Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Paul · Feb 8, 2011

MRC_Hans said:
There can be local gradients, due to surrounding masses, but as long as we don't KNOW what it ACTUALLY is, you can't just insert any convinient value.

This is one of the things that makes doing anything without precise data so difficult.

While everyone agrees on a standard value, the local variations are quite large and certainly not possible to estimate without very in-depth local knowledge.

What surprised me was the location of the absolute gravity sites. I had expected them to be outside and away from any obvious sources of interference, but Vestvolden is in an old military building and the university site appears to be in the Niels Bohr Institute.

Reality Check · Feb 8, 2011

Bjarne said:
I have it all black on with, or to be exact blue on white, - from DTU in a email from yesterday. But i guess you will accuse me for that this also is lie.
Furthermore you can read here http://www.science27.com/forum/FAG.pdf

Read it and there is nothing about the free air gradient (FAG) in the PDF. In fact the paper is about what we have been telling you - the measurement of baseline garvity to which the FAG can be applied to get the free air ADG above the ground.

The measurements you are obsessing about are that of g at a specific height (generally 1.2 meters). This of course varies according to the local conditions.

I think that you are just confused by the mention of a free-fall gravimeter.

What exactly does the email from the DTU state?

Bjarne · Feb 8, 2011

Reality Check said:
.

What exactly does the email from the DTU state?

--------------------------------------------------------
Se i artiklen den næstsidste kolonne i Tab 6 hvor kun
udendørsstationerne i Smidstrup og Suldrup har en værdi
over -300 microgal. Den mærklige enhed skyldes i øvrigt
at tyngdegradienten angives i microm/s^2/2, dvs
-3.20 microm/s^2/m=-320 microgal/m
--------------------------------------------------------
See the article on the penultimate column in Tab 6 in which only
outdoor stations of Smidstrup and Suldrup has a value
over -300 microgal. The strange unit is due to the gravity
gradient indicated as microM / s ^ 2 / 2, ie
-3.20 microM / s ^ 2 / m =- 320 microgal / m
--------------------------------------------------------
There is a mistake, he means Tab 5. The rest of the e-mail is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------

Even though the old thesis is correct and ADG not is stable, this is not decisive for the new theory.
The new theory can easy live with decreasing ADG towards a mass center.
I have only done this ADG measurement experiment because it seems that could be the only possibility to reach a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity.

I am sure many that have read pieces from thread has begun to think about, - what is space really and also how matter possible can affect space.

Is it possible to reach a better understanding as clumsy “curvature” expression, - or is that the end of the road ?

To my opinion is it the overall perspective and the possibility to see gravity from different angles that is the key that can open our eyes.
But if we ever can prove a better understanding as “curvature”, - is not sure.

For example look at the illustration below.

When you would measure ADG near the building, yes you would get minus, relative to what you would measure without the building.
BUT nothing pulls really the spring up. Instead you (the gravimeter) is moved into a "negative-space-vacuum" - Because of mass above (the building) “cancel outs ADG” near the the building.
This as well is a result of; - the space-stretch slope per distance is changing. "we say canceling out component wise" - (again a clumsy expression)

Exactly like for example mass attraction , - nobody know what that really is.
To understand this we must included an understanding how space can be a parts of that phenomena too.
It is only a question of how "stretches the space-density is" between two bodies.

There is only one thing that can connects plenty of all such phenomena's and this is a more flexible expression as "curvature"...

If we will deny this, we can build LHD's bigger and bigger and a lot more fantasy constructions the next 100.000 year, and not get on single step further when it comes to a better understanding of gravity.

The nature of space and how matter affect it held the key to both understanding gravity and a lot more.
Take it or leave it.

Reality Check · Feb 8, 2011

Bjarne said:
--------------------------------------------------------
See the article on the penultimate column in Tab 6 in which only
outdoor stations of Smidstrup and Suldrup has a value
over -300 microgal. The strange unit is due to the gravity
gradient indicated as microM / s ^ 2 / 2, ie
-3.20 microM / s ^ 2 / m =- 320 microgal / m
--------------------------------------------------------
There is a mistake, he means Tab 5. The rest of the e-mail is irrelevant.
--------------------------------------------------------

Thanks.

So the penultimate column is a measurement of the FAG and for Domus Vista we can use FAG = 245 microgal / m.

Bjarne said:
Even though the old thesis is correct and ADG not is stable, this is not decisive for the new theory.
The new theory can easy live with decreasing ADG towards a mass center.

