Originally posted by Shakyamunison
LHC?
The Large Hadron Collider. Some people think it will create a black hole that will consume the planet. Some also think it will create strange/ antimatter, or supersymmetrical matter. It all pretty comes to the conclusion that the LHC will KILL EVERYTHING OH NOES 💃
Originally posted by AngryManatee
The Large Hadron Collider. Some people think it will create a black hole that will consume the planet. Some also think it will create strange/ antimatter, or supersymmetrical matter. It all pretty comes to the conclusion that the LHC will KILL EVERYTHING OH NOES 💃
OK 😮 Thanks
From what I've read; it may create very, very, very small black holes that will evaporate almost instantly. They will be so small (I read in an article) that even if they didn't evaporate, they would take hundreds of years to eat a proton.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>If one is honest, one provides evidence of so serious an accusation as a misquote. Since you have never provided any such evidence, and yet you repeat the slander, I must, sadly, conclude that you are
indeed a wilful, knowing, and premeditated liar. Unlike you,I shall now provide the specific evidence of your reprehensible, scandalous, dishonesty:FIRST LIE BY SLEEPY: Accusation of misquote, without posting any evidence of a misquote,
>>Notice that Sleepy is about to post from the same link I showed him in the first place, from which I have accurately quoted throughout this debate.
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Templares
GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims
At this point we want to consider a number of claims that
Ashby [4] has recently made in regard to GPS and the
Sagnac effect. We address three specific comments which
Ashby made and respond to each below.. . . .
(3)The final claim by Ashby, which we contest, is: "Of
course if one works entirely in the nonrotating (sic)
ECI frame there is no Sagnac effect." The only way
this claim can be true is if we adopt the definition
sophistry of the prior claim. But we have even more
convincing data that Ashby's claim is false. NavCom
Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by
the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of
historical reasons, does the entire computation in the
ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between
our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution
results and the JPL results, we investigated the input
parameters to the solution very carefully. The
measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two
different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the
Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.>>Note that the bolded portion of this quote is precisely that point which Sleepy is willing rather to lie, slander, and obfuscate, than to honestly address.
Bwahahahahahaha.
Here is the link again: http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf . The Navcom quote is on page 5.
Trans i believe is just too dumb or oblivious to realize and understand the CONTEXT on which his ballyhoed quote "NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed bythe Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame." is derived. No wonder you dont recognize it as evidence of a misquote.
The JPL licensed software that "does the entire computation in the ECI frame" referred to in the subsection (and in the Navcom quote) refers to GPS software and NOT the software used to track interplanetary probes.
The subsection of the section Sagnac effect of the study on which the Navcom quote was derived was titled GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims. This subsection concerns itself with enumerating Wang's and Hatch's objections to another researcher's, Ashby, GPS and Sagnac effect study. There is nothing on this subsection that tackles with inter-planetary probes at all.
Youre MISQUOTED Navcom quote is NOT PROOF that the Voyager and the Pioneer space probes uses a geocentric reference frame. Why use it? Are you trying to deceive us?
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>SECOND LIE BY SLEEPY: "The quote you cite has nothing to do with inter-planetary probes but with GPS"
As has previously been posted, the authors are addressing BOTH interplanetary and GPS, as they themselves tell us, ONE PARAGRAPH below the end of Sleepy's citation above:
quote:
"The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame.">>That is correct. And, as you will never be able to lie sufficiently to falsify, JPL also uses software based on Earth based coordinates (ECI) to track interplanetary space probes, AS YOU YOURSELF JUST TOLD US IN YOUR QUOTE ABOVE:
quote:
"NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame."
HA! HA! Checkmate. Here is why im in my right to say that Trans is being DISHONEST. He quotes the JPL quote "The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame.", combine it with the Navcom quote above and claims it as proof that JPL uses a geocentric frame of reference for interplanetary probes.
Sneaky especially when you consider the fact that the Navcom quote and the JPL quote came from two different subsections (the JPL quote is under the subsection The Fundamental Question).
Not to mention that the very sentence after the JPL quote contradicts his claim of JPL using a geocentric frame of reference for interplanetary probes.
See for yourself (the ones in italics are Trans' JPL quote, the ones in bold are the ones that contradicts his claim)
The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light
is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations,
the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame.
