*cough*
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
so that only leaves death and taxes.. (and some people still manage to get around taxes).
we need to come up with some more constants, we are running low.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Well, there's B, C, D, F, G, H and so on.
Oh.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, that settles it, it's pseudoscience and divination for me, no fooling, You cannot stop us WE ARE GOING ALL THE WAY WITH THIS NOW I HAVE A COPY OF THE BOOK AND IT IS THE NECRONOMICON IA IA!
Sorry.
Twice! I am the hat-trick.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
The next time you're the hat trick I'm going to smack you left, smack you right, and smack you up and down.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Kinky, and I have to admit I'm flattered, but it would never work out between us.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Okay, how about if I just run you over?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Oh, you old devil, you've won me over. Pick me up around nine-ish and we'll go down to the abandoned hospital.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'll bring my old, splintered baseball bat.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Don't worry, they're all long dead by now.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, no, the bat is for you. *SMACK!*
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
can i tag along and take pictures? i have my polaroid and everything.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, I can't argue with someone who has gone to the trouble to put asterisks around a word in all-caps. Your *WORD*ing has conquered my free time, good sir!
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well aren't *you* just the *cat's* *meow*!
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
No. No. *YOU*,*CAT'S*, and *MEOW*. He *DID* say *ALL-CAPS*, I believe.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
And here we see the first effects of a variable lightspeed.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Is there anything on the boards that generates actual serious conversation anymore?
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
no.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes. Starship registry debates.
Posted by Prismatic EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
well, other than that.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Wolf 359 research. The mysterious thingamajigg in Spacedock.
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
yeah, that too. and sometimes scifi artwork. sometimes not, though. knight rider had a pretty good discussion, i think. maybe.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Artwork, definitely. Star Wars has a reasonable track record, too.
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
fairly reasonable.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Two words, 'Meggytron.
Cold. Fusion.
Dude. Light is a small component of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the speed of light changes, the speed of radio waves, infrared light, microwaves, X-rays, gamma rays, etc etc. ALL changes.
This would have disastrous effects on the functioning equipment that utilizes these rays.
Like, for example, TVs, radios, microwaves, X-ray machines, nuclear reactors, and tanning booths. Oh, and our EYES.
The fact that all these things continue to function properly without constant readjustment seems to cut a M-class planet-sized hole in the theory.
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
not if the change has slown down. light might have slowed quickly 12 billion years ago, but that was 12 billion years ago.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except we don't have 12 billion years to work with, but only 6000. And two.
Anyway, a single datapoint does not a theory overthrow, especially since no one has yet confirmed it. It would be interesting to see some revolution go on with regards to relativity, so that I can go to Proxima Centauri. But: Relativity = strongly predictive, theories in opposition to relativity = not strongly predictive, if predictive at all.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Perhaps I am missing something, but from here comes this:
quote:They argue that if instead the charge of the electron could go up, then this would mean the event horizon of a black hole - the region from which light and matter cannot escape - would shrink over time. And that would violate one of the golden rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics.
Uh, I am not a scientist, but that black holes radiate and thus shrink over time until they eventually evaporate completely is exactly the case according to Professor Hawking, who made the case something like 20 years ago, which has been at least theoretically confirmed. So, uh, someone somewhere is forgetting something.
Posted by Smilin' Joe Fission (Member # 510) on :
probably.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Not meaning to be rude, but, uh, who the hell are you?
Oh, sorry, Simon.
I mean, who the *HELL* are you?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Get your Sheridan on.
Posted by Smilin' Joe Fission (Member # 510) on :
'tis me, EdipisReks. don't you have everybody's member number memorized?
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
WTF? That's something Colin would do.
Posted by Prismatic Smilin' Joe Fission (Member # 510) on :
ic
Posted by Prismatic Faye Valentine Fanboy (Member # 510) on :
i like this one better.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Aha! You see, Jeff doesn't have teh 5UP3R |/\|0D P0\/\/AH to check profiles and see user's original screennames! Yes.
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jeff also doesn't do one and a half times the speed limit.
Posted by ThoughtPyminal (Member # 480) on :
But Snay knows that apparently all speed limits are variable now. So what does it matter?
Posted by Springfield Armory Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jeff _*STILL*_ also doesn't do one and a half times the speed limit.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
is 'the *HELL*' going to be the next 'the "fuck"'?
One and a half times the speed of light?
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
There's a Jeep I'd like to drive.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
_*FUCK!*_
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Light is a small component of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the speed of light changes, the speed of radio waves, infrared light, microwaves, X-rays, gamma rays, etc etc. ALL changes.
This would have disastrous effects on the functioning equipment that utilizes these rays.
Like, for example, TVs, radios, microwaves, X-ray machines, nuclear reactors, and tanning booths. Oh, and our EYES.
Unless, of course, other constants are changing at the same rate...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Or, if it's changing at a rate that's only measurable over billions of years. Which is what they're saying.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Einstein's special theory of relativity, which describes the fundamental relationship between matter and energy, is unfortunately not invalidated by this discovery. Symmetry of the universe requires that there exists one velocity which does not vary according to an(-y) observer's point of view. The value of this velocity may be arbitrary, and is thus irrelevant to the theory.
Universal constants... you gotta love 'm.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
In simpler terms, c is constant for all points in space, but not NECESSARILY for all points in time.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
What side are you arguing for again here?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
His very own!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The side that says that a decreasing speed of light doesn't violate relativity. Did I miss a post that I made?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't know. Did you?
And I meant generally. You started this thread. What was your point?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Point, who needs a point.
Posted by Magnus Pym Eye (Member # 239) on :
Topic Starter: Omega.
Jeff edits too fast.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I just find it amusing that back during the original Creation/Evolution debate... three years or so ago now, I posted that there was good evidence of a decreasing speed of light, and everyone scoffed.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
That could have been just because every liked scoffing you... But this may not be the case now...
If the older light is slowing down, what then happens at the point where the newer faster light over takes the slower older light?
Shit, missed my Kirk-speak....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
For one thing, the speed of light supposedly slowed. Which would mean it's the newer light that slower, not the older. But I don't think it works that way, anway. All the light everywhere is moving at one speed. It's just that that speed is slower today than it used to be.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: I posted that there was good evidence of a decreasing speed of light
No you didn't. You still haven't.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yes. Linking to an internet article != automatic good evidence for a theory.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
This article sheds a better light on the matter. A varying electromagnetic coupling constant could be caused by a number of things (Planck's unit, alternating electric charge, *and* fluctuating lightspeed), but there is also the possibility that the accumulated data has simply been misinterpreted. Regardless, I think it's safe to say we won't be zippin' around the galaxy at FTL velocities anytime soon.
[ August 12, 2002, 04:49: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by The Talented Mr. Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
I think the point Omega was trying to make was:
"Well, now.... it looks like light is slowing down, ergo the world isn't 10-20 billion years old, oh no, it's about 5 or 6 thousand years old like I tried to tell you before. Of course the tiny magnitude of the change in c isn't of much importance".
Well, Omega, is this about right or am I putting words in your mouth?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
You'll have to pardon me, but since my physics knowledge is almost non-existant can someone shed some light on this?
What would it take to actually slow light down? An increase in the mass of the universe? There must be some counter force acting upon it (and therefore on time itself) to have this effect. Any ideas on what the force may in.
For instance: If the universe had started to collapse, thus drawing all matter/energy/whatever towards a central point that may force light to slow.
Also, if space and time are linked (I may be way out here, but...) wouldn't a slowdown in the speed of light somehow effect or be a symptom or, or be synonamous with a slowdown in time as well?
*Waits for suitably knowledgeable person to make sense of it all*.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, Omega, is this about right or am I putting words in your mouth?
Yes.
