Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Already answered.
"The Earth is variable."

Yeah it just kind of morphs around under us so that we don't notice the glaring inconsistencies in distances and his maps don't have a middle.

Now he's even claiming that no-one uses true north, which is weird because every map I've ever owned uses it. I use a geographic coordinate system at work that relies on it pretty heavily.

He's right about one thing though, you can't just put lines of latitude and longitude on a flat earth map and expect them to work, because they don't.

originally posted by: Phage
Ok. Try drawing concentric circles on your flat little world then. Put them say, 69 miles apart. Then explain to me how at 6,210 miles from the pole Polaris will be on the horizon and at 3,105 miles it will be 45º above the horizon and at 1,552 miles it will be at 60º above the horizon.

See, those concentric circles are also what are known as lines of latitude. And sailors have been using them to navigate for a very long time, with the help of Polaris. Just one way they figured out that the world is round. Because on a flat world, it won't work.

No, they actually figured out, saw, and mapped, the flat Earth, using the movement of the Sun, and stars, and if it was possible, they used the north star to help navigate the oceans and seas.

And what they DID find, on the flat Earth, was mapped out, and DIDN'T have some 'undiscovered continent' called 'Antarctica' on it. They showed a great barrier, encircling the whole Earth, that DOES exist.

How could they map out every single continent on Earth, unless they had explored the entire Earth back then? They couldn't have, obviously. Not possible, without seeing it, in order for them to map it out, accurately.

Those maps were from different countries, at different times, yet many of them showed this same, circular barrier around Earth. So how does that happen? They all imagine this same barrier, around Earth, without ever seeing it? While seeing the entire Earth, EXCEPT for that part?

I've already explained that objects above Earth, cannot be seen from everywhere on Earth, due to perspective, atmosphere, and other factors. The main factor is perspective, of course.

It's the same reason we can't see a ship beyond 3 miles, where the horizon is. It doesn't matter if it's Polaris, or the Sun, or a ship, it's all due to perspective, and vanishing point. The actual angle of those objects doesn't matter, it is their DISTANCE away from your position, that causes the phenomenon of perspective, and vanishing point, to come into play.


Every object above Earth, the Sun, moon, and stars, are very close to Earth, perhaps 3000 miles at most, perhaps less.
The Pacific Ocean alone is about 60 million square miles in area, this should give you an idea of how massive the surface of Earth is, by comparison to how close the stars and the Sun are to Earth. You already know we can't see a ship beyond a 3 mile horizon due to perspective, so we'd never see the Sun or stars everywhere, from a surface that's almost 200 million square miles in size!

The problem you have is that there's no other flat surface to compare with the Earth's, so you think everything above Earth would be seen all the time on Earth, from everywhere on Earth. Why? Well, because it's flat, right? And the objects above Earth are still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, so why aren't they always seen, if Earth is flat?

Same reason that a ship, while it is still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, cannot be seen, beyond a horizon 3 miles out. Because of perspective, and vanishing point. The only difference with the stars and Sun, is that they are higher than a ship is, which means they can be seen a lot further away than a ship, 3 miles away, on the ocean.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, they actually figured out, saw, and mapped, the flat Earth, using the movement of the Sun, and stars, and if it was possible, they used the north star to help navigate the oceans and seas.

You can't navigate using polaris south of the equator.

And what they DID find, on the flat Earth, was mapped out, and DIDN'T have some 'undiscovered continent' called 'Antarctica' on it. They showed a great barrier, encircling the whole Earth, that DOES exist.

There is no barrier. You can't map something that you don't know is there.

How could they map out every single continent on Earth, unless they had explored the entire Earth back then? They couldn't have, obviously. Not possible, without seeing it, in order for them to map it out, accurately.

Which is what I said above. If you haven't been somewhere, you can't map it. Maps didn't have the Americas on them until they were discovered by people who could draw maps.

Those maps were from different countries, at different times, yet many of them showed this same, circular barrier around Earth. So how does that happen? They all imagine this same barrier, around Earth, without ever seeing it? While seeing the entire Earth, EXCEPT for that part?