The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from
earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into
account. Even the motion of the earth around the
moon/earth center of mass is taken into account. Clearly,
the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with
respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the
receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac
effect must be accounted for on all signal paths."
Why omit the quotes in bold Trans? I've already posted this paragraph several times to show to you how dishonest you are with the JPL quote. Why are you still doing this?
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
As I have said before, honesty is important in scientific debate, and Sleepy, you are simply not being honest here. It is a terrible and frightening thing, to see a person willing to twist and lie, in order to escape the necessity of honestly addressing the facts which might present serious difficulties for his position.
I had earlier said that I had much more respect for you than some of the other participants in this debate, since you had at least shown a willingness to do research and engage on the eivdence.
I must sadly amend that observation, since there is nothing at all worse than bald-faced dishonesty in a scientific debate.
We have seen, so far, two specific instances of Sleepy posting what I cannot find any way to ascribe merely to his previously well-established ignorance. These two instances are, very sadly, lies.
Honesty and "scientific" are obviously two things you DONT understand.
Im just goint to post this back lest it be forgotten:
Proof that NASA uses a heliocentric reference frame (Heliographic Inertial Coordinate System (HGI) or the Heliographic (rotating) Coordinate System (HG)) when using deep space probes:
http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>Since we have already established that all computations are done in the ECI frame, INCLUDING INTERPLANETARY SPACE PROBES, one wonders why you don't see what a monumental idiot you make of yourself by posting the very evidence which contradicts your argument above.
This is merely a reiteration of the second lie above, which has been adequately demonstrated to be such, and further repetition is unnecessary.
>>If only the argument had been whether the authors are geocentrists, how much less temptation you would have faced, in descending to the level of blatant dishonesty in making your case.
Shame on you.
>>What a sad thing it is to see to what depths some are willing to go.
This is merely a reiteration of Tran's LIES above, which has been adequately demonstrated to be such, and further repetition is unnecessary.
Shame on you.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>To the contrary. Napiers response shows that the Hawkins study was a "piece of real dishonesty". Not that any of this matters, as far as the topic of geocentrism is concerned. But the point is worth pursuing, since PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a quasar-galaxy connection has been provided, and the "mainstream" is prepared to simply ignore this physical evidence in favor of their "statistical analysis".Typical.
It is indicative of a crumbling academic monolith, committed to circling the wagons and shouting down all challengers.
I love it. This "circle the wagons" mentality is strong evidence that the Standard Theory can no longer be maintained by consensus, and hence must now be maintained by good old fashioned coercion.
As Max Planck put it:
"Science progresses funeral by funeral".
There is a quasar-galaxy connection alright but its not what Arp and his ilk or what you geocentrists think. In fact this quasar-galaxy relationship is in agreement with Standard Cosmology.
Anyway to address your stupid and misguided rant against science:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-consensus.htm
"Some may criticize the value that many scientists place on consensus, claiming that it sets up an "orthodoxy" to which all disagreement is "heresy." But scientific orthodoxy is not dogmatic in the way that many religions are. Change, diversity and debate are celebrated in science, and there is an established system that promotes these goals: the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference. The very system is organized to let opponents meet. In this meritocracy, those with the best and most convincing arguments rise to the top. Anyone is free to challenge this orthodoxy at any time. The only requirement for victory is that you make a better case.
Arp, Napier, Burbridge etc and all the fringe scientist you geocentrists cite all FAILED to make a better case against the Standard Cosmology. Sorry for them.
I'll just post this back:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...8/0208117v1.pdf
. . . .data from the 2dF Galaxy redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and
the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) means that for the
first time there exists a large homogeneous sample of data
to carry out this kind of study. Furthermore, Napier recognized
the importance of the study being carried out independent
from any of the researchers with vested interests one
way or the other. He therefore gave clear instructions as to
what analysis should be performed and what periodic e ect
should be seen if the phenomenon is real, but chose to take
no part in the subsequent analysis. We have attempted to
carry out this analysis without prejudice. Indeed, we would
have been happy with either outcome: if the periodicity were
detected, then there would be some fascinating new astrophysics
for us to explore; if it were not detected, then we
would have the reassurance that our existing work on redshift
surveys, etc, has not been based on false premises.
