text:
Does anyone else have dried flakey skin .. It just seem to be on my arm like sum spots.. I'm afraid to go to the doctor to find out what it is... with my lupus its always an unpleasant surprise..
Where do I begin and how do I say this. I don't know if it's selfish or not. We had a beautiful day today no problems at all, then I made the simple mistake of going into the kitchen, Mom walked away and left me there to watch over what was on the stove. According to her I took it off the stove too soon and dinner wasn't hot enough to suit her. Mind you the food has to be hot the plates warmed and everything on the table at six. She then proceeds to spent the entire evening harping on everything
what meds are good for sever pain.. Tylonol doesnt seem to work at times...I cant take asprin because its a blood thinner.... Naproxin interferes with another med so i cant take that and i dk what else to take - inpain and unhappy
Well, here I go again. I've been in Florida since April, I finally got the insurance stuff straightened out and am running low on meds. Now I have to tackle new docs. I'm trying to put together my med history and med list. Googled docs and I'm ready to start calling.
I feel ok, hardly any pain, but my stress levels are back through the roof. My Mother's mind is going and I have to deal with outbursts now.
I'm caretaker now 24/7, but I get an hour or two to myself
Originally Posted by Creekbank
Thank you for the valuable information. I am starting my claim for disability and I know it will be a long road ahead. Do you think I should get a lawyer right way or wait until denied the first time?
I don't have any documentation that says SLE, but have been to 3 doctors regarding the symptoms I have. I am on the way to Hershey Medical Rheumatology in October. I try to remain hopeful they can help me. I am declining rather quickly in my health and that appt.


text:
Red Bull Indianapolis Grand Prix
FIM Moto2 World Championship
Indianapolis Motor Speedway
Indianapolis, Indiana
August 9, 2014
Qualifying Results (all using Honda engines and Dunlop tires):
1. Mika KALLIO, Finland (KALEX), 1:36.883
2. Esteve "Tito" RABAT, Spain (KALEX), 1:37.056
3. Dominique AEGERTER, Switzerland (SUTER), 1:37.209
4. Johann ZARCO, France (CATERHAM SUTER), 1:37.452
5. Simone CORSI, Italy (KALEX), 1:37.456
6. Maverick VIÑALES, Spain (KALEX), 1:37.513
7. Takaaki NAKAGAMI, Japan (KALEX), 1:37.524
8. Sandro CORTESE, Germany (KALEX), 1:37.558
9. Thomas LUTHI, Switzerland (SUTER), 1:37.582
10. Sam LOWES, UK (SPEED UP), 1:37.664
11. Luis SALOM, Spain (KALEX), 1:37.758
12. Jordi TORRES, Spain (SUTER), 1:37.891
13. Franco MORBIDELLI, Italy (KALEX), 1:37.913
14. Julian SIMON, Spain (KALEX), 1:37.949
15. Mattia PASINI, Italy (KALEX), 1:37.970
16. Xavier SIMEON, Belgium (SUTER), 1:37.981
17. Axel PONS, Spain (KALEX), 1:37.996
18. Randy KRUMMENACHER, Switzerland (SUTER), 1:38.010
19. Jonas FOLGER, Germany (KALEX), 1:38.062
20. Hafizh SYAHRIN, Malaysia (KALEX), 1:38.083
21. Alex DE ANGELIS, San Marino (SUTER), 1:38.086
22. Anthony WEST, Australia (SPEED UP), 1:38.106
23. Josh HERRIN, USA (CATERHAM SUTER), 1:38.123
24. Marcel SCHROTTER, Germany (TECH 3), 1:38.130
25. Gino REA, UK (SUTER), 1:38.171
26. Ricard CARDUS, Spain (TECH 3), 1:38.202
27. Louis ROSSI, France (KALEX), 1:38.369
28. Azlan SHAH, Malaysia (KALEX), 1:38.411
29. Nicolas TEROL, Spain (SUTER), 1:38.505
30. Tetsuta NAGASHIMA, Japan (TSR), 1:38.638
31. Robin MULHAUSER, Switzerland (SUTER), 1:38.680
32. Lorenzo BALDASSARRI, Italy (SUTER), 1:39.084
33. Thitipong WAROKORN, Thailand (KALEX), 1:39.129
34. Roman RAMOS, Spain (SPEED UP), 1:39.406More, from a press release issued by Marc VDS Racing Team:
Kallio and Rabat dominate Indy qualifying
Indianapolis, USA – 9 August 2014: Mika Kallio and Tito Rabat dominated today's Moto2 qualifying session at the revamped Indianapolis Motor Speedway, as the Marc VDS Racing Team celebrated an eighth pole position in 10 races.
Finnish rider Kallio clinched his second pole position of 2014 with a brilliant early lap of 1.36.883 that left teammate and World Championship leader Rabat trailing in second by 0.173s.
Only one other rider could lap within 0.5s of Kallio's blistering speed, though Rabat's quest to claim a seventh pole position of the campaign ended in painful fashion with less than 10 minutes of qualifying remaining.
The Spaniard, who holds a 19-point advantage over Kallio heading into tomorrow's 25-lap race, fell heavily but unhurt at turn 8. He was still able to comfortably secure a vital front row start courtesy of an earlier lap of 1.37.056.
Marc VDS Racing newcomer Jorge Navarro staked a claim for outstanding performance of the season in the earlier Moto3 session after he stormed to a sensational top six position on the grid for the 23-lap race.
The Spanish rider was almost 1.5s faster than his practice pace and he finished just over 0.5s behind World Championship leader Jack Miller with a lap of 1.41.248.
The 18-year-old's sixth place is easily the best Moto3 qualifying result since Marc VDS Racing entered the competitive category at the beginning of 2013.
Mika Kallio // Pole Position // 1'36.883
"Today was perfect because I didn't expect to be challenging for the pole position on a track where I've never had really good results. But this year I have been much more competitive and I am happy with my preparation for tomorrow because my race pace is not too bad. We just need to see the conditions because the new surface is coming better each day and maybe tomorrow the lap times will be even faster. This can have an impact on the setting of the machine, so we need to pay attention to that. I also need to say a big thanks to the Marc VDS Racing Team for the work they did. Yesterday was very difficult and I wasn't even in the top 10, and now I am starting from pole position. So they deserve a lot of credit and I am looking forward to a good battle with Tito."
Tito Rabat // 2nd // 1'37.056
"It was not an easy qualifying session, so I am happy to be starting on the front row with Mika. I have been happy with the performance of the tyres on the new asphalt all weekend, but a bit like in Assen, the tyres didn't work as well as we anticipated in qualifying. I am confident we can find a solution but the big crash at the end finished my session. Thankfully I am not injured and I am confident I can challenge for the win tomorrow."
Jorge Navarro // 6th // 1'41.248
"I am so happy to qualify on the second row because honestly I really didn't imagine a top six was achievable considering this is only my second day with the team and I have no experience of the bike or the track. The Marc VDS Racing Team has done an unbelievable job to help me adapt quickly and each time I go out on track I improve. I am strong on the brakes and there are some hard braking points here and this is helping and I have a lot of confidence with the Kalex KTM package. My objective tomorrow is just to learn as much as I can from the best talent in Moto3 and gain some experience. I don't know how the bike will be in the race because I've not done 23-laps together but the goal is to finish."
More, from a press release issued by AirAsia Caterham Moto2 Team:
Second Row Start for Zarco in Indianapolis
Circuit: Indianapolis Motor Speedway
Circuit Length: 4.170 m
Bike # 5 – Johann Zarco
FP3: P23; 1'38.426 – 23 laps
Qualifying: P4; 1'37.452 – 23 laps
Bike # 2 – Josh Herrin
FP3: P27; 1'38.753 – 21 laps
Qualifying: P23; 1'38.123 – 19 laps
FP3: (Conditions) Dry; (air temp) 26°, (track temp) 38°
Qualifying: (Conditions) Dry; (air temp) 27°, (track temp) 36°
After a tough start to their Indianapolis Grand Prix the AirAsia Caterham Moto Racing riders picked up the pace with an impressive Qualifying performance.
Working hard to adjust his riding style to suit the American Circuit, Johann Zarco headed out strong from the start. Looking more relaxed and comfortable on the #5 Caterham Suter the Frenchman began to consistently chip away at his time, launching himself into the top five and qualifying on row two for tomorrow's race.
Determined to improve his position from Free Practice, teammate Josh Herrin just missed out on qualifying within the top twenty. Pushing hard the Moto2 rookie continued to show his pace throughout the session, but an unfortunate crash in the final minutes hampered his chance of bettering his time.
#5 Johann Zarco: "I'm really happy about the qualifying because in the practice sessions it was a difficult situation as I was so far behind.
"After FP3 we made just a few little modifications to the bike and then in Qualifying I pushed also.
I wanted to stay out and get into a rhythm with a consistent pace because on this track the line is very important. My feeling on the bike was a lot better and I felt comfortable to play with both tyres. I was also able to get into the slip stream which helps for the lap time. Throughout the session I was able to better my pace and I could even try to push to be faster again.
"I am happy and this is very important for tomorrow. It's good to get this confidence and to stay in this lap time, but it's not easy.
I hope tomorrow the conditions are the same and to have the same feeling on the bike and in the mind. The race I think will be hard but I hope to stay with the top group as long as possible. After losing so many points in Sachsenring I must finish and take these points back with a good result."
#2 Josh Herrin: "Today has been good. In both sessions I made it into the top twenty and up to fourteenth at one point, but I missed the shift on the back straight which cost us three tenths. If I hadn't made this mistake the three tenths would have put us around twelfth or thirteenth place overall.
Obviously I wish I could have finished there but I'm happy with the time that I can do now. I felt really relaxed and it's the first time this year I haven't been stressed when pushing for the time.
It's the best position we've had so far which is great and hopefully tomorrow I can improve again and get into the 1m37s before the race, just to get a bit more confidence."
Team Manager - Johan Stigefelt: "It's really been a weekend of ups and downs. We've struggled since FP1 right up until Qualifying.
"At the start it was difficult to determine exactly what the problem was with Johann as it looked to be a combination of both him and the bike. We've been working on it and Johann also made a big step himself in the way that he changed his riding style to adapt to this track, which is very different to many of the others. He made an exceptional effort to do this and right when it was needed most.
We also made a step with the bike right before FP3 which turned out to be in the right direction. Johann's pace was good and consistent with quite a lot of laps in the mid 1m37s.
It looks pretty good for tomorrow but we've seen it many times before and we need to be strong for the race and learn from previous mistakes. We will not change a lot with the bike, so now it is up to Johann to do the best he can tomorrow.
"Josh did well and the Qualifying session was really interesting because he made a big improvement in his lap time and was not far off. We could see he was following and learning from some of the other riders in a good way. He was just missing maybe one or two tenths to make it into the top twenty. It's a shame but still I believe he can do a good race. Twenty third is his best qualifying position this year and I hope that he can capitalise from that, try to stay in a good group and do his best. I think he can fight for the points if he can stay calm and ride well."
More, from a press release issued by AGT Rea Racing:
Indianapolis Qualifying: So near yet so far for AGT REA Racing
AGT REA Racing concluded Saturday's qualifying practice in 25th position despite closing the gap to the leaders from 2 to 1.2 seconds.
From the start to mid-session, Gino Rea held positions between 13th and 16th, before dropping down the order after two pit stops, as he explains:
"I'm pretty annoyed with the final position because the start of the session went so well. At the beginning, I was in the top 15 on an old tyre from the morning free practice session. We made a change to the suspension and tried a different compound rear tyre. But the tyre wasn't so good so we changed the tyre again for the final run. The suspension setting caused more chatter on the front so I wasn't able to go faster. I'm annoyed because I felt with a new tyre and the bike settings at the start of the session, we could have had those crucial two or three tenths which would have moved us up around 10 positions.
We're making progress with the bike. We've gone from being 2 seconds off the leaders down to 1.2 seconds. And I'm only 0.2 seconds from 12th position. It's incredibly close! Tomorrow I need to get away with the battle for the points and I will be giving it everything to bring the team a points finish at our home race."
Tomorrow AGT REA Racing line up for their second 'home' race of the season; Indiana being the home state of their title sponsor American Green Technology. The only American team in the MotoGP paddock will be out to impress in front of their home crowd.
The Moto2 race from the Indianapolis Motor Speedway will take place tomorrow at 12.20 local time and 17.20 in the UK. Follow the team on their Facebook www.facebook.com/AGTREARACING and Twitter @AGT_REA_Racing for live updates.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Al Franken (D-Minn) ranks 24th in the Senate with an estimated net worth* of $8,429,529 in 2011.
Net Worth Over Time
*Estimated wealth is defined as the average of the maximum debt figure subtracted from the minimum asset figure and the minimum debt figure subtracted from the maximum asset figure.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: email@example.com


