiousity to open doors, and starting conversations on the right ground.

Yes, I'm getting help from a very promonent man in his field, you think I can do this on my own? This guy said he'd assist me, so I can get back into school where he's got tenure, and some influence. I never felt the need to explain any of this, because frankly it shouldn't matter.

Open a dialogue some time instead of discounting everything I have said. You closed every door with the first insult without questioning the reasoning behind the work I did show, it's the very basic portion of the theory, that's it. Of course it appears inbalanced, because you haven't seen how it's placed on the field, nor the field that was created for it to work properly. It's not set to be the end all it's the basis of the field, and how it flows. Not how an individual particle should react, and certainly not how to meassure any distance, or even the matter's base value. That's what Einstein did, not me.

 

[Euler]

lol - this is great, keep it coming!!

 

[PGTips]

Again you are a reactionary, and over-react to every post I make on the topic

Because I'm tired of your constant "I've got the answer, but humans aren't worth my time, so I'm not going to tell you."

I drop hints, because it's all I was wanting to do.

And any hints you drop are incoherent, and when we point out inconsistencies you claim :

Yes, that equation makes no sense if you continue to think about it the way you have been taught I know, because it didn't make sense to me at first.

Which is a general all purpose "get out of jail free" card, because you can continue posting irrelevant little non-sensical equations claiming "Its just part of my theory!".

But then, my opinion doesn't count because I'm just a thief for stealing the ideas of other mathematicians and not developing anything of my own aren't I?

Yes, I'm getting help from a very promonent man in his field

I get my physics and mathematical knowledge from some VERY prominent people, and I imagine so do Zorn, Compact and I know Euler and Cex do, and we all say the same thing about your "hints".

Take a look at your own peddling of attitudes, and elitism here.

I've said numerous times, this isn't about me saying "I'm better than everyone", I've said many times I know many many people who make me look very bad at maths or physics. I'd imagine Compact and Zorn are better than me at maths or physics. If you feel that people criticising your ideas is elitism, then you must lead a very paranoid life. If Compact posted E = md^m, I'd tell him he was wrong, and ask why he posted it. He'd tell me immediately, you've had months and still nothing.

Strike curiousity to open doors, and starting conversations on the right ground.

I'm all for discussions on maths and physics. A search for my posts in T&A will bring up dozens of threads, possibly hundreds of posts many long indepth discussions about maths and physics, answering peoples questions. Every time you are asked questions, you either don't reply or reply with an incorrect answer.

 

[Euler]

Yes, I'm getting help from a very promonent man in his field

If you want to play that card:

I've been supervised in fluids by world leaders in their field. Next year I will be lectured in Superstring Theory by the man who invented it. When I go to work, everyday I see Fields Medalists and Nobel Prize winners around me. Yet, I don't claim classics like "E=md^m" etc.

Stop being a tool, and plan ahead for a career in McDonalds.

 

[PGTips]

^ My Cosmology supervisor would probably give me a slap for making such a statement like E = md^m, but then he's only a Professor of Cosmology in Cambridge, what would he know, eh David? As Euler says, if you want to play the "I'm working with someone cleverer than you" game, you're going to lose with myself and Euler (who if you hadn't already guessed, is in the same uni as me).

Anyway, from what you've said, it seems the person helping you hasn't said you're right, but said he'd help you. Infact, on previous occasions you'd admitted your supervisor or head of department has told you your theories are gibberish. But then a theory involving "In other words more of the universe would be visible to us, because we would be on a higher energy level. " or "that the speed of light is constant in all known spectrums, but at higher than known frequencies, it starts to shift into a phase which is still there, but beyond any means we have of detecting it." would be on thin ice.

Besides, your theories are built on no evidence at all (since we can't detect it). I thought you hated that about String Theory (which incidentally matches current measurements anyway)? How strange you forgot to mention that while you were criticising String Theory, yet praising your own "theories"...

Its strange, I don't mean to type such long posts, its just the wealth of inconcistencies and errors in your comments that I get carried away. Be glad I don't have any speed with me, we'd all be regretting it then :D

 

[David]

On the backs of giants right.

 

[Euler]

On the backs of giants? O.K, why do you think it's fine for 1+1 to logically be the same as 2? Look up Principia Mathematica, namely p362.

You prick.