What they all did was draw something they imagined was there. They hadn't been there. The only things that are mapped accurately are things that have actually been visited.

I've already explained that objects above Earth, cannot be seen from everywhere on Earth, due to perspective, atmosphere, and other factors. The main factor is perspective, of course.

You explaining it is not hte same as something being true.

It's the same reason we can't see a ship beyond 3 miles, where the horizon is. It doesn't matter if it's Polaris, or the Sun, or a ship, it's all due to perspective, and vanishing point. The actual angle of those objects doesn't matter, it is their DISTANCE away from your position, that causes the phenomenon of perspective, and vanishing point, to come into play.

Nope. Buy some binoculars and bring that ship right back. Post your results. Get a telescope and show us polaris form the southern hemisphere. Oh, and if you're arguiing that you can't see polaris because of some BS you made up, then it's really not going to possible to navigate using it.

Every object above Earth, the Sun, moon, and stars, are very close to Earth, perhaps 3000 miles at most, perhaps less.

Post your workings. Any kind of maths to prove this would be fine, otherwise people will just think you pulled that number out of your ass and it has no basis in fact. Crazy I know, but some actual evidence would stop your posts sounding like the ravings of a drunken madman.

The Pacific Ocean alone is about 60 million square miles in area, this should give you an idea of how massive the surface of Earth is, by comparison to how close the stars and the Sun are to Earth. You already know we can't see a ship beyond a 3 mile horizon due to perspective, so we'd never see the Sun or stars everywhere, from a surface that's almost 200 million square miles in size!

63.8 million actually. Those numbers are from a globe Earth. Measure it on a flat Earth map and get back to us.

The problem you have is that there's no other flat surface to compare with the Earth's, so you think everything above Earth would be seen all the time on Earth, from everywhere on Earth. Why? Well, because it's flat, right? And the objects above Earth are still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, so why aren't they always seen, if Earth is flat?

Same reason that a ship, while it is still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, cannot be seen, beyond a horizon 3 miles out. Because of perspective, and vanishing point. The only difference with the stars and Sun, is that they are higher than a ship is, which means they can be seen a lot further away than a ship, 3 miles away, on the ocean.

Right, so you can see all the stars you need from anywhere? Photos of Polaris from Australia. Any time you like.

The problem here is that the Earth just isn't flat, and no amount of you just making #### up will change that.

Your entire fairy tale is built of S^&^, don't try flipping it around on me.

When astronomers saw Saturn spinning and wobbling, and without ever seeing such a thing before, or ever being known to occur, or ever being documented as an 'effect of atmosphere', or ever known to EXIST, then I hear you claim to ACTUALLY KNOW their thoughts - that all of them immediately 'knew' it WAS an 'effect of atmosphere'.

You surely aren't full of BS in saying all this, right? No, of course not.

You haven't explained that if they somehow 'knew' it was caused by atmospheric effect, which didn't even exist, then why didn't they mention that they OBSERVED this non-existent effect of atmosphere, as it still is what they OBSERVED?

Even if they somehow all think it's caused by an effect of atmosphere, which you say they all DID, because you know what they were all thinking it was, 100's of years ago, and I certainly couldn't KNOW what YOU know they thought, right? So after you KNEW what they were thinking it was, that it was an effect of atmosphere, please inform all of us on what they were thinking by NOT MENTIONING this 'effect of atmosphere' on Saturn?

DId they all 'assume' everyone 'knew' about this 'effect', or was it 'common knowledge', but nobody ever mentioned it before?

Did they just say 'Oh, right, this is a well known effect of atmosphere. Just record it as an atmospheric effect, everyone will know it means the spinning/wobbling without end 'effect' of atmosphere?


And now, when astronomers STILL have never mentioned seeing Saturn appear to spin and wobble like a top, your excuse that they all thought it was due to an effect of the atmosphere, sounds even worse. Because there IS no such effect of atmosphere, not a single document that mentions it as an effect of atmosphere, after all these centuries.

Which means, when you claim they all considered it due to atmospheric effects, you were full of s*Y*(. Because the fact is, there IS no such effect, and if there were, it certainly would have been documented by this point, and it never has been. You just made it all up, and claimed they KNEW about it being an effect of atmosphere, and claimed they said so, by noting atmospheric effects were in play.


