Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light

[Shrek]

No, a shrinking entropy would defy the second thermodynamic law.

Exactly

 

[mtcn77]

We think hydrogen has a physical form, but from the book by Bohr that I read it has quantum field inducing properties - whereever it goes, the universe goes... I bet space, as we know it, is what we make of hydrogen that isn't interacting with surrounding matter(don't mind my stupid theories).

 

[lexluthermiester]

Which part does it get wrong about black-holes? just asking, not trying to make trouble.

G&SR fails to predict what happens inside a black hole object. The math completely breaks down regardless of how the computations are structured. It fails to explain both how the Big Bang happened and why as well as why the Universe continues to expand and accelerate while expanding. We know the Big Bang theory is correct because when we model everything running in reverse, everything in the Universe contracts back into a single point.

Conclusion: G&SR is partly flawed or completely incorrect.

GR predicts existence of black holes and behavior around them just fine.

No, it does not...

It doesn't predict what's going on past event horizon

..as you just stated.

IF G&SR were able to predict what a Black Hole object is, we would already understand what happens inside one. But we can not. Therefore G&SR is flawed or wrong.

 

[mtcn77]

why the Universe continues to expand

That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.

 

[Tardian]

The Universe is measured to be flat

Like the Earth?

Andy

I intend to provide a detailed answer to your question when I get time (hopefully today). But in the meantime, I will provide a few sources and you may have to wait.

The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) confirm that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.[4][5][6] On the other hand, any non-zero curvature is possible for a sufficiently large curved universe (analogously to how a small portion of a sphere can look flat). Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the four-dimensional spacetime of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat,[7] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[8][9] and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice).[10]





The local geometry of the universe is determined by whether the density parameter Ω is greater than, less than, or equal to 1.
From top to bottom: a spherical universe with Ω > 1, a hyperbolic universe with Ω < 1, and a flat universe with Ω = 1. These depictions of two-dimensional surfaces are merely easily visualizable analogs to the 3-dimensional structure of (local) space.

General relativity explains that mass and energy bend the curvature of spacetime and is used to determine what curvature the universe has by using a value called the density parameter, represented with Omega (Ω). The density parameter is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, that is, the mass energy needed for a universe to be flat. Put another way,

• If Ω = 1, the universe is flat.
• If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature.
• If Ω < 1 there is negative curvature.

One can experimentally calculate this Ω to determine the curvature two ways. One is to count up all the mass-energy in the universe and take its average density then divide that average by the critical energy density. Data from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) as well as the Planck spacecraft give values for the three constituents of all the mass-energy in the universe – normal mass (baryonic matter and dark matter), relativistic particles (photons and neutrinos), and dark energy or the cosmological constant:[11][12]

Ωmass ≈ 0.315±0.018

Ωrelativistic ≈ 9.24×10−5

ΩΛ ≈ 0.6817±0.0018

Ωtotal = Ωmass + Ωrelativistic + ΩΛ = 1.00±0.02

The actual value for critical density value is measured as ρcritical = 9.47×10−27 kg m−3. From these values, within experimental error, the universe seems to be flat.

Another way to measure Ω is to do so geometrically by measuring an angle across the observable universe. We can do this by using the CMB and measuring the power spectrum and temperature anisotropy. For instance, one can imagine finding a gas cloud that is not in thermal equilibrium due to being so large that light speed cannot propagate the thermal information. Knowing this propagation speed, we then know the size of the gas cloud as well as the distance to the gas cloud, we then have two sides of a triangle and can then determine the angles. Using a method similar to this, the BOOMERanG experiment has determined that the sum of the angles to 180° within experimental error, corresponding to an Ωtotal ≈ 1.00±0.12.[13]

These and other astronomical measurements constrain the spatial curvature to be very close to zero, although they do not constrain its sign. This means that although the local geometries of spacetime are generated by the theory of relativity based on spacetime intervals, we can approximate 3-space by the familiar Euclidean geometry.

The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model using Friedmann equations is commonly used to model the universe. The FLRW model provides a curvature of the universe based on the mathematics of fluid dynamics, that is, modeling the matter within the universe as a perfect fluid. Although stars and structures of mass can be introduced into an "almost FLRW" model, a strictly FLRW model is used to approximate the local geometry of the observable universe. Another way of saying this is that if all forms of dark energy are ignored, then the curvature of the universe can be determined by measuring the average density of matter within it, assuming that all matter is evenly distributed (rather than the distortions caused by 'dense' objects such as galaxies). This assumption is justified by the observations that, while the universe is "weakly" inhomogeneous and anisotropic (see the large-scale structure of the cosmos), it is on average homogeneous and isotropic.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2003, lack of structure on the largest scales (above 60 degrees) in the cosmic microwave background as observed for one year by the WMAP spacecraft led to the suggestion, by Jean-Pierre Luminet of the Observatoire de Paris and colleagues, that the shape of the universe is a Poincaré sphere.[1][2] In 2008, astronomers found the best orientation on the sky for the model and confirmed some of the predictions of the model, using three years of observations by the WMAP spacecraft.[3] As of 2016, the publication of data analysis from the Planck spacecraft suggests that there is no observable non-trivial topology to the universe.[4]

Homology sphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Needless to say, I believe that a non-flat universe does not fit with the current model. Ipso Facto it has to be flat. Groupthink and self-interest drive these outcomes.