text:
Added to Shopping Bag
Hobo International Patent Leather Snap Closure Handbag Royal Blue Wristlet
Listed by Rosie J.
Price: $55.55
Returnable for site
You can request a return for Tradesy Site Credit within 4 days of delivery. FREE return shipping.
If your item was misrepresented in any way, file a Misrepresentation Claim within 4 days of delivery. Our team will review your claim and you may be eligible for a full refund.
Shopping Bag :
Reserved for -:--
Patent Leather Snap Closure Handbag Royal Blue Wristlet
Shipping Included
Pay with Credit Card, PayPal, or Affirm.
12 people saved this item
This item may have been worn but has no visible signs of wear.
Hobo International
Royal Blue Patent Leather Snap Closure Wristlet Handbag
Dimensions: 9"W x 6"H x 3"D | Wrist Strap: 6.5"
This Royal Blue Patent Leather Wristlet is a Gorgeous Show stopper!
Goldtone Hardware
Snap Closure
Ivory and Black Polka Dot Clothe Interior
Interior Zip and Slip Pocket
4 Interior Credit Card Pockets
PLEASE NOTE: "Excellent pre-owned condition. Exterior is prestine, the cloth lining is lightly soiled, please see pics 7 through 9."
I Ship Fast!
Item comes from a pet and smoke free home.
Please send me an email if you have any questions regarding this item.
Thanks for looking.
Patent Leather
9"L x 6"H x 3"W
Style Tags:
Mon 9/25/17 - Fri 9/29/17 (4-8 days)
Feel free to return this item for any reason and get Tradesy Site Credit. Use your credit to buy something that makes you happy. Just a heads-up, purchases outside the U.S. are Final Sale.
Submit a return request within 4 days of delivery
Pack and ship the item using our free return shipping label
Skip the return request and bring the item to your nearest within 4 days of delivery for instant Tradesy Credit.
Have a similar item? Sell Yours
Authenticity Promise
Tradesy only allows the sale of authentic designer goods. If you believe your purchase is a replica, send it to our team for a free evaluation. You'll get a full refund if anything's amiss.*Learn More
Our Guarantee
Get what you ordered, or your money back. We'll give you a full refund if the condition, style, or authenticity of an item are misrepresented in any way.*Learn More
Real People, Here to Help
Need help? Have questions? Our team in sunny Southern California is available by phone, email, and chat.Help & Support


text:
Do you have a passion for seafood? Namely, everyone's favorite mollusk - the incredible, delicious, and nutritious oyster? Well, you're in luck then, because February is Oyster Month, and the good folks over at Jax Fish House & Oyster Bar are hosting some wonderful events all throughout the month. You'll be able to stuff your face, shuck some oysters, and all in doing so will be helping to contribute to a good cause, as Jax is donating big portions of this event's proceeds to charities across different communities. Located in the LoDo district, not far at all from the Holiday Inn, Jax is a nationwide institution for seafood and shellfish.
First of all, for every single oyster that's being shucked in February, 10 cents will be donated to an array of different charities throughout the Denver community (as well as its other locations across the country). On top of that, the entirety of the proceeds from Oyster Month's main event, which culminates on March 2nd at the High West Oyster Fest, will be donated to Blue Sky Bridge, a charitable organization whose mission is to support victims of child abuse and fight for safer communities and children all across America.
This is a great way to have some fun and experience Denver's wonderful oyster culture, all the while going to support some great causes. Not to mention, you'll also be entered to win free oysters for an entire year every time you order a dozen! You'd better save some for us back here at the Holiday Inn!


text:
Aston Villa eye Malmo defender Jansson
Paul Lambert has been checking on rising Sweden international Pontus Jansson as he looks to strengthen his defensive options.
• Hughes: Woes continue
Aston Villa manager Lambert has a growing reputation for handing opportunities to young talent and Jansson is the latest under consideration ahead of the January transfer window.
Sources close to the player have confirmed to ESPN that Lambert has sent scouts to check on the 22-year-old, who has just won the Swedish title with Malmo.
Villa are the latest to scout the central defender, after Sven-Goran Eriksson's former assistant Tord Grip, recently told Swedish reporters he was assessing Jansson for Southampton manager Mauricio Pochettino.
Malmo were crowned champions earlier this month in what has been a breakthrough season for Jansson, who has been a virtual ever-present in the heart of defence.
Several German and Dutch clubs have been monitoring the progress of the former Sweden U21 captain and Malmo have already received official offers in the region of one million euros.
Jansson is out of contract in a little over a year's time and is unlikely to sign an extension, after intimating that he would like to challenge himself at a new club and Malmo are ready to sell in January.
He has won four full caps for the Sweden national team and could be part of coach Erik Hamsen's World Cup plans for the 2014 World Cup, if they win their play-off tie against Portugal later this month.
Lambert is on the lookout for defensive reinforcements after losing Denmark international Jores Okore for the season with a ruptured cruciate ligament injury.
Okores only joined Villa in the summer from F.C. Nordsjælland, but suffered the injury in his third appearance for the club against Newcastle.
Use a Facebook account to add a comment, subject to Facebook's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your Facebook name, photo & other personal information you make public on Facebook will appear with your comment, and may be used on ESPN's media platforms. Learn more.


text:
Column: Rep. Jeff Roorda – Route Sixty-Six Politix
When you think of Missouri politics in terms of our state's diverse system of roads and highways, we essentially have two political parties: the Interstate 70 Society and the Dirt Road Gang.
The members of the I-70 Society are the self-anointed "enlightened ones". Those "we-know-better-than-you liberals" with their haughty notions of a nanny state. They used to win elections along all of the Interstates in Missouri but they've become so out of stride that they can only get elected in big cities along I-70 these days.
Then we have the other extreme represented by the Dirt Road Gang (if that name summons up images of black helicopter conspiracy theorists, you're picturing the right folks). This is the new Missouri Republican party. A party that's ideas are only popular in the most remote, back-water hollers of our state; the places you can only get to on dirt roads. Despite all my grousing about how liberal and out of touch my party is, this bunch of Republicans are so far off the main roads ideologically, that it takes them a day's drive just to get back to paved streets.
Luckily for the Dirt Road Gang, the only people that seem to be voting in Missouri legislative elections nowadays hail from those far flung places where far flung thinking is warmly embraced. If this crew got its way, every road in Missouri would be a dirt road and we'd legislate "guvment" right out of existence.
For much of this state's history, the Democratic party was dominated by what I'll call "Route 66 Politicians". Oh those were the days…massive Democratic majorities in the state legislature fueled by the strength of candidates with the sort of moderate, mass appeal that it takes to get elected in the communities that cluster around that renowned highway made famous in song and story by the likes of Jack Kerouac, Martin Milner and Bobby Troup.
At the statewide level, the Missouri Democratic Party is still characterized by Route 66 Politics. To be certain, Governor Jay Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster fit squarely into this mold and nab truckloads of votes in towns along Route 66 and other places like those communities. Even Claire McCaskill, Clint Zweifel and Jason Kander, who are all to the left-of-center on the social wedge issues, have prevailed in their elections by pointing out how far off the beaten path their opponents have been on the issues that voters care the most about, like education funding, job creation and the integrity of Social Security and Medicare.
For me and the other handful of Route 66 politicians left in the Missouri Legislature, Jefferson City is a lonely, lonely place. We number less than two dozen today. That number even counts the stray mainstream Republican or two that have been able to survive the chip-and-seal resurfacing that their party has gone through in the last few election cycles―an anti-renaissance that has swept moderate Republicans into the ditches and culverts of Missouri politics. A middle-of-the-road Republican like John Danforth would get flattened like a three-legged possum crossing a busy thoroughfare if he tried to win a Republican primary in Missouri today.
To extend the metaphor, moderate Democrats have suffered a similar fate. We've been left standing on the shoulders of the liberal superhighway as we watch our party speed, pedal-to-the-metal, to its own demise.
If the Missouri Democratic Party is to have a future, the guys who are driving the bus in legislative races are going to have to scoot over and let us "Route Sixty-Sixers" drive. For a party whose legislative leaders have so isolated themselves from anyone outside the I-70 corridor in the last decade, the only way back to a legislative majority is to "get their kicks on Route 66." Otherwise, this party is going to continue to get its keester kicked on every dusty stretch of the highways and byways that criss-cross this great state.