 

[qwe]

I'm not really on anyone's side here, though I really would like to see david defend his ideas (since he hasnt, this thread is just personal attacks)

david could you explain this:
Nope it's all in how it's placed on the field I have for it. Trust me it's right. It doesn't seem right, until it's placed on the field. Dimensions don't matter, because they are based observations, and mass is independent of dimensions. It's the effect of this multiplication that comes before the measured mass. It sounds crazier than it is. It's actually quite sipmle, but it requires a field for it to be correct.

(this is david's response to someone posting in his journal):
"You can't raise something to the power of a number that has dimensions.

For example, consider 2^(mass) where the mass in question is 2kg.

2^2kg = 4

However if you measure it in grams you get

2^2000g = Something really big.

You see the problem?

You might need to rethink this one."

david do you mean to say there needs to be a finite space field, in order to have mass be an exponent? so basically, the equation doesnt really mean anything unless in context? and you cant really apply it to the whole universe...as that isnt any finite space

sorry if i misinterpret you. i'm a newb to physics. i'm trying to get an actual part of your ideas into this thread so it's not just attacks

 

[David]

Finite space no, just finite within our observations. This is why we can't tell if there's faster light than the pre-determined speed. It's a spectrum, in a field of waves. In order to explain it's reactions, and motions defined within the current systems I had to remove the dimensions. Dimensions are determined after the essential matter is effected. We see the effects after the rules, not before. Which is why nothing goes together without "tweeking". Dimensions are part of our perceptions, which are flawed.

I removed dimensions as they are known, because that is where I believe everyone went wrong, with trying to base observations through our own perceptions. However as was described here in plain english, there are inconsistancies within their thoughts on relativity, and they are ignoring them. I want to know why they haven't addressed these issues, but instead of it, they deny these inconsitencies everyday. With the current state of the value of education, and tenure it's no wonder.

As far as attacks, I have thown no accusations that are not true, and when I speak of humans in such light, obviously I'm including myself. Humility is great, but only if it's publicly acknowledged.

As for being a newb, it's best to learn to think on your own first, and understand where others are coming from before you become a fanatic of the current trends like some others that we see these days.

On the backs of giants? O.K, why do you think it's fine for 1+1 to logically be the same as 2? Look up Principia Mathematica, namely p362.

You prick.

Ok, want it in latin? http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Newton0189/Principia/0741_Bk.pdf

LOL ok. Explain a prime spiral to me, why does it exist? Can you? I'm willing to bet you can't. Shit, I'm willing to bet no one here can, nor anyone you know.

 

[PGTips]

Ok, want it in latin? http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Newton0189/Principia/0741_Bk.pdf

Wrong Principia. Euler was refering to the work of Russel and Whitehead who in the early part of the 1900's attempted to rederive all of mathematics from the axioms. It took 362 pages for them to develop mathematics far enough to be able to prove 1+1=2. It was (and remains) the most indepth return to mathematical roots ever done, and took them over 10 years, and they didn't even get close to finishing it.

Euler's point is that you make comments like :

On the backs of giants right.

Giving the impression that you are somehow developing something which doesn't use any previous results, yet even the result 1+1=2 is a result which took 2 mathematical genius's 362 pages of logical argument to prove, and logic was their area of expertise.

Hence, you cannot insult us for "standing on the shoulders of giants" because you will be too. The whole point of science and mathematics is to build on previous peoples ideas, there is no theft or dishonour in doing so, the people who develop these ideas wanted to extend human knowledge and understanding. That opinion of yours seems to spring from your previous comment that "humans are a pathetic species and not worth my time". Its more your own opinion of selfishness that considers using previous peoples work a fauxpas.

This is why we can't tell if there's faster light than the pre-determined speed. It's a spectrum, in a field of waves.

Would you care to elaborate on why we cannot see things which interact faster than light? We may not be able to see the messengers moving faster than light, but 2 objects which break causality would be easy to spot.

Dimensions are part of our perceptions, which are flawed.

The number of dimensions is the number of linearly independant vectors required to span a space. You could not describe a point on a piece of paper without having 2 vectors (like x and y). Because you need 2 vectors, you have a 2D thing. This is by definition. If you are trying to describe space, you'll be using at least 3 coordinates, which are usually x,y,z and perhaps t for time. That is by definition a 4D system. We haven't "included" the dimensions, the system has a defined dimension of 4 because it needs 4 linearly independant vectors. The space of functions spaned by {1,x,x^2,x^3} is 4D because its spaned by 4 linearly independant "vectors", there's nothing in there to do with our perceptions, its just a number.