Indeed, you truly ARE the King of All BS!

Your work above proves that, beyond a doubt.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

The ball Earth fairy tale is entirely built on lies, so deep, you believe it's all true, which is sad.

You don’t answer the question. To have a magnetic field there must be a north and South Pole of magnetism.

How did you have centralized magnetism.

You

Most likely, the magnetic center is a monopole

Reality

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In particle physics, a magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole (a north pole without a south pole or vice versa).[1][2] A magnetic monopole would have a net "magnetic charge". Modern interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably the grand unified and superstring theories, which predict their existence.[3][4]

It is impossible to make magnetic monopoles from a bar magnet. If a bar magnet is cut in half, it is not the case that one half has the north pole and the other half has the south pole. Instead, each piece has its own north and south poles. A magnetic monopole cannot be created from normal matter such as atoms and electrons, but would instead be a new elementary particle.

So no. The earth is not a hypothetical elementary particle and is not a monopole.

You

Another point - your fairy tale claims the magnetic center point of Earth,

I have no idea what your blabbing about.

The fact there are the aurora Polaris and aurora borealis proves there is a conventional north - South Pole magnetic field around earth.

An aurora (plural: auroras or aurorae),[a] sometimes referred to as polar lights (aurora polaris), northern lights (aurora borealis), or southern lights (aurora australis), is a natural light display in Earth's sky, predominantly seen in high-latitude regions (around the Arctic and Antarctic). Auroras display dynamic patterns of brilliant lights that appear as curtains, rays, spirals or dynamic flickers covering the entire sky.[2]


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic north and true north do no align up. It’s even referenced in topographical maps.

Magnetic declination
Over much of the Earth's surface, compass needles point roughly north. However, because of the complex shape of the Earth's magnetic field there are few places where a compass needle will point exactly north. A compass lines up with the horizontal component of the magnetic field in a direction called magnetic north. True north, on the other hand is the direction from a given location to the north geographic pole. The angle between magnetic north and true north is called magnetic declination. Many people believe that a compass needle points at the North Magnetic Pole. This is not true; if you follow your compass needle you will eventually arrive at the North Magnetic Pole, but not by the most direct route.

www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
Ok. Try drawing concentric circles on your flat little world then. Put them say, 69 miles apart. Then explain to me how at 6,210 miles from the pole Polaris will be on the horizon and at 3,105 miles it will be 45º above the horizon and at 1,552 miles it will be at 60º above the horizon.

See, those concentric circles are also what are known as lines of latitude. And sailors have been using them to navigate for a very long time, with the help of Polaris. Just one way they figured out that the world is round. Because on a flat world, it won't work.

No, they actually figured out, saw, and mapped, the flat Earth, using the movement of the Sun, and stars, and if it was possible, they used the north star to help navigate the oceans and seas.

And what they DID find, on the flat Earth, was mapped out, and DIDN'T have some 'undiscovered continent' called 'Antarctica' on it. They showed a great barrier, encircling the whole Earth, that DOES exist.

How could they map out every single continent on Earth, unless they had explored the entire Earth back then? They couldn't have, obviously. Not possible, without seeing it, in order for them to map it out, accurately.

Those maps were from different countries, at different times, yet many of them showed this same, circular barrier around Earth. So how does that happen? They all imagine this same barrier, around Earth, without ever seeing it? While seeing the entire Earth, EXCEPT for that part?

I've already explained that objects above Earth, cannot be seen from everywhere on Earth, due to perspective, atmosphere, and other factors. The main factor is perspective, of course.

It's the same reason we can't see a ship beyond 3 miles, where the horizon is. It doesn't matter if it's Polaris, or the Sun, or a ship, it's all due to perspective, and vanishing point. The actual angle of those objects doesn't matter, it is their DISTANCE away from your position, that causes the phenomenon of perspective, and vanishing point, to come into play.


Every object above Earth, the Sun, moon, and stars, are very close to Earth, perhaps 3000 miles at most, perhaps less.
The Pacific Ocean alone is about 60 million square miles in area, this should give you an idea of how massive the surface of Earth is, by comparison to how close the stars and the Sun are to Earth. You already know we can't see a ship beyond a 3 mile horizon due to perspective, so we'd never see the Sun or stars everywhere, from a surface that's almost 200 million square miles in size!

The problem you have is that there's no other flat surface to compare with the Earth's, so you think everything above Earth would be seen all the time on Earth, from everywhere on Earth. Why? Well, because it's flat, right? And the objects above Earth are still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, so why aren't they always seen, if Earth is flat?

Same reason that a ship, while it is still at an angle greater than 0 degrees, cannot be seen, beyond a horizon 3 miles out. Because of perspective, and vanishing point. The only difference with the stars and Sun, is that they are higher than a ship is, which means they can be seen a lot further away than a ship, 3 miles away, on the ocean.

All of the above is complete and utter pigswill. All of it. It's not just nonsense it's ridiculous nonsense babbled by a liar who has been refuted so many times that no-one takes them seriously. No-one.
Sad.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You

The ball Earth fairy tale is entirely built on lies, so deep, you believe it's all true, which is sad.

You don’t answer the question. To have a magnetic field there must be a north and South Pole of magnetism.

How did you have centralized magnetism.

You

Most likely, the magnetic center is a monopole

Reality

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In particle physics, a magnetic monopole is a hypothetical elementary particle that is an isolated magnet with only one magnetic pole (a north pole without a south pole or vice versa).[1][2] A magnetic monopole would have a net "magnetic charge". Modern interest in the concept stems from particle theories, notably the grand unified and superstring theories, which predict their existence.[3][4]

It is impossible to make magnetic monopoles from a bar magnet. If a bar magnet is cut in half, it is not the case that one half has the north pole and the other half has the south pole. Instead, each piece has its own north and south poles. A magnetic monopole cannot be created from normal matter such as atoms and electrons, but would instead be a new elementary particle.

So no. The earth is not a hypothetical elementary particle and is not a monopole.

You

Another point - your fairy tale claims the magnetic center point of Earth,

I have no idea what your blabbing about.

The fact there are the aurora Polaris and aurora borealis proves there is a conventional north - South Pole magnetic field around earth.

An aurora (plural: auroras or aurorae),[a] sometimes referred to as polar lights (aurora polaris), northern lights (aurora borealis), or southern lights (aurora australis), is a natural light display in Earth's sky, predominantly seen in high-latitude regions (around the Arctic and Antarctic). Auroras display dynamic patterns of brilliant lights that appear as curtains, rays, spirals or dynamic flickers covering the entire sky.[2]


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic north and true north do no align up. It’s even referenced in topographical maps.

Magnetic declination
Over much of the Earth's surface, compass needles point roughly north. However, because of the complex shape of the Earth's magnetic field there are few places where a compass needle will point exactly north. A compass lines up with the horizontal component of the magnetic field in a direction called magnetic north. True north, on the other hand is the direction from a given location to the north geographic pole. The angle between magnetic north and true north is called magnetic declination. Many people believe that a compass needle points at the North Magnetic Pole. This is not true; if you follow your compass needle you will eventually arrive at the North Magnetic Pole, but not by the most direct route.

www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca...

You're having fun destroying this guy over and over aren't you? 😂
I thought this thread should have died ages ago as there's still been ZERO credible evidence of a flat earth. But it's actually fun to read! 👍🏼

a reply to: FinallyAwake

It’s actually a bit depressing, and a bit frightening.

For someone who believes flat earth and cannot provide a credible argument. And still go debating flat earth in the absence of logic and evidence.

But it is an interesting study in what is truth, reality? And what people have faith in.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: FinallyAwake

It’s actually a bit depressing, and a bit frightening.

For someone who believes flat earth and cannot provide a credible argument. And still go debating flat earth in the absence of logic and evidence.

But it is an interesting study in what is truth, reality? And what people have faith in.

Yes agreed, it's probably much different for me as an outsider looking in and reading.