text:
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL (BocaNewsNow.com) — BocaNewsNow.com told you yesterday of a massive systems failure at Fort Lauderdale Airport that left hundreds — and possibly thousands — of bags destined for JetBlue flights stuck at the airport. Passengers starting their Thanksgiving holidays in Mexico and other nearby overseas locations arrived with bags nowhere to be found.
Now, JetBlue says it believes some of the bags made it to their destination a day late, but the airline actually has no record of what happened to the bags after they were offloaded from the planes in question.
"We use a third party to deliver lost and delayed bags," said a supervisor in JetBlue's St. Louis call center. "We have no way of tracking those bags." The representative stated that no one answered the phone at their Can Cun, Mexico location.
Unlike legacy carriers such as Delta — which uses RFID tracking to know where all bags are all the time — JetBlue, living up to its discount reputation — it not part of a national bag tracking system utilized by many major airlines. It has no realtime tracking system.
It is unclear what efforts are underway by JetBlue to locate the bags originating in Fort Lauderdale, or what review is underway to determine if Saturday's meltdown was mechanical, labor or incompetence.
Until this issue is resolved, BocaNewsNow.com advises all fliers to avoid flying JetBlue from Fort Lauderdale Airport.
Use our Lyft promo code BNN123 for substantial discounts for your first Lyft rides. Enter the code in your app, or just click here.
BocaNewsNow.com is the leading hyper-local news website based in and serving Boca Raton, Florida and South Palm Beach County. Our pages have been visited millions of times over our five year history of reporting, providing opinion and snark.
This is not a "mug shot" website. Arrest reports and mugshots are provided by law enforcement officials under Florida Statute. While we review all requests for removal, we are not obligated to remove reports that are a part of the public record.
When removal is appropriate, we do so at no charge. We do not accept payment for mugshot or arrest report deletion.
We remind our readers that an arrest is an accusation. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court of law. Email us at news (at) bocanewsnow.com or telephone 561-419-9520.
All Content Copyright © 2017 MetroDesk Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.


text:
- 3 total posts
- 1 comment
- 2 questions
Questions from JcupBeGone
Abdominal Liposuction - Getting Bigger As the Weeks Go On. (photos)
I had liposuction of the abdomen, waist, and hips, and a breast reduction 7.5 weeks ago. I was thrilled with my results during the first week after the surgery. Since then I've... READ MORE
Former 34J Cup to Only a 34DDD/E - Wide Breast Base Options? (photo)
I had a breast reduction 8.5 wks ago & had asked for a B or C cup. I was very clear on not wanting anything larger than that; the smaller the better. I went to get measured... READ MORE
Recent comments from JcupBeGone
I'm so glad to read your most recent update! I'm exactly 7 weeks post lipo of abdomen, hips, and waist. I, so far, am pretty unhappy with my results. I can't tell if I'm still swollen or not, even though my PS says I am. Everyone... READ COMMENT


text:
Personalised Pocket Memo Pad – Oval
This Pocket Memo Pad – Oval is the perfect addition for any busy person on-the-go. Personalise with the name or date of someone special.
More product info
A desktop essential, every office worker needs a notepad to go about their daily duties. Now you can upgrade your scrappy note pad or post-it notes and enjoy this stunning Pocket Memo Pad instead!
The ideal gift for any high-flyer, this on-the-go handy Pocket Memo Pad features a beautiful vertical ridged design with an oval presentation area on the front. The side of the design features a handy pen holder, with the exterior opening to reveal a note pad within. The Pocket Memo Pad can be personalised with the name or date of someone or something special, creating a delightful gift for any recipient.
The Pocket Memo Pad – Oval makes a truly thoughtful and memorable gift for Christmas, anniversaries, Valentine's Day, Father's Day and birthdays, and is individually gift boxed.