I will make a proper case for the alternate view but it takes time.

Tardian

The hardest thing in the world to understand is .. .income tax, Einstein. but id say knowing what not to understand because some things are best left quite.

Einstein was a poor student who worked in a Swiss patent office. He is to many the greatest theoretical physicist of all time. Newton, Maxwell et al all have a claim to that title.

 

[lexluthermiester]

That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.

That is not the reason.

Needless to say, I believe that a non-flat universe does not fit with the current model.

Agreed. It also does not meet with observations made.

 

[mtcn77]

That is not the reason.

Well try running a clock without a battery, it won't. Everything takes energy and quite succintly 'time'. Both served by hydrogen. I bet we don't know what the heck it does, apart from keeping the mechanism running, quite like a clock.

 

[Shrek]

That part is easy. It is quite the same reason as why you generate "protons" when your heart muscle pumps blood. Hydrogen is ubiquitous with life and spacetime itself.

It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.

 

[Tardian]

We have now defined the speed of light in a vacuum to be a constant

One wonders what consequences this will have if it turns out to have some variance (unlikely, but still possible)

Variable speed of light - Wikipedia

Andy

I am happy to discuss this further. But for now and for the other forum members:

Tardian

 

[lexluthermiester]

It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.

 

[Shrek]

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions for the point of the blast-point of the Big Bang.

I was careful to write 'It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.', I did not write 'the'

 

[mtcn77]

It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.

Yes, I said hydrogen generates spacetime, but the end of "spacetime" is when there is no more entropy in a hydrogen pool.

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.

You are taking this too literally. There is still entropy to go around that is why the universe is ever expanding.

 

[authorized]

IF G&SR were able to predict what a Black Hole object is, we would already understand what happens inside one. But we can not. Therefore G&SR is flawed or wrong.

There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface. Intuitively we expect the black hole to be a 3d object since it seems to occupy a volume in space and has a mass appropriate for that volume, but who knows... does time even "flow" at the event horizon, or is the information radiated out instantaneously (in the frame reference of the event horizon)?

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.

We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not. We only presume it will based on the fact that's how it's been so far according to observations.

 

[Tardian]

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.

Lex I disagree with the evidence for expansion but I am having to deal with multiple issues. I will get back with a full explanation. Once again for the other forum members:

As an effect of general relativity, the expansion of the universe is different from the expansions and explosions seen in daily life. It is a property of the universe as a whole rather than a phenomenon that applies just to one part of the universe and, unlike other expansions and explosions, cannot be observed from "outside" of it.
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology, is modeled mathematically with the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and is a generic property of the universe we inhabit. However, the model is valid only on large scales (roughly the scale of galaxy clusters and above), because gravity binds matter together strongly enough that metric expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale at this time. As such, the only galaxies receding from one another as a result of metric expansion are those separated by cosmologically relevant scales larger than the length scales associated with the gravitational collapse that are possible in the age of the universe given the matter density and average expansion rate. To paraphrase, the metric is forecasted to eventually begin to outpace the gravity that bodies require to remain bound together, meaning all but the most local bound groups will recede.
According to inflation theory, during the inflationary epoch about 10−32 of a second after the Big Bang, the universe suddenly expanded, and its volume increased by a factor of at least 1078 (an expansion of distance by a factor of at least 1026 in each of the three dimensions), equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 1017 m or 62 trillion miles) long. A much slower and gradual expansion of space continued after this, until at around 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang (4 billion years ago) it began to gradually expand more quickly, and is still doing so. Physicists have postulated the existence of dark energy, appearing as a cosmological constant in the simplest gravitational models, as a way to explain this late-time acceleration. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently favored cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future. In June 2016, NASA and ESA scientists reported that the universe was found to be expanding 5% to 9% faster than thought earlier, based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope.[2]

Observational evidence
Theoretical cosmologists developing models of the universe have drawn upon a small number of reasonable [?] assumptions in their work. These workings have led to models in which the metric expansion of space is a likely feature of the universe. Chief among the underlying principles that result in models including metric expansion as a feature are:

• the Cosmological Principle which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions (isotropic) and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material (homogeneous).
• the Copernican Principle which demands that no place in the universe is preferred (that is, the universe has no "starting point").