You've done your bit now I'd say, you could fly him to the moon and back and he wouldn't change his mind. He's as brainwashed as an extreme (far right or left) religious person.

Obviously he will say the same about us! The difference is, we have MOUNTAINS of evidence, whereas he has ZERO 😁

I'd have e a break and get involved with some lighter threads if I were you 👍🏼

originally posted by: turbonium1
Your entire fairy tale is built of S^&^, don't try flipping it around on me.

I don't need to, you shovel it all over yourself every week.

When astronomers saw Saturn spinning and wobbling, and without ever seeing such a thing before, or ever being known to occur, or ever being documented as an 'effect of atmosphere', or ever known to EXIST, then I hear you claim to ACTUALLY KNOW their thoughts - that all of them immediately 'knew' it WAS an 'effect of atmosphere'.

That's right. And as the owner of telescopes through which I have seen Saturn, the moon, Mars and Jupiter all suffer the same distortion, I know for a fact that this is what causes it. You literally have only ever seen videos of it, you have only ever seen a picture of a telescope. You know nothing.

You surely aren't full of BS in saying all this, right? No, of course not.

Exactly right, I'm not.

You haven't explained that if they somehow 'knew' it was caused by atmospheric effect, which didn't even exist, then why didn't they mention that they OBSERVED this non-existent effect of atmosphere, as it still is what they OBSERVED?

They do mention it. You've been shown numerous examples of just that, or did the pages suddenly start shimmering and spinning and you missed it?

Even if they somehow all think it's caused by an effect of atmosphere,

They do.

which you say they all DID,

They did.

because you know what they were all thinking it was, 100's of years ago,

They wrote it down. I showed you examples.

and I certainly couldn't KNOW what YOU know they thought, right?

You could i fthey wrote it down, which they did, and if someone showed you that, which I have.

So after you KNEW what they were thinking it was, that it was an effect of atmosphere, please inform all of us on what they were thinking by NOT MENTIONING this 'effect of atmosphere' on Saturn?

They did mention it. They do mention it. Your failure to grasp what you have been shown is not our problem.

DId they all 'assume' everyone 'knew' about this 'effect', or was it 'common knowledge', but nobody ever mentioned it before?

Did they just say 'Oh, right, this is a well known effect of atmosphere. Just record it as an atmospheric effect, everyone will know it means the spinning/wobbling without end 'effect' of atmosphere?

They did say that. They looked at what they saw, deduced what was causing it, wrote that down, moved on. They also didn't immedialtey focus on Saturn, they looked at other objects first - it took a while to get telescopes capable of resolving detail and without chromatic and other aberrations in the lenses. They learned things as the subject developed. They will also have known, as anyone who has looked through a telescope knows, that the influence of the atmosphere varies. What they didn't do was fabricate some nonsensical horse#### and then claim an expertise they didn't have.

And now, when astronomers STILL have never mentioned seeing Saturn appear to spin and wobble like a top, your excuse that they all thought it was due to an effect of the atmosphere, sounds even worse. Because there IS no such effect of atmosphere, not a single document that mentions it as an effect of atmosphere, after all these centuries.

Except there is. It's well documented. You've been shown this.

Which means, when you claim they all considered it due to atmospheric effects, you were full of s*Y*(.

Nope. Non sequitur. They recognised the cause of the apparent motion of Saturn, because that also causes other stellar objects to be distorted. Your posturing is as pathetic as it is ill-informed.

Because the fact is, there IS no such effect,

Yeah there is though.

and if there were, it certainly would have been documented by this point, and it never has been.

Except it has.

You just made it all up, and claimed they KNEW about it being an effect of atmosphere, and claimed they said so, by noting atmospheric effects were in play.

Nope. Did the research, showed you the proof many times over. Seen it for myself through a real live actual telescope.

Indeed, you truly ARE the King of All BS!

Your work above proves that, beyond a doubt.

You need to get some help for the undiagnosed brain injury you've clearly had.

This article demonstrates that the ability of the atmosphere to affect what can be seen (through refraction) has been known about for centuries:

www.relativitycalculator.com...

One effect of the atmosphere, the twinkling of stars that can be seen without even using a telescope, was correctly attributed to atmospheric turbulence in 1704 by Newton:

www.relativitycalculator.com...