text:
Final Revision March 22, 1999
by Samuel R. Conner and Dr. Hugh Ross
1 Introduction
In 1994 a physicist who is prominent in the young-earth movement, Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, unveiled a proposed alternative cosmology1 which, it was claimed, resolved a long-standing problem for the young-earth movement --- how light could travel billions of light years from distant galaxies during the passage of only a few thousand years of Earth time. This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form2. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys' theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians.
Before proceeding with our discussion of the present state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis, we wish to make it clear that our observations about Dr. Humphreys' cosmological writings are not intended to cast aspersion on the sincerity of his Christian faith or the quality of his Christian testimony. The errors and defects in Humphreys' ideas are not moral errors, but scientific ones, and our pointing out of Humphreys' errors in these scientific areas does not imply criticism of his moral integrity. The one moral criticism which we would make of Dr. Humphreys' advocacy of his model, is his failure to heed the counsel of skilled Christian physicists in this matter. This is not a small criticism, for Humphreys' overconfidence in this matter has led to the widespread dissemination of a false theory. The inevitable collapse of this theory may damage the faith of many Christians who have leaned on it to reinforce their faith. The responsibility for such damage will rest with Dr. Humphreys and those of his associates who have promoted his theory, disregarding the expert counsel which God has made available to them. It is also possible that the widespread distribution and acceptance of his theory will have negative consequences for the credibility of Christian testimony to unbelievers. Again, responsibility for this will lie with Dr. Humphreys and his associates.
Reasons to Believe and RTB associates have played a leading role in the effort by Christian physicists to help the young-earth movement recognize and repudiate the errors of Starlight and Time. Prior to the initial publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys was advised to drop the theory in view of its incompatibility with the observed time-keeping properties of distant physical phenomena3 (see appendices for specifics). In early 1995, RTB assembled a team of qualified physicists to analyze the mathematics of the theory4. In retrospect, it is apparent that this analysis, which was performed in early- to mid-1995, was the first thorough review the mathematical aspects of the theory had ever received, notwithstanding the theory's initial presentation in a nominally peer-reviewed forum, the International Conference on Creationism(ICC). This review led to the preparation of a number of documents which RTB has been distributing on request since mid-19955,6 and to the publication of a brief but thorough rebuttal of Starlight and Time in a young-earth publication in September, 19957. Despite this rebuttal, the subsequent rejection of Starlight and Time by the ICC8 and further rebuttal, this time by a young-earth writer, published in another young-earth publication9, Humphreys has continued to insist that his model is valid. The latest exchange in the controversy occurred recently in the pages of Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal10,11.
To our knowledge, not one person competent in general relativity and cosmology theory who has examined Starlight and Time has given a "pass" to this theory12. Despite the lack of expert corroboration of his work, Humphreys continues to insist on the validity of his demonstrably false theory. Unfortunately, most of the major young-earth organizations13 are continuing to follow Humphreys and are ignoring the demonstrations of the falsity of his theory which have arisen from both inside and outside the young-earth movement.
Reasons to Believe has kept a low public profile on this matter over the past three-plus years in the hope that the young-earth movement would have both the will and the skill to resolve this matter internally and thereby save itself the humiliation of being corrected by outsiders. We also wanted to keep the matter quiet in order to avoid attracting the attention of hostile unbelievers, for whom Starlight and Time would provide a persuasive example of "Christian incompetence" in the natural sciences, evidence which would aid their attempts to exclude Christian thought from the public arena. Such attention would be most harmful to the young-earth movement, but it would by association also harm the entire church and potentially discredit the church's gospel witness. We also hoped that Humphreys would himself eventually "come around" on this matter14, and it appeared probable to us that a very public role for RTB would diminish the likelihood that this would happen. For all of these reasons, RTB mounted the smallest "organizational" response to Starlight and Time that would suffice to respond to inquiries about Starlight and Time. In lieu of an extensive formal "organizational" response, Professor Don Page15 and RTB associate Sam Conner16, writing on their own behalf, have presented thorough rebuttals of Starlight and Time in the above-cited young-earth periodicals, in the hope of persuading the readership of these publications of the falsity of the theory.
Unfortunately, our expectations were too optimistic. Starlight and Time has been ever more widely distributed in the young-earth community and employed in that community as a pretext for attacking RTB's ministry. Contrary to our expectations, Starlight and Time has not received the thorough testing and re-evaluation by the young-earth movement which it clearly needs17. Given the uncertainty as to whether this matter will be resolved in the near future by the young-earth community, we believe that it is time for RTB to mount a more thorough "organizational" response to the Starlight and Time hypothesis. This article is part of that response. It is our hope that this response will:
- help Christians who are uncertain about the validity of Starlight and Time to recognize its falsity,
- contribute to the vindication of the scientific judgment of the church when the Christian and secular historians of the next generation examine this episode and
- help to defuse possible attempts by present critics of the church to appeal to the falsity of Starlight and Time as grounds to reject Christian testimony.
A variety of rebuttals of Starlight and Time, ranging from short and readable to very long and mathematically involved, have been published (refs. 5,6,7,9,10,17). Many of these are available in printed form from RTB.
Our purpose here is not primarily to review or expand on this material (we encourage our readers to peruse it at their convenience), but rather to update our readers on the current state of the Starlight and Time hypothesis and to discuss the problems in the latest revision of the theory which Humphreys has put forth.
In brief, the theory is falling apart. Apparently under the weight of the critiques recently published10,17, Humphreys has abandoned most of his original erroneous proposal but has, unfortunately, replaced it with an even more unreasonable one. We will first discuss Humphreys' abandonment of the original proposal and then survey the problems in the new one. A detailed rebuttal of the errors of the new proposal is too lengthy to present in this brief survey, but will be made available separately in paper and electronic form from RTB19.
2 The Abandonment of Starlight and Time
In his latest attempt to defend Starlight and Time11, Humphreys actually quietly abandons it. The three central arguments of the original Starlight and Time proposal were:
- The alleged physical significance of the Schwarzschild time coordinate of the Klein metric. This is so important in the original Starlight and Time argument that Humphreys called it "the essence" of his new cosmological model19.
- The gravitational time dilation effects of differences of gravitational potential in a bounded universe which, it was alleged, do not occur in an unbounded universe. Again, this is essential to the original argument.
- The alleged profound effects of event horizons in a bounded universe. In Starlight and Time, Humphreys attributed most of the effects of 1 and 2 above to the action of an event horizon, which he claimed would cause Earth clocks to be static while billions of years of time elapsed on clocks in the distant universe.
It has been shown in a number of articles10 17 that all three of these claims are manifestly false. In particular,
1) the Schwarzschild time coordinate has no physical significance at all for the behavior of physical clocks in a bounded universe, 2) the pattern of gravitational field and potential differences is manifestly identical for bounded and unbounded universes (this is sufficiently important and sufficiently simple that we will revisit it below) and physical clock behaviors are manifestly identical for both cases, and 3) the event horizon of a bounded universe has absolutely no effect on the passage of time on physical clocks in such a universe.
In his most recent defense of this theory, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics11", Humphreys gives up so much ground on each of these three central arguments that one can fairly say that he has abandoned the original formulation of his hypothesis. New Vistas has little to say about Schwarzschild time. Whereas this time coordinate was "the essence" of the original argument, it now receives only passing mention and is no longer appealed to in support of Humphreys' claim to have solved the light travel problem. Although Humphreys continues to employ the phrase "gravitational time dilation", it is clear from his argument that he no longer contends that potential differences in the bounded matter sphere produce differences in the time-keeping rates of physical clocks --- indeed, he explicitly concedes that physical clocks tick at the same rate in such a universe20. Finally, event horizons, which played a prominent part in Starlight and Time, are now admitted by Humphreys to have no effect 21, and the effects which he wrongly attributed to them in Starlight and Time are now attributed to the changing signature of the Klein metric.
Four years after the original publication of Starlight and Time, Humphreys has abandoned all the central arguments of that hypothesis. All that remains is a skeleton, consisting of the idea of a bounded universe and a phrase, "gravitational time dilation." The disproof of the original central arguments of Starlight and Time is not difficult. Dr. Humphreys' recent abandonment of the central physical arguments of his original proposal shows that these physical arguments were not well-thought out and were not adequately reviewed by experts in relativity theory and cosmology prior to their dissemination in the church.22
In New Vistas, Humphreys quietly drops his old physical arguments and invents new ones to take their place. Before proceeding to a discussion of these new errors, it is worthwhile to revisit one of the claims which Humphreys has not yet dropped --- the claim that there is a profound difference in the gravitational properties of bounded and unbounded universes. Let's explore this concept.
3 The identity of the gravitational behavior of bounded and unbounded homogeneous/isotropic universes—an old error explained
One of the errors of the original Starlight and Time proposal which remains in Humphreys' reconstruction of his argument, is the claim that gravity is radically different in a bounded and an unbounded universe. The falsity of this claim is obvious to people familiar with relativity theory and cosmology and is easily explainable to non-specialists. Humphreys' continued insistence on this is further evidence of misunderstandings of the physics of general relativity and cosmology.
In general relativity, matter produces spacetime curvature, and spacetime curvature manifests itself in what we call gravity. The relationship between the spacetime curvature and the matter content of the universe is given by the Einstein field equations, which are customarily expressed in shorthand notation as
Gm n =8p GTm n
The left hand side of this equation, Gm n , is the Einstein curvature tensor, which is composed of products of the spacetime metric tensor gm n with derivatives of that tensor with respect to the spacetime coordinates23 The right hand side contains numerical constants (G is Newton's gravitational constant) and the "stress-energy" tensor, T m n , also called the "energy-momentum" tensor. It contains information about the matter, energy, pressure and momentum content of the universe. It is obvious from this equation that if two universes have the same energy-momentum T m n ,, then their Einstein curvature tensors will also be identical. The matter-filled region of the bounded universe which Humphreys postulates has an identical energy-momentum tensor to the unbounded universe he wishes to replace, and consequently it has spacetime curvature which is identical to that of the unbounded universe. Gravitational behaviors such as the "Newtonian gravitational field"24 and time dilation are a consquence of the spacetime curvature. Identical spacetime curvature means that the gravitational behaviors must be identical. This fact alone is an adequate rebuttal of Humphreys' claims.
Aside from the idea of a bounded cosmos, the only significant physical claim which Humphreys preserves from the original version of Starlight and Time is the assertion that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. This assertion has been repeatedly disproven7,10,17, but Humphreys persists in affirming it. It is easy to see that there must be gravitational fields in an unbounded universe. We present a brief demonstration here, and an elaborate demonstration in supplementary materials which are in preparation.
If Humphreys' claim that there are no gravitational fields in an unbounded universe were valid, then it would be impossible for the expansion of such universes to decelerate: no unbounded universe model could decelerate as it expanded25. This is inescapable, for gravity is the only force which acts in such models; in the absence of any gravitational field, there can be no relative acceleration of different parts of the universe. Thus, Humphreys' reasoning requires that, while bounded universes can decelerate, so that their expansion slows with time, unbounded universes cannot. If Humphreys' reasoning were correct, general relativity would predict that unbounded universes do not decelerate. However, general relativity in fact, predicts that unbounded universes do decelerate, and in exactly the same way as bounded universes with the same interior properties. Since gravity is the only operative force in these models, the identical deceleration of bounded and unbounded universes means that the gravitational field of such universes must be identical.
It is easy to calculate the Newtonian gravitational field in an unbounded universe and from this field to derive the deceleration of such a universe. It is a well-known fact in relativity theory that such a Newtonian analysis leads to a prediction of the deceleration of an unbounded universe which is identical to the predictions of general relativity. This calculation is illustrated in previous publications contra Starlight and Time though not explicitly worked out (it is explicitly worked out in many textbooks on general relativity26 and will be presented in materials in preparation).
Humphreys explicitly rejects this calculation. This rejection is foolish on two counts. First, general relativity predicts that unbounded universes must decelerate, and it predicts the same deceleration equation as the Newtonian analysis applied to either a bounded or an unbounded universe. Second, many introductory-level textbooks on relativistic cosmology perform the Newtonian analysis; indeed, this analysis is so common that it has its own name: "Newtonian cosmology." Humphreys is certainly aware of this. Thus Humphreys, who has minimal formal training or professional research experience in general relativity or cosmology, is presuming to have an understanding of these matters which is superior to every professional general relativity/cosmology theorist on Earth27. This has the potential to lead to future humiliation for many Christians who have unwisely accepted his ideas as authoritative.
4 New Errors in the New Vistas publication
A pattern which has become evident over the past few years is that each attempt by Humphreys to defend Starlight and Time from competent analysis leads to the unveiling of new, and usually more serious, misunderstandings of relativity physics as well as the repeating of old ones. Humphreys' latest attempt to preserve a vestige of his original cosmology proposal, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics",11 continues this pattern.
Humphreys' basic error is to mistake a feature of a particular coordinate representation of the geometry of a bounded universe for a fundamental property of that geometry28. In the process, he also misunderstands, misrepresents and misapplies much of the literature he cites in support of the new misunderstanding. The errors are numerous. For example, Humphreys:
- ignores the massive body of evidence from time-keeping phenomena throughout the universe (such as the periods of Cepheid variable stars, the eruption time spans of novae and supernovae, star formation time spans, stellar burning rates, galaxy rotation periods, etc.) and in the Solar System (such as the dynamical aging of the asteroid belt) that clocks everywhere in the universe run at the same rate and that long periods of time, far in excess of the brief span permitted by young-earth interpretation of the Bible, have elapsed not only in the distant universe but also in nearby regions of our Galaxy and even in the Solar System. Humphreys also ignores astronomers' measurements of the expansion rate of the cosmos and the temperature of the cosmic background radiation at different look-back times in the history of the cosmos. That these two sets of undisputed observations made his cosmic models impossible was pointed out to Humphreys in three letters from one of us (HR) sent in 1992 and 1993, see appendices. These evidences, which will be expanded on in a subsequent article, shows that the whole objective of Starlight and Time/New Vistas, which is to make the distant universe "old" while claiming that the nearby universe is "young", is contradicted by the observed properties of the universe.
- continues to overlook the evidence from the dynamics of the standard unbounded cosmological models (briefly discussed above) that these models have identical gravitational properties to his bounded models.
- makes absurd claims that unbounded models cannot possess spherical symmetry. Such models in fact are spherically symmetric about each and every point, contrary to Humphreys' claim that they are spherically symmetric about no point. The physical and mathematical concept of spherical symmetry is an elementary concept, and Humphreys' claims that standard Big Bang models do not possess spherical symmetry are incomprehensible.29
- claims that the Robertson-Walker metric cannot be applied to a bounded locally homogeneous and isotropic universe, reversing his own previous use of this metric30 and contradicting numerous textbooks and published research articles which deal with the question. The literature which Humphreys cites to justify his reversal does not support his claim.
- seriously misinterprets the published literature on metric signature change.
- ignores the extensive supplementary critique of Starlight and Time (ref. 17, which was furnished to him in 1997 as part of the CEN Tech. J. review process). This supplementary material demonstrates the mistaken character not only of the original Starlight and Time proposal, but also of the New Vistas proposal.
- continues to avoid the central mathematical issue of how the time elapsed on physical clocks is computed in general relativity. This is the central, elementary mathematical issue which has been, and continues to be, at the heart of the errors of Starlight and Time/New Vistas. Humphreys has never followed the mathematical "rules" of general relativity which prescribe how the metric is used to compute the passage of time in the universe. This calculation is straightforward and is performed in the Supplement17, clearly demonstrating the falsity of both Starlight and Time and New Vistas, but Humphreys has ignored and continues to ignore this demonstration of the falsity of his proposals.
- ignores the demonstration in Starlight and Time is the Big Bang that the Klein representation of the metric of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime can be applied to unbounded models. This demonstrates the falsity of Humphreys' claims that the Robertson-Walker is appropriate only to unbounded models, while the Klein metric is appropriate for bounded models. In fact, both representations of the metric can be applied to both classes of model. The distinction between the Klein and Robertson-Walker metrics is central to New Vistas, but Humphreys misses the fact that these two forms of the metric are simply different coordinate representations of the same underlying spacetime geometry, the geometry of locally homogeneous and isotropic spacetime.
- continues to misinterpret the mathematical and physical meaning of the Schwarzschild time coordinate tSchwarzschild. In particular, Humphreys erroneously imagines that dtSchwarzschild along Earth's spacetime trajectory is an arbitrary real quantity, and that the Earth proper time dt Earth is imaginary in the "Euclidean region" of the Klein metric. This notion is mistaken. The Schwarzschild time interval along Earth's spacetime trajectory dtSchwarzschild, Earth is manifestly a derived quantity given by the transformation relation between comoving and Schwarzschild coordinates. There is no evidence that Humphreys has ever made the mathematical effort to calculate what dtSchwarzschild actually is for the Earth (such a calculation makes manifest the falsity of his most recent claims), and his New Vistas reply further obscures the issue by not even presenting the equation from which dtSchwarzschild could be derived. As is obvious from the discussion in the Supplement17 and as is pointed out in a letter to the Editor of CENTJ31 dtSchwarzschild, Earth is purely imaginary in the "Euclidean region", which has the consequence that dtEarth is real. This analysis applies to every other comoving trajectory which intersects the "Euclidean region", so that there is no "timeless region" at all in the Klein metric (just as there is no such region in the Robertson-Walker metric, from which the Klein metric is derived). This observation overthrows the entire "New Vistas" argument, and shows that this latest version in the theory is at root, like the earlier version, founded on misunderstandings about the meaning of the Klein coordinate system and about the general relativity mathematical rules for how to compute the passage of physical time on physical clocks.
It is important to note in surveying this list that few of these issues are particularly profound; most of them are introductory-level issues in the interpretation of the equations of general relativity and cosmology. Humphreys' lack of training in these fields is painfully obvious to trained eyes. Unfortunately, there are few general relativity/cosmology-trained individuals in the young-earth movement (and the few whom God has placed in the movement have been ignored by the movement, with the sole exception of the ICC). The result is that Humphreys and his sympathizers among the leadership of the young-earth movement have (unwittingly) misled the young-earth movement on these matters for several years.
5 The Impossible Hypothesis of Young-Universe Relativistic Cosmology
In Starlight and Time is the Big Bang and other critiques of Starlight and Time, it has been shown that a short timescale for the history of the universe is completely incompatible with general relativity and the observed properties of the universe. The demonstration takes the form of two mathematical proofs derivable from the equations of relativity-based cosmology which show that
- A young universe which obeys general relativity must exhibit very rapid present decreases in the observed redshifts of distant galaxies and
- A young universe which obeys general relativity cannot contain visible objects which are more than a few thousand light years distant.
