27 ms·
NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics
- gus_massa 7y agoDon't dismiss this article just because of the main image. It's a image of an EmDrive that is another impossible device that doesn't work but is totally unrelated to the device in this article. The main part is: > This mass changing isn’t prohibited by physics. Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that objects gain mass as they are driven towards the speed of light, an effect that must be accounted for in particle accelerators. In special relativity, when the charged particles accelerate and decelerate they emit electromagnetic radiation. The whole process conserve the energy and momentum. The momentum that the device provides is compensated by the momentum of the electromagnetic radiation, aka photons. So this device should work. It doesn't break the laws of physics. It produce some photons in the intended direction and more photons in other random directions. So it is just a very inefficient photon thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket. It's like attaching a laser to the back of your starship, and then adding some lamp to illuminate in every direction to make it more inefficient. So you can dismiss this article after all. EDIT: I copied most of this comment to other comment in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21253796 , but the other comment was later moved here, so there is a lot of overlap. The other article at least don't use a big photo of an EmDrive.
- rurounijones 7y ago> Don't dismiss this article just because of the main image. It's a image of an EmDrive that is another impossible device that doesn't work Do you have a link for that? I haven't been following the EM Drive but a quick google now suggests that a team in Germany believe that they found the reason for the anomolous readings but I cannot find anything definitive.
- dmix 7y agoLast time it came up on HN people mentioned there was a lot of woo related to Em Drives on the internet so be wary.
- knzhou 7y agoThe problem with EM drive testing in general is that you're looking for a signal (thrust) which should be zero, while pumping an enormous amount of energy into a system, and declaring any nonzero reading as success. Physicists know from experience that this is a recipe for fooling yourself. There are a million things that could imitate the purported signal. In the last EM drive test I looked at, the "thrust" was pointing in the wrong direction, and moreover it perfectly matched the temperature curve of the apparatus, even though no theories of the EM drive say it should. That is a dead giveaway that the temperature is causing a fake signal, which e.g. could happen by thermal expansion messing up the meters. In general, the EM drive seems like a playground for sloppy experimentalists, because what anybody else would call a failure can be reported as a success.
- taneq 7y ago> declaring any nonzero reading as success And as anyone who's worked with sensors should know, if your sensor is reading exactly zero, that means your sensor is broken.
- ummonk 7y agoYeah, reminds me of this overly complicated flashlight that the media was going on about several years back: https://www.fastcompany.com/1837966/mustafas-space-drive-egyptian-students-quantum-physics-invention https://www.fastcompany.com/1837966/mustafas-space-drive-egy...
- karlh 7y agoWould there be issues with decelerating?
- yellowapple 7y agoNo more than there would be with accelerating, I suspect. "Decelerating" in space is just accelerating in the opposite direction.
- elif 7y agoPut it on a lazy Susan, run it for the 2nd half of the trip. (But the paper describes the mechanism for deceleration without repositioning the engine)
- quickthrower2 7y agoWith some duck pancakes?
- elif 7y agoYea maybe this thing works like a microwave as a biproduct, keep em warm. I imagine ducks and rabbits would be the best spacestock.
- mdorazio 7y agoHere's the actual paper [1]. The article was super confusing because it implied the box itself would need to be traveling near the speed of light for the theorized effect to work, which is pretty useless if you're at 0c to start with. I don't fully understand the paper, but it suggests using magnetically contained ions in a rotating ring arrangement. If nothing else, this will be a fun thought experiment for other physicists to break down. [1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20190029657
- yellowapple 7y agoThanks. The article linked to some entirely different paper instead.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago> The article was super confusing because it implied the box itself would need to be traveling near the speed of light for the theorized effect to work, which is pretty useless if you're at 0c to start with Even more useless when you consider that in your own frame of reference you're always at 0c.
