A puzzling phenomenon (Electrons vanishing act) defies Einstein's Relativitiy.

Greeting to everyone!

The puzzling phenomenon of the Electron flux drop out in the outer Van Allen belt, during severe geomagnetic storms defies Einstein's theory of Relativity. I developed my own theory of Physics that may suggest a solution to this mystery as also introduces the concept of Variable Inertial Mass. Please read the presentation (Power Point Presentation) of my theory on line and download my paper SEPPv6: http://www.ioannisxydous.gr/

The theory suggest a solution to the following topics and are suggested at least two experiments to verify the theory:

1.Variable Speed of Light with distance (opposes second postulation of Einstein but for the Quantum world (below Compton Wavelength).
2.The existence of Aether which possesses a Tangential Velocity equals to 348.43 Km/sec.
3.New Energy-Mass Equivalence by I. Xydous (covers also Einstein's Energy-Mass Equivalence and shows the difference)
4.Exp#1:Electrons flux dropout (vanishing act) in the outer Van Allen belt. Failure of Einstein's Relativity since Electrons are trapped within a Standing where consequently their Inertia is influenced.
5.Exp#2:Inertia Control that leads using a coil with ferromagnetic core. There is a video that shows the kinetic effects as also complete calculations.
6.Exp#3:Detecting Universe rotation through the rotating Earth's Magnetic Field.
7.Complete Casimir Force
8.Nuclear Strong Force
9.Unified Field Force

And much much more....

I will look forward for your comments!

Have a great and happy New Year!

Ioannis Xydous

Electronic Engineer

Switzerland

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please provide evidence for that claim. What experimental data is that based on and how precisely can it not be explained by relativity? The Van Allen belts and the plasma formed by electrons and other charged particles are well described using electrodynamics (ie relativistic electromagnetism).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi AlphaNumeric!

I suppose that you read at least the Power Point presentation. Well, I used the following paper as a reference: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2123/3329.full.pdf html

On this paper it is suggested that rapid loses are for Electrons Energies more than 0.63MeV. The effect is much more complex but the idea is when the Relativistic Electrons are captured within a Standing Wave then their inertial mass will be reduced according to my theory. Einstein's Energy expression is valid for particles possessing only the particle quality. When the Electron is trapped within a Standing Wave then it possesses both qualities (particle and wave). This is the difference, something that Einstein did not predict. The particle-wave duality of matter is already proved through diffraction experiments with Electron beams. Where is the catch? The catch is that in diffraction experiments, matter possesses the second quality very shortly (as long as it takes to occur the diffraction). But when matter is entrapped for a long time within a Standing Wave during severe geomagnetic storms, this entrapped period is very large (some minutes or hours) and larger than the diffraction time experiments (psecs).

What I did in my work about this problem, I calculated for what Relativistic Kinetic Energies the Electrons will vanish and/or will possesses negative mass. If you read the above article from the Royal society and other resources on the Internet the calculated Energies are very near to those measured.

If you have not read my presentation, just read it once. For more details you have to download my paper SEPPv6.

Warm Regards

Ioannis

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What has a tangential velocity to what? This is nonsense. Do you intend to prove aether by inventing a personal theory that requires it? That's circular reasoning. The conclusion is: neither are true, not both.

 

Hi Aqueous Id!
You are correct! If you are trying to find reasoning without to have read my work, then it is exactly what you say. I strongly suggest you to read at least the Power Point presentation and then my paper (SEPPv6). Just for the record, I do not try to invent something, I explore new possibilities using my intuition and knowledge.

The tangential velocity has to do with the creation of the particles. Every created particle like electrons, protons, Anti-protons, positrons and other sub-particles (even those who do not have charge), they rotate with a tangential velocity equals to 348.43 Km /sec. Since they are created in free space (like the known pair production phenomenon), the conclusion is that they acquire this rotational Energy from space. With other words free space rotates with the same tangential velocity (348.43 Km/sec). The rotating elementary charges (if they could not have charge then this points to no rotation as also not real mass)) are the cause of the reduction of speed of light when a photon travels towards them.