Both of these predictions are unavoidable consequences of general relativity applied to the locally homogeneous and isotropic class of models employed by Humphreys and both are contradicted by abundant physical evidence from astronomy. It is noteworthy that Humphreys does not dispute the accuracy of the derivation of these proofs. He does, however, dispute their applicability to his bounded universe model, claiming that the Robertson-Walker metric (on which these proofs depend) applies only to an unbounded universe and not to a bounded universe. This claim is manifestly false, as may be verified by reference to any introductory text on general relativity which addresses homogeneous stellar collapse32. Not only is the Robertson-Walker metric a perfectly suitable description of the geometry of the bounded universe advocated by Humphreys, but the alternative coordinate representation of the metric which Humphreys prefers is in fact derived from the Robertson-Walker metric by a coordinate transformation, a fact which is obvious from the texts Humphreys cites33. The Schwarzschild-like metric which Humphreys prefers is the Robertson-Walker metric expressed in a different coordinate system34. As has been shown by explicit calculation in reference 17, Humphreys' prefered metric leads to Earth time behaviors which are identical to the standard Big Bang models.
6 Starlight and Time/New Vistas as a paradigm of the fundamental problem of young-earth apologetics
In his conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus observed, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"(John 3:12, NIV). Nicodemus was not able (or perhaps not willing) to understand the spiritual reality of regeneration by the Spirit of God which Jesus was describing by means of the earthly metaphors of physical birth and physical wind. Nicodemus' misunderstanding raises an important issue for Christian apologists and evangelists: how is one to describe spiritual reality to someone who has no personal experience of such a reality?
This communication issue faces not only "traditional" Christian evangelists, but also Christian apologists who wish to use evidence from the natural world to point unbelievers to supernatural realities and the Gospel. A particularly acute form of this problem faces the young-earth movement in its attempts to use revisionist young-earth "science" for this purpose. If the science is incredible or manifestly false, then, rather than pointing unbelievers to God, it may drive them further away. Jesus' question to Nicodemus 2000 years ago suggests a set of challenges to Christian apologists today: if our claims about earthly, empirically testable things such as natural history are demonstrably untrue, how can we expect unbelievers to accept our testimony on subjects which are not empirically testable and which call for a faith response? The answer is clear: we cannot. If our testimony on scientific matters is demonstrably false, rather than giving unbelievers reasons to consider the Gospel, we will give them grounds to reject it. To put it another way, if the Church demonstrates itself to be unreliable in the interpretation of scientific matters which are subject to verification by unbelievers, it undermines, by association, the credibility of our claims that unbelievers need to pay attention to the Bible's statements about spiritual matters which are not empirically verifiable by unbelievers. If Christians' claims about physical reality cannot be trusted, what grounds do unbelievers have to trust our claims about spiritual realities? Demonstrably false "science" gives the lost "reasons to reject" the Gospel --- "reasons to disbelieve" rather than "reasons to believe."
This is a serious obstacle to the efforts of the young-earth movement to minister the Gospel to unbelievers, particularly to scientifically literate unbelievers. Much of the young-earth apologetic depends on the idea that the earth and the entire physical universe is no more than several thousand years old. This position appears to us as believers to be impossible to reconcile with any reasonable interpretation of the data of nature; it is also manifestly false from the perspective of unbelieving scientists. Young-earth claims on the age issue are so obviously mistaken, in fact, that many non-Christian scientists do not believe that young-earth apologists are honest people, which gives them yet another reason (or excuse) to reject the Gospel35. Perhaps the clearest instance of the impossibility of young-earth "science" is the light-travel problem, but this problem characterizes the entire young-earth position on the age-of-the-universe/age-of-the-earth issue36.
Starlight and Time/New Vistas is, from our perspective, one of the most obvious recent examples of manifestly erroneous "science" offered by the young-earth movement as a defense of the Bible. The errors are elementary and are almost entirely in the arena of comparatively simple mathematics. That these glaring errors have been widely accepted within the young-earth movement and widely propagated in the Church casts doubt on the credibility, reliability and trustworthiness of the leadership of the young-earth movement and, by association, the entire church. It should be noted that we do not believe that any young-earth leader has engaged in conscious deception. The failure of the movement to detect and act on the erroneous nature of Starlight and Time is not a failure of moral integrity but a failure of scientific judgment and discernment. Starlight and Time/New Vistas shows that the movement's scientific judgment is not implicitly trustworthy --- the movement is not able to discern and rid itself of its own scientific errors. In this sense, the leadership of the young-earth movement cannot be implicitly trusted to reliably counsel or guide the church on scientific matters.
The young-earth movement's failure to recognize and repudiate the false science of Starlight and Time/New Vistas is a stumbling block to informed non-believing scientists and may become a stumbling block to many other unbelievers if the young-earth movement persists in affirming this manifestly untrue theory. In the interests of the credibility of its own Gospel witness and the witness of the wider Church, it is time for the young-earth movement to repudiate the Starlight and Time/New Vistas theory.
7 Conclusion
We at Reasons to Believe have hoped that the young-earth movement and that portion of the church which looks to the young-earth movement for scientific guidance would repudiate Starlight and Time. RTB has to this point, avoided extensive public comment on the theory. In doing so, RTB has sought:
- to give the movement space to resolve this matter internally,
- to avoid needlessly polarizing the debate and
- to give the young-earth publication CENTJ pride of place in publishing the most comprehensive rebuttal of Starlight and Time which has yet appeared.
But the young-earth community has not seemed able and/or willing to examine itself. Our restraint seems to have been interpreted by proponents of Starlight and Time as an inability on RTB's part to respond to Starlight and Time. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the interest of the credibility of its Christian testimony, we appeal to the young-earth movement to undertake the long-overdue reassessment of the validity of Starlight and Time and, now, New Vistas.
- D. Russell Humphreys, "Progress toward a young-earth relativistic cosmology," in R. E. Walsh (ed.) Poceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994): pp. 267-286.
- D. Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994).
- Hugh Ross , letters to author, 30 September 1992, 15 March 1993, and 15 April 1993 (see appendix A, B, and C).
- Facts & Faith, v.9, n,1 (first quarter 1995): pp. 12-13; Facts & Faith v.12, n.4 (fourth quarter 1998): pp. 10-11.
- Samuel R. Conner, "Starlight and Time and the Big Bang," July 1995.
- Samuel R. Conner, "How long does it take light to travel from distant galaxies to the earth in the alternative cosmological model of Starlight and Time?," July 1995.
- Samuel R. Conner and Don N. Page, "Light Travel Time in Starlight and Time", Bible Science News v. 33, n. 7 (1995): pp 12, 16-19.
- The ICC's re-evaluation of Starlight and Time was communicated to SRC in the course of a conversation with Robert Walsh and Steven Rodabaugh in the Summer of 1996.
- John Byl, "On time dilation in cosmology," Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 34, n. 1, 1997.
- Samuel R. Conner and Don N. Page, "Starlight and Time is the Big Bang," Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, v. 12, n. 2 (1998): pp. 174-194.
- D. Russell Humphreys, "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics", CEN Tech. J., v. 12, n. 2 (1998), pp. 195-212.
- this includes 1) astrophysicists and a general relativity theorist in the team assembled by RTB, 2) two young-earth scientists who have spoken up on this subject and 3) the team of reviewers selected by CEN Tech. J. to referee the latest published exchange. Based on the evidence available to us, we are confident in our conclusion that the original ICC reviewer (of reference #1) was not sufficiently skilled in general relativity to discern the errors in the original paper. Humphreys' recent retreat from most of the physical claims of that paper (discussed below) confirms this, and similar conclusions have been drawn by the leaders of the ICC.
- At this writing, Starlight and Time is still being promoted and distributed by Answers in Genesis, Creation Research Society, and Institute for Creation Research, despite the fact that much of the physics argumentation of that book has recently been abandoned by Humphreys (see below). To our knowledge, of the major young-earth organizations, only the ICC has backed away from Starlight and Time.
- Professor of physics and a general relativity theorist at the University of Alberta
- a non-resident PhD candidate in physics in the Physics Department at MIT.
- There is one exception to this trend among the major young-earth organizations: the ICC. In addition to the top leadership of the ICC, there are a few other astute and scholarly-minded young-earth leaders who have recognized the false character of the theory. By and large, however, the young-earth movement has clung to this theory ever tighter as the refutations of it have grown stronger.
- Samuel R. Conner and Don N. Page, "The big bang cosmology of Starlight and Time," 200+ pages, manuscript submitted to CEN Tech. J. as supporting material to reference 10.
- In addition, most of the new errors (as well as all of the major old ones) are rebutted in the material presented in reference 18.
- reference 2, p. 92.
- The erroneous differential aging effects which Humphreys attributed in previous writings to differences in the rates of physical clocks are now attributed to differences in the stage of expansion of the universe at which such clocks start ticking. In the current form of the hypothesis, there is no relationship at all between differences in gravitational potential and differences in clock rate. In fact, it is easy to show that, in Humphreys' new model, infinitesimal differences in gravitational potential accompany the large alleged differences in clock rate which Humphreys claims are caused by changes in the signature of the Klein metric, while very large differences in gravitational potential in other regions of the universe produce no difference at all in clock rate. Humphreys has abandoned gravitational time dilation as a physical argument.
- Humphreys now admits that the event horizon has no effect on physical clocks which are not at the center, but still wrongly claims that a physical clock located precisely at the center would experience unusual effects. This residual piece of the original argument is mistaken, as is shown in references 10 and 17.
- Regarding the issue of expert review of Humphreys' writings, it appears that the recent exchange in CEN Tech. J. is the first instance in which Humphreys' writings have been subjected to pre-publication review by experts in general relativity. His article for CEN Tech. J., "New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics" (ref. 11) was indeed subjected to a rigorous review (two of the three reviewers have impeccable credentials in GR and have published extensively in the literature of that discipline). However, judging by the highly favorable tenor of these reviewers' remarks on the Conner/Page paper (and their criticism of Humphreys' previous writings, which were contained in their reports on the Conner/Page article), it is impossible to believe that New Vistas actually passed this rigorous review.
- readers interested in learning more about general relativity and cosmology theory are referred to the explanatory appendices of reference 18.
- We enclose this term in quotes because the Newtonian conception of the gravitational field is not strictly valid in general relativity, but is rather the low-energy, low curvature limit of general relativity. However, Humphreys' conceptions and language are Newtonian, and so we use the term as an accomodation.
- We leave aside the issue of non-vanishing cosmological constant for the purposes of this discussion. There is no analogue in Newtonian physics for a cosmological constant, and Humphreys' arguments on this issue, and our counter to them here, are Newtonian. We also confine ourselves to the pressureless "cold dust" models employed by Humphreys. These qualifications have no effect on the validity of our analysis, for if Humphreys is correct, unbounded universes with no cosmological constant and no pressure cannot decelerate, while general relavity requires that such universes must decelerate. This clear contradiction between Humphreys' claims and the mathematics of general relativity shows that his claims cannot be correct.
- for example, Steven Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1972), pp. 474-475 and Herman Bondi, Cosmology, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), pp. 75-89.
- Indeed, in New Vistas of Spacetime Rebut the Critics, Humphreys flatly rejects the testimony of two of this century's leading physicists, Oskar Klein and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, testimony which convincingly overthrows his hypothesis. Humphreys' unwillingness to accept expert testimony with which he does not agree makes a mockery of his claim to have "subjected" his work to expert review. Humphreys has consistently disregarded such review.
- This is a continuation of the coordinate system misunderstandings which have plagued Humphreys' work from the beginning. In the original version of Starlight and Time, Humphreys mistook the peculiar behavior of the Schwarzschild time coordinate to imply unusual behavior in the physical timekeeping properties of earth clocks. In New Vistas, he transfers this misunderstanding to the physical meaning of the Klein coordinate representation of the metric.
- This claim illustrates Humphreys' tendency to defend old errors with even bigger new ones. This new error is so elementary that it can be thoroughly rebutted here. Humphreys confuses the concept of spherical symmetry with the concept of a spherical boundary. He claims that a uniform bounded space with a spherical boundary does possess spherical symmetry, whereas (according to him) a uniform unbounded space does not. In fact, spherical symmetry refers to a symmetry property whereby rotation by an arbitrary angle about an arbitrary axis leaves a system unchanged. An unbounded homogeneous and isotropic space manifestly satisfies the definition of spherical symmetry --- indeed, such spaces are "maximally symmetric" (Weinberg, ref. 27, pp. 395-404, 411-412). Humphreys claims that a homogeneous and isotropic unbounded matter distribution cannot be said to possess spherical symmetry because it does not have a spherical boundary. This same misunderstanding leads Humphreys to reject Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg's discussion of the implications of the Birkhoff Theorem, implications which invalidate Humphreys' cosmological hypotheses.
The character of Humphreys' misunderstanding may be illustrated by applying his misconception to a lower-dimensional space. A uniformly and isotropically matter-filled infinite plane manifestly possesses the property of polar or cylindrical symmetry about any axis perpendicular to it. That is, rotation of such a plane by any angle about any perpendicular axis (or, equivalently, rotation in the plane about any point in the plane) leaves the physical situation unchanged. For this reason, any point in the plane may be chosen as the origin of a polar coordinate system, and any reference direction may be chosen as the zero of the polar angle. Obviously, a uniform and isotropic matter-filled planar region with a circular boundary, beyond which there is only vacuum, also possesses cylindrical symmetry, but in this case, the symmetry is only about a single point, the point equidistant from the boundary. Rotation of the space about this point leaves the physical situation unchanged. Humphreys' spherical boundary/spherical symmetry confusion is identical to the manifestly absurd claim that, because an infinite, uniform, isotropic matter plane does not possess a circular boundary, such a matter distribution cannot be said to possess cylindrical symmetry about any origin. This is manifestly false. In fact, such a distribution of matter possesses cylindrical symmetry about every choice of origin. In the same way, the unbounded big bang cosmological models possess spherical symmetry about every point. It is not the case, as Humphreys claims, that there is no center of spherical symmetry for such models. In fact, every point in such a model is a center of spherical symmetry. Humphreys' claims to the contrary exhibit a serious misunderstanding of the meaning of the physical concept of spherical symmetry.
- another instance of defending old errors with bigger new ones. In this case, Humphreys has renounced the correct understanding, present in his earlier writings, of the Robertson-Walker metric as applicable to bounded as well as unbounded locally homogeneous/isotropic models and adopted in its place an inaccurate understanding.
- in press
- for example, Weinberg, ref. 27, p. 344.
- for example, Weinberg clearly states that the Klein metric is derived by a coordinate transformation of the Robertson-Walker metric. (Weinberg, ref. 27, pp. 345-346)
- Thus, Humphreys' rejection of the Robertson-Walker metric is in fact self-annihilating, since if that metric is not a valid description of a bounded matter sphere, then the alternative coordinate representation of it which he prefers cannot be a valid description either.
- This criticism does not imply that we reject everything which our young-earth brothers teach. To begin with, and most importantly, we agree with them on the core doctrines of the Christian faith. Further, we honor their intent, which is to bring glory to God and to win the lost to Christ. In addition, a significant portion of the young-earth science message focuses on biological issues and the intelligent design argument, and much of this part of their message is valid. Unfortunately, young-earth "science" dealing with the age issue is poorly done and tends to undermine the credibility of their legitimate biological and teleological arguments, not to mention their Gospel witness --- the "Nicodemus dilemma" once again.
- As a single additional instance of this, an illuminating discussion of the problems of Flood Geology, the central paradigm of the young-earth movement, is presented in CEN Tech. J., v. 10, n. 1 (1996). This issue contains a "mini-symposium" on the question of where in the fossil record the boundary between Flood-produced and post-Flood sedimentary rocks should be placed. The various arguments offered do an excellent job of defeating each other; the only position which survives this analysis is the conventional scientific view (and RTB's position) that the great majority of the surface geology of Earth was produced prior to the Flood.
Appendix A
September 30, 1992
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys
9301 Gutierrez N. E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Dear Dr. Humphreys:
In response to your August 13 letter, I assume you are referring to your paper entitled "A New Solution to Einstein's Field of Cosmological Significance." John Baumgardner gave me a copy in October 1990.
I have read the paper, but I saw no reason to check your solutions. Whether or not your solutions permit the universe to expand to its present condition in only a few thousand years, reality does not. Astronomical observations overwhelmingly confirm that the expansion rate was slower. In fact, the observed expansion rate is part of the evidence for God's design. If the universe had expanded any more slowly or rapidly than the observed rate, life in the cosmos at any time would be impossible. There is ample documentation of this point in my own and others' writings.
As I have said before, the confidence astronomers express in a several-billion-year-old universe (young from their perspective), is supported by voluminous data, and such an age in no way compromises the accuracy and authority of the Bible-from a straightforward reading of all of the relevant texts. Why this insistence on 6,000 years? Let's let the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the age of the universe, be the watershed.
Sincerely in Christ the Savior,
Hugh Ross
Appendix B
March 15, 1993
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys
9301 Gutierrez N. E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Dear Dr. Humphreys:
I finally am making some headway on my backlog of correspondence. Let me begin by answering again your questions on November 12.
Yes, I would change my position on the age of the universe given enough supporting evidence. I would need to see three things: 1) sufficient evidence for a different age, 2) proofs that the current evidences are all invalid, 3) a model that correctly predicts new discoveries. Since I view the age of the universe as a theologically minor point, I am not ideologically committed. It would be no big deal philosophically or theologically for me to change my position. The only reason I am so strongly committed to a billions-of-years-old universe is because of the strength of the observational evidence and its predictive track record.
To which I do give greater allegiance, general relativity or the big bang? The observational evidence for both is impressive. But right now, that evidence is stronger for the big bang (see, for example, Science News, January 16, 1993, page 43). That could change, however, with some soon-to-be-scheduled experiments.
As for your paper, I will repeat for the third time that my basic problem with it is its failure to address the observations. As you must be aware, there is no observational evidence for as rapid a rate of expansion for the universe as you desire. And if there were, we would not be here to discuss it. Life cannot exist in such a rapidly expanding cosmos.
It seems to me that you would rather overthrow most of established physics and astronomy and consign the promoters of established physics and astronomy to the lake of fire than admit that your interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts might possible need some adjusting. If that is the case, then it is your "god", not mine, that is "uncaring, deceptive, and unreliable."
Dr. Humphreys, I am praying that you will turn your attention fully toward reaching the lost with the Gospel of Christ and cease making the age of the universe a big issue between us and between you and unbelievers. The time is too short, and the Lord has called us to use it wisely.
Incidentally, both James Dobson and Paul Crouch have asked to be kept out of our dialog. I have honored their request. I ask you to do the same.
Sincerely in Christ the Savior,
Hugh Ross
Appendix C
April 15, 1993
Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
9301 Gutierrez N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111
Dear Dr. Humphreys:
I have not explicitly stated my qualifications to review your paper on cosmology because it seemed to me that my qualifications were sufficiently obvious as to need no special reiteration. I believe you already know that I earned a Ph.D. in astronomy at the University of Toronto. While there I studied under some of the world's leading cosmologists. My graduate work was fully funded by an award from the National Research Council of Canada. Upon completion of my degree, I was accepted as a post-doctoral research fellow at the California Institute of Technology, where I continued my study of quasars for five years. During that time, I co-authored several articles published in technical journals.
As I'm sure you also know, I left my full-time research position for full-time ministry, but I have continued to read (and understand) the astronomical literature. At the same time, I have been involved in leading many people to salvation in Jesus Christ. Before launching Reasons to Believe I served for more than a decade as minister of evangelism for a Bible-believing church not far from Caltech, and I had the privilege of particapting in the church's growth from a few hundred members to about a thousand, many of whom had no previous involvement in church. If you need more information on my background, you could obtain a curriculum vita from my office.
If you are asking me to review your paper, all I can say is that I must see it before I can agree to do so. I want to see how well it fits the observational data about the universe. If it strays too far from the observations, I simply cannot spend time on it.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hugh Ross
P. S. It seems you have misunderstood my statement about the big bang and general relativity. I consider both to be solidly established by abundant observational data.