- gus_massa 7y agoThe idea of the article is to use the change of mass in special relativity. Some particles go faster in one direction (and they have more mass), and then they return more slowly in the other direction (and has less mass). In special relativity, when the charged particles accelerate and decelerate they emit electromagnetic radiation. The whole process conserve the energy and momentum. The momentum that the device provides is compensated by the momentum of the electromagnetic radiation, aka photons. So this device should work. It doesn't break the laws of physics. It produce some photons in the intended direction and more photons in other random directions. So it is just a very inefficient photon thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket. It's like attaching a laser to the back of your starship, and then adding some lamp to illuminate in every direction to make it more inefficient.
- m463 7y agoPatent 9000660 describes a carbon nanoring propulsion device that works by speeding up and slowing down pairs of particles.
- gus_massa 7y agoLink for the lazy: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9000660/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US9000660/en First, note that to fill the patent you don't need a working prototype. It's just a piece of paper. The patent has the same idea, but it uses other device to move the particles. It looks more difficult to implement than the device in this article. (And the patent has a weird discussion about a maximal velocity.) My previous comment applies without changes to the device in the patent too. It's just another very inefficient photon thruster. If the author forgets to consider the momentum and energy carried away by the electromagnetic waves / photons, then the device appear to break the laws of physics, like the conservation of momentum or the conservation of energy. When all the effects are considered it's equivalent to using a laser as a thruster, or worse. (It's equivalent to use a normal flashlight, but a laser is more cool.)
- roywiggins 7y agoThis sounds like another Woodward (or Mach) effect drive proposal, or is it something different? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
- milchek 7y agoThe animation comparing the helical engine with same mass vs with relativistic masses was super helpful, I wish more articles that went into physics had these kinds of simple illustrations. >“I know that it risks being right up there with the EM drive and cold fusion,” he says. “But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works.” This was actually my favourite part of the article and a beautiful reminder that it's OK to fail.
- pmoleri 7y agoThe animations sure help, but I find the second one misleading because the ring bounces instantly and it has only 2 discrete sizes. Instead of a discrete bounce, picture a slow motion elastic bounce where the ring gets heavier as it's being accelerated. It seems to me that when the box pushes the ring (left side), the ring would be gaining mass as it accelerates, thus cancelling the harvested movement, right?
- pontifier 7y agoI think the mass increase is not supposed to come from the forward/backward motion. Rather, the mass increase comes from rotating the ring. Imagine the ring at the front of the ship spinning up to relativistic speed, then you push hard on it to get your ship moving a bit. Then you slow the ring down again before it hits the back, so it's much easier to bring back to the front.
- pmoleri 7y agoInteresting, maybe that's why they chose a ring, although the article is not clear in that aspect.
- antonvs 7y agoThe difference between this idea and the EM drive is that there's an at least somewhat plausible theory behind it, that's not entirely incompatible with known science. EM drive proponents could make the same statement and it would be less credible in that context. That's not to say that experimenting first and figuring out the theory later is a bad thing - that's often how science works - but generally, one follows strong evidence to reach a theory to explain it. EM drive proponents extrapolate wildly from extremely weak evidence. It's not good science.
- ummonk 7y agoDoes violate the laws of physics, not may. No need to give quack ideas unmerited deference.
- kscomb 7y agoRe: the Sun article on the helical NASA engine, there is a correction on why this will not work. Please see: https://www.universetoday.com/143741/nasa-engineer-has-a-great-idea-for-a-high-speed-spacedrive-too-bad-it-violates-the-laws-of-physics/ https://www.universetoday.com/143741/nasa-engineer-has-a-gre... But relativity still obeys Newton’s third law, so the idea doesn’t work in the real world. Burns is right that there’s an error in his paper, but it’s a subtle one. His design only accelerates the circular motion of the particles, so he assumes their speed forward and backward along the axis of the rocket should remain constant. But in relativity, as the mass of the particles increase, their speed along the axis would slow down. This is due to the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction. As a result, the particles give the rocket an equal push at both ends. Einstein’s theories don’t let you get around Newton. In fairness, Burns knew his idea was a long shot, which is why he put it out there for others to review. That’s what science is all about. That’s also why it’s worth getting just a little excited when ideas like this are put forward. Most of them will fail, but someday one just might work. We could get to the stars after all, but only if we’re willing to keep testing new ideas.
