[Closed] Anyone believe in UFO's?

We can "see" about 46 billion light years into the universe

ooooh.. aren't we flippin' brilliant.. 😆

OK.. so we're earthworms that occasionally flop onto the pavement to look at the sky when there's some wet weather.. until we drown, or get eaten by a bird or run over by a Toyota Prius

Problem with that viewpoint yunki is that it gets really tedious really fast. Not that it's wrong though. No one has ever observed any element in the universe that is out of line with the periodic table. Well, you might say, what if we're just the equivalent of planarians and there's actually 100 periodic tables beyond our ken? Well....yeah? It's a total cul-de-sac of thought.

Yes we are rather. For hairless monkeys wearing trousers we are able to work out some pretty interesting stuff about the universe.

Yunki I suggest you learn some stuff about chemistry and how elements are made and constructed rather thna just imbibe them 😉
Perhaps you could explain to me how say gravity is not a universal truth?

it may be true to say we have only scratched the surface but that is not to say somethings we have found are universally true.

does the earthworm know universal truths about high definition televisions.?

don't be so daft.

wow.. just wow at the narrow mindedness..
awesome

are you guys for real..?

I always had you two down as the bright sparks on here..

maybe you are right.. maybe our little rock and it's tiny parasites can look up into the sky and say without doubt that 2+2=4 amen..

but maybe we are just trying to find explanations to fit our mayfly like existence.. with a beginning a middle and an end.. and maybe we are little more than parasites in the Earthworms gut.. wriggling about in the worm poo and professing to know all..

why does intelligence only have to exist in the neat little carbon package that we understand..?

yunki earlier:

[img] [/img]

exactly

Well, you might say, what if we're just the equivalent of planarians and there's actually 100 periodic tables beyond our ken? Well....yeah? It's a total cul-de-sac of thought.

fair enough.. that's an intelligent response.. all this 'yes it is cos I say it is and you're Keanu Reeves if you don't agree' riles me a bit though.. 😳

And so what if it is?

The rules and theories would still stand for "our universe".
Likewise if we are just one permutation in an infinite multiverse.

all this 'yes it is cos I say it is and you're Keanu Reeves if you don't agree' riles me a bit though..

Good. All the mystic hand-wavey "ah but how can you really know" bollocks riles me right back 😆

I'm with yunki on this one.

We know a lot about things close to us, yet are still discovering things we didn't know about the little lump of rock (speck of dust) we are scurrying about on.

We know some things about the vessel that contains our little speck of dust, but there is far, far more to be learned.

Beyond that, we know nothing - absolutely nothing at all - not a little bit, not even an inkling. To assume we do is extremely arrogant and by it's very nature, a very human trait.

F*** me - the world was flat a few hundred years ago.

In fact time only exists because we decided it does.

I just don't see how you can steadfastly assert that our understanding of science is right.. full stop

that's like some of the stuff on 'the other thread'

The patterns here seem to work well for us.. but we've only gotten samples from Mars in the last decade and we haven't heard half of what there is to hear about that yet.. that much is certain..

what if we're wrong.. I don't think our tiny glimpse (or 80 billion light year stare) is enough to get smug about just yet

EDIT: thanks STR - you put it so much more plainly than I can manage..

I can't deal with arrogant folk too well.. dey is fick like rock

ET life could be very different, but chemically there's only one periodic table in the universe, and carbon's the only game in town for prospective lifeforms. So they could indeed be based on completely different carbon-based building blocks, but they won't be SF-stuff like a talking cube of iron or a sheet of silicon.

There have been other biochemistries worked out that would work. One with silicon instead of carbon and one using ammonia instead of co2. Both give yo the same sorts of chemical reactions as we have

edit - there you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

what if we're wrong..

Define wrong.

If we come up with rules that hold for the entire Observable Universe then they are arguably "right enough".

You can argue that it is [i]possible[/i] that something beyond the observable universe, possibly even in another dimension or multiverse, does not meet those rules but as this is something we can never observe, so what?