text:
Have a Tax Question? Ask a Tax Expert
Hello! I am a CPA here to assist you with your tax questions. My goal is to provide you with excellent service today.
Your requested professional is not online. I would be more than happy to help you.
I also need to know if you own a business, or if this was more of an informal thing where he just helped you around the house
I own the business,
Okay so you own a business and you paid your grandson to work for you. You would need to withhold taxes and issue a W-2. How much this will impact you depends on how much you paid him overall. How much do you think you paid him in wages?
Also, was this for 2012 or did this just happen in 2013?
summer of 2013
OK...that's not very much at all. And it was still this year. You can correct it
how??? thank you
Do you have any other employees?
yes, 6 others
I ask because if you owe less than $2,500 in payroll taxes, you can file quarterly only
but it sounds like you will have to be a monthly payroll depositor.
we are
Well, amend your payroll tax filing for the quarter that he worked for you, and remit the taxes
will there be a penalty?
do I have to submit his payroll hours or just wages?
There may be a slight penalty, but on $1,800 it's not going to be much
Your payroll tax return doesn't list hours...it lists wages
so I can just have my book keeper handle this will he get a w-4 or can I send him a 1099
or does he have to claim anything? He live in Washington state and we are in Oregon
You really should treat him as an employee if you controlled his work. If he's not an independent contractor, he should not be paid on a 1099
Here is some information on correcting the payroll tax return: CLICK HERE
thank you
How old was your grandson again?
There's no withholding requirement on those under 18, per publication 926 and there's no withholding requirement for wages under $1,800
So you're good...you don't even need to do anything
that is what I understood to be true from years ago, thank you so much for confirming it for me.
You're welcome.
Is there anything else I can help you with today?
If there's nothing else I can assist you with today, please rate my response as "excellent" so that I may receive credit for assisting you today
can I print this answer out
Yes you can! Use your browser's print function, or copy/paste it into Word.
The rating feature is along the bottom of the screen