- DarkmSparks 7y agosurely this is pretty easy to debunk? So it gains mass while you accelerate it. But the reaction force required to accelerate it as it gains mass increases at exactly the same time in the opposite direction. f=ma holds just the same if you change the mass as when you change the force.
- aaron695 7y ago> NASA engineer's 'helical engine' may violate the laws of physics So it's magic? Except as the article says there absolutely nothing that violates the laws of physics. Especially given it's theoretical so I'm not sure how using a simulation it may violate even the current laws of physics. Why is a magazine like New Scientist pushing magic?
- xamuel 7y agoThings absolutely can violate the laws of physics, in which case the laws of physics have to be rewritten. In fact, that's the holy grail in physics, is to find an experiment which reliably breaks the currently existing laws of physics. That is how progress is made. If it were like you say, then there would be no need for physics research, everything would already be known.
- zucker42 7y agoConsidering that "the laws of physics" means by definition "the things that are observed to happen in the natural world" I don't think observable phenomenon can break the laws of physics. They can change our understanding of the laws of physics, but the laws themselves remain the same. It's a bit of a definitional issue though.
- jamesrcole 7y agoI think that they actually mean "our description of how reality works". As in, the laws are part of the map, not the territory. "Breaking" those laws just means finding out they're an inaccurate description.
- zucker42 7y agoConsidering I believe that we discover physical laws, rather than invent them, that definition makes less sense to me.
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lallysingh 7y ago"But you have to be prepared to be embarrassed. It is very difficult to invent something that is new under the sun and actually works." I appreciate the courage of this.
- mellosouls 7y agoYes, that stood out for me too. The guy doesn't come across as the stereotypical blinkered crank.
- fao_ 7y ago"""It would also need to be big – some 200 metres long and 12 metres in diameter – and powerful, requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust, which is about the same force you use to type on a keyboard. For that reason, the engine would only be able to reach meaningful speeds in the frictionless environment of space. “The engine itself would be able to get to 99 per cent the speed of light if you had enough time and power,” says Burns.""" So it falls into the same "impractical except at very high speeds for long, long, long journeys" category with "we can explode nuclear bombs on one end of the ship and use the explosion against a giant shield, to speed us up". In other words, it's no Alcubierre drive.
- gbrown 7y agoThe bombs actually seem more practical.
- fao_ 7y agoThey seem so at first glance, but you have to build a couple of sheilds -- one for nuclear debris and the other for interstellar debris. There are also other problems with emission, fuel, etc. Issac Arthur has a good video on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aBOhC1c6m8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aBOhC1c6m8). All of Issac Arthur's stuff is, quite frankly, amazing. He has a clear understanding of the material and manages to convey it in a way to laymen, like no one else.
- thelazydogsback 7y ago> requiring 165 megawatts of power to generate just 1 newton of thrust Not my field, but with that power, wouldn't an old-fashioned ion drive give you a lot more thrust than that?? [after some searching] With 165MW is looks like you could run hundreds of existing ion engines to get you to about 1/2C speed with a thrust measured in 1000's of newton's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
- readams 7y ago
- keyle 7y agoThe designer, David Burns, has the most ironic name for someone who doesn't want to use propellant.
- hinkley 7y ago“I am the only Burns allowed in this facility.”
- semajian 7y agoMass is a Lorentz scalar and thus is invariant; the mass of relativistic particles does not increase as velocity increases. One can say the force necessary to keep a constant acceleration increases as velocity increase. This is a common misconception, and it appears even NASA engineers don't understand this. This is not science.
- whatshisface 7y ago"Mass" is imprecise enough as a word to refer to either inertia, E/c^2, or rest mass. Rest mass is indeed invariant but the rest aren't.
- semajian 7y agoI've never come across a physicist who used the term "inertia" to refer to any of the common relativistic quantities.