As for being a newb, it's best to learn to think on your own first, and understand where others are coming from before you become a fanatic of the current trends like some others that we see these days.

So you have learnt all your knowledge on your own? You even rederived 1+1=2? You came up with calculus from scratch? You redeveloped diffrential geometry alone, with no help? Sure you did

I don't deny, all my knowledge comes from other people. I have made no attempt to pretend otherwise. The reason you get such a hounding is you claim you've done this, and that, and put down others for things which you yourself are guilty of, and you offer nothing to back yourself up. I gave you slack for about 8 months, then I got tired of all your talk and nothing to show for it. Obviously I'm not the only one.

LOL ok. Explain a prime spiral to me, why does it exist? Can you? I'm willing to bet you can't. Shit, I'm willing to bet no one here can, nor anyone you know.

A prime spiral is the shape generated when you plot the natural numbers in an outward going spiral around one another, and then highlighted all primes. Like the digit expansion of Pi (which you're just as well versed in ) the primes appear to make pseudo-patterns when this is done, and there is much investigation into such patterns, most notably by Ulam.

As for why they exist, that is still an area of research. Its like saying "Why do all the zeros of the Zeta function appear on the R(z)=0.5 line?" Its still not known. Incidentally, if the Zeta Hypothesis is correct, there is no order to primes, so (though I'm not entirely sure) a proof that primes have a distinct pattern would disprove the Riemann Hypothesis. Though I'm sure you're about to tell us you've come up with a distinct pattern for primes, which explains prime spirals and thus disproves the Riemann Hypothesis too, right? So it looks like you might be about to solve the greatest problem in mathematics and resolve the greatest problem in physics!

I've said numerous times, you show some form of actual results, and you'll get a lot less abuse from myself and others. Until then, just don't mention your problem with physics or how you're about to overturn everything, and threads like this won't arise. You stopped posting in T&A for about 4 weeks after our previous thread like this, and things went fine.

 

[Cex]

I removed dimensions as they are known, because that is where I believe everyone went wrong, with trying to base observations through our own perceptions. However as was described here in plain english, there are inconsistancies within their thoughts on relativity, and they are ignoring them.

Did you read down to the bottom of that page? If you do, you'll notice a comment offering several explanations of the observed phenomenon which don't involve discarding the principle of relativity out of hand. The first step when finding an observation which doesn't agree with current predictions should be to try and explain it within the model you're already working with, not make sensationalist claims like "The speed of light is not a constant!" and "Relativity is wrong!" in order to try to make headlines.

Another line from that page, that you might find interesting, is:

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

If you want to develop a new theory to supplant an old one, you have to make sure that your theory incorporates the predictions of the old one into it! General Relativity has been experimentally verified to one part in a hundred billion - there are thousands of experiments which show it to be right, and only this one which suggests it might be wrong. Therefore your new theory will have to predict all the things that GR does, and gets right - including time dilation and length contraction (which are manifestly relativistic effects), the inverse square law of gravity (approximately, of course) and gravitational lensing. So far, you haven't given us anything to make us believe that your theory does this.

None of us 'Einies' as you so endearingly like to call us are saying "Einstein is right". We're pretty confident that he's wrong - after all, his theory says nothing about the quantum world which we've spent so much time and money on. But it is obvious that you don't have a particularly good grasp of General Relativity, and as such are in no position to start bandying about phrases like "I'm about to disprove Relativity". The physicists in the article you linked to all have one thing in common that you don't - they've finished their degrees and have their doctorates. They are possibly now in a position to start challenging some accepted theories. You are not.

LOL ok. Explain a prime spiral to me, why does it exist? Can you? I'm willing to bet you can't. Shit, I'm willing to bet no one here can, nor anyone you know.

I'm willing to bet that you can't either. Nor can anyone you know. Nor can anyone in fact, since no one knows why they exist! The fact that you're trying to 'prove us wrong' by asking us to do something which nobody can do just staggers me. I don't even know why you'd begin to think that was in any way a useful demonstration of your supposed mathematical prowess.

And in any case, what do prime spirals have to do with physics? Even if you could begin to give us the merest hint of the chance of a taster of your theory, we might stop ridiculing you in such an extreme manner. Feel free to go into as much depth as you like though - I've taken courses on both General Relativity and Number Theory, so I'm fairly sure I can handle most things you throw at me.

 

[David]

Did you read down to the bottom of that page? If you do, you'll notice a comment offering several explanations of the observed phenomenon which don't involve discarding the principle of relativity out of hand. The first step when finding an observation which doesn't agree with current predictions should be to try and explain it within the model you're already working with, not make sensationalist claims like "The speed of light is not a constant!" and "Relativity is wrong!" in order to try to make headlines.

What makes you think I didn't read it? I'm assuming since you are actually a bit new to this discussion you missed the first thread on this, or actually the only thread I started which was titled "Altering Relativity". My aim is correct where I think it's gone wrong, not shake everything, and destroy the foundations. Again I never made any of those claims, I fail to see how people are coming up with me stating any of that. The words are being put into my mouth, which is why I have declined to hold this dicussion with Alpha anymore, because that's all I've heard from him. Sort of like I hurt his feelings when I came here and stated I think it's inaccurate. Which is all I've ever claimed here.

Another line from that page, that you might find interesting, is:

"But of course it doesn't mean we just throw the books in the bin, because it's in the nature of scientific revolution that the old theories become incorporated in the new ones."

Again I fail to see why you thought I didn't read that. My library consists of all the books on gravitation I could find, that were not too expensive for me, which isn't very many. I've read more than enough on this area to understand the older theories. I simply refuse to be dragged into a mud slinging match to prove myself to anyone.

If you want to develop a new theory to supplant an old one, you have to make sure that your theory incorporates the predictions of the old one into it! General Relativity has been experimentally verified to one part in a hundred billion - there are thousands of experiments which show it to be right, and only this one which suggests it might be wrong. Therefore your new theory will have to predict all the things that GR does, and gets right - including time dilation and length contraction (which are manifestly relativistic effects), the inverse square law of gravity (approximately, of course) and gravitational lensing. So far, you haven't given us anything to make us believe that your theory does this.

Don't worry it's all taken care of, I'm young, and arrogant. Not young, and stupid. Of course I haven't given anything, I wanted to have open discussions and slowly bring it out through discourse. This never happened, because I was promptly attacked on the issues. Therefore I felt no need to hold conversations with anyone on it.

None of us 'Einies' as you so endearingly like to call us are saying "Einstein is right". We're pretty confident that he's wrong - after all, his theory says nothing about the quantum world which we've spent so much time and money on. But it is obvious that you don't have a particularly good grasp of General Relativity, and as such are in no position to start bandying about phrases like "I'm about to disprove Relativity". The physicists in the article you linked to all have one thing in common that you don't - they've finished their degrees and have their doctorates. They are possibly now in a position to start challenging some accepted theories. You are not.

I respect Einie more than anyone for what he did. I'm very proud to say I've read works of his, and understood them with very little side thought. He was my idol growing up, and if it were not for reading some of his work, I would probably never went to schoool, or even stayed in school when I was a child. Science kept me in school.

I fail to see how anyone here is any position to say what I have a grasp on, and don't have a grasp on. I fail to see where I have posted seriously on any issue here, this is a drug forum, I never expected to see people into physics here, and since I originally came here again after my hiatus simply because of the MAPS research into MDMA, and to support political discourse, and enlightenment on safe drug use, I fail to see how you could discern my thoughts, or abilities here. I do my scienctific work offline on a laptop sitting accross the room from me.

I never made those claims either way, so read whatever you wish out of my postings here, everyone else has.

I'm willing to bet that you can't either. Nor can anyone you know. Nor can anyone in fact, since no one knows why they exist! The fact that you're trying to 'prove us wrong' by asking us to do something which nobody can do just staggers me. I don't even know why you'd begin to think that was in any way a useful demonstration of your supposed mathematical prowess.

http://numberspiral.com/

Read it all the way through, and then think about how space-time is said to flow, and how bodies in space are measured on it.

And in any case, what do prime spirals have to do with physics? Even if you could begin to give us the merest hint of the chance of a taster of your theory, we might stop ridiculing you in such an extreme manner. Feel free to go into as much depth as you like though - I've taken courses on both General Relativity and Number Theory, so I'm fairly sure I can handle most things you throw at me.

See the above reply, and tell me what you get from it, and I'll tell you what I got from it. We'll see what you come with in simple discourse here. I could explain it all, but what fun would that be?

 

[Euler]

I'm young, and arrogant. Not young, and stupid.

I beg to differ...