I would suggest not be too hurry to judge. It will not help as also it kills the notion of exploration. I published my work to this forum with the aim to receive some kind of feedback. The presentation is a way to put you directly to the subject. Since you spoke about what has to do the tangential velocity, this means that you did not even read the presentation. Charge, Mass and Planck constant are associated with this tangential velocity (page 5 of the presentation). If you name space with space-time or vacuum or Aether, could find the difference? The only difference in case of Aether is that is stationary and rotating. First time the word Aether was reveal in Ancient Greek text which the meaning of it according to the Ancient Greek Dictionary that "something that moves perpetually" or it means "ignition", "fire". Aether according to my theory is an imaginary particle which dominates the entire volume of vacuum and it is a "force carrier".

I will not respond to spontaneous attacks. Prove that I am wrong on something about those I published and we could discuss it. Expressions like "This is nonsense" without to be specific is useless. Please I ask for your understanding!
Warm Regards

Ioannis

 

Are you actually familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics? It's just that you make repeated use of \(E=mc^{2}\) and not the actual equation \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |p|^{2}c^{2}\). The latter is Lorentz invariant, which is needed for the correct application of relativity. For a particle moving with constant velocity it is okay to use \(E=mc^{2}\) but only when you are working in the rest frame of the particle. For any system where particles change velocity you need to work with the full version. It's a mistake a lot of 'internet scientists' make, as \(E=mc^{2}\) is wheeled out a lot in pop science, glossing over the fact it isn't the proper full expression.

You give expressions for forces, in the same way Newtonian gravity and classical electromagnetism express forces. This is flawed in several ways. Firstly the quantisation of particle effects makes those expressions only approximate, what you get when you 'zoom out' via the use of effective theories. For example, there is no \(V(r) = \frac{kq_{1}q_{2}}{r}\) in the definition of the quantum electrodynamics Lagrangian, it is extracted by working out various effective model properties, likewise with the classical electromagnetic equations (Maxwell's equations). The deviation of the force from this 'large distance' simplification. This is particularly so for the electroweak and QCD forces, where quantum corrections are significant.

If the forces work purely by the same mechanism as in standard electromagnetism, by defining a potential and things just move according to standard kinematics, then atoms would collapse due to radiating energy. In quantum mechanics the quantisation process prevents this. You consider Newtonian gravity, saying it is valid for big and small things. That is false. We have known for more than a century that Newtonian gravity cannot explain the precession of Mercury. Since then we've done a great many other experiments to show Newtonian gravity is flawed, each time validating the predictions of relativity.

You say it gets all complicated, that quantum physics has certain things to blame for being complicated, but that isn't really accurate. The underlying principles of quantum mechanics are pretty much the same as many areas of physics, ie defined on a Hilbert space with linear operators acting on it. Of course most people don't get to learn about Hilbert spaces formally so QM can seem an enormous jump from anything else in complexity.

Your expressions for electromagnetic fields E,B,H treat them as scalar fields when the full models require them to be tensor fields, so expressions like E/B are meaningless. Again, it is something people unfamiliar with the details of such theories can make, as they assume their high school knowledge that if A=BC then B = A/C is valid. This isn't the case for matrix expressions, for numerous reasons. It says on your website you're an electrical engineer, which makes it odd that you would not use the matrix full description of electromagnetic fields.

In all cases what you do is derive some number or some force expression but nowhere do you compute things like the precession of Mercury or the differential cross section of electron-muon scatterings. Simply saying "F = ...." isn't enough, you need to show that when you solve the resultant equations of motion that you get dynamics confirmed by experiment. Newtonian gravity is an example of why this is important. Newtonian gravity says Mercury's orbit precesses and that light bends its path when passing near a mass. As does general relativity. So which is right? It is only when you solve the equations and get the paths of the planet or light do you see the flaws in Newtonian gravity.

Please use your work to calculate (and show the calculations) of at least one of the following :

1. The precession of Mercury
2. The differential cross section of electron-antimuon scatterings (as a function of the momenta) to an error of less than 5%
3. The emission spectrum of Hydrogen

Each of those is a homework problem for a mathematical physics student so the work isn't asking too much and if you really can compute them you'll be able to include them in future work. As it is you just state a lot of force formulae, without showing the lead to observed dynamics, and compute a lot of constants and scalars. There's more physics than that and computing the values of constants is all too easy to do via numerology (there's plenty of other posts here with pet theories who can do that in their own work).

