*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 09, 2020, 06:29:47 AM »
I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Evidence
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, comet tails, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature.

Universal Acceleration

For UA, the best test that could be done would be to test the scale experiment in a vaccum chamber at different latitudes. If you read this page, the experiments which show variations were not done in a vaccum:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

On this one some type of device would need to be constructed with a scale in a vaccum chamber. This may be more difficult as the vaccum may adversely affect components in a precision scale to be unreliable when the chamber fills and evacuates. If resolved such an experiment can be tested against a second precision scale not in a vaccum chamber.

Again, it can be sent to different people at different latitudes for confidence.

What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?
« Last Edit: September 06, 2020, 06:27:35 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2020, 08:04:45 AM »
For UA, the best test that could be done would be to test the scale experiment in a vaccum chamber.
That would be an interesting test. Can you clarify what result would be consistent with UA? I.e. are you expecting that the observed freefall acceleration would be different at different latitudes, or the same?

Quote
What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.



*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3017
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2020, 08:31:41 AM »
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<

The best tests would be those you could perform at home. For example, you could flush the toilets and unplug all the sinks and bath in your house to see which way they go. Did they all go the same way? Is Coriolis a thing?

I think constructing a number of DIY tests to see for yourself and get people on the journey of discovery would be far more valuable than "In 2020 Thork bought a vacuum chamber and witnessed the following".

Maybe a "Top 10 things you can do right now to find out earth's shape" would be more engaging and lead to a fleshed out self experimentation section?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 08:40:56 AM by Toddler Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2020, 08:40:43 AM »
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3017
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2020, 08:49:00 AM »
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.

It is a bent system.

If I said "Round Earth is an oppressive thought system to bolster and foster white privilege at the expense of the BAME community" ... that one is going to get green lit. To get anything peer viewed I simply need to state either climate change is real, black people are oppressed, or homosexuality is the natural default and anything else is a perversion. You have to think about the absolute cock wombles who do the peer reviewing.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2020, 09:03:41 AM »
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.

It is a bent system.

If I said "Round Earth is an oppressive thought system to bolster and foster white privilege at the expense of the BAME community" ... that one is going to get green lit. To get anything peer viewed I simply need to state either climate change is real, black people are oppressed, or homosexuality is the natural default and anything else is a perversion. You have to think about the absolute cock wombles who do the peer reviewing.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax

You misunderstand. I suggest setting up a new FE journal whose purpose is to publish papers on FE research. Similar to the way that JB Rhine set up the journal of parapsychology https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/journal-parapsychology after finding there was no orthodox venue for such studies.

After all, if it is possible to support the FE hypothesis by means of rigorous experimentation and methodology documentation, it should be possible to publish the results in a journal specifically set up for the purpose. The journal could be hosted on this website. If the methodology was rigorous enough, then the subject would be taken seriously by established science.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2246
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2020, 12:16:38 PM »
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.

Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.

Luckily, we have better communications than existed in Norwood's day, so we can arrange simultaneous measures with two participants, as opposed to measuring one, then waiting till next year...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2020, 01:52:12 PM »
Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.
The issue of whether observed latitude = Google latitude is a preliminary. Tests could be run across Europe and the US. If sufficient agreement is found, then the FE research team could agree to rely on the Google latitudes and then move to distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2020, 04:51:09 PM »
Thork is correct that people would never believe any experiment we did. The best we could hope for is that people replicate it. Thork is also right that the experiment needs to be as simple as possible, within the reach of a person, which is why I suggested observational tests of EA which look for curving phenomena.

 There are ways to inspire confidence with any test. The best way to do that would be to:

- Do it ourselves first
- Find a public figure such as a physics teacher interested in performing the experiment to "double check"
- Maybe send the devices to different RE/FE people who hopefully would not steal or damage the equipment (under escrow if we don't know them?)

Anyway, not that it would prove anything since all of those people could still be planted FE shills, but it would at least encourage a science group or classroom somewhere to do it, which would in turn possibly encourage a real scientific investigation of the effect. I have my doubts that science will ever actually go near anything FE since they are not performing more comprehensive versions of the water convexity tests, which now number into the hundreds in the wider FE YouTube community, and which can show that one can see further than should be possible. I think they just accepted that this effect exists and have opted to call it an illusion rather than to perform more controlled versions.

Repeated tests are generally enough to convince people that the effect exists. A result encourages others to also investigate the event, so nothing would be a waste.

edby's idea of a journal is interesting and deserves some thought.