- malms 7y agoNo one cares about you
- seanhunter 7y agoa)I'm sure that's not true b)I'm sure that's not a helpful comment in this context
- dang 7y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- whatshisface 7y agoI used the word "inertia" to refer to the various inertia-related things that are used in mechanics. For example, the mass tensor that appears in curvilinear coordinate systems. This class of inertia-related things are usually given a name involving the word mass, and they are not usually Lorentz invariant.
- nautilus12 7y agoOf the options proposed the most promising propellantless thrust mechanism for space travel? As of now, which one has been tested the most and is most likely to become our first choice. Could it enable interstellar travel?
- larkeith 7y agoUnless I've missed anything, the only known, proven to actually work, propellantless thrust system are solar sails (and various beam-powered equivalents). Even nuclear photonic rockets slowly use up reaction mass. However, ion drives are already fairly mature and perfectly viable for interstellar travel, if you're willing to wait. Sails aren't yet feasible outside the solar system (and are still in their infancy even within), but with enough power production they might be another option in the future.
- roywiggins 7y agoNone of them have been proven to actually generate anomalous thrust. The prior probability of such a thing working is so small that without dramatic evidence to the contrary, they're all nearly indistinguishably equally unlikely. That said, "EM drive" prototypes have actually been built, as have Mach-effect thrusters, etc. None of them have convincingly been shown to work, mind you. This thing just exists on paper. It's not that hard to come up with a derivation on paper that's actually subtly wrong- much easier, sometimes, than actually finding where they went wrong.
- knzhou 7y agoThe description in the article is oversimplified. Relativistic dynamics is different from Newtonian dynamics in a lot of ways. Force isn't parallel to acceleration anymore. Acceleration gets harder the faster an object moves. You can mimic some of these changes by just pretending that you still have Newtonian dynamics but the mass can change with velocity, but we don't use this language in physics because it's misleading -- there are many effects this idea can't capture. (For example, the fact that force is not parallel to acceleration.) It is a very fragile analogy that causes a lot of conceptual mistakes. It's easy to prove that Newtonian mechanics conserves momentum. It's also easy to prove that relativistic mechanics conserves momentum. A weird hybrid of Newtonian mechanics plus a magically changing "relativistic mass" does not conserve momentum, but nobody has ever thought this was a correct description of nature. It's the result of taking a helpful simplifying analogy too far. Any reactionless drive formulated using this Frankenstein theory doesn't work. If you just bounce an object back and forth, in either Newtonian mechanics or relativistic mechanics, you won't get anywhere. If you change the rest mass of the object to be different going right than left, you will go somewhere, but it will cost momentum to do this, as explained in gus_massa's comments. So we haven't gotten thrust for free.
- ben_w 7y ago> For example, the fact that force is not parallel to acceleration. This is the first I’ve heard of this and I would like to learn more, partly because of my own harebrained not-quite-reactionless engine idea that I know can’t possibly work really, but I can’t see why yet. Where should I look?
- diffeomorphism 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics#Force https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics#Force This includes the relativistic version of Newton's second law, which shows that F is generally not parallel to a.
- cygx 7y agoBut note that the 4-force is parallel to the 4-acceleration. However, its spatial component only agrees with classical acceleration in the comoving frame. In general, there's an additional contribution that's however smaller by a factor of (v/c)^2.
- pontifier 7y agoI was thinking about the propellant problem a couple of days ago. Is there a reason we can't use electrons? It's relatively easy to accelerate them to high percentages of the speed of light, and it's almost a certainty that your ship would start collecting stray electrons to replace the ones you lost.
- taneq 7y agoWhere would you get stray electrons from?
- ben_w 7y agoYou can, but: 1) the more reaction mass you conserve, the more energy you need, so relativistic exhaust (electrons or anything else) asymptotically approaches an overly complicated photon drive. 2) using only electrons puts a large cloud of negative charge behind you while giving you a positive charge, which will act as drag slowing you down. Ion drives spray out equal + and - currents of ions and electrons (or equivalently a neutral plasma) to avoid that.