You can argue that it is possible that something beyond the observable universe, possibly even in another dimension or multiverse, does not meet those rules but as this is something we can never observe, so what?

We will probably have killed ourselves off before we find that out.

And it will begin again.

I wonder if evolution will come full circle again creating humans if we do die off/self destruct, or if in a few million/billion years (if the Sun and Earth still exist) another predominant life form will have evolved.

If we do survive, what form will we have taken? It certainly doesn't stay this way.

Define wrong

well..like.. what if all the electro magnetic spectrum analysis coincidentally makes the same patterns that we understand but for reasons that we don't..?

maybe those substances out there [i]that we can also NEVER touch[/i] are just reacting that way because of what they are in and not because of what they are..? Or because of what they weigh.. or because of what they like for breakfast..?
why is it any more likely that it's because they are exactly the same as the stuff we know and understand and have found on our rock..?

our science is built on supposition and guesswork and observing patterns .. so guessing that what we can see out there must be the same as what we've got here just because it looks the same, to me, is ok.. ish
but to then proclaim it as undeniable truth like what you are doing is err.. arrogant..

which is all I was saying like.. I don't wish to argue with boffins about nerdery.. it's not in my nature

what if the real out there is reachable by ways that are not connected to our carbon cult..?

Beyond that, we know nothing - absolutely nothing at all - not a little bit, not even an inkling. To assume we do is extremely arrogant and by it's very nature, a very human trait.

F*** me - the world was flat a few hundred years ago.

In fact time only exists because we decided it does.

I just don't see how you can steadfastly assert that our understanding of science is right.. full stop

We know a lot about things close to us, yet are still discovering things we didn't know about the little lump of rock (speck of dust) we are scurrying about on.

We know next to jack about some of our deeper oceans. There's probably things living down there that we've never seen, and it's a hell of a lot closer to us than the nearest other planet.

I just don't see how you can steadfastly assert that our understanding of science is right

Paraphrasing Dara O'Briain: "people say, 'ah, science doesn't know everything.' Science [i]knows [/i]it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."

You can argue that it is possible that something beyond the observable universe, possibly even in another dimension or multiverse, does not meet those rules but as this is something we can never observe, so what?

we understand some stuff, gravity,

Do we? Could you explain that one to me, cos I'm farked if I understand it.

There is this thing called spectroscopy

With it, you can work out what elements are found in the bodies that make up different solar systems.

There is only one periodic table, that is it.

what if the real out there is reachable by ways that are not connected to our carbon cult..?

Solipsism is a soft fluffy minded viewpoint for those unable to understand physics or chemistry.

There is this [s]thing[/s] religious cult called spectroscopy

Paraphrasing Dara O'Briain: "people say, 'ah, science doesn't know everything.' Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop."

V good.

our science is built on supposition and guesswork and observing patterns ..

Of course it is. Nowt wrong with that. That's what the clever scientist folks call "theories".

to then proclaim it as undeniable truth like what you are doing is err.. arrogant..

Erm.. where did I do that exactly?

Science is built on theories. Some are more tested than others. All should be questioned when required.
You seem to be conflating a belief in science and scientific method with the belief that every scientific theory and model is absolutely true.

There is this thing religious cult called spectroscopy

Idiotic argument, science and spectroscopy is derived from observable phenomena. Religion is not, you sir are nothing more than a post-modernist.

A school of thought for those who could never get science at primary school and who then spent the rest of their lives trying to diminish it whenever they could on whatever vacuous humanities undergraduate course they did because they didn't get it.

bwaarp, stop it, I'm going to get accused of creating you as an alter log in. I like it though.

the geeks are winning the sarcasm contest if not the argument 😀

listen my little sunbeams..

my only assertion is that the belief that we know all universal chemistry and that the only lifeforms can be carbon based.. as asserted by Garry Lager.. is arrogant..

you have all jumped in to defend him and try to prove me wrong or discredit me..
that's all this debate is about.. I have fielded your oblique tangents with aplomb

roll over.. play dead.. let me tickle your tummies 😆

the geeks are winning the sarcasm contest if not the argument

Years of practice, mate.