There is also this No Quantized Redshifts article by Alan MacRobert from the December (2002?) issue of Sky & Telescope:
"A leading version of the hypothesis, advanced by Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier, is that quasars seen near a foreground galaxy show a particular periodicity in their redshifts with respect to the galaxy. At Napier's urging, Edward Hawkins and two colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England, recently sifted through the massive new 2dF redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars to test this idea. These surveys provide, "by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study," writes Hawkins in the October 11th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society. All parties agreed on the procedures for the test."
Mind the bolded part. This is just to show again that Napier's claim of "dishonesty" is BULLSH!T. Hawkins et, al. shows NO redshift quantization and disproves this so-called geocentric proof.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*
quote:Not only do Bell and McDiarmid demote the Tang and Zhang study to a mass of anomalies, they further state that Tang & Zhang cannot claim, as they did in their 2005 paper, that the DIR pattern of redshifts is the result of "selection effects" rather than real effects. They write: "As a result it is very unlikely that a common selection effect could have been involved. This may rule out selection effects
as the common origin of the peaks in the SDSS redshift distribution and the preferred values predicted
by equation 1" (p. 10).
In their concluding statement they say: "We conclude that it is real, and is due either to the preferred redshifts predicted in the DIR model, or to selection effects. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both" (p. 10). In other words, Bell and McDiarmid are concluding in favor of Arp, Napier, Karlsson, et al., and not in favor of Tang & Zhang and other Big Bang theorists."---Robert A. Sungenis, PhD, private email of material from upcoming Third Edition of "Galileo Was
Wrong" (thanks again, Doc!)
*snip*
>>Actually, as we have seen, Tang and Zhang are substantively refuted by Bell above.Anyway, since the Arp model of quasars ejected from galaxies, while interesting, is not related directly to this thread's subject, I am hopeful we can move back to more relevant issues.
Cheers!
TO BE CONTINUED
******************************************
HA! Did you even bothered to tell Robert Sungenis that Schneider et. al DEBUNKED Bell and Mc Diarmid?
I'll repost this again:
M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid study:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...3/0603169v1.pdf
Schneider et. al (and about 40+ more astronomers that im too lazy to write their names):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf...0704.0806v1.pdf
One thing that you'll quickly notice is that Schneider et. al analyzes 77,429 quasars from the Fourth Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, an increase of 31,009 quasars over the 46,420 quasars in the Third Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog that M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid studied.
According to Schneider et. al:
"Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006)."
The Schneider et. al study which has collates more data and is more up to date DISAGREES with Bell and Mc Diarmid and UPHOLDS Tang and Zhang's study.
The same "selection effects" that Bell and McDiarmid dismissed turned out to be the big reason for the supposed redshift quantization they found in their study. Maybe the fact that Bell and McDiarmid are using their study to prove their pet theory (decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model) introduced BIAS in their analysis and clouded their judgements.
Anyway, the quantization scale for redshifts which you claim as proof of a geocentric universe, has continued to SHRINK as more data has become available. The initial value was 72.46 km/s. Further observations brought this down to 36.2 km/s, 8.05 km/s and finally 2.68 km/s. Scaled against the speed of light, this suggests a quantization in z of roughly 0.00001, which is slightly above (or even
below) the precision for many common redshifts measurements.
The most likely explanation for the original measurements is the presence of large scale structure. Galaxies are not randomly distributed throughout the universe. Instead they are clustered in clusters, "walls" and "filaments" thanks to their mutual gravitational attraction. Likewise, this clustering gives way to large voids between these structures. If one were to look only at a long narrow beam through this structure (a "pencil-beam" survey -- as was done for much of the early redshift catalogs), one would naturally expect to see some "quantization" as a relic of this gravitational interaction.
Originally posted by Templares😆 😆 😆
Bwahahahahahaha.Here is the link again: http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf . The Navcom quote is on page 5.
Trans i believe is just too dumb or oblivious to realize and understand the [b]CONTEXT
on which his ballyhoed quote "NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed bythe Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame." is derived. No wonder you dont recognize it as evidence of a misquote.The JPL licensed software that "does the entire computation in the ECI frame" referred to in the subsection (and in the Navcom quote) refers to GPS software and NOT the software used to track interplanetary probes.