 

As a matter of etiquette, and for security reasons, it's best not to ask people to click offsite just to figure out what you're talking about. Why not just post an abstract that is clear enough for science-types to understand, with links to public references as needed to show where you found a principle that you adopt or reject.

If you carry that thinking too far, you will end up inventing stuff without believing that it's invented. Inviting other people to test your ideas helps prevent that from happening.

I'm sure that works for you, but readers generally rely on their own powers of deduction, so you would want to include that fact with all the rest of the data you're reviewing. I think that's why the style and format of technical abstracts is so predictable. Rather than assume anything about the reader, it will state the established science, then briefly expose the innovation done in the paper by concise description of a few main ideas.

My question was: tangent to what?

Km/sec aren't even units of rotation. So what are you talking about? If you need assistance with English, just ask.

That sounds pretty bizarre. It smacks of pseudoscience. That is, you give the appearance of speaking about science, but there's little or no science in what you're saying.

Tangent to what? Units. No, space is not an absolute that can be moved if that's what you think. Maybe you mean "inertial reference frames". Either you have a problem translating to English, or else you're just inventing laws that aren't real.

Bear in mind that the mark of pseudoscience is trickery. Trolls like to do this to incite people who studied science. When you use a word like "rotation", must folks think you might mean coordinate system rotation, which is virtual, or else (in this case) the angular momentum of something, which is real. It sounds like trickery to me, especially when using linear units. I might be wrong. Maybe there's a language issue here.

Yes, when you post alternative theories at SciForums you get high quality responses from some of the excellent members who are seasoned professionals. And then there's me. I just happened to notice this, but I'm glad to be of assistance in disabusing you of any errors I notice in your posts.

Not quite. You said aether has a tangential velocity, and gave it in linear units. I simply said "What has tangential velocity with respect to what?" My belief at that moment was that you think aether is a mass traveling transverse to the velocity vector between two inertial reference frames. Regardless of whether I choose to your request to click offsite your statement ought to stand on its own weight. And it doesn't. If you wish, simply define tangential velocity in Km/sec, and, while you're at it, rotation.

I know what the first three mean, but that last one is unclear. Hopefully you'll define it here for all to see.

That's interesting but not science.

You haven't given me a chance to be spontaneous.

There's not much to prove or disrove until you give something coherent. How about rad/sec ≠ m/s ? Is that sufficient proof?

Not to me. Nonsense simply means that the idea is a fabrication of the imagination, not real, not connected to any established laws or principles from which a reader can draw inferences, and without having to read a manifesto first. The abstract should be given, in clear concise and simple English.

If you want to be understood you should strive to be clear.

 

Hi AlphaNumeric!

I use simple expressions because I always believed that fundamental laws of nature must be simple. What we have from today's development of Physics you will need at least a doctorate degree to be involved seriously for the search of a Unified Theory or just only the Nuclear Force (Do you know the Nuclear Force equation as it is presented by today's Physics? I think not and exist nowhere or it is extremely complicated that nobody really understands). My work is very straight and it is the result of the variable light speed with distance (from a stationary charge). Note: What you see in the presentation is the forms of the Unified Field on Quantum Level. They are all equivalent and give the same results for charge particles.

I believe that you are in a hurry to judge like Aqueous Id, did. Take your time and read. About the E=mc2 you are wrong. I use the whole expression. Please see better my web site as also my paper or presentation. The known and accepted expressions about forces are proportional to the inverse squared distance (1/r2). I do not introduce (there are more terms 1/r3, 1/r4 which are effective in small distances) the same as actually in my paper it is mentioned the quantization of space-time.

Well I spent thousands of hours to develop my work and unfortunately for the moment I will not proceed with your suggestion which I do not have a special problem. On the other hand I introduce two experiments where you did not want even to comment.