V good.

It's on youtube. I'll dig it out, hang on.

Here.

*rolls over*

You were being a bit po-mo then though weren't you. It's a nasty disease, easily curable with a bit of rational thought..

But of course Toys19.... I mean Science was made up by bunch of idiotic humans who really have no clue what they're talking about...after all, they're only humans right, who ever wants to listen to them? I mean sure, I admit they were right about the world being round...and the planets going around the sun... and lightning being caused by opposite charges between the earth and the sky, not Zeus...and worms and rats not appearing out of nowhere...and stars being balls of gas burning millions of miles away, not holes in heaven...and the brain being the center of the nervous system, not the heart...and lead poisoning being able to kill you...and cigarettes being bad for you, and everything else ever discovered or invented, but still! They're wrong!

They're all a bunch of crackpots who have a political agenda, so who wants to listen to them?

its just not true we do know stuff. Not everything we know is true and will never be changed but we understand some stuff, gravity, motion of planets, star formations, elements, constituents of elements and these are all likely to be universally true. It is not arrogant to think that we actually know some stuff it would be arrogant to think we knew everything, We dont know plenty of stuff , dark matter /energy, higgs boson, combining quantum and classical world etc

Nope - stuff beyond what we can see is just assumption. Maybe very well educated assumption, but assumption nontheless.

actually thousand of years ago they new the world was round but the bastards burned the library at alexandria. I assume you think the world will remain round for ever and that is universally true for everything?

I couldn't be arsed to research, so covered 'thousands' with a 'few hundred' - define few. I would imagine the world will remain round, just as I'd imagine if it doesn't then we won't still be on it.

Cause and effect and the passage of time is not a man made construct. the fact everything living ages over "time" should let you know it does really exist.

One event leads to another and I suppose it's undisputable that 'time' of some element does actually happen, however our concept of it is manmade. A billion years as conceived by us, could be a millisecond in another conciousness.

Well do there AsSTR, you managed to write several sentences stating absolutely f*ck all.

What can't we see, stars? The Higgs boson? If the latter, we think it's there, so we are now looking for it (aka imaging it, so we can see it).

The concept of time is not man made either, care to be blasted into space at 1G constant acceleration for 20 years on a return journey? You'll come back around 2500.

Artist by any chance?

bwaaarp.. have you missed the rest of the thread..? are you a bit drunk and looking for a fight..?

silly billy

go to bed...x

No, I just like winning.

I also have a psychotic hatred for hippies and post-modernists.

You took 'see' too literally there bwaarp, however you are showing the arrogance I (and yunki) have been talking about.

What the hell do you know is beyond what anyone, even NASA scientists (let alone MTB riders) can even comprehend....erm see??

bwaarp, we need to get a room, we have so much in common.

A billion years as conceived by us, could be a millisecond in another conciousness.

* it varies a bit lets not get too complicated here.
Ps atomic clocks and please lets not get into relativity here 😉

double post

What the hell do you know is beyond what anyone, even NASA scientists (let alone MTB riders) can even comprehend....erm see??

No actually what I just stated is one of the corner stones of science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity#Experimental_evidence

See time dilation.

The maths is probably beyond you though.

bwaarp - Member
No, I just like winning.

Oh, ok - you 'win'???

I also have a psychotic hatred for hippies and post-modernists.

I bet your dad told you to hate quite a lot of things. Do you know your dad?

I just get angry with people who ignorantly lambaste chemistry or physics and attempt to talk about something they do not understand.

Art? You want to know what the most pure art is... maths, physics and chemistry.

well as year is one earth orbit of the sun so they would need to be using a different scale. The time it takes to orbit is fixed*

* it varies a bit lets not get too complicated here.
Ps atomic clocks and please lets not get into relativity here

It's like smashing your head against a brick wall.

Did the universe decide that 'time' in the whole universe is relative to the earth orbiting the sun, or if there is another universe, do they have an hour made up of 60 minutes etc???

Time is a concept made up by humans to fit a happening of events.

maths and physics.. con art invented by scraggly little toads who can't get laid in attempt to make themselves look clever..

(or in this case a little bit fick)

It's like smashing your head against a brick wall.

Did the universe decide that 'time' in the whole universe is relative to the earth orbiting the sun, or if there is another universe, do they have an hour made up of 60 minutes etc???

Time is a concept made up by humans to fit a happening of events.

Oh god this is ****ing hilarious, shall we quote wikipedia? Here's the observable proof we understand time.

"Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip (where the error bars represent standard deviation). [15] In 2005, the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom reported their limited replication of this experiment.[16] The NPL experiment differed from the original in that the caesium clocks were sent on a shorter trip (London–Washington D.C. return), but the clocks were more accurate. The reported results are within 4% of the predictions of relativity.

The Global Positioning System can be considered a continuously operating experiment in both special and general relativity. The in-orbit clocks are corrected for both special and general relativistic time dilation effects as described above, so that (as observed from the Earth's surface) they run at the same rate as clocks on the surface of the Earth."

bwaarp - Member
I just get angry with people who ignorantly lambaste chemistry or physics and attempt to talk about something they do not understand.

Art? You want to know what the most pure art is... maths, physics and chemistry.

I don't lambast anything discovered and 'proven' by people far more intelligent than I. I do however reserve the right to question assumptions about something beyond what anybody actually 'knows'.

bwaaarp - blah blah blah blah

wow.. now there is a point missed!!!

Well in this case, they do.

bwaarp - I'm not sure if you are intelligent and stubborn, or just stubborn.

Think outside the earth spinning round the sun.

I don't care what clocks you fly anywhere, we created them in our decision of what time actually is.

Yes, on earth a day is a day, a year is a year is a year etc. What is time in another galaxy or universe? It certainly isn't related in any way to us spinning round the sun.

Jeeze, is this a "what if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it" question.

Are you talking about clock time or space time....relativity is the same everywhere.

arrogant.. no wait..

troll

What is time in another galaxy or universe? It certainly isn't related in any way to us spinning round the sun

The time scale they use may be different from ours in the same sense as yards differ from metres...however the time will be exactly the same as ours. It is a constant but you can use various scales as you could for temperature or anything else you wish to measure

it is not man made it is real and universal

*ignores relativity

arrogant.. no wait..

troll

That's just your human-centric viewpoint.

Ok then Junkyard - the known universe.

Time only occurs in the respect of one event/moment leading to another - it is immeasurable and we have decided to put a scale to it.

however the time will be exactly the same as ours

is your best guess.. but having never even been to the bottom of the ocean, let alone the moon or a distant galaxy.. we can only ever [i]assume[/i] our guesses about the utter unknown to be accurate..

but what was in question was their/our perception of it.. do we even know if a tree perceives time the same way as us..?

Ok then Junkyard - the known universe.

Time only occurs in the respect of one event/moment leading to another - it is immeasurable and we have decided to put a scale to it.

That's like saying milligrams don't exist. Mass and weight are still there though.

You really REALLY need to think about time dilation. If you travel for 10 years in space and come back to earth 1000 years later, time exists my friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

is your best guess.. but having never even been to the bottom of the ocean, let alone the moon or a distant galaxy.. we can only ever assume our guesses about the utter unknown to be accurate..

but what was in question was their/our perception of it.. do we even know if a tree perceives time the same way as us..?

It doesn't have neurone synapses, or any chemistry that remotely resembles the ability to form memory.

Try learning some biochemistry and botany.

so we've discovered the actual chemical existence of memory now..? when..?

that's a new development..

I wonder what they'll think about it all in another thousand years..?

bwaaaarp... you are a science fundamentalist.. and extremist even

osama bin labcoat

Yeah, actually it's pretty easy to see. If memories were being processed there would be tell tale chemical cascades associated with the ability to change and hold form in response to external stimuli.

There are not.

Science can do shit you've never even thought about.

I'm not a fundamentalist, you are just an ignorant red neck who's trying to argue with people on topics they are qualified in. I'm having fun batting every hilarious primary school grade scientific assumption you make down.

The sad thing is with people like you is that you end up making these nonsensical, rhetorical and circular arguments because you can't hack the fact that scientific progress is eroding whatever religious or world view you hold.

oooh.. that is some next level shizzle fo sho 😀

Veering dangerously back on topic,

I just looked at some numbers.

The observable universe contains about 3 to 100 × 10^22 stars (30 sextillion to a septillion stars), organized in more than 80 billion galaxies.

It's estimated that the universe is 10^23 times bigger than the observable universe. That's 10 and 23 zeros.

That's a lot of planets.

No life on other planets? It suddenly seems unlikely.

There's a nice diagram here, but it's hard to view. Best to F11 your browser.

That's like saying milligrams don't exist. Mass and weight are still there though

Yeah, I am seeing your point though - maybe we've both been arguing at crossed purposes.

Time I suppose does exist in relation to the turning of the earth, in respect it has been a certain number of said actions since the 'big bang' or whatever.

Hands up, my argument is flawed - my head hurts, I'm a bit pissed and it's time for bed.

I may well challenge you again tomorrow with a clear head though. 😕

Other life forms though - you bet! 😉

I'm not trying to argue.. and I'm not saying that you're wrong..
I am a redneck.. I don't even have a gcse..

you are just talking in absolutes which makes you appear not very bright.. which is a shame I think.. considering

I don't speak in absolutes when I'm dealing with scientific matters, yours Junki are not. They are misinformed opinions lacking any common understanding of even basic science.

Had you actually been able to engage me in a debate not worthy of total derision, like some of the finer points of genetics that are not totally understood then I would have been much more reasonable.

Instead, what you should do is buy a blooody basic chemistry and physics textbook because you are obviously curious and a curious but non-reading person is a waste. Put your brain to what it was designed for Junki. Curiosity like yours is all you need and it is more important than anything else. Do not argue about this kind of thing until you understand what you are arguing about.

I'm sorry for calling you a redneck.

Junki - http://www.khanacademy.org/

Check this out mate, go through all the stuff on Physics and Chemistry. Do one at a time and make sure you understand each lecture before you move on.

If you catch yourself thinking, well how do they know this? Have they observed it? Well google is your friend!

Sorry I just get really pissed off with a lot of people (herbal medicine types, militant post-modernists, militant creationists et.... I don't mind any of these except when they pass certain boundaries)

I hope I have not put you off trying to understand....but just try to realize it's like being a concert pianist and having to teach 3 year olds to play chop sticks day in day out.

oh man..

I understand the basics.. I understand a fair old bit to be honest.. but this is a thread about the existence of extra terrestrials for gawds sake kiddo.. not a science versus art bun fight

so we're playing devils advocate.. trying to initiate a bit of free thinking.. exploring the boundaries

the essential what ifs of it all Buzz Killington.. what if you're wrong..?

which appears to have offended your delicate sensibilities somewhat..
I apologise..

Sorry I just get really pissed off with a lot of people (herbal medicine types, militant post-modernists, militant creationists et.... I don't mind any of these except when they pass certain boundaries)

I've re-visited this thread for now just to add that I get really pissed off with people who make assumptions about people who disagree with their stonewalled view of our existance, call them names and don't even have the respect to call them by their correct username, in fact manipulating it into a derisory term. Apparent intelligence (or maybe just knowledge of/ability to regurgitate 'facts' about a particular subject) aside doesn't excuse you being a complete and utter tosser.

there's other life forms even just here on this thread.. 🙂

night all...x

I've re-visited this thread for now just to add that I get really pissed off with people who make assumptions about people who disagree with their stonewalled view of our existance, call them names and don't even have the respect to call them by their correct username, in fact manipulating it into a derisory term. Apparent intelligence (or maybe just knowledge of/ability to regurgitate 'facts' about a particular subject) aside doesn't excuse you being a complete and utter tosser.