Wrong: The "new thesis" is that the ADG is constant. Your own data shows that the ADG is not.
The measurements in Domus Vista show that the ADG due to the building varies: Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

Paul · Feb 9, 2011

Reality Check said:
So the penultimate column is a measurement of the FAG and for Domus Vista we can use FAG = 245 microgal / m.

I think the data and the locations of the measurement sites show that we can't use 245 as the FAG for Domus Vista. Indeed, the report itself only refers to the "observed gravity difference" which is required "for the reduction of the absolute gravity value to the ground floor mark"

-245 µGal/m is valid for 1 metre (probably)inside the Neils Bohr Institute, the old army building at the Vestvolden site shows -283 µGal/m and the old Budding site -258 µGal/m.

We don't have an actual free-air measurement for Copenhagen at all, so it still seems more than reasonable to use the accepted value of -308.6 µGal/m, which the Danish National Space Center specifically refer to as the free-air gradient in Technical report No. 6, 2006 on Gravity measurements in Denmark in 2005.

Unless I'm missing something obvious?

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

So the penultimate column is a measurement of the FAG and for Domus Vista we can use FAG = 245 microgal / m.

I am also surprised.
We don’t know the value by Domus Vista.
I have very hard to imagine it can be lower as 301,5 microgal / m.

Wrong: The "new thesis" is that the ADG is constant.
Your own data shows that the ADG is not.

No the basic thesis is: that matter contract / absorb / consume / twist space, - and that the property is the exact same as the expanding / stretching space.
Which mean that dark energy and gravity must be 2 sides of the same coin.

Mass Attraction
When 2 bodies both affect the same area between each other, then both bodies affects the same space.
Hence a stronger space vacuum (between these bodies) is a result,.
The space consumption between two (or several) bodies is the cause of mass attraction.

The cause of Acceleration Due to Gravity (ADG)
is the relative change in "density" of space per unit distance. Or (in other words) the relative level space is stretching per meter.

The idea that ADG is stable towards a bodies is not the basic thesis, but only a attempt to connect / explain the possible cause of Dark Matter and Black holes.

We know that the size/magnitude of black holes (in galaxies) are proportional with well known visible matter of a galaxy.
But we do not understand how stars thousand light years ways can affect a such centre.
Gravity is vacuumizing / absorbing space, and will create a gradually larger space/vacuum in the in the center of a mass also in the center of a extended mass (a galaxy)..

I am sure that inwards pull in space is the key to understand both black holes and dark matter, but exactly how that affects inner space isn’t proven / or explained .
If ADG acts like the prevailing thesis this predict, - fine, - then the only “problem” is that the new theory still not (completely ) have manage to explain the cause of dark matter and black hole, and nothing else.
This is not a catastrophe but rather a challenge.

I am sure that replacing the old old-fashioned narrow impression; curvature, is the only key to understand the nature of space better.

Understanding the nature of space better is the only key that can bring light to plenty of mysteries and huge unsolved problems.

But science is too matter fixated.
If particles really do not exist we just invent them, doesn’t matter the cost. (dark matter, highs, graviton and what will be next ? )

If we do not understand the nature of gravity for example that “it seems” to disappear over time we just invent new dimension where such gravity can disappear to.
And now parallel Universes have been invented as well.

My advice is , let’s get back to earth.
Let’s understand the nature of space.
I am sure that unification of space properties (dark energy, dark matter and the nature of gravity) is possible and the only solution.

It is certainly also possible to connect the cause of black holes and dark matter to this thesis..

Squeegee Beckenheim · Feb 9, 2011

So what you're saying is that your new new new theory is indistinguishable from the prevailing theory in terms of what it predicts and how it is mathematically demonstrated, but you just don't like the explanation offered by relativity?

Okay, three points. Firstly, how does your new theory explain things such as gravitational lensing, if gravity doesn't distort space?

Secondly, if your new theory is mathematically indistinguishable from relativity, then how are you going to test whether it's correct or not? How are you going to make predictions that relativity doesn't?

Finally, don't you think you owe a few people in this thread apologies for the number of times you've called them stupid, ignorant or liars for interpreting your data to show it agrees with relativity if you now yourself believe that it agrees with relativity, in mathematical terms? Turns out that they were right all along, and not stupid, ignorant or liars.

MRC_Hans · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
This is a saying; Thief believe everybody steel.....
And I believe liars believe everybody are liars. