Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Hyperboles
I understand your claim, but it's wrong because you don't know how reference frames work, therefore you have no explanation why you think there is g aboard the ISS reference frame (or at a Lagrangian point), yet the water just floats there in the middle as if g was zero. If g was non-zero in the ISS reference frame, then you'd see that water blob move in the direction of g.

Lol screw the reference frames.
Earth is free falling about the sun and so does not feel the g of the sun, which is not zero.. Now go ahead and ponder on this and see if understanding finally dawns upon you on the other scenarios being discussed in connection with the pendulum.

a reply to: Hyperboles

OK, since this has gone on so long I'll bite. I see one of two possibilities: 1) You are serious and have dug your heals in and are unable to accept all the good teaching offered here by some real qualified scientists; or 2) you are merely a troll.

By now, I suspect 2 is far more likely, and I'm sure you've had great fun with it. Perhaps you wished to continue until someone called you out on it. If so, perhaps we can mercifully bring this to a close now.

a reply to: Hyperboles

Hyperboles, lets try something super shocking... since the other users here have been very patent and generous with their time trying to explain to you why you are wrong... how about you do us a favour and actually fully explain why you are right... in more than cryptic sentences and "go think about x"

you appear to know nothing of basic physics... like... zero... you don't understand pendulum and you certainly don't understand atomic clocks.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I've always thought the Shroedinger's Cat riddle was a little funny. Put a cat in a box. I can give you a definitive answer after about 3 months. The cat is definitely dead.

Shroedingers Cat is no longer considered to be a valid argument . Once you take into account that the cat itself is interacting with the universe then the duality of being alive or dead vanishes . The car itself knows whether it's dead or not whether a person looks in the box or not .

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

Hyperboles, lets try something super shocking... since the other users here have been very patent and generous with their time trying to explain to you why you are wrong... how about you do us a favour and actually fully explain why you are right... in more than cryptic sentences and "go think about x"

you appear to know nothing of basic physics... like... zero... you don't understand pendulum and you certainly don't understand atomic clocks.

So by your reasoning , I should go back to school, eh. Its hilarious and dlibert, there ain't no scientists on here as far as I can see.
Lol do some small homework for starters.

a reply to: Hyperboles

so you refuse to actually explain anything? as always

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

so you refuse to actually explain anything? as always

I have already explained. Humans will understand but AI cannot

originally posted by: delbertlarson
2) you are merely a troll.

By now, I suspect 2 is far more likely, and I'm sure you've had great fun with it.

Look up "Poe's Law" where a variant of that applies in this case I think. It also applies to flat earth discussions where some people know the earth isn't flat and are trolling when they say it's flat, but some people actually really believe the earth is flat, as hard as that is to comprehend.

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

so you refuse to actually explain anything? as always

I have already explained. Humans will understand but AI cannot

I understood your position perfectly:

originally posted by: Hyperboles
Lol screw the reference frames.
Earth is free falling about the sun and so does not feel the g of the sun, which is not zero.. Now go ahead and ponder on this and see if understanding finally dawns upon you on the other scenarios being discussed in connection with the pendulum.

Translated into physics terms, this tells me you don't take reference frames into account so you can't explain why g is zero to Einstein when he tries to drop a ball falling off the roof, yet an external observer standing on the ground can measure a non-zero g when he observes Einstein falling. To you its pick an observer in one reference frame, and pick g from another reference frame and claim anybody who thinks reference frames matter is an AI, gotcha.

Here's a question for you, if you think the reference frame in the ISS has a non-zero g in the direction of the sun, why don't observers inside the ISS see the water blob splash up against the side of the ISS toward the sun?

Oh wait, I already know your answer, "Lol screw the reference frames" so don't bother repeating that. As long as you "screw the reference frames" you'll never understand.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Whats the take on "Time" crystals ?

Time crystals, first identified in 2016, are different. Their atoms spin periodically, first in one direction and then in another, as a pulsating force is used to flip them. That's the "ticking." In addition, the ticking in a time crystal is locked at a particular frequency, even when the pulse flips are imperfect

Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol you have gone all topsy turrvvy. If you are falling towards the sun or the earth you will not FEEL the g , just as earth does not feel the g when it falls towards the sun

What is time?