If you would like to verify my theory, I suggest the following (more important than your suggestions), since I will not proceed for the moment (maybe in the future) to your suggestions. So, to verify this theory you could check the following:

1. Variable speed of light with distance: If you could prove that Eq. (7) of my paper is wrong theoretically (or check presentation), then my entire work is for the garbage. This equation is the heart of the entire work. If it is wrong then everything is wrong.
2. Complete Casimir Force: As it is presented on my paper. From there I deduce the known Casimir Formula which is very important to consider. Moreover the nature of the Casimir Force is Electric and based on the reduction of the light speed with distance.
3. Complete Coulomb Force: Why the known Coulomb Force (Original Coulomb Force) deviates significantly when the distance between two charges is below the value of the Electron Compton wavelength?
4. Exp #1: Electron flux drop out in the outer Van Allen belt: There are exact calculations and reasoning. Try to find more sources and compare what is suggested as also go to the link I gave on a previous post. This natural phenomenon where really defies relativity, it is a good test for my theory although very challenging from many aspects.
5. Quantization of Space: 6.74E-58 m (Please go to the following Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110630111540.htm ). The Integral project one year ago suggested that quantization of space must be below 1E-48m which makes all Quantum Gravity theories invalid (they accept the value 1.61E-35m which comes from dimensional analysis and has no natural meaning)
6. Dead Beat Universe by Lars Waehlin: Published as a book back in the year 1997. This theory concludes that the Universe decelerates as also have greater mass and radius by using unexpectedly Hubble's constant (coming from measurements). Well in my theory result exactly the same values about the radius, mass, deceleration, time and Temperature of the Universe where I do not use Hubble's constant but an expression depended by the Gravitational constant. If you like I could send you a copy of his work to compare. On theoretical level, Lars Waehlin theory is the only theory in accordance with my own (same results on the basic properties of the Universe).

There are more suggestions to verify this theory, but let us start with the above if you like. Open your mind to other possibilities as those suggested above and not to be in a hurry to conclude. There are many things that needs an answer through my work since the formulations are very basic and fundamental.

Regards

Ioannis

 

Hi Ioannis, and welcome. I have no background in science or physics and having viewed your material, can only understand it broadly (maybe).

I nonetheless applaud your efforts in continuing to push the envelope.

What island of Greece are you originally from ? I'm originally from the Southern Peloponnese.

 

Also, Ioannis, I wanted to ask - is there a laymans interpretation of your work ? I mean, a non scientific, non mathematical precis that might nonetheless inform ?

 

Geia sou Patrida!

I come from Milos island (Cyclades). Thank you for the encouragement. Well, I will push as long as there are people with open mind and not so much influenced of what they have learned in the Universities. Some unresolved mysteries or problems in Science may have simple solutions. They always forget it but it is not their mistake. I will remember you a known phrase "Power may last for 10, 20 or maybe 40 years. An influence may last more than 100 years" (see Einstein). This is what we pay today, even if it seems right but it is not the whole and the only truth.

Have a great New Year!

Ioannis

Switzerland

 

Humbly, there are to interesting things I've observed in my life.

- All knowledge is provisional
- All things tend to their opposite

Milos Isle - what a beautiful part of Greece.

Kαλή χρονιά

 

To quote Einstein, a theory should be as simple as possible but no simpler. You cannot simply decide the universe is simple, it is what it is.

Why do you find that hard to swallow? Why should the universe be easily graspable to a human? What makes us special? Why should it be easily graspable by a human with minimal experience or aptitude? The universe is a big and complex place. Personally I don't see there being any reason to think humans will ever fully grasp how it works, due to there always being more experiments to do and also there may well be things in the universe simply beyond our ability to grasp. Saying it should all be simple to humans is, to be honest, staggeringly arrogant.

You've again used yourself as a yardstick, that there is something wrong with strong force models because it is complicated. Firstly there are people who understand it and secondly the use of "Force = ...." types of dynamics is something which might seem to a school child to be the standard way to describe things in physics but it isn't. As I said, no such expression exists in the Lagrangians for quantum field theories, instead they are extracted as 'effective models' using mathematical machinary.

In the case of the nuclear force you write down the QCD Lagrangian and then through the use of Fourier transforms you can extract out the approximate \(\frac{1}{r} + r\) potential from it. Likewise will give you the Coulomb for electromagnetism. But those are only approximations, they are not the exact potentials felt by subatomic particles, a fact we have experimentally verified.

Where? I looked through your presentation.