The subsection of the section Sagnac effect of the study on which the Navcom quote was derived was titled GPS, Sagnac Effect, and Ashby Claims. This subsection concerns itself with enumerating Wang's and Hatch's objections to another researcher's, Ashby, GPS and Sagnac effect study. There is nothing on this subsection that tackles with inter-planetary probes at all.
Youre MISQUOTED Navcom quote is NOT PROOF that the Voyager and the Pioneer space probes uses a geocentric reference frame. Why use it? Are you trying to deceive us?
HA! HA! Checkmate. Here is why im in my right to say that Trans is being DISHONEST. He quotes the JPL quote "The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame.", combine it with the Navcom quote above and claims it as proof that JPL uses a geocentric frame of reference for interplanetary probes.
Sneaky especially when you consider the fact that the Navcom quote and the JPL quote came from two different subsections (the JPL quote is under the subsection The Fundamental Question).
Not to mention that the very sentence after the JPL quote contradicts his claim of JPL using a geocentric frame of reference for interplanetary probes.
See for yourself (the ones in italics are Trans' JPL quote, the ones in bold are the ones that contradicts his claim)
The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light
is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations,
the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame.
The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from
earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into
account. Even the motion of the earth around the
moon/earth center of mass is taken into account. Clearly,
the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with
respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the
receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac
effect must be accounted for on all signal paths."Why omit the quotes in bold Trans? I've already posted this paragraph several times to show to you how dishonest you are with the JPL quote. Why are you still doing this?
Honesty and "scientific" are obviously two things you DONT understand.
Im just goint to post this back lest it be forgotten:
Proof that NASA uses a heliocentric reference frame (Heliographic Inertial Coordinate System (HGI) or the Heliographic (rotating) Coordinate System (HG)) when using deep space probes:
http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/This is merely a reiteration of Tran's LIES above, which has been adequately demonstrated to be such, and further repetition is unnecessary.
Shame on you. [/B]
hysterical
Originally posted by Templares
There is a quasar-galaxy connection alright but its not what Arp and his ilk or what you geocentrists think. In fact this quasar-galaxy relationship is in agreement with Standard Cosmology."
>>How interesting that you do not tell us what this "relationship" might be. Not that it matters in terms of this debate, of course. As for Arp, et al, they have excellent evidence on their side, but it is not a matter of concern to the geocentrist one way or the other. As we shall see below, the quantized redshifts are CERTAINLY present, and are CERTAINLY geocentric, and this fact is contributing, along with the Cosmic Microwave Background evidence, to a re-thinking of the whole of Standard Cosmology at the very highest levels of science. This re-thinking is calling into serious question the "scientific consensus" concerning a Relativistic, infinite, expanding, "acentric" Universe so dear to Sleepy's handlers. as we shall see also in the upcoming post regarding the utterly shocking geocentric implications of the most recent data from observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Originally posted by Templares
"Anyway to address your stupid and misguided rant against science: "
It is also thanks to me that you know that the physics of a geocentric, geostatic Universe have been rigorously derived from the Einstein gravitational equations by Hans Thirring, and further elaborated by Mach, Bondi, Misner, et al.
What have we learned from you, other than the hilarious notion that centrifugal forces don't work without air????
Your handlers have gotten much better lately, but today they get to meet their Waterloo on quasar redshifts, and of course, once the CMB data is posted, all of your earlier noise regarding gamma rays, etc. will be demolished, unforgettably. So do be sure and stick around for that, will you?
Originally posted by Templares
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-consensus.htm
"Some may criticize the value that many scientists place on consensus, claiming that it sets up an "orthodoxy" to which all disagreement is "heresy." But scientific orthodoxy is not dogmatic in the way that many religions are. Change, diversity and debate are celebrated in science, and there is an established system that promotes these goals: the peer-reviewed journal and the scientific conference. The very system is organized to let opponents meet. In this meritocracy, those with the best and most convincing arguments rise to the top. Anyone is free to challenge this orthodoxy at any time. The only requirement for victory is that you make a better case.
Arp, Napier, Burbridge etc and all the fringe scientist you geocentrists cite all FAILED to make a better case against the Standard Cosmology. Sorry for them.
>>Heh heh heh. Now folks, let us all remember that it was Sleepy here who insisted that Special relativity had proven that light was a constant in all reference frames---right up until I posted the PROOF that JPL controls both the GPS and deep space probes using formulas where the speed of light is not constant except with regard to ONE PREFERRED reference frame -- the one where the RECEIVER is located.