 

[PGTips]

which is why I have declined to hold this dicussion with Alpha anymore, because that's all I've heard from him. Sort of like I hurt his feelings when I came here

I cry myself to sleep regularly because of it David. Instead, I actually enjoy these "mud slinging contests" because its fun watching you back peddle, argue things you don't know, generally contradict yourself and post nonsense.
So far I've seen you comment incorrectly on things including irrational numbers, pi, covariant derivatives, mass/energy, mathematical analysis and chaos theory. There are more but I don't have much time to search, about to head out. Compared to what I've seen you post correctly, they are the vast proportion of your physics/maths comments.

As Cex says, we all know physics isn't exactly right, that much is obvious. I don't deny that, and I don't mind saying it myself. Its your "My theory is superior" thats annoying, when the evidence is quite to the contrary. To counter that you say :

I never expected to see people into physics here,

Well now you have. It was also obvious a year ago when you joined Compact and Zorn know their stuff, but upon being asked to show stuff you don't. Even 8 months ago you have a problem with Compact because I remember you telling him how wrong he was in the discussion about Pi, despite you being wrong on every count. If you've suddenly come up a theory about the patterns of prime spirals, your number theory have come on leaps and bounds since you questioned the requirement for irrational numbers and the ability to define pi! Mind you, you had a go at me about some number theory, something about "the absense of value" when dividing by zero. 8( Right...

I fail to see how anyone here is any position to say what I have a grasp on, and don't have a grasp on. I fail to see where I have posted seriously on any issue here,

We form "images" of one another by our posts. I would like to think part of peoples image of me is that I'm decent at maths (perhaps arrogant as a result, I don't care), but they get that image from the number of posts I've made on the subject. We get our mental image of your ability from your posts, which if you've as brilliant as you claim, have done you zero justice, instead make you appear paranoid (oh no, we'll steal your ideas!), lying (Bittorrent plugin?), argumentative (here when you had a go at Compact), and defensive whenever anyone questions your "theories" due to lack of evidence.
You might be a totally different person in real life, and I might be a 6ft 5" trucker named "Jim" who has a thing about school boys, but online we project personas, and your's ain't doing you no favours! Want us to get all friendly and happy, short of several transatlantic flights and a shitload of MDMA? How about putting your money where you mouth is and publishing something, or shut the fuck up for a while instead?

 

[David]

I wasn't aware you pwned this board, and had the lease on the title of posting here, or on something I have an interest in Alpha. I believe that would be the exact attitude I speak of. The flaming I received for not participating in your self-delusions of superiority are what's sets you off. Look now you are ranting, and obviously upset over something that has not come to harm you in absolutely any way. What's you problem? Too many stressors in your life, and you feel you must defend your profs thoughts outside of his class? Give me a break you have yet to even state anything countering anything remotely close to what I have posted on here, I'm still waiting for you to be the open minded person you are professing to be. You are no better than SoHi in that light, you treat maths, and science like it's a religion.

0 is the absence of value, because at zero there is nothing. When you divide anything by 0 you get nothing, because that's what it is.

Yes, do go read this link: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1994377#post1994377

Read my posts very carefully, and use this. I know there's differences in the language we speak, but I wasn't aware a verbal, or irrational definition was defining something finitely, which is exactly what I was attacking in that thread. Irrational numbers such as Pi can sway an equation, depending on how far you carry the decimal. Then it went on to trying to prove me wrong by using an equation to define the Irrational of Pi, that is hypocrisy, and the simple fact you can't see that brings me to doubt your abilities to judge me here. It's all being defined with approximations, and the defining of Pi itself is the case in point I was trying to make there.

In the end of that thread I still don't see where anyone was proving me wrong, just misreading what I typed. I can't be bothered to remember correctly, but at the time I believe I pulling heavy over-time, and drinking a bit. So my english may not have been as clearly as one would have hoped.

Either way it seems you exaggerating the premise of my posting there, and the actual discussion.

Here maybe this will make my point much clearer to you:

Defineb : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>

Euler You are obviously into strings, so I fail to see what you could possible have on me.

 

[Euler]

Euler You are obviously into strings, so I fail to see what you could possible have on me.

You wouldn't understand any of what I'm into - mainly because it requires more than 12yr olds knowledge of Mathematics.

I implore you however - never stop posting on here. Myself, and a few other friends, find you immensely entertaining.

 

[miczo]

I've got a Playstation 3 and it plays the new mario game and it runs on mega density floppy disks. Was from japan you see.