Scientists have tested carefully whether these assumptions are valid and borne out by observation. Observational cosmologists have discovered evidence – very strong in some cases – that supports these assumptions, and as a result, metric expansion of space is considered by cosmologists to be an observed feature on the basis that although we cannot see it directly, scientists have tested the properties of the universe and observation provides compelling confirmation.[30] Sources of this confidence and confirmation include:

• Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us, as predicted by a universal expansion.[31] Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be highly isotropic and homogeneous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
• In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters, superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales.
• The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
• The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems were made. A group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory noticed, by measuring the temperature of a distant intergalactic cloud in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic microwave background, that the radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[32] Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is strong and direct observational evidence for metric expansion.

Taken together, these phenomena overwhelmingly support models that rely on space expanding through a change in metric. It was not until the discovery in the year 2000 of direct observational evidence for the changing temperature of the cosmic microwave background that more bizarre constructions could be ruled out. Until that time, it was based purely on an assumption that the universe did not behave as one with the Milky Way sitting at the middle of a fixed-metric with a universal explosion of galaxies in all directions (as seen in, for example, an early model proposed by Milne). Yet before this evidence, many rejected the Milne viewpoint based on the mediocrity principle.
More direct results of the expansion, such as change of redshift, distance, flux, angular position and the angular size of astronomical objects, have not been detected yet due to smallness of these effects. Change of the redshift or the flux could be observed by Square Kilometre Array or Extremely Large Telescope in the mid-2030s.[33]

Expansion of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tardian

Freeman Dyson believed that gravity may not need quantizing

I agree and in my second series of dot points, I will argue that gravity is not a force but the result of the curvature of spacetime. As such it needs no messaging particles.

 

[mtcn77]

There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface. Intuitively we expect the black hole to be a 3d object since it seems to occupy a volume in space and has a mass appropriate for that volume, but who knows... does time even "flow" at the event horizon, or is the information radiated out instantaneously (in the frame reference of the event horizon)?


We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not. We only presume it will based on the fact that's how it's been so far according to observations.

Dark matter is just like gravity, but not the physical kind, only the buffer, that does not interact with matter itself, only mass. It helps by generating more gravity in order to compact matter in the universe like crystals forming around a seed. Technically since hydrogen can defy gravity, dark matter is basically its stopping force from ripping up the universe.

 

[Tardian]

Like I said, it's data from WMAP, section 4.5.

Vya

I once again don't agree.

See attached images for WMAP, section 4.5. Dark energy has yet to be a proven feature of the cosmos. I remain deeply sceptical and suggest it is all part of a deperate attempt to protect the crumbling current model. More on this matter later.

Tardian

Dark matter is just like gravity, but not the physical kind, only the buffer, that does not interact with matter itself, only mass. It helps with generating more gravity in order to compact matter in the universe like a crystal forming around a seed. Technically since hydrogen can defy gravity, dark matter is basically its stopping force from ripping up the universe.

Once again I don't agree.

Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about 27% of its total mass–energy density[1] or about 2.241×10−27 kg/m3. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect or emit electromagnetic radiation, and is therefore difficult to detect.[2]
Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[3] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing[4] and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions,[5] and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 5% ordinary matter and energy, 27% dark matter and 68% of a form of energy known as dark energy.[6][7][8][9] Thus, dark matter constitutes 85%[a] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95% of total mass–energy content.[10][11][12][13]
Because dark matter has not yet been observed directly, if it exists, it must barely interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation, except through gravity. Most dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature; it may be composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#cite_note-15 The primary candidate for dark matter is some new kind of elementary particle that has not yet been discovered, in particular, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs).[14] Many experiments to directly detect and study dark matter particles are being actively undertaken, but none have yet succeeded.[15] Dark matter is classified as "cold", "warm", or "hot" according to its velocity (more precisely, its free streaming length). Current models favor a cold dark matter scenario, in which structures emerge by gradual accumulation of particles.
Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the scientific community,[16] some astrophysicists, intrigued by certain observations which are not well-explained by standard dark matter, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity. These models attempt to account for all observations without invoking supplemental non-baryonic matter.

Dark matter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Invoke Occam's razor. Reject what can't be observed. Beautiful mathematics based on wrong assumptions: Garbage in garbage out.

Tardian

 

[lexluthermiester]

I was careful to write 'It is quite possible for a Universe to reach maximum size and then re-collapse.', I did not write 'the'

I saw that. I was directly addressing it. It is extremely unlikely for a Big Bang event to ever reverse itself.

Lex I disagree with the evidence for expansion but I am having to deal with multiple issues.

IF you are going to posit the same theoretical explanation as the UC-Riverside folks about an infinite Universe, such a theory is interesting, but ultimately incorrect as it does not meet with known observations.

There might not be an inside at all... since apparently all the information that falls into the event horizon remains encoded on its surface.