As I said, those 1/r^2 expressions you see in electromagnetism are not valid at the subatomic scales, they are longer distance approximations. At the subatomic level particles do not behave like that and simply adding in additional terms doesn't rectify the problem.

Time spent has no bearing on validity.

You suggest experiments but you don't demonstrate you can actually model the forces correctly using the expressions you give. If the various F = .... expressions you have are valid then you should be able to do so. It isn't up to me to do your calculations for you.

Those are all less than compelling. Most of them are just assertions, such as 5. You could give any answer, so long as it is below the experimental bound. Saying "Someone else has a similar idea", as you do in 6, doesn't cut it either. As for the Casimir force you have to fiddle with it, to try and explain things like sign errors. In the case of 3 my challenge about scattering cross sections is relevant. As I've said, we know the Coulomb force isn't valid at short distances but we do know how electromagnetism behaves. If you don't agree with the predictions of quantum electrodynamics at short scales then your work is wrong since we've confirmed QED is valid at scales down to \(10^{-18}\) (where you have to add in electroweak components). And the "Relativity is inconsistent with the Van Allen belts!" thing I am yet to be convinced. If a paper had been published with undeniable disproof of relativity it would be news everywhere. The "faster than light neutrinos" from a year or two ago show how much attention potential violations of relativity get even in the normal media. The complete silence on this supposed Van Allen belt case suggests it isn't quite the problem you believe it to be.

And you didn't address my comments about why you're using scalars and not the vector and matrix expressions for the various electromagnetic constructs. You cannot divide E by B if they are vectors.

 

Hi everyone!

Well, I am not a good writer, not a scientist and of course not a physicist. For sure I cannot answer in everything you ask, who am I to do that? Again I am just an Electronic Engineer (and I think as an Engineer) from a Technological Institution (not even a University), but I can answer in a few questions of yours (AlphaNumeric and Aqueous Id):

1) Tangential Velocity (units: Km/sec): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity (read the corresponding part if you do not know what it is). And when I speak about 348.43 Km/sec (u=vxR) it is related to absolute rotation (the Universe rotation).
2) Relativity is inconsistent with the Van Allen belts: OF course you will not hear something since I am NOBODY. I have not published my work in a prestigious magazine because will be never accepted for various reasons (one of them is that the context is not very well formatted according to the rules for publication, but I do not care. The web site is enough for me.). Give this specific topic to a Physicist or researcher that you may know and ask him what is his opinion about my work (after carefully reading it).
3) I am not perfect and for sure I think very much differently than you. I have great scientific intuition but that does not mean that I am aware about everything in Quantum Physics. On the other hand all the formulations in my work are within known and accepted Physics, like it or not.
4) About the Casimir Force, the proof is very straight. Just read the corresponding chapter. My work requires only a High school education, open mind and interest in Physics. The Casimir Force is the simplest way to test my theory (at least partially but it is very important task since it proves the variance of speed of light with distance).
5) Find me the accepted Coulomb barrier between two protons described by the Nuclear Force (complete description) and bring it for discussion (which I doubt that you will since you do not know the complete description of Nuclear Force as also to understand it and process it due to its complexity) with the aim to compare it with those I have in my paper SEPPv6 (not the presentation). QCD Lagrangian I do not know what it is. I am very sorry!
6) Believe it or not, nature in fundamental level is simple. For example the Aether and other discoveries were first mentioned by the Ancient Greek who did not even know what is Quantum Mechanics or relativity. Simple Geometry can even describe nature.
7) About the quantization of space: I think you underestimate the subject and from the moment there is an official article about it, you should seriously consider it.
8) Why do I must use the matrices and vectors? There is not any kind of violation on those equations that describe forces. Why you think I cannot divide E to B (the absolute values of a vector or with other words the amplitudes)? Aren't you aware that E to B gives the propagation velocity in a medium? This is something vary basic in Antenna and Transmission Line Theory. As also E to H gives the propagation resistance. It is everywhere in any physics or technical book. There is no error there 100%. Again I think as Engineer and not as a physicist, who expects to prove a simple equation by using vectors, matrices and two pages of calculations to conclude that he can divide E to B.