[img] [/img]

I just started getting annoyed when someone mentioned stars might not actually be suns because what it might be is something else, like I don't know, windows to heaven emulating sun like bodies in spectral analysis.

And I was a **** because like Dawkins I've come to the conclusion that the only way to deal with people like homeopathists, animal right's nutcases etc is to ridicule them. Because they don't listen, ever.

"I think that life will be discovered in the solar system within my lifetime- really simple organisms on Europa or something. "

This. There is good Scientific evidence already. It's just not quite 100% conclusive.

I have found that the only polite way to deal with dogmatic people is to not waste my breath. Because they don't listen, ever.

Bwaaarp.. you are suffering from a severe lack of imagination.. all of the great thinkers would be utterly appalled by you..

Indeed yunki is right on some of this - and some of the absolutist statements bwaarp has made are a little too certain

I just find it a stilted way of thinking..

'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'

'YES YES YES REALLY..'

'well.. ok.. I understand the pointy sticks thing.. and agree.. but is there a tiny chance that we missed something..? '

'STOP IT STOP IT I'M TELLING MY DAD'

'wow'

It's not being narrow-minded to favour observable, testable models of how life and the universe works over loads of "yeah, but what if, man..." 6th form ramblings.

If it is then it's narrow-minded to get on with dealing with the world we see around us rather than worrying about, say, whether hurricanes are caused by pink unicorn farts.

This is not the same as asserting that humans know all there ever will be to know about the universe, the end. It could be, for instance, that there are silicon life forms like that one in Star Trek that etched messages into the floor with acid, or places where gravity works differently or whatever. I mean 'could be' in the sense that you could argue you can't rule it out until you've visited every single spot in the universe to check.

Put another way, there's no point bothering with what would be massive exceptions to 'the rules' when there's so much to do within those rules. If some such exception jumps up and bites us in the face then those 'rules' will be revised- that's how science works.

There's not a scientist in the world who thinks science knows everything about everything. But that's a long way from saying every supposition should have equal weight- science just can't work that way.

'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'

Versus the yunki approach:

"Sticks burn. Fire is hot."
"That's a bit absolute isn't it? What if not all fire is hot? I'm going to stay over here in the cold because I disagree with your arrogant science."

I just find it a stilted way of thinking..

'wood is for making pointy sticks..'
'but what if we could make incredible heat and energy with it too..?'
'no.. it's for pointy sticks.. look.. see..?'
'could we try rubbing it together.. maybe create some immense heat energy..?
'no.. pointy sticks.. that's all'
'really..?'

Who is that you think thinks like this? No scientist I've ever met.
Straw men aren't doing much to prove your point.

I'm not having a pop at science or scientists..
I am a whole-hearted subscriber to science and it's wondrous discoveries.. I'm not a new age fantasist.. I do enjoy however discussing what may or may not be possible, the things that are as yet undiscovered..

what I am doing is having a dig at the insecure young men on this thread (which is about extra terrestrial life) who are insisting that there is absolutely nothing more anywhere or anyhow, than the science that we already know..

I'm starting to think that STWs outspoken scientific fraternity have an almighty persecution complex

i know this one's a few pages old, but it's a good one, and i think it's very interesting...

colournoise - Member

Didn't NASA find a non-carbon (phosphorus?) life-form in Mono Lake a while back, or was that discredited?

slainte rob

nearly, but not quite.

it seems that some clever scientists hypotheoteticated (guessed) that it might be possible that some life-forms could have adapted to replace phosphorous with arsenic. so they went looking for places where this might be true.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11886943 ]linky - bbc[/url]

(it's perhaps not as exciting as finding silicone-based life)

I'm not a new age fantasist.

You do a very good impression of one.

what I am doing is having a dig at the insecure young men on this thread (which is about extra terrestrial life) who are insisting that there is absolutely nothing more anywhere or anyhow, than the science that we already know..

Who would that be then? I don't see anyone insisting that. Or any "young men" for that matter!