This is why G&SR is flawed. Such a mathematical construct would assume the laws of physics change dramatically upon contact with the event horizon. This is not observed anywhere else in the Universe so it is very unlikely to be correct. What is much more likely is that a Black Hole object is an extremely compressed form of matter where in the subatomic particle themselves are physically touching with no empty space between them. The effect of such a state would exhibit all of the predicted outward effects we now know to exist(gravitational lensing, etc).

We don't know what dark energy is, so it isn't possible to predict whether the expansion will continue to accelerate or not.

There are no indications to show it might change either. Until such an indication presents itself, the Universe will continue to expand until the outward blast shell of the Big Bang meet up with it's in falling(contraction) event horizon. Once this happens, the inhabitants of the Universe will know what exists outside our Universe.

 

[Totally]

There's no clickbait. It's exactly a problem, because it's not possible to do away with the assumption of the speed of light, regardless of how you try to measure it and that's what makes the video interesting. This video isn't intended to teach all about SR & GR, just how it relates to measuring the speed of light. And yes, the presentation makes a big difference to user engagement. This channel is pretty good at that.

It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.

 

[lexluthermiester]

light travels at different speeds based on direction.

That is because concepts of up, down, left, right, forward and backward are human concepts. The only thing that changes the speed and trajectory of a particle at luminal speeds is matter and energy fields. Direction of travel relative to one point in space or another is not relevant.

 

[Caring1]

No, it isn't. The acceleration is too great and is increasing not decreasing. For the Universe to contract it would need to start slowing down. That would take a lot of force to slow down all of the mass that is rushing out in all directions from the blast-point of the Big Bang.

All it would require is a loss of inertia, and then the draw of the central black hole to initiate the return of matter to a central point.

 

[Tardian]

I'd say the opposite, if the black-hole is to have entropy, it must have temperature (Beckenstein)

Andy

Once again this requires a long answer but I'll leave you with this thought:

Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases in large systems over significant periods of time. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a clock in these conditions.

Entropy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero. The increase in the EH to accommodate the introduced former matter as well as the change in spacetime encapsulating the black hole partly deals with the information problem. I am going to fall into the trap of commenting without properly thinking. But given that EMR can't escape a black hole the temperature issue seems obtuse. I get back to this.

Tardian

 

[lexluthermiester]

All it would require is a loss of inertia

That's an incredible inertia to reverse. Extremely unlikely.

and then the draw of the central black hole to initiate the return of matter to a central point.

That is not how a Big Bang event works. The ultra massive Black Hole object that once contained all the mass of the Universe no longer exists. When the Big Bang event took place all of the mass in the Universe was ejected in all directions more or less in a uniform manner. There is nothing left in the central region of the Universe to counter-act all of momentum of the mass of the Universe expanding outward from that point. The only thing that will continue to happen is what we have already observed, the mass of the Universe expanding and accelerating as it does so.

Try to remember, most of academia refer to the Big Bang as an event that happened in the past, is over and what we see is the result. This incorrect. While the Big Bang took place in the past, it never ended and is still an ongoing event. We are along for the ride. This process will not end until the outgoing blast of the Big Bang meets with the collapsing event horizon of the Black Hole object our Universe once was. We have no way of knowing when that will happen, yet.

Matter, as it reaches the event horizon, has one (or more) of its dimension (Cartesian Coordinates) reduced to zero.

Again, that is flawed theory and contradicts known physics. The Event Horizon of a Black Hole doesn't magically transform matter, it simply compresses it to a point where subatomic particles are in physical contact with no empty space between them. It is part of the reason why both Einstein and Hawking could never complete their mutual theories.

Ask yourself: How big would a hydrogen atom be if you remove all of the empty space between it's constituent parts?

 

[qubit]

That's just not true, this isn't about local measurements, we're talking about stuff such as WMAP which is still measuring non zero curvature consistent with previous attempts so it can't yet be ruled out as an error.

Then link to an article from a reputable source that shows that the universe is curved, because I haven't seen any.

It is clickbaity because there are methods and setups to measure to rule out the unknowns but they aren't even addressed. Variance is constantly claimed but no one ever actually tries to measure that variance or actually see if light travels at different speeds based on direction.

Then link to an article from a reputable source that debunks this video. It doesn’t have to be directly either, it just has to show how the speed of light can be proved to be the same in any direction. I'll make a prediction: you won't be able to and will come up with some excuse instead.

Again, the video isn’t “clickbaity” like you try to belittle it and by extension me for posting it here. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It doesn’t have to be directly either, it just has to show how the speed of light can be proved to be the same in any direction.

He doesn't need to prove that. It is an understood part of physics. What needs to be proven is the idea that luminal speeds vary based on direction of travel(which BTW is utter nonsense).

 

[John Naylor]

Shoulda been at my house with a radar gun the night wife threw a lamp at my head