- gus_massa 7y agoIt is essentially a Ion thrusters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster It's better to accelerate the nuclei, because you get more momentum for the same energy. You need to send the electron in the same general direction. From the Wikipedia page: > Ion thrusters emit a beam of positively charged xenon ions. To keep the spacecraft from accumulating a charge, another cathode is placed near the engine to emit electrons into the ion beam, leaving the propellant electrically neutral. This prevents the beam of ions from being attracted (and returning) to the spacecraft, which would cancel the thrust. Most device use Xenon, but other devices use Hydrogen instead. Perhaps you can try to collect the Hydrogen from the almost vacuum (there are a few Hydrogen atoms per cubic feet), but I don't know if it will work in real life.
- Beltiras 7y agoI hate that title. Nothing violates laws of physics. It just means we need new laws.
- TulliusCicero 7y agoThis comment just seems pedantic, like when people complain that a 'free [thing]' is never actually free because taxes or some other product paid for it. Everyone knows that free in that context actually means 'no charge for the user at the time of transaction' but some people feign being obtuse so that they can nitpick. Obviously it means that it violates the laws as we currently understand them. I know it means that, you know it means that, so what's the actual problem?
- Beltiras 7y agoThen the headline should read something like "Breakthrough points to new physics". This is just a clickbait title. When you read the article it becomes clear that there's a lot of wishful thinking involved. Others have pointed out that this is not likely to work.
- wickedsickeune 7y agoThis is not clickbait. This is just a catchy title. Clickbait is when you write a title, to infer something, and that something is not part of the content.
- gmadsen 7y agoa "law of physics" is a human construction. There's no guarantee the physical universe matches these equations exactly or that there are even exact laws the universe follows. So a violation of a physics law is just physical evidence that disagrees with these constructions.
- Beltiras 7y agoExactly.
- zonidjan 7y ago> But, Burns asks, what if the ring’s mass is much greater when it slides in one direction than the other? ... In fact, a simplistic implementation of Burns’s concept would be to replace the ring with a circular particle accelerator, in which ions are swiftly accelerated to relativistic speed during one stroke, and decelerated during the other. OK... that's great, but how do you plan to quickly accelerate particles without expending lots of energy (and without receiving a 'reaction')?
- jamisteven 7y agoExactly what I was thinking, kinda baffled that this guy is an engineer at NASA.
- leni536 7y agoIf your starting point is a well understood theory that is known to conserve momentum (as a mathematical theorem), you design a complicated device using this theory and then within this specific design you find that momentum is not conservered then you should double check your calculations. It first happened with classical electrodynamics (the EM drive) and now it happens with special relativity it seems. To be fair, I am not arguing that conservation of momentum is 100% true. But starting from well established theories where conservation of momentum is a mathematical consequence seems to be a flawed approach.
- Enginerrrd 7y agoI can't believe this is so far down. This is exactly why I don't need to pay attention to someone's weird magnet arrangement or marble track geometry to create a proportioal motion machine, I know they're playing with conservative fields and it isn't going to work. However in this case, there is some significant acceleration which implies GR which is not in general conservative. I suspect it is though if you restrict yourself to the special case of accelerations with no significant gravity. In general, however, this is still the correct approach to thinking about such problems. If you can find a no-go theorem, then you needn't concern yourself with the complex details. That said, if you can find a weird place where it looks like momentum isn't being conserved, it probably is because you are inadvertently predicting an effect of the theory that will take care of that problem.
- humble_engineer 7y agoYou don't understand how the EM drive works, you just keep repeating a law, which is true, without any understanding how how the device actually works.
- hsnewman 7y agoOr, it may not!
- program_whiz 7y agoI think the guy has the diagram backwards. As the ring moves counter to the boxes motion, it has higher relative velocity (in terms of the box frame), and therefore higher mass. As it moves in the direction of motion of the box, it will be moving more slowly (almost sitting still), so it will have less mass / momentum in that direction. The result is that after a few iterations, it will balance out. He's drawn the diagram relative to the outside observer (where the ring seems to go more slowly on the backstroke), but not relative to the box (where the ring has much higher relative velocity on the backstroke, and lower relative velocity on the forward stroke). Another issue here is that the ring uses the box itself to pull itself forward with the spring, and if the mass is increasing, then its pulling ever more on the spring as it "gets faster", thereby slowing the box down by that much on the way back.