How does gravity work?

What is consciousness?

originally posted by: MetalThunder
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Whats the take on "Time" crystals ?

Time crystals, first identified in 2016, are different. Their atoms spin periodically, first in one direction and then in another, as a pulsating force is used to flip them. That's the "ticking." In addition, the ticking in a time crystal is locked at a particular frequency, even when the pulse flips are imperfect

Read more at: phys.org...

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance applications have been around for some time; you may have heard of them being used in the medical field. So when NMR is applied to something it's not unusual to get resonance, that's how the technology works, but what's unusual in this case is that the researchers think their observations can't be explained by existing theory, and they dangle the idea of possibly "new physics" to explain it. I can't rule that out of course, but I see this "new physics" idea bandied about for numerous phenomena where eventually it's found that no new physics was really needed, just a better understanding of how to apply existing models in some cases. One example that comes to mind is the "Pioneer anomaly" which some people tried to explain with new physics, but it turned out that it took an extremely detailed analysis with known physics to solve that problem.

Either way, we learn something in the process so that makes it interesting. Thanks for posting that.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol you have gone all topsy turrvvy. If you are falling towards the sun or the earth you will not FEEL the g

Right. Neither will the pendulum, right?

What about everything in our solar system orbiting our sun which is orbiting the milky way? It's all "falling" toward the center of the milky way in its orbit around the center, which is why you don't feel nor can you measure the acceleration toward the center of the milky way while aboard the International Space Station either, right?

originally posted by: toysforadults
What is time?

How does gravity work?

What is consciousness?

For each of those questions, you can get the short answer in a dictionary, and the long answer by reading a book. After you have done both of those, if there is something that's not clear to you then you can ask a more specific question for clarification. I would suggest however that the book you read about consciousness is something scientific and not in the woo category.

If you want to watch a youtube video about the physics of consciousness, I can recommend one I watched recently of an interview with physicist Sean Carroll, where I must admit I find Carroll's arguments compelling and they coincide with my own thoughts. The interviewer and a minority of physicists have some to me wacky and unjustifiable ideas about consciousness. I would like to think the majority of physicists have a more rational view similar to Sean Carroll's perspective.



My favorite quote from Carroll in this video: " 'Some physicists...' is not a very good beginning to almost any sentence". That's in response to the interviewer referring to some fringe ideas that a minority pf physicists have. That's true. I've heard some say something to the effect that since we can't fully explain consciousness maybe we should entertain the idea that consciousness is inherent in everything, even rocks. I don't know if that's the dumbest idea I ever heard but it's definitely near the top of the list if not at the top, though hyperboles' "pendulum debunks relativity" claim gives it some stiff competition.

Sean Carroll mentions the fluid properties of the atmosphere as an emergent phenomenon, and another emergent phenomenon mentioned by Nima Arkani Hamed that physicists can't explain is the pattern seen when smoke billows up from a cigarette, example seen here. It's not possible so far to model exactly what the smoke will do according to Hamed:


Just because we can't model this emergent phenomenon yet, is no reason to invoke woo to explain it. I fully expect that we already know all the applicable physics, it's just that nature is complicated and figuring out how to apply those models to emergent phenomena can be non-trivial. Some people who wouldn't invoke woo to explain the emergent phenomena of cigarette smoke patterns seem to want to invoke woo to explain consciousness which seems like another emergent phenomenon to me, and to Sean Carroll, and I suspect to a lot of physicists, but maybe not the fringe physicists who think rocks might have consciousness.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the point of suspension is free falling, it no longer a pendulum.
We are not using the pendulum to measure g at all, btw

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Woo" and "fringe" are pejorative terms that fall into the category of ridicule, which is a fallacy of reason.

They are used by people to shut up others who challenge the status quo.

Not helpful.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the point of suspension is free falling, it no longer a pendulum.

So does this mean you now admit you were wrong before when you said a pendulum would work at a lagrangian point? Now you're changing your answer to "it no longer a pendulum"?

We are not using the pendulum to measure g at all, btw

NASA made this for schoolchildren to learn that pendulums can in fact be used to measure gravity (and many years ago they were in fact used for that very purpose before we had the more modern gravity sensors we use today. The first gravity variation measurements recorded using a pendulum date back to 1672):


spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Now what if the pendulum is attached to the ISS when it's operating its thrusters? If the period of the pendulum on Earth's surface is 2 seconds, it will be approximately 90 seconds if attached to the ISS during thruster firing (an estimate, I couldn't find exact figures and it varies depending on a number of factors like the amount of supplies on board which affects the mass, etc).

So the pendulum would operate at perhaps 45 times slower if attached to the accelerating ISS in this video than it would on the Earth's surface:



So are you going to claim that the pendulum period being 45 times as long means time is passing 45 times more slowly for an astronaut who grabs on to the accelerating space station and accelerates with it, compared to the passage of time on Earth's surface? Note they can live stream this and it doesn't take them 45 times as long to finish a sentence, even when they hold on to something inside the space station and accelerate with it.

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Woo" and "fringe" are pejorative terms that fall into the category of ridicule, which is a fallacy of reason.

They are used by people to shut up others who challenge the status quo.

Not helpful.

Delbert Larson is a physicist who is trying to challenge the status quo. Read my discussions with him here and on his thread "A Return to Absolute and Realist Physics". I've tried very hard to not ridicule any of his ideas even though they are clearly trying to challenge the mainstream, though I did point out why I felt the idea of negative mass was challenging and he said that he has concerns about that part of his theory himself and has been looking for alternatives. We have to be open to thinking outside the box by people who know what's in the box, and I've tried to offer him some feedback that I thought might be helpful. I have no objection to challenging the mainstream views as a general idea, in fact it's the way science advances by improving our theories to better explain experiments and observations.

In the above discussion of rocks having consciousness, your "not helpful" comment infers that I might want to be helpful in helping people understand why rocks are not conscious. In contrast to my trying to be helpful to Delbert Larson in giving feedback on his non-mainstream views, I would like to clarify that I don't see the point in trying to help someone see that rocks don't have consciousness, so to be clear I'm definitely not trying to help anybody who thinks that. I think there is something so drastically wrong with their cognitive process that there is no point in doing so. If someone is trying to defend the idea that rocks are conscious, I would say that appears to me to be a bigger fallacy of reason than anything I said about it, so if the shoe fits...

How does a planet generate a magnetosphere?

All i can find is what it does.

The only real clue for me is one word. Dynamo.

Which leaves me thinking that like earth. The planet would have to spin on it's own axis.

Are there any other ways? Orbit around it's sun, interactions from solar activity with planets iron core?

The reason i ask.

The Trappist star system has 7 planets. Orbiting an ultra cool red dwarf.

One of the planets has an iron core and thought that it may have a magnetosphere.

'What they determined was that the minimum core size of six of the TRAPPIST-1 planets was essentially zero. This means that their compositions could be explained without necessarily having an iron core – for instance, a pure silicate mantle could be all that’s there. But in the case of TRAPPIST-1e, they found that its core must comprise at least 50% of the planet by radius, and at most, 78%.

Compare this to Earth, where the solid inner core of iron and nickel and a liquid outer core of a molten iron-nickel alloy comprise 55% of the planet’s radius. Between the upper and lower limit of TRAPPIST-1e’s CRF, they concluded that it must have a dense core, one which is likely comparable to Earth. This finding could mean that of all the TRAPPIST-1 planets, e is the most “Earth-like” and likely to have a protective magnetosphere.'

from link www.universetoday.com...

But. They are also likely tidally locked.


Tidal locking
All seven planets are likely to be tidally locked (one side of each planet permanently facing the star),[38] making the development of life there "much more challenging".[14] A less likely possibility is that some may be trapped in a higher-order spin–orbit resonance.[38] Tidally locked planets would typically have very large temperature differences between their permanently lit day sides and their permanently dark night sides, which could produce very strong winds circling the planets. The best places for life may be close to the mild twilight regions between the two sides, called the terminator line.

From link en.wikipedia.org...

Although i take it. It does say 'likely'.

I think they must have a good idea.