If the Theory of making Telescopes could at length be fully brought into Practice, yet there would be certain Bounds beyond which Telescopes could not perform. For the Air through which we look upon the Stars, is in a perpetual Tremor; as may be seen by the tremulous Motion of Shadows cast from high Towers, and by the twinkling of the fix'd Stars... Long Telescopes may cause Objects to appear brighter and larger than short ones can do, but they cannot be so formed as to take away that confusion of the Rays which arises from the Tremors of the Atmosphere. The only Remedy is a most serene and quiet Air, such as may perhaps be found on the tops of the highest Mountains above the grosser Clouds.

Keep digging that hole for yourself though turbo.

www.handprint.com...

Scientists have been aware of optical turbulence since English naturalist Robert Hooke in 1665 attributed the twinkling of stars to "small, moving regions of the atmosphere having different refracting powers which act like lenses." Astronomer William Herschel was aware of optical turbulence and explicitly adopted measures to cope with it

archive.org...

Webb, Celestial Objects (1904)

Do not lose time in looking for objects under unfavourble circumstances. A very brilliant night is often worthless for planets or double stars, from its blurred or tremulous definition...Look for nothing near the horizon...nor over, or to the leeward of a chimney in use unless you wish to study the effect of a current of heated air

Seriously turbo, get it through your thick skull: astronomers have been correctly identifying how atmospheric conditions ruin a good evening's seeing for centuries. Some idiot who's never seen a telescope outside the Ladybird book of telescopes is not going to overturn that fact.

www.geo.utexas.edu...(On%20the%20Revolutions),_%201.pdf< br />
Copernicus, 1543

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded

articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Douglass (1897) Atmosphere, telescope and observer

The atmosphere then is a factor of prime importance in the definition exhibited by large telescopes and it's tudy becomes of correspondeing consequence. Every astronomer knows that good seeing is not a matter of clouds, that the definition does nnot become superb merely because the atmosphere has become clear and perfectly transparent...most astronomers have become aware of this fact and more correctly judge the seeing by means of the steadiness of the air. This is estimated chiefly from the twinkling of stars

www.celestron.com...

Steady seeing conditions are critical when imaging or observing Saturn. Avoid nights of bad seeing when our atmosphere is turbulent and Saturn appears like a shimmering blob on your laptop screen or in a telescope eyepiece.

www.ifa.hawaii.edu...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Babblers.

Perfect.

What is odd to me is how angry and condescending people get about the flat earth topic. It’s ok to have a different opinion than someone else.

originally posted by: HUSARIA
What is odd to me is how angry and condescending people get about the flat earth topic. It’s ok to have a different opinion than someone else.

Not when you cite proof and evidence the earth is spherical over and over again, and that proof is ignored and blatantly misrepresented.

Where threads claiming flat earth theory are “true” are placed in the ludicrous on lies forum.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: HUSARIA
What is odd to me is how angry and condescending people get about the flat earth topic. It’s ok to have a different opinion than someone else.

Not when you cite proof and evidence the earth is spherical over and over again, and that proof is ignored and blatantly misrepresented.

Where threads claiming flat earth theory are “true” are placed in the ludicrous on lies forum.

How can photographers zoom in at 50-75 miles and see the bottoms of building on a clear day? If you go by the calculations of the globe, this would be a 1600 - 3700 feet below line of sight.

originally posted by: HUSARIA
What is odd to me is how angry and condescending people get about the flat earth topic. It’s ok to have a different opinion than someone else.

Theres a big difference between opinion and facts...

Flat earth has NO facts... and the "opinions" are just wrong

just blatant denial of the obvious due to a fanatical belief in the bible and a few vague claims

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: HUSARIA
What is odd to me is how angry and condescending people get about the flat earth topic. It’s ok to have a different opinion than someone else.

Theres a big difference between opinion and facts...

Flat earth has NO facts... and the "opinions" are just wrong

just blatant denial of the obvious due to a fanatical belief in the bible and a few vague claims

So there’s no chance that you could have been lied to about what you are living on?