What would it take to actually slow light down? An increase in the mass of the universe?
Well, the speed of light is one of those fundamental constants of the universe. Why it would change would depend on why it's a fundamental constant to begin with, which is more of a philosophy question.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
I'd really like to see you explain why the speed of light is or is not a constant based on philosophy.
You have my complete attention, go for it.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Mine to.
And doesn't light travel at differing speeds according to the conditions present and whatnot?
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
What you're thinking of is the refractive index of various transparent media (glass, water, etc). Relativity concerns the speed of light in vacuum, which is an absolute limit. Gravity has no influence on the rate of propagation, it only affects the direction light travels in.
Light can be slowed artificially by something called a Bose-Einstein condensate -- basically a bunch of particles cooled to a temperature near absolute zero, causing them to spread out and overlap (one of those weird quantum effects governed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle).
[ August 12, 2002, 07:33: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, that's obviously what I meant. I just didn't want to bore everyone.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
*whack*
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colorful Cartman: What you're thinking of is the refractive index of various transparent media (glass, water, etc). Relativity concerns the speed of light in vacuum, which is an absolute limit. Gravity has no influence on the rate of propagation, it only affects the direction light travels in.
Out of curiosity, what happens to light travelling at right angles to said gravity source? i.e. If gravity can only affect the direction of light, shouldn't we be able to see black holes? But obviously we can't....so what gives?
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
True, we can't see black holes directly, but we can detect their presence by observing how light behaves in their vicinity. Gravity is, in essence, a manifestation of the curvature of the fabric of spacetime -- matter bends the universe around itself, creating pits in the proverbial rubber sheet. General relativity describes this phenomenon better than I can, so I'll shut up before I venture too far into the realm of fuzzy logic. Anyhoo...
Near a black hole, the spacetime distortion is extremely severe and causes black holes to have, erh, weird properties. In particular, a black hole has something called an "event horizon". This is a spherical surface that marks the boundary of the black hole. Think of it as the radius of Doom(TM).
Suppose you're standing on the surface of a planet. You throw a rock straight up into the air. Assuming you don't throw it too hard, it will rise for a while, but eventually the acceleration due to the planet's gravity will make it start to fall down again. If you threw the rock hard enough, however, you could make it escape the planet's gravity entirely. It would keep on rising forever. The speed with which you need to throw the rock in order that it just barely escapes the planet's gravity is called the "escape velocity." As you would expect, the escape velocity depends on the mass of the planet: if the planet is extremely massive, then its gravity is very strong, and the escape velocity is high. A lighter planet would have a smaller escape velocity. The escape velocity also depends on how far you are from the planet's center: the closer you are, the higher the escape velocity.
Now, imagine an object with such an enormous concentration of mass in such a small radius that its escape velocity was greater than the speed of light. Since nothing can go faster than light, nothing could escape that object's gravitational field -- including light itself.
So you see, black holes are mostly harmless. Just don't get too close.
Anyone bored to death yet?
[ August 12, 2002, 14:20: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"Out of curiosity, what happens to light travelling at right angles to said gravity source?"
What in the world is that supposed to mean? The gravitational force propagates out from an object in all directions. How can you move at a right angle to that? It would be like saying you were moving at a right angle to a light bulb.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Tangent to the curvature of the gravitational field, perhaps?
Posted by ThoughtPyminal (Member # 480) on :
Or, since we're talking about non-euclidian geometry, If you add a dimension it's possible.
Posted by ThoughtPyminal (Member # 480) on :
BTW: The question might make more sense if it were phrased: Hey! Do gravitons propagate in a straight line?
I think, anyway. It's the only thing that makes sense.
If I'm right: Gravitons propagate (supposedly) in a wave/particle form, simultaneously. Thus, if you were in a really fast and tiny spaceship that could predict the peculiarites and picadillos of quirky graviton movement, you could move perpendicular to them. IF you could perform quantum tunneling, which is nothing like what is shown on Star trek: voyager.