IF you think that my formulations and conclusions are not mathematically consisted, then why do you spend your time with a "silly" person like me? To prove what? That I am "stupid" and I do not know what I write? Or because I am a person coming from Greece with an Engineering education is not possible (or stupid) to claim such kind of things?

If my theory is wrong then we will see it soon or later but not because of your claims so far.

Regards

Ioannis

 

FYI

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/5249/solar-storms-disappearing-killer-electrons-found

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-researchers-solve-mystery-221811.aspx

Happy New Year!

Ioannis

 

Hi Ioannis

I too think nature can be simple, though there are many whose business it is to make it seem as complicated as possible.

I am reminded of some English poet's lines in talking about men (was it Popes "Essay On Man ? I'll find it later) who "frame great mysteries then find 'em out"

Or more to the point, from Einstein ..

- As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

- Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.

 

Hi Lakon!

You got the point. Your last sentence says everything and the proof that the fundamental laws of nature are simple, you could look on my work. I know very well what I discovered where under normal circumstances it looks like impossible. The reactions of the members are justified for me. Well my motto "The impossible and unconventional is where I live and understand."

Best Regards

Ioannis

 

Interseting. So that pretty much refutes your statement that Electron flux drop out in the outer Van Allen belt, during severe geomagnetic storms defies Einstein's theory of Relativity.

 

Hi origin!

Well, I do not blame them for many reasons. First of all I am NOBODY. Secondly, the previous links that describe the phenomenon (Electrons vanishing act) do not claim a violation of relativity. I claim myself the violation of relativity due to the vanishing act of Electrons (disappearance) which points to the variance of their rest mass (Inertial Mass). I do not see a better explanation when the previous article writes that during severe geomagnetic storms that some groups of Electrons (specific kinetic energy) suddenly disappear from the Van Allen belt and re-appear after hours or repelled from the Van Allen belt outwards in space.

I will continue to write to the forums until I find someone or some people (better to be physicists) to understand the idea behind my claims. If I am wrong then they have to prove it, but not with pointless comments about the way I developed my theory. Everything inside my work is correctly formulated and in accordance with today's Physics. I did not add something, I just pulled something out that there was a tendency to be covered with dust (ignorance and Science Politics), since decades.

Thank you for your comment!

Ioannis

 

Hello Ioannis, I too am NOBODY, but that is not special or unusual here at SciForums, and I too am considering the aether, but I take a different approach. I am happy learning physics and cosmology as a hobby, and I don't make any claims to be doing science. I submit to you for your consideration, that the forum members best suited to answer science forum questions are NOT the members who are most open to: 1) thinking about what the scientific community doesn't know about nature, or at least thinking about it with the intention of brainstorming with self-declared non-professionals in an alternative theories sub-forum, 2) making a serious effort to dig and question your ideas, 3) but instead are the one's most likely to shoot from the hip about what you don't know or may not understand about known science and generally accepted theory.

And who can fault them? There are many things that science does not yet know about the nature energy in systems that interact in ways we don't understand. Aether theories are so numerous that they don't get serious consideration from those who could best consider them if they wanted to take the time, and they won't take the time in open forum because they have their professional posture to maintain. Sadly, those who do or may want to chat about aether ideas are almost never on the same wavelength, and their "theories" depart from each other very quickly after the first level of agreement that an aether would certainly seem to answers some the the "imponderables" that science cannot yet quantify. What is the aether, why is it better than generally accepted science and theory, what does it "do" that a non-aether theory can't do, etc.

There are several forums that allow alternative ideas for discussion. One that has more professionals willing to "discuss" ideas is CosmoQuest, if you aren't already aware of it. They don't allow discussion of ideas that are not about generally accepted science accept in one special forum set aside for Against the Mainstream ideas. It is best to follow a few threads before starting one of your own because they really don't like to host idle or wild speculation or ideas that are not well thought out. Your disussion is limited to 30 days, and you will be made to jump through hoops, lol. Take a look.

And you will find that there aren't very many forums that would accept without challenge your comment:

The general thinking is that you have to prove your theory with some observational analysis and mathematical quantification that adds new thinking to the topic, and even then, without experimental data or suggestions of how to test your theory, you will not be met with enthusiasm.

Welcome to SciForums however, and you seem to have a good attitude. Good posting to you.