On the UA Experiment to edby:

 Universal Acceleration suggests that the gravitational variations by latitude would not exist, correct. It also suggests that variations by height would not exist (if we ignore the Celestial Gravitation hypothesis that is sometimes invoked that gives the celestial plane a gravitational field)

There are doubts that the existing gravity by latitude experiments with precision scales are valid since they were not done in a vaccum chamber. It is possible that an environmental property gradient at different latitudes is affecting the device (as discussed on https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude ).  At the bottom of that page there is also a link to Time Dilation by Latitude, which uses precision atomic clocks, and shows that time does not dilate by latitude according to the latitudinal variations of the Earth. It is explained away with the Equivalence Principle. That is reason enough for me that the latitudinal variations are questionable.

The scale experiment in a vaccum chamber is one that is simple enough that a community project could be centered around it. Vaccum chambers and scales accurate enough to test this are not expensive. But we would need to figure out how to put a scale into a vaccum chamber and get accurate results, which I suspect will be the actual challenge (and may doom it). Taking it to a different height is something that can be done by a single person. Taking it to a different latitude could be timed to coincide with someone's vacation, or sent to other people who live at different latitudes like the Kern the Gnome experiment.

As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed. I am sure that you have also searched for these kinds of experiments in your efforts to debunk UA. 300 years ago scientists did the scale experiment exposed to atmosphere and decided that the fraction of a one percent difference they were seeing was due to gravity. That same experiment was then repeated over the years.

I think you already know about what the Wiki has to say about gravimeters and what it is actually testing. It would be nice to have reference of a simple experiment that doesn't depend on assumptions about a complex product full of algorithms and inputs, and which may be only indirectly testing gravity based on some of the statements given.

To Thork on his simple experiments list:

If you can think of anything, sure. RE has spent 3000 years making explanations for any simple experiment that someone can perform. If you change the nature of space and time you can explain why a shoe drops at the same rate as a penny, despite the illogical nature of that since it takes more force to physically move a more massive body through space (ie horizontally, pushing a bowling ball and a marble yourself). My opinion is that they are very adept at excuse making.

The experiments would need to test those excuses, or catch the celestial bodies doing something that should not be possible under straight line geometry and force them into their "lines curve because they are projected/wrapped on the celestial sphere" explanation that is eventually trotted out.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 05:53:49 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2020, 05:44:52 PM »
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.

Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.

Luckily, we have better communications than existed in Norwood's day, so we can arrange simultaneous measures with two participants, as opposed to measuring one, then waiting till next year...

Aren't latitudes currently defined by the celestial bodies? Ignoring GPS and LORAN and such, how did people manually determine the latitude and longitude of a location? If San Francisco and Chicago saw the altitude of Polaris in the 1800's to determine their latitude, what makes you think that it would change now?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2020, 05:49:13 PM »
Aren't latitudes currently defined by the celestial bodies? Ignoring GPS and LORAN and such, how did people manually determine the latitude and longitude of a location? If San Francisco and Chicago saw the altitude of Polaris in the 1800's to determine their latitude, what makes you think that it would change now?
That's how it was always done, correct. However, if our own experiments were performed they might gain the trust of more sceptical members of the movement.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2020, 05:58:31 PM »
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed. I am sure that you have also searched for these kinds of experiments in your efforts to debunk UA. 300 years ago scientists did the scale experiment exposed to atmosphere and decided that the fraction of a one percent difference they were seeing was due to gravity. That same experiment was then repeated over the years.

From 1670s on the pendulum was the only method for determining g. Methods grew increasingly sophisticated and were already being corrected for pressure and temperature by the 1800s. In the 1930s Lacoste discovered the superspring method, which was supplemented superseded in the 1950s by ballistic freefall in vacuum method.

I uncovered some papers written in the 1820s using the pendulum method which I managed to calibrate to the modern IG standard. Seems that they could measure g to a few hundredths of a gal, which is pretty impressive for instruments made from brass and wood.

More later.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2020, 06:22:04 PM »
In the 1930's and 1950's you are talking about gravimeters now, correct?

The pendulums (which they say tests weight dimunation) and any scale experiments should have been tested In a vaccum chamber. The vaccum chamber was invented in 1671, so there really isn't any excuse for a highly funded effort by science. Sufficient strength transparent material for a porthole existed (ie. very thick glass). There were materials and sealants strong enough for a vaccum with a porthole, even if it had to be a massive device. I doubt that it was beyond them if they really wanted to do it.

A theory about pressure and temperature and the associated air viscosity, etc, and how it affects the device (or perhaps they are just explaining the variations seen between tests) while in the atmosphere is all less emperical than a direct test in a vaccum chamber and just creates more assumptions. A simple test that we can look at would be best, that relies on as few assumptions as possible.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 06:44:20 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2020, 06:43:56 PM »
In the 1930's and 1950's you are talking about gravimeters now, correct?
The pendulums were also gravimeters. Their purpose was to measure the acceleration due to 'gravity', whatever gravity is.

The pendulums (which they say tests weight dimunation) and any scale experiments should have been tested In a vaccum chamber.
The early experiments made corrections for vacuum.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2020, 06:47:21 PM by edby »

Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2020, 07:57:04 PM »
I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Evidence
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, meteors, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature....

Thork is correct that people would never believe any experiment we did...

As a final observation on the aims of FES outlined in this thread, you should remember the often-mentioned distrust of photos and videos which don't confirm the FES beliefs. If you generally disparage other people's photos and videos (and their rigorously documented experiments), you needn't expect them to take your own photos and videos seriously. Habitual scepticism is a two-edged sword.

I wish you well in doing and meticulously documenting actual experiments, it might help dispel the impressions some people have of the Society as a collection of individuals raging at their internet feed. However, do try not to chase non-existent problems like the Moon Tilt Illusion with unnecessarily expensive equipment: all you need (as previously discussed in the Flat Earth Theory forum) is a ping pong ball. I repeated the experiment myself just this morning.

Longtitube over and out.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2020, 08:57:06 PM »
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show that you can make a perspective effect on the ball that points upwards, not that the real Moon phase is pointing upwards due to a perspective effect. I agree that a perspective effect is possible. We need an experiment to distinguish whether the illuminated portion of the Moon is really pointing upwards or whether it is a perspective effect.

If you are talking about that you can create a similar phase, just look at the lunar phase section of the main EA page and see that a little man on the map would see a similar phase to his ball based on the position of the Sun. When the Sun is across from the Moon it's full, so holding a ball up against the Moon will be full, as you are pointing the ball across from the Sun. Same for First Quarter Moon if you look at those diagrams.

We would need a test that can properly distinguish between different explanations.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 11:11:47 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2246
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2020, 08:14:31 AM »
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show ...

Once again, as explained to you in the Moon Tilt Illusion thread, if you hold the ball off from the line between you and the Moon, such that you are looking at ball and moon from different angles, or from different perspectives, then you're doing the experiment wrong.

The idea is to look at them both from the same angle, and the only way to do this is to hold the ball directly between you and the Moon. Since you cannot see the Moon through the ball, it must, by necessity, be held slightly to the side of the Moon in order that you can see both. The idea is not to see how far off-line you can hold the ball to generate different results.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2020, 09:45:12 AM »
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed.

Spring gravimeters such as the Lacoste are sealed, although not in a vacuum. Why do you think a vacuum would make any difference?

Quote
Changes in air pressure could cause a small apparent change in gravity because of the buoyancy of the mass and beam. This is prevented by sealing the interior of the meter from the outside air. As an additional precaution, should the seals fail, there is a buoyancy compensator on the beam.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~geodyn/instruments/Manual_Lacoste_GDl.pdf
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.



*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7360
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2020, 10:19:18 AM »
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show ...

Once again, as explained to you in the Moon Tilt Illusion thread, if you hold the ball off from the line between you and the Moon, such that you are looking at ball and moon from different angles, or from different perspectives, then you're doing the experiment wrong.

The idea is to look at them both from the same angle, and the only way to do this is to hold the ball directly between you and the Moon. Since you cannot see the Moon through the ball, it must, by necessity, be held slightly to the side of the Moon in order that you can see both. The idea is not to see how far off-line you can hold the ball to generate different results.

If you are instructing people to hold out an object and get it to point like the moon and align them near each other you are just telling them to use close range perspective effects to get your desired result.

Close range perspective effects are incredibly flexible and dynamic as to where you can get a body to point.

I took a scene that uses three bodies of interest (cones). The blue plane is just for reference. There is a green cone that points parallel, a purple cone that is tilted upwards, and a yellow cone that tilts downwards. The purple and yellow cones are pushed further back into the background than the green cone. The green cone is near a position over the work plane (you can see part of its shadow on it)

Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 1:



Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 2:



It wasn't that hard to move the camera around and find a point where the green cone was pointing in the same direction like the purple and yellow cones. I'm moving the camera here, not the cones.

In this one I got it to align with purple:



In this one I got it to align with yellow:



The possibilities are so dynamic that I also have some control of how far away I want the objects to be from each other while pointing in the same direction. Here is the green cone pointing like the purple cone, but this time green and purple seem to be further away from each other:



Again, I only moved the camera, not the bodies.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2020, 11:10:07 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2020, 10:52:02 AM »
I suggest the moon-tilt illusion is not one to take externally as an experiment. The problem is not measurement and experimental and numerical results but rather the interpretation of something that we agree we see. If the thing gets bogged down by philosophical disputes like the one above, it will go nowhere. Stick to stuff that can easily be measured.