That's if gravitons exist. I don't want to sound like a quack, but I don't think they do. Physicists don't have any physical proof for them, after all, even though they've been predicted by QM. We've managed to find smaller shit that hasn't even been predicted, but though they've actually been LOOKING for gravitons, they've never found one. Nor have they even found a TRACE of one.
I know logically that this doesn't mean they'll never find one, but...I think the theory of gravity needs some tuning up.
But, I don't think super-strings exist either. I'm weird.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
TP: Even if the gravitons came out in straight lines, they'd be emitted in all directions. The only way to move at right angles to them would be to orbit the body in a circle...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You know, all I was asking was what happens to light is moving directly away from the black hole, but still within the event horizon. i.e. light rays moving along the normal line, if you can visualise a black hole as a two dimensional circle (not the tangent line, the normal line)
If gravity can only affect the direction, but not the speed of light, then what does light travelling on the normal line do? Does it just pick a completely random direction to turn in order to stay within the event horizon? That seems a bit odd.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Light doesn't move directly away from the center of a black hole, because the singularity does not emit any*.
*rays are enormously redshifted, rendering them optically invisible
[ August 14, 2002, 11:00: Message edited by: Colorful Cartman ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I think what is being asked is along these lines: if light isn't slowed down by gravity, then what happens to light that is flying straight up?
Well, consider a rocket on Earth. To leave the planet, that rocket has to accelerate to about 25,000 miles per hour.
But imagine the Earth was much denser and larger than it is. Or, conversely, imagine the rocket is much less powerful.
Gravity, at the surface, is pulling down at 32 feet per second squared. If you want to jump into the air, or move anything at all in that direction, you need to apply an acceleration greater than 32 f/s/s to it. So take our weak rocket. It's thrust is exactly 32 f/s/s. So what happens to the rocket? Nothing. That is, for as long as it is firing, it will not fall. But it cannot go anywhere. It is not, from the point of view of the surface of the earth, going anywhere. But it does have a speed.
In the same way, a black hole, at the event horizon, has an escape velocity of exactly lightspeed. A photon, released right at this boundary, aimed straight up, will still be traveling at c. But all this does is counter the gravitational pull of the hole. The photon can't get away from it. That's why it's a black hole. Beneath the event horizon, the gravitational pull is even greater, and light, along with everything else, spirals down into the singularity.
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Adding to the confusion, photons aren't factually influenced by gravity. They merely follow the shortest possible route through the fabric of spacetime - in other words, a straight line. This is counter-intuitive because the mind has great difficulty visualising more than three spacial dimensions. All black holes really do is distort the continuum so severely that the direction in which light travels gets warped beyond all recognition.
Massless particles == weird behavior.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Wouldn't Chaos theory come into play?
Basically, something woul alter the rocket/light ray's speed or trajectory, even if it's only by the tinniest fraction of a miniscule percent. But that is all that is needed for the stalemate to be broken.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Whether the hypothetical situation is possible or not isn't what's important, though. We're just talking about how the photon behaves.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Wouldn't Chaos theory come into play?"
Is this the part where Daryus comes in and starts talking about butterflies?
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Moths, actually.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Obviously, my joke didn't go over as intended. That's what I get for making a reference to something about five people understand...
Posted by Colorful Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Six.
(yet another obscure reference)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I thought you were going for some sort of "A butterfly flaps its wings in Australia and causes a thunderstorm in Miami" sort of thing.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I was. But, more specifically, I was going for the Daryus == Jeff Goldblum == Dr. Ian Malcolm == explaining chaos theory in Jurassic Park.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Daryus == Jeff Goldblum
That does put a new spin on things...
So, if light slows enough, then it won't be long beofre we can break that barrier... or start moving slower ourselves...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Daryus == Jeff Goldblum
Daryus can't equal Jeff Goldbloom, for Daryus is the Curry God, and all the Jeff Goldblooms in the universe can't come close.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's an old joke...
