Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 431  Next >
21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 11, 2022, 04:39:39 AM »
Your rebuttal is that they write about other things people are interested in, in other articles? I know you can come up with a better argument than that.  ::)

From the title of the article:



Why should people feel ashamed if it was always known that the vaccines wouldn't actually provide immunity?

There is a clear answer to this. It wasn't "always known". It simply didn't work. Hence the shame for believing one thing and experiencing another. Cope.

22
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:40:28 PM »
What an invalid argument. There may have been more about Trump if the expert had answered the way the host wanted him to answer. However, he did not. Obviously it's best to move on if the narrative is not going your way.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 08:33:38 PM »
Nonsense. It can take about 10 or 15 minutes for introductions and background on the work, before the real questions start. Obviously one of those questions was "is Trump an authoritarian like your book warned??", which backfired on them embarrassingly.

24
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:51:32 AM »
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Because the main point is that they are using them. The question of why it is in use compared to the statement that they are in use is a different line of inquiry entirely and does nothing to contradict it.

Quote from: stack
Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Right here:

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

  “ By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The spherical earth is based on "flat maps".

Quote from: stack
You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

Incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

  “ The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

It literally has the word "plane" in the name.  ::)

Quote
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Lower down in the above article we read that the State Plane Coordinate Systems are associated with the North American Datum of 1983:

  “ Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth). More recently there has been an effort to increase the accuracy of the NAD83 datum using technology that was not available in 1983. ”

The United States Government echoes the same association:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

  “ United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83 Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States. ”

These systems involve flat coordinate systems. There may be a backend element which uses an ellipsoid to connect to other systems for converting coordinates between geographic models, but the data is flat. Utah's page The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections says that the spherical models are getting data from the flat ones.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:35:31 AM »
I watched it again in the video above @15:36 where she still tries to get him to call Trump an authoritarian, and he still says that he is not, and still states that the politically correct crowd are the authoritarians.

26
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 09:10:32 AM »
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:



Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Quote
Phys.org

Science website phys.org says:

How scientists can learn what distinguishes science from pseudoscience (Archive)

  “ Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong. ”

Livescience

According to What is Science? (Archive) on livescience.com we read:

  “ When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory. ”

US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination (Archive) of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

  “ [I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. ”

27
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 10, 2022, 08:47:50 AM »
I said:

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

You replied:

The article quoted on [my own wiki which I wrote and everything] says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

And then literally in the same page you say:

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions

And quote this article, by someone you hold up as an authority. The article you quoted says:
the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

My emphasis. So you've started off by disagreeing with a point I made and then almost immediately quoted someone you hold as an authority who says pretty much the same as what I did ???

Actually he says that the stars appear as measurable disks in telescopes:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

Quote
You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The "true body of the star" is not the visible star that we see; but is something which is supposedly the "real star".

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And this issue, which is now well understood, does not apply to the sun and moon which are a lot closer than other celestial objects like other stars and galaxies. It's nothing to do with "celestial objects" being special in any way, it's an issue with diffraction of point light sources. So you still need to explain why the sun and moon don't vary in angular size throughout the day and night. You have some explanation on the Wiki, I've explained why it doesn't work.

You are assuming now that the Sun we see is the real sun as it appears to perspective. Considering that you lied to make an argument, by ignoring that there is a difference between the stars we see and their "true" forum, we can see how dishonest you are.

No, actually, you need to explain why the stars and galaxies are illusions but nothing else is in the sky.

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 10, 2022, 06:44:43 AM »
Washington Post is literally telling people how to cope.


29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 10, 2022, 01:10:51 AM »
Imagine going on a rant about the Twitter poster to try to cover up PBS's  fail.

31
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: January 07, 2022, 08:04:05 AM »
Prescription Shirt for the vax and booster junkies


32
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 07:19:03 AM »
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Quote from: stack
Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

Not according to your article, "Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable."

Actually your quote was not about plane surveying. The page I link chronicles how the maps are flat, plane surveying is flat, and that the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps.

Quote from: stack
You realize that "State Plane" maps refer to the United States only, hence the name. And you realize that GPS stands for Global Positioning System. And GPS is based on the WGS84 ellipsoid standard. I guess GPS only works in the US?

The State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS), which is only used in the United States, is a plane coordinate system (north-south and east-west lines are perpendicular) in which each individual state has between one to six zones, depending on the state's size and shape. This coordinate system’s high level of accuracy is achieved through the use of relatively small zones.

Other countries have their own mapping systems, and they are flat. Again, it's explained in the page I linked.

The point is that the supposedly "round" systems use flat systems for presenting data to users. Utah Geographic Reference Center wrote an article about it: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

The spherical models are getting data from flat datasets. When you claim that the systems are inaccurate because they are using flat data you are betraying your own proof of using these systems as evidence for a spherical model.

33
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 07:15:09 AM »
Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.
I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience page

Quote from: ichoosereality
Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.
Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.

34
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 07, 2022, 02:40:21 AM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.

Quote from: ichoosereality
The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.

35
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:25:56 PM »
I'm not sure how this, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong" in any way supports FE.

The key word there is "despite". Despite that it's wrong (allegedly), it's used.

Quote
Using State Plane maps, which are based on an ellipsoid

It's the other way around. The spherical coordinates are approximated from plane surveying - https://wiki.tfes.org/World_Geodetic_System_1984

36
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 07:34:11 PM »
Quote from: ichoosereality
So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

    You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

    This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The author is a professor of physics and astronomy:



Quote from: ichoosereality
The Scientific American article explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

This is not on the topic of the angular size of the stars. There is a different page for that - https://wiki.tfes.org/Stellar_Parallax

Your article is specific to State Plane Coordinates and Heights, that’s actually the title of the article. The entire lesson/article is about how to account for a spherical earth in regard to plane maps while surveying. I’m not sure why you picked this article. It’s all about a projections of a globe earth.

In the United States, State Plane systems based on the Transverse Mercator projection, an Oblique Mercator projection, and the Lambert Conic map projection, grid every state, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands into their own plane rectangular coordinate system…

State Plane Coordinates rely on an imaginary flat reference surface with Cartesian axes…

Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…

Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.


Actually your quote here implies that they use FE assumptions.

37
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 04:45:59 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644

    “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”

38
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 10:37:52 AM »
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."



By the measure of sunlight intensity we find that you are incorrect. It is approximated by a triangle - gradual.

Quote
Your explanation for the sun maintaining a consistent angular size and magnitude doesn't work for dim stars

An incorrect assumption. You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star. The diameter of the stars is explained to be an illusion by conventional science, and are not their actual size based on perspective. That's not even how it works in your model. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

The angular size of galaxies are also an illusion

39
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 08:13:22 AM »
Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pDOsAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA261&ots=Vyjd4uh4kf&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q&f=false

    "If we could see a star in the horizon, as easily as in the zenith, a half of the whole number, or 3,000, would be visible on any clear night. But stars near the horizon are seen through so great a thickness of atmosphere as greatly to obscure their light. and only the brightest ones can there be seen. As a result of this obscuration, it is not likely that more than 2,000 stars can ever be taken in at a single view by any ordinary eye."

40
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 06, 2022, 12:43:57 AM »
No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 431  Next >