A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:19

On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70e0e369-7438-4571-b8c6-43b05ca13546(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > ____________________________________
>
> > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > why
> > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > and
> > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is
> > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks?
>
> > _______________________________
> > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like.
>
> > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the
> > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it
> > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the
> > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state
> > with respect to the aether.
>
> > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured?
>
> > ________________________________
> > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you couldn't
> > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that.
>
> It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read.
>
> ________________________
> Read them all. Didn't see it, sorry. Perhaps you could repost your answer..
> Tx

Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.

Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to
be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to
the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles
for the second hand.

Let's have three Observers on the embankment all standing at M and
they synchronize their clocks. Now, have two of the Observers walk to
A and B from M. As two of the Observers walk towards A and B they are
walking through the water. This increases the water pressure on the
paddle and their clocks 'tick' slower than the Observer at M. Once the
Observers get to A and B they stop and now their clocks 'tick' at the
same rate as the clock at M, even though if you could see the time on
all three clocks simultaneously the clocks at A and B would be
slightly behind the clock at M.

There are three Observers on the train at M'. Since the train is
moving through the water the clocks on the train are already 'ticking'
slower than the clocks on the embankment due to the increase the water
pressure the clocks are under because the clocks are moving relative
to the water while the clocks on the embankment are at rest with
respect to the water.

The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks. Two of the
Observers start walking towards A' and B'. The Observer walking
towards B' will have his clock 'tick' the slowest as they walk because
their clock not only has to deal with the train moving through the
water but their clock also has to deal with the additional rate at
which the clock is moving relative to the water because the Observer
walking towards B' is walking against the flow of the water. The
Observer walking towards A' is walking with the flow of water and
their clock will actually tick faster than the clock which remains at
M'.

Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. The water propagates through
the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the
lightning strikes arrives at M simultaneously. This correlates with
the time on the clocks at A and B.

The light from the lightning strikes at B/B' arrives at M' and then
the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' arrives at M'. Now, if
the Observers on the train do not know their state with respect to the
water they will conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior
to the lightning strike at A/A'. This matches to what the clocks at B'
and A' say occurred. The reason for this is because when the clock was
walked to B' it was under additional water pressure and 'ticked'
slower than the clock walked to A'. Let's use some numbers to try and
make this less confusing. The three Observers on the train synchronize
their clocks to be 12:00:00. Let's say it takes them one minute, as
determined by an outside observer, to walk to A' and B'. Because the
clock being walked to B' is under additional water pressure, when the
Observer gets to B', their clock will read 12:00:59. The clock being
walked to A', since it is under less water pressure and ticks faster,
will read 12:01:01. Now, if the lightning strikes take place at this
moment and the light from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A'
reaches M' all three Observers agree the lightning strike at B/B'
occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' because the clock at B/
B' read 12:00:59 and the clock at A/A' read 12:01:01 at the time of
the lightning strikes.

Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water and
conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
When the Observers arrive at A and B their clocks will be slightly
behind the clock at M because the clocks moved relative to the aether
at rest with respect to the embankment. Lets say the clock at M reads
12:01:00 and the clocks at A and B read 12:01:00.5. The Observers at A
and B, using SR, know their clocks ticked slower than the clock at M
and factoring this in the Observers at A and B reset their clocks
accordingly to 12:01:00. If you could see all three clocks
simultaneously all three will be the same time.

Follow-up post:

When the Observers arrive at A' and B' they also factor in the SR
calculations based up their motion relative to the clock at M'. When
the Observers arrive at A' and B' their clocks stated the time as
12:01:01.5 and 12:00:59.5, respectively. If the Observers at A' and B'
assume the aether is at rest with respect to the train they will
conclude their clocks 'ticked' slower than the clock at M' as they
walked towards A' and B' and moved relative to the train. As stated in
the previous post this is not actually the case. The Observers at A'
and B' reset their clocks to 12:01:01 and 12:00:59, respectively. If
you could see the clocks at A', M', and B' simultaneously the clocks
would read 12:01:01, 12:01:00, and 12:00:59, respectively.

It is easy to understand how lightning strikes on the embankment
arrive at the 'correct' times regardless if there are lightning strike
at A and B which arrive at M or a single lightning strike at M which
arrives at A and B.