- davebryand 7y agoThe laws of physics can't be violated. The human definition of "the laws of physics" is what has been violated, and this will continue for as long as human's exist and evolve our understanding of reality.
- onefuncman 7y agoYou can certainly create a simulation in which the laws of physics are mutable, or have different immutable values than in our perceived reality.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- todd8 7y agoMany times now, friends have introduced me to friends of their's that need help on some kind of engineering or are seeking investors for some new kind of technology. I heard about magnetic bubble memories, new logic gate designs for digital ICs, and improvements to starting batteries for internal combustion automotive applications. These seemed possible but quite risky. However, some of the most interesting presentations were different. They seemed to be simply impossible inventions thought up by well-meaning, passionate people. For example, two high schools kids swore that they had invented a video compression algorithm that worked better than existing ones such as H.264, while at the same time being lossless. They were trying to obtain investors and their parents had already contacted a public relations firm to promote their work. All they needed were some outside investors so that they could work out the kinks. I was quite skeptical about their claim since: (1) they wouldn't reveal their methods nor any example of the algorithm in action, (2) they were completely unfamiliar with any literature on video compression, (3) didn't know how to program, and (4) couldn't understand the notation used for a mathematical discussion of the issues. Here's a quote: "What do the big E symbols all over the page mean?" (they were capital sigmas). The P.R. firm arranged for me to do a couple fo days of consulting with them to untangle what was going on. Unsurprisingly, the check I received for consulting with them later bounced. Another time, a likable young guy claimed to have invented a purely mechanical, reactionless propulsion engine. It was a memorable experience. I listened and watched the "inventor" describe the weights, arms, and rotating parts. Forces were going in all kinds of directions and were quite dynamic. I explained that conservation of momentum meant that it wouldn't work and his reply was "Okay, but just explain why this part wouldn't push the whole thing forward when it swung around, [etc. etc.]" He simple didn't believe that conservation of momentum would keep his device from flying though space, on its own without expending any mass. Because I refused to calculate every force and integrate them over time as the parts revolved and slid back and forth he felt like I hadn't refuted his intuition about the mechanism. He had no understanding of vectors or calculus or physics. Every so often after our initial meeting I would hear from him again. He was a earnest, nice guy. Every time I see an article like this I think briefly that I should send him a link to it, but it's probably better that I don't.
- kscomb 7y agoRe: the Sun article on the helical NASA engine, there is a correction on why this will not work. Please see: https://www.universetoday.com/143741/nasa-engineer-has-a-great-idea-for-a-high-speed-spacedrive-too-bad-it-violates-the-laws-of-physics/ https://www.universetoday.com/143741/nasa-engineer-has-a-gre... But relativity still obeys Newton’s third law, so the idea doesn’t work in the real world. Burns is right that there’s an error in his paper, but it’s a subtle one. His design only accelerates the circular motion of the particles, so he assumes their speed forward and backward along the axis of the rocket should remain constant. But in relativity, as the mass of the particles increase, their speed along the axis would slow down. This is due to the relativistic effects of time dilation and length contraction. As a result, the particles give the rocket an equal push at both ends. Einstein’s theories don’t let you get around Newton. In fairness, Burns knew his idea was a long shot, which is why he put it out there for others to review. That’s what science is all about. That’s also why it’s worth getting just a little excited when ideas like this are put forward. Most of them will fail, but someday one just might work. We could get to the stars after all, but only if we’re willing to keep testing new ideas.
- phayes 7y agoKoberlein's explanation is okay but I read Burns's "Keep velocity constant on z-axis" as an instruction rather than an assumption. In that light the error doesn't appear so subtle (it manifests as a simple error of "conservation arithmetic").
- e2wrghj 7y agonoob die
- e2wrghj 7y agoshut the fuck up noob go die
- e2wrghj 7y agodie die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die die