One guess which frame that would be..............🙁hint: it sure as heck ain't the "solar system barycenter"!)
Now Sleepy wants to natter on about how open he and his handlers are to "the best and most convincing arguments", but it's all a load of hooey. They are defending their religion of "Standard Theory", and since the evidence as posted here has been so overwhelmingly against it, they are reduced to bluster, bluff and nitpicks, when indeed they aren't outright blundering.
Now blunders are not that big a deal, as I have said before. They can happen to anyone. But Sleepy's handlers are not open to evidence or argument. If they were, they would have acknowledged the JPL data. But they won't. Just like they won't acknowledge the completely crushing defeat they are about to receive on the question of redshifts.
So let's understand that the Sleepy Crew is defending their religion of "consensus" here, and unfortunately, their religion isn't true. So let's get down to it:
Originally posted by Templares
"I'll just post this back:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...8/0208117v1.pdf
. . . .data from the 2dF Galaxy redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and
the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) means that for the
first time there exists a large homogeneous sample of data
to carry out this kind of study."
>>Mot unfortunately for the Sleepy Crew, we now have the FAR more extensive Sloan Digital Sky Survey data release number 6, which has been analyzed exhaustively in the most complete study so far, by J. G. Hartnett, published just last February 8, 2008:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.3833v2.pdf
As we shall see, this study absolutely devastates all of Sleepy's earlier, less-complete "statistical surveys". Even more significantly, this study is NOT tied to the quasar-galaxy controversy, or the DIR hypothesis, which as I have repeatedly said has nothing to do with the question of this debate, which is whether or not there exists a concentric, periodic quantization of redshifts in quasars, with Earth at the center.
As we are about to see, the answer is: YES.
Originally posted by Templares
"HA! Did you even bothered to tell Robert Sungenis that Schneider et. al DEBUNKED Bell and Mc Diarmid?"
I'll repost this again:
M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid study:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...3/0603169v1.pdf
Schneider et. al (and about 40+ more astronomers that im too lazy to write their names):
http://arxiv..org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf...0704.0806v1.pdf
One thing that you'll quickly notice is that Schneider et. al analyzes 77,429 quasars from the Fourth Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, an increase of 31,009 quasars over the 46,420 quasars in the Third Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog that M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid studied.
>>Gee that's nice. Now, the problem for you Sleepy, is that on February 8 of THIS YEAR, that would be, 2008, J.G. Hartnett published his study
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.3833v2.pdf
You will notice that he states:
"Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the quasar number count
as a function of redshift calculated from the quasar data of the Sloan Digital
Sky Survey DR6 data release. The results indicate that quasars have preferred
periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1.
Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and
20 of 0.062."
Originally posted by Templares
"According to Schneider et. al:
"Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006)."
>>But that was DR5, Sleepy. Hartnett uses the more recent and more complete DR6. And as Hartnett is about to tell us, Schnieder conveniently eliminated from his sample many of the quasars which Hartnett includes.
Originally posted by Templares
"The Schneider et. al study which has collates more data and is more up to date DISAGREES with Bell and Mc Diarmid and UPHOLDS Tang and Zhang's study.
The same "selection effects" that Bell and McDiarmid dismissed turned out to be the big reason for the supposed redshift quantization they found in their study. Maybe the fact that Bell and McDiarmid are using their study to prove their pet theory (decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model) introduced BIAS in their analysis and clouded their judgements."
>>Or maybe they just didn't bother to actually analyze the entire SDSS data release. As Hartnett says:
"I obtained 80,398 quasar data from the SDSS BestDR6 database (Adelman-McCarthy et al 2007) available at sdss.org/astro/en/.....
The DR6 data used here were not filtered as was the DR5 quasar catalog, described in Schneider et al. (2007) , found at
www.sdss.org/dr6/products/value_added/qsocat_dr5.html.
In that case the DR5 catalog quasars were chosen from those that have apparent i-band PSF magnitudes fainter than 15, absolute i-band magnitudes brighter than -22, contain at least one emission line or are unambiguously broad absorption line quasars, and have highly reliable redshifts. In the latter cosmological assumptions were required to obtain absolute magnitudes. For this analysis such assumptions were avoided. "