It is not as straight forward when discussing the lightning strikes on
the train. Let's first assume the Observers on the train do not
realize they are moving relative to the water. Lightning strikes at A/
A' and B/B' determined to be simultaneous by the Observer at M on the
embankment will occur at A' at 12:01:01 and at B' at 12:00:59. The
train is moving relative to the water the light waves propagate
through. The light from B' is flowing with the water relative to the
train and the light from A' is flowing against the water relative to
the train. The light from B' will arrive prior to the light from A'.
When the three Observers on the train discuss when the lightning
strikes occurred, they are all in agreement the lightning strike at B'
occurred prior to the lightning strike at A'. If there is a single
lightning strike at M' at 12:01:01. The light waves propagating
towards B' are propagating against the flow of water relative to the
train and the light waves propagating towards A' are propagating with
the flow of water relative to the train. Let's assume it takes two
seconds for the light waves to reach B' and one second for the light
waves to reach A'. When the light waves reach the Observers at A' and
B' both of their clocks read 12:01:02. When the three Observers
discuss when the lightning strike occurred at M', they are all in
agreement the lightning strike at M' occurred at 12:01:01.

Now, again for the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
moving relative to the water the light waves propagate through and
factor this in when determining when the lightning strikes occurred in
nature, the Observers on the train, and in fact any Observer in any
frame of reference, will all arrive at the same conclusion as to when
the lightning strikes occurred in nature.

From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:36

On Feb 16, 6:21 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 01:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 15, 6:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No I actually agree with you Paul. The use of the word "rotation" is
> > > perfectly legitimate in this context, to describe a geometric
> > > transformation. My argument is that those who claim knowledge here
> > > don't seem to emphasise strongly enough, when queried, that this
> > > geometric rotation into time bears *absolutely no resemblance at all*
> > > to the physical act of spatial rotation.
>
> > Well, that would be also going too far. The spatial rotation is a
> > special case of the general rotation, after all, so they can't be
> > *completely* different things.
>
> Mathematically, you're correct, spatial rotation is a special case of
> general rotation. Physically, you're not in any way correct. A
> rotation in any of the 3 spatial dimensions bears no sensory
> correspondence at all to this alleged "rotation in time".

Nor do whales bear any sensory correspondence to camels.

But you see, what is meant by general rotation is not *dependent* on
what is familiar to the senses, or on innate conceptual images that
are familiar to small children. Nor should it be.

>
> > To continue pounding on my analogy, it is incorrect to say that whales
> > bear *absolutely no resemblance at all* to tetrapod land mammals. They
> > bear a *strong* resemblance on the issues that pertain to being a
> > mammal.
>
> > But I understand your plea. You feel it is the burden of the expert to
> > be sure that the novice does not misconstrue, which includes actively
> > forestalling all places where they may make an erroneous assumption. I
> > can see why this might be expected as part of a teaching arrangement,
> > in a teaching venue, where the participants have clear teacher and
> > student roles. But in an informal discussion group, it's less clear
> > where the burden lies, you see.
>
> I dare say the burden is simply on the expert to either speak a common
> language, or to specify which parts of his vocabulary are not common.

I only agree with you that this is the burden of the expert in a
constructed teacher-student environment, wherein there is a
contractual arrangement that the student be taught something by the
expert.

In an informal discussion group, and in particular a free one, there
is no such arrangement and hence no such burden, although one might be
undertaken on an ad hoc and completely voluntary basis.

You and I have already discussed this: that it is NOT the obligation
of the expert to share knowledge. It is not true in law, medicine,
plumbing, architecture, music, or engineering. Good musicians may
offer lessons to students who want to learn, but that is usually under
a contractual arrangement. It is the obligation of the expert to USE
that knowledge to get work done. It is the obligation of a surgeon to
USE his knowledge to make people well, but it is not his obligation to
share his knowledge with others.

> After all, the expert, as someone who has contact with both the common
> and the specialised vocabulary, is the only person who is ever going
> to be in a position to know where those vocabularies differ. I also
> tend to take the view that discussion is often good for the expert's
> understanding.

I agree with that. And you'll notice that as the discussion in this
venue spools out, it becomes apparent where there is a
misunderstanding about terminology, and then someone might
*voluntarily* explain to you the specialized meaning of the word. It
must surely be frustrating to go down a dead-end lane because of
confusion over terminology over and over again, and only be advised on
the specialized meaning after running into the full stop. It's a
terribly inefficient way to proceed. But then again, you get what you
pay for. If you wanted efficiency, then you'd need a different venue
where there is structured efficiency.

>
> > > If
> > > something has both behaviours, then that's something that modern
> > > physics needs to explain coherently.
>
> > Why? It's a class of objects that is discovered in nature and the
> > behaviors are *observed*. Why do we have to explain WHY our
> > pigeonholing doesn't work for them, other than to acknowledge there is
> > something wrong with our pigeonholing scheme?
>
> > After all, viruses do not meet the usual criteria of "living things",
> > nor do they meet the usual criteria of "nonliving things". They have
> > *some* of the properties of both. Does this mean that we have to
> > explain why viruses can exist, because they resist our pigeonholing?
>
> I think your misunderstanding. A new pigeonhole can be specified, but
> it still requires a specification. It's not good enough to simply say
> "this is what we observe" and shrug, because that tells you nothing
> about the underlying variables or how the phenomenon works.

Such a specification for quantum fields exists, in exactly the same
way a specification for "particles" and "waves" exists.

From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:38

On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > > why
> > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > > and
> > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of
> > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
> > > measure your speed relative to the aether.
>
> > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a
> > > fifth time?
>
> > > ______________________________________
> > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether.
> > > You
> > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the
> > > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?
>
> > _________________________________
> > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a constant
> > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make this
> > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from
> > c,
> > and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> > Why won't that work?
>
> I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of
> light? Are you using mirrors?
>
> ____________________
> No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I synchronise
> the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between
> arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my speed
> relative to the ether. Why won't this work?

You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the
aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under
greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the
train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more
aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow'
of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is
under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the
'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it
'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train
because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to
the front of the train is under.

Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at
A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if
you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A'
'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A'
because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more
'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was
therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it
was being walked to A'.

Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest
with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of
aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate.

So, even though you synchronized your clocks, once you walk them to
their destination, they are out of sync. But there is no way to know
this. If the Observer at B' 'calls' the Observer at M' his call is
going with the 'flow' of aether and the response from M' is going
against the 'flow' of the aether so all communication will be
'unsynchronized' just like the clocks.

Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates
with the flow of the aether to A' and takes one second to arrive
there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes two
seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks
read 12:00:03. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned
the lightning strikes were simultaneous.

Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B', since the light
traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after one
second by the mirror at A' and will take two seconds to travel back to
M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether and
was reflected after two seconds by the mirror at B' and will take one
second to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M' arrives
simultaneously back at M'.

From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 02:03

On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > > why
> > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > > and
> > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of
> > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
> > > measure your speed relative to the aether.
>
> > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a
> > > fifth time?
>
> > > ______________________________________
> > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether.
> > > You
> > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the
> > > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?
>
> > _________________________________
> > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a constant
> > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make this
> > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from
> > c,
> > and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> > Why won't that work?
>
> I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of
> light? Are you using mirrors?
>
> ____________________
> No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I synchronise
> the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between
> arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my speed
> relative to the ether. Why won't this work?

You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the
aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under
greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the
train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more
aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow'
of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is
under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the
'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it
'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train
because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to
the front of the train is under.

Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at
A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if
you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A'
'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A'
because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more
'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was
therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it
was being walked to A'.

Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest
with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of
aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate.

So, even though you synchronized your clocks, once you walk them to
their destination, they are out of sync. But there is no way to know
this. If the Observer at B' 'calls' the Observer at M' his call is
going with the 'flow' of aether and the response from M' is going
against the 'flow' of the aether so all communication will be
'unsynchronized' just like the clocks.

Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates
with the flow of the aether to A' and takes two seconds to arrive
there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes four
seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks
read 12:00:04. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned
the lightning strikes were simultaneous.

Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B'. Since the light
traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two
seconds by the mirror at A' and will take four seconds to travel back
to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether
and was reflected after four seconds by the mirror at B' and will take
two seconds to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M'
arrives simultaneously back at M' and the clock at M' reads 12:00:07.

From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 02:06

"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:887b7b2c-5c7e-420f-87f1-6705884d5936(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:70e0e369-7438-4571-b8c6-43b05ca13546(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > ____________________________________
>
> > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So
> > > why
> > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c,
> > > and
> > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that
> > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is
> > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks?
>
> > _______________________________
> > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like.
>
> > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the
> > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it
> > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the
> > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state
> > with respect to the aether.
>
> > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured?
>
> > ________________________________
> > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you
> > couldn't
> > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that.
>
> It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read.
>
> ________________________
> Read them all. Didn't see it, sorry. Perhaps you could repost your answer.
> Tx

Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether.

Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to
be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to
the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles
for the second hand.

<snip about 200 lines identical to what you posted originally>
_______________________________
I didn't ask you about trains, embankments, Einstein or paddles. I described
a simple experiment to measure the speed of the ether. One more time. You
say light propagates at c with respect to the ether. So measure the speed of
light in a vacuum; lets say it is c'. Light moves at c with respect to the
ether; you measured it c', therefore you must be moving at speed at c-c'
relative to the ether. Doesn't this tell you exactly your speed relative to
the ether? If not, why not? What would happen (according to you) if you
tried it?

Well?