Could 1e be tidally locked. And, generate a magnetosphere?

Also. Is wiki safe to use as evidence?

originally posted by: LiberateEarth
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Woo" and "fringe" are pejorative terms that fall into the category of ridicule, which is a fallacy of reason.

They are used by people to shut up others who challenge the status quo.

Not helpful.

Much as Arbitrageur has already said...there is a very large difference between someone challenging to the status quo, and someone who is not (but believe they are).

You will find ridicule to be free flowing from those challengers who have little to stand on. Their ridicule comes in the manner in which they refuse to present actual arguments or challenges with logical reasoning and in many cases, lying about what the status quo actually is. This is the actual non-helpful part.

It is not helpful to present a challenge, that has zero basis in reality, not because the status quo wants to say what reality is or is not, but because often those challenges are ill thought through, objectively incorrect and observationally incorrect.

To think outside the box is important, but what is more important as has already been stated, some knowledge of what is inside the box is worth while.

Best example of woo, that i do not at all feel that such a label is problematic is the Electric Universe. I have never seen such self confidence placed in such little as is the Electric Universe proponents. No arguments or discussion they ever supply is in anyway useful, logical, or expressible in a manner mathematical or otherwise. They have conducted themselves in this manner, touring the fringe science conferences making money for speaking at events etc for many many years, and have yet to produce anything more than... "Gravity doesn't exist because I don't want it to... and I don't want it to in such a way that will fix all issues with everything in mainstream science" You know... without actually being
1) Correct about the actual issues that remain in mainstream science
2) What mainstream science models actually contain
3) Knowledgable in basic Electromagnetism
4) Knowledgable in basic physics.
5) Believing that they might have to prove anything using comparative mathematics and data...

So... not helpful? is it helpful to give more respect for someone who clearly hasn't a single clue what they are saying, simply because they are against the status quo? So they can build them an Ego? So they can spread ignorance and misinformation as though it is truth?

Oh wait... yeah... sorry forgot this is a conspiracy forum... my mistake lol


I guess by the same extension we should all be supportive of Hyperboles/Nochzwei/Angelic Resurrection/Savvy84 in his quest to prove General Relativity wrong by the use and misunderstanding of
1) Pendulum
2) Candles
3) A large metal box with a Garfield sticker on that makes noise and gets hot when powered.

All because, to point his massive apparently lack of understanding of Forum terms and conditions... and... basic primary school science... is not helpful because its good he is against the status quo.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Negative the g is applicable and pendulum does not stop at that value of g, pertaining to the lagrangian points. you are not using your common sense.
But the again, AIs lack common sense. Look at / read my illustration / example again.
Admit defeat and accept that, the pendulum refutes relativity.
accelerating with thrusters aboard iss, Lol the point of suspension is still free falling. you are now grabbing at straws to keep you afloat.
Nice tries nonetheless

a reply to: ErosA433
The complaint that "Woo", "fringe", and "pseudoscience" are perjorative terms with negative connotations as implying that somehow they shouldn't be used strikes me as odd. In your electric universe example, it's fairly easy to show some of the claims are demonstrably wrong in that they contradict observation. Does it have any less negative connotations to say it's completely wrong?

Einstein complained about the educational system not allowing people to think outside the box.
Now we have a different problem with the educational system, people trying to think outside the box without knowing where the box is and what's inside the box. A lot of students seem to have been trained to think they are special snowflakes whose opinion is as good as anyone else's, even if they lack the knowledge of the subject that the experts have. The problem with this is that if they actually had the same knowledge as experts then they would already be aware of experiments conducted years ago which prove their ideas wrong.

If a student wants their opinion to be treated on an equal basis with the experts, at the very least they need to learn the basis upon which the expert opinion was formed. I see too many people trying to leave out this step, and it also creates problems for folks like Delbert Larson who hasn't skipped that step and there's a temptation by some to lump him onto the same category as the folks who haven't done their homework. Even Larson has admitted most relativity deniers don't know what they're talking about, and I don't think he likes getting unfairly lumped together with them.