text:
Login/Create Account
Check Out the new Remax App
Ask About This Home
Privacy, privacy, privacy! This spectacular site of 3.55 acres overlooks the Atlantic Ocean and is within the Cape Cod National Seashore. The 1662 SF home features open living on the first level, fully equipped kitchen and full bath. Amazing views from the second level with far reaching sights to the North, East Southeast from the two bedrooms and family room. Full basement with inside access. The privacy and tranquility of this unusual location are unmatched. From your decks you can watch fishing and lobster boats all the way to the horizon, whales breach and the sunrises look like sunsets. Birds and small animals everywhere, nature at it's best. Take advantage of your proximity to Provincetown to enjoy shopping, fine dining and entertainment. Use this wonderful home as-is or create


text:
On Food & Big Appetites
I'm the type of person who looks forward to a party partially because of the food. I love cake and eat dessert daily. I get excited to chump on carrots and enjoy a plate of berries, watermelon and grapes. I mean giddy with excitement.
I've also never met a pizza or fettuccine Alfredo I didn't like.
While now I embrace my love for food, years ago, I used to condemn it. I resented my appetite. Because in my mind, that's what made me fat. That's what made it so difficult for me to diet.
I wished upon many a star that I didn't need to enjoy what I was eating, that I didn't have such a big appetite, especially for all things sweet.
I wanted to be like the people who are nonchalant about food, who can eat bland dishes without feeling blah, who can have the same thing over and over all week, without getting bored or bitter.
Enjoying food gets a bad rap in our society, that's sadly and terribly obvious. Because if I see one more commercial that tries to tell me that key lime yogurt is somehow the same as key lime pie, I will scream! (Yes, scream!)
How many times have you been in line at the grocery store only to see headlines blasting "guiltless low-cal cookies" "won't-make-you-hate-yourself homemade cupcakes" or "6 bikini-friendly burgers." I wish I could take credit for the last one, but it's a real headline courtesy of Women's Health.
Weight-loss and diet companies like to associate having any kind of an appetite as inconvenient at best, and sinful at worst.
But think about the times when you haven't really wanted to eat, when you haven't been that interested in the taste of good foods?
I can tell you that for me it was either when I was either stricken with a broken heart or some bug. Neither of which are glamorous, fun or remotely pleasant.
To me, losing an appetite for food is troublesome.
My grandma loved to cook, and she loved to eat. She genuinely enjoyed all foods. We'd say that she had a great appetite.
You know when she stopped savoring food? When she had no use for it?
When her cancer worsened. That's when we knew that it was nearing the end – when food was needless, when she couldn't stomach it because it hurt so much.
The same happened to my dad. You know those people who just eat their food and they make it seem so tasty?
That was him. He'd strip the bone of a turkey or chicken clean. He didn't have much of a sweet tooth, but he couldn't resist my mom's grilled shrimp. He'd pile his plate with plenty of shrimps (as he called them) and eat happily as the oil dripped onto his fingers.
You could track how he was feeling by how he ate. When he was first admitted to the hospital, he still ate bits and pieces of his food – and complained about it. As he got worse, he couldn't care less what was in front of him.
I see similar things with my 16-year-old kitty. When he doesn't eat, my mom and I panic.
Because a lost appetite means that our bodies aren't functioning properly. Sometimes it means they're declining or giving up.
So when I see my kitty eat little, I don't get excited because he's losing weight and looking slimmer than ever. I worry because it's unlike him, and he used to eat three times a day.
So I associate small appetites with sickness (whether of the heart or body). Of course, there are some people who don't care much about food naturally. And that's totally fine.
But I'd hate for people to view their appetites as adversaries.
Now I embrace my love for food, whether it's fettuccine Alfredo, an apple or ice cream cake. Because a healthy appetite equals a healthy heart, brain and body.
What do you think about appetite? Did you ever lament your love for food? Do you embrace it now?
P.S., There's still plenty of time to comment on my post on eating disorder stigma to be eligible to win a copy of Aimee Liu's Restoring Our Bodies, Reclaiming Our Lives: Guidance and Reflections on Recovery From Eating Disorders. Remember I'm giving away two books!
Tartakovsky, M. (2014). On Food & Big Appetites. Psych Central. Retrieved on September 25, 2017, from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/weightless/2011/05/on-food-big-appetites/