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well, as you all must know, I am the spitting image of old Jeff. Not.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
If that Jeff is old Jeff, and I'm not old Jeff but certainly not new Jeff, who is new Jeff?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Bridges.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
THEN WHO THE HELL IS BEAU!!!!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Jazzy.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Jeff Bridges is older then I am so how can he be New Jeff? I'm Newer Jeff then he is!
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
Welcome to New Jeff City
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Jeff Bridges is older then I am so how can he be New Jeff?"
It's the Jeff Bridges from the future-world of Tron.
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
wait so the jeff bridges from the future is younger than jeff bridges is in the present? i knew that paradoxical sunuvabitch was gonna destroy the universe, i just didnt know how.. damn you! damn you to lloyd!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I've always been younger then Jeff Bridges even when there was no Jeff Benson on the face of this earth in the form of me, myself, and I.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You are wrong.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I suppose.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Now there are three of him....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, Jeff Bridges was 33 at the time of Tron. Assuming the movie is set in 2012 or beyond, Jeff Benson will be older than 33 at he time of Tron. Therefore, Jeff Bridges would be younger than Jeff Benson.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Um. No, because Jeff Bridges the actor is older then I, and even though a movie is set in the FUTURE, it does not mean the actor suddenly becomes younger.
Methinks TSN needs to clarify "actor" and "character" ...
Jeff Bridges is STILL older then I!!!
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
wait .. movies arent real?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Hey, my logic was valid, it's just the definition of "the time of Tron" that's a bit hazy.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Your logic is as valid as Omega's decision to jump up and down and scream "ooobie-woobie-foobie-boobies!"
Posted by Captain... Mike (Member # 709) on :
i actually kind of understand where Omega was going with that.
kind of.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Good, than I am not the only one that has a kind of idea on that... I was worried there for a minute....
Although, I have heard someone once utter the boobs were irrelavent.... That is the one I have a hard time grasping....
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
No, the logic was valid. The conclusion comes logically from the premises. It's just the premises that are wrong.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Your premise is as valid as Omega's decision to jump up and down and scream "ooobie-woobie-foobie-doobie-eoobie-boobies!"
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
Now that I just didnt get.. he shoulda stuck with the first one..
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The premises aren't invalid. They're false. Trust me on this. I'm taking two classes in which we're studying logic. I've heard enough definitions of these terms in the past week to be quite sure about this.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
He becomes more fun loving every day, doesn't he?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes.
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
There's no premise for that.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yup, you can't very well say that just because he's become more fun-loving every day of the last, say, eight, he becomes more fun-loving EVERY day...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Then we may have to say EVERY week, or, maybe he's not changing, as c is, but our perceptions of him are....
Posted by The Mike Who Would Be Captain (Member # 709) on :
aah .. !? was that on topic?
my brain hurts.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Everytime Tim speaks he is more fun than the last. This has gone on for long enough for me to notice a trend, and base assumptions off of it. In conclusion, Omega's comments on music mean that he is unable to pass judgement on anything ever.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Yes!
(The exclamation point means MORE FUN!)
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Liam: Thats almost twisted enough to get me to eat something healthy. Almost.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Then my work here is done.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Curry is healthy.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
doing VFX in a far better place?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Curry, in fact, apparently contains compounds that appear to fight Alzheimer's.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
i've debated doing this for a while..
*sigh*
special compunds are here.................^
OK, I'm done.
Hot peppers have a lot of chemical good-for-you-ness too.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Hmm... yeah... I'm listening to the Reds at this very moment, and I can definitely feel my body chemistry reaching a state of natural equilibrium. Oh, the potential medical benefits!
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
.................^ with the special compounds being right about here
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
BTW, in case the 'linking images' bump was aimed at me, those are both and always have been on my site. coincidentally, my guestbook did require a Chili Peppers image that i was able to use on this occasion.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