There's another thing to keep in mind too, even for people who have done their homework. Let's say 10 different scientists challenge the mainstream model, with their 10 different and contradictory models. Even if the mainstream model is wrong, how do we know which of those 10 alternatives is right? Or maybe none of them have the real solution. I actually agree with many of Delbert Larson's criticisms of mainstream models and the criticisms are in some cases not denied or not denied very strongly. But getting from the criticism to showing what instead is right is the hard part which takes evidence supported by observation and experiment, something Delbert Larson understands which the electric universe folks don't seem to understand. Or maybe they know they are selling pseudoscience and don't care as long as they have a gullible enough audience to pay for the books and videos and conferences.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
Could 1e be tidally locked. And, generate a magnetosphere?

It's a good question and I can see why you'd ask. The intuitive answer might be "maybe not" but someone who researched this says that's wrong:

exoplanets.nasa.gov...

Barnes said there has been a general feeling in the astronomical community that tidally locked planets are unlikely to have protective magnetic fields “and therefore are completely at the mercy of their star.” This research suggests that assumption is false.

Far from being harmful to a planet’s magnetic field, tidal heating can actually help it along — and in doing so also help the chance for habitability.

This is because of the somewhat counterintuitive fact that the more tidal heating a planetary mantle experiences, the better it is at dissipating its heat, thereby cooling the core, which in turn helps create the magnetic field.

Barnes said that in computer simulations they were able to generate magnetic fields for the lifetimes of these planets, in most cases. “I was excited to see that tidal heating can actually save a planet in the sense that it allows cooling of the core. That’s the dominant way to form magnetic fields.”

He may be right that tidally locked planets can have good magnetic fields, but he may not be right or maybe I don't understand his comment about cooling the core being a dominant way that planets form magnetic fields. This researcher claims that generating heat in the core may be the dominant way of forming the magnetic fields, at least in our solar system:

Nature of Planetary Matter and Magnetic Field Generation in the Solar System
I'm not sure that the author of that paper is right either, and I get the idea that we understand some aspects of the process of magnetic field generation but it may not be well understood because a lot of our understanding is based on modeling and simulations and I'm not sure how good our models are. For example, do we have a model that can duplicate the Earth's magnetic field reversals at such irregular intervals? I'm not sure, but I doubt it.

Also. Is wiki safe to use as evidence?

Wikipedia is a good place to start because you can go to the sources it provides which tend to be more reliable. The wikipedia article itself can have problems. A common one is when the statement in the wiki article is only peripherally supported by the cited source, as when you read the source cited and it mentions the same topic but what it actually says is substantially different than how the wiki article represented it. Then in the case of topics that are not well understood you even have peer reviewed papers with different conclusions and findings so if you're not working in that field, it can be difficult to sort through the inconsistencies.

originally posted by: Hyperboles
accelerating with thrusters aboard iss, Lol the point of suspension is still free falling. you are now grabbing at straws to keep you afloat.

"accelerating with thrusters aboard iss"
"free falling"

I guess Delbert Larson may have been right after all, you must be trolling. Nobody could think that "thrusters operating" is "free fall", where the "free" by definition means no thrusters or other forces acting on the free falling object.

"In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it."

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I've got a bit of an update, but first, thanks for the supportive comments. Also a couple of replies:

Larson has admitted most relativity deniers don't know what they're talking about, and I don't think he likes getting unfairly lumped together with them.

Yes. The vast majority of relativity deniers really don't know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, serious scientists often therefore take the short cut of ignoring and summarily dismissing any and all criticisms of relativity - but there are some good criticisms. That is where the damage is done by the cranks - they create so much noise that scientifically valid arguments get rejected before they are even considered. What should be done is that each criticism should be evaluated up to the point where there is: 1) a logical or math error or 2) disagreement with experiment or 3) failure to make experimental prediction. Usually one of these problems shows up in a crank work pretty quickly, so it doesn't take too much time to separate out the quality from the crank.

Let's say 10 different scientists challenge the mainstream model, with their 10 different and contradictory models. Even if the mainstream model is wrong, how do we know which of those 10 alternatives is right? ... evidence supported by observation and experiment

Well said. Experiment must be king.