text:
"With these funds, we are confident we have the resources to develop our immunoassay technology for use in the diagnostics field," said Philippe Goix, PhD, CEO of Singulex. "Already, the assays we have developed and optimized for our pharmaceutical partners have enabled them to see biomarker level differences in blood samples with and without drugs that they had not been able to see before, thus offering new insights for their clinical trials."
Singulex has closed partnerships with multiple large pharmaceutical companies to use Erenna technology and immunoassays to help them better understand the effects of their compounds early in preclinical studies and clinical trials. With its ability to detect and measure minute protein biomarker changes at very low levels, Singulex's technology also has significant potential for clinical applications in personalized medicine across multiple diseases.
Singulex will use the funds from this financing to deploy its product and services in the emerging molecular clinical diagnostic market. Initially, the company will focus on cardiovascular disease risk diagnostics using its assay platform for the biomarker c Troponin I (cTnI), a well-validated marker for cardiac necrosis.
"Singulex's steady progress in publishing strong data from premier medical schools in the country indicated that the Erenna technology can make significant contributions to the diagnostics field, specifically in the cardiovascular area but also across a wide range of diseases. This makes an attractive investment opportunity," noted Hozoji. "Not only that, but the potential for the Singulex technology to be used to determine which patients respond to specific drugs should position the company to be a leader in personalized medicine."
About Singulex
Singulex develops and commercializes innovative product and service solutions that enable disease understanding and management for life science researchers and clinicians. Utilizing proprietary quantitative single molecule detection technology, Singulex provides unique biomarker answers that offer unprecedented level of sensitivity and accuracy of specific protein biomarker levels in a variety of biological samples. Singulex technology is currently used by academic and molecular diagnostic partners to further develop the significant clinical utility that the Erenna(TM) Immunoassay System enables. To learn more about Singulex, please visit us at http://www.singulex.com.
Carolyn Hawley
Porter Novelli Life Sciences for Singulex
Source: Singulex, Inc.


text:
THIS is the last Money Matters column for 1993 - an ideal time to have a full financial check-up, just as some doctors recommend that you have a full medical every year.
Many Hong Kong residents have at least two tax jurisdictions to consider; their home country and, of course, Hong Kong. Also, if your spouse comes from a third country, you might find there are a number of rapidly changing factors that need near-constantreview. Investment markets move quickly, and opportunities and trends come and go.
Furthermore, if you have enjoyed pay increases over the past few years, your protection packages - life insurance, income protection or health insurance - may well be woefully out of date and inadequate.
Always check your policy documents and certificates. When making a financial commitment via unit trusts or an insurance plan, do not throw your share certificates/policy documents into your bottom drawer. It is always worth double-checking; maybe a name was spelt incorrectly, maybe the term is not as you originally prescribed.
Prepare for your meeting with your financial adviser. Think about subjects to discuss with him: what do you want to achieve? When do you want to retire? Where do you want to retire? How much, in today's terms, do you want to retire on? And what is your attitude to risk? Only by giving your financial adviser this type of information can he do a good job.
There are so many investment alternatives that you should be able to get the product or products that are best suited to you. Independent financial advice is important.
This does not mean insurance companies have all the answers. If independent financial advice simply means that your adviser can go to a number of different insurance companies, then that is not good enough. A good financial planner will have access to a plethora of different financial instruments.
Because of Hong Kong's low tax, we are in a good position to be able to save, to make hay while the sun shines. But few expatriates take full advantage of this.
The ''normal'' retirement age in the West is at around 65, yet with a little bit of ''pre-action'' it is quite possible to retire 10 years earlier simply because of low taxation in the territory. If you haven't already done so, take action before it is too late.
As far as documentation is concerned, never sign anything until you have read it carefully. Brochures, whether from insurance companies, unit trust companies or whatever, are designed to sell to you. Always double-check the small print and never sign until you have slept on it.
Ensure always that your financial adviser is SFC (Securities and Futures Commission) registered. This is not a guarantee that you are going to get good financial advice, but it is a first step. Stronger regulations are slowly but surely coming in to Hong Kong, and the SFC is there to help.
You are the boss. Never forget that. If the advice you have received does not match with what you require, don't carry on - seek alternative advice, get a second opinion. Many life insurance plans commit you to a long-term investment. Make sure at the outset of the commitment that the plan you are taking out suits you today but also has the flexibility to accommodate you in future.
Evaluate the risk in your investment. Don't be fooled by the fact that most fund managers in Asia have had an excellent year, returning 60 to 100 per cent in an average Asian fund. This is not going to happen year in, year out.
There will be ''corrections''. If things take a turn for the worse, when there is a chance you will be wiped out. You need to accept the risk.
Cash deposits have been one of the least attractive investments available in Hong Kong, with inflation running at about 10 per cent, but with interest rates in banks at only 2.5 per cent, you are guaranteed to lose. This means that leaving money in the bank is a risk in itself.
It is essential that you find a good adviser, not just a salesman. If a product is hastily forced down your throat without much information to back it up, beware.
A good financial adviser will be able to bring the various strings of your financial well-being together. Here's to a prosperous 1994.
If you have any queries or practices you wish to have answered or investigated, please contact me confidentially by facsimile on 565-1423.


text:
Conde Nast Johansens
Trout Point Lodge counts among just 12 hotels in Canada recommended by Conde Nast Johansens, "a global collection approved by Local Experts"
From the publishers of Vogue, GQ, Traveller and Glamour, Condé Nast Johansens is the leading reference guide for independent travellers. Whether you're searching for a luxury hotel, spa, country house, boutique retreat, celebratory venue or somewhere by the beach, we provide inspiration and assistance in finding the perfect place for every occasion. Each property is annually recommended by one of our team of Local Experts. If a property is recommended by Condé Nast, you can trust you'll have an exceptional experience.
The Johansens Canadian properties include:
- Clayoquot Wilderness Resort, British Columbia
- Harbour House, Ontario
- Hotel Quintessence, Quebec
- Nimmo Bay Wilderness Resort, British Columbia
- OPUS Vancouver, British Columbia
- Shangri-La Hotel Toronto, Ontario
- Siwash Lake Wildernesss Resort, British Columbia
- Wedgewood Hotel & Spa, British Columbia
- Wickanninish Inn, British Columbia
- Sonora Resort, British Columbia
- The Magnolia Hotel & Spa, British Columbia


text:
Way back when, on my way to improving my home's energy efficiency, I made a plug adapter for an inexpensive digital clamp-on multimeter to start identifying the energy hogs in my home. The adapter was an AC plug wired to an AC socket with three accessible wires between. A digital AC meter clamped around the hot wire to measure the current to a particular device. I would read the amps, then multiply this value by 120 volts to get watts. Then, I'd multiply the watts by the number of hours the appliance was on to calculate watt-hours, dividing by 1,000 to get kWh.
This device worked well enough, but it was limited in its scope and application, and could not accurately and over time measure intermittent loads like refrigerators that cycle on and off. Thankfully, consumer products are available to do this job, helping consumers find the energy wasters in their homes.
One of the simplest consumer devices is the watt/watt-hour meter used to measure the power and energy consumption of an individual appliance. The Kill A Watt meter ($20–$50) simplifies the measuring process and adds many great features, such as calculating energy cost and averaging energy consumption over time. The meter plugs directly into a wall outlet, which can make it difficult to read since it may be low on the wall or even plugged in behind the appliance it's measuring. So I typically use it with a short extension cord to make it easier to read. Watts Up? and Brand Electronics meters ($95–$235) are a bit pricier, but are easy to read since they have their own power cord. All of these devices record an appliance's energy use and cost over time, and record accumulated kWh.
But watt-meters only give a small window into a home's overall power use, since they are limited to measuring 120 VAC appliances—they can't accommodate 240 VAC loads—and can only measure one appliance at a time instead of the whole household. (They can measure several appliances if used with a plug strip.) So about four years ago, I bought a HOBO data logger that records information from up to four sensors, such as temperature, voltage, and current. A simple monitoring package runs about $300 (logger, $100; Lite software package, $35; and a couple of current sensors, $90 each). This is a science-nerd tool and requires some patience to set up and get used to. The HOBO is programmed via a computer's USB port and can run for months on its own internal battery. It can record at intervals of 1 second up to 1 day. I have found that a 1-minute interval is fine for electrical monitoring. (I also used it to record temperature data for my solar heating system; see Access.)
I installed the HOBO in my breaker box with the current sensors clamped around each leg of the main power cables. I would download the day's data to my laptop, and use the PLOT function to create graphical views of energy use over time.
Trying to correlate our energy use patterns with the graphed data was like reading a mystery novel. The first thing that I noticed was two "heartbeats" that cycled on and off all day—our two refrigerators. (My wife uses a small under-counter fridge to store fabric dyes for her business.) Other wiggles and bumps in the graph plots were lighting and the well pump (big, short spikes). The HOBO software allows labeling the graphs and customizing them in many ways.
The graphs show a detailed timeline, which you can correlate with specific times of electric usage—and figure out what loads were running. A graph plot that shifts up and remains constant for an hour or more typically corresponds to the lighting load. Electric water heaters typically produce high peaks on a graph. I used my HOBO to help my neighbors identify their big energy hog—a water heater which was constantly cycling throughout the day. I helped them install a timer to shut it off during the day, when they were not home.


text:
By Mike Riley on Wed, 11/28/2012
For those old enough to remember portable handheld TV's that captured video broadcasts over the air with an antenna, Elgato's EyeTV Mobile offers a tinge of Déjà vu. For everyone else, the product provides a way to watch real-time local area digital TV broadcasts for free (that is, no additional data charges incurred). So is this price of freedom worth the nearly hundred dollar cost for the hardware? Read on to find out.