Now the update: In my aether model, there are two components, one positive, one negative. The vector P (N) describes the displacement of a small piece of positive (negative) aether from its equilibrium position. In the derivation of Maxwell's equations, it turns out that -grad phi is identified as being proportional to P_L - N_L where P_L (N_L) is the longitudinal component of P (N). With negative mass for one component, the vector potential A is identified as being proportional to the transverse component of P, P_T, and also N_T = P_T.

There are two reasons I assign negative mass to N. First, in deriving Maxwell there is a term rho_0(dN_T/dt - dP_T/dt) that comes from the flow force of attached negative aether moving through attached positive aether. If we have negative mass, the equation of motion for N_T and P_T are identical, which leads to N_T = P_T and then rho_0(dN_T/dt - dP_T/dt) vanishes, as is needed for the derivation. I realized a while ago that rho_0(dN_T/dt - dP_T/dt) can also vanish if we assume that negative attached aether has no drag force as it moves through attached positive aether, and only detached aether has a drag force against the attached aether. This would imply something akin to a superconductivity state change between the two types of flow, which is plausible. (Attached and detached flow through the attached aether are the two types of flow. They might have different force laws.) So we are allowed to have positive mass if the attached positive aether can freely flow through the attached negative aether.

The second reason for negative mass had to do with a solenoidal magnetic field. If we have positive mass for both components, then instead of A = kP_T = kN_T the vector potential becomes A = k(P_T - N_T). (Here k is the constant of proportionality.) Hence, in this case, in a solenoidal field if P_T is an offset in the clockwise direction, then N_T will be an equal magnitude offset in the counterclockwise direction - there will be a separation between the two components. Now, -grad phi = K(P_L - N_L) (with K being the constant of proportionality) and that leads us to the electric field. And a stationary charge in an electric field will experience a force of acceleration. So the force of acceleration appeared to come from the separation. However, there is no acceleration of a stationary charge in a static solenoidal magnetic field. If we have negative mass, then there is no separation between P and N in a solenoidal magnetic field and all is well. But if we have positive mass, then there is a separation and for a long time I did not see how to get around this. I could have proposed a law that the attachment force between the two types of aether was zero for transverse separations, but that did not seem physically sound. Longitudinal separation led to a force, so why wouldn't a transverse one? It was not impossible, but it certainly seemed wrong.

Just last week I realized however that the force due to -grad phi = K(P_L - N_L) arises from an energy evaluation. If you have a charge, some of the electric field lines end on the charge. So in an electric field there is more energy on one side of the charge than the other. (The electric field line that ends on the charge is only on one side of the charge.) A small displacement of the charge immersed in an electric field will lead to a change in energy, which is the condition for a force. But for magnetic fields the situation is different. The vector potential in a solenoid has azimuthal symmetry, so the energy associated with it is the same on both sides of any charge, and there will be no force. So we are allowed to have positive mass, since it isn't just separation of P and N that leads to force, but rather it is the energy associated with charges immersed in such separations.

The flow force laws state that detached aether (charge) flowing through positive attached aether has a force on the attached positive aether in the direction of motion of the charge, and that the same charge flowing through negative attached aether generates an equal and opposite force on the negative attached aether. With negative mass, A = kP_T = kN_T and that means zero force from dA/dt, since each component cancels the other. But with positive mass A = k(P_T - N_T), and then the flow force laws lead directly to a force proportional to dA/dt, which is the third term in the Lorentz force law. I had earlier derived the first term of the Lorentz force law that relates to grad phi. I have two of three dimensions derived for the second term, and presently am struggling on the last dimension. If I get that, then the Lorentz force law will also be derived.

Hence, I am coming around to a positive mass for both aether components. I never liked negative mass. Two problems remain though, as we will now have an additional term in the Maxwell derivation, and there should be a dgradphi/dt term in the force law. I believe each of these may be second order small, but I will need to think that through. Neither of these things appear if negative mass is used, but with negative mass there are problems with getting the dA/dt term in the Lorentz force equation as well as the whole issue of what a negative mass would mean.

So that's the update. By the way, I did send that physical letter in a stamped envelope to Nima Arkani-hamed on a Monday almost two weeks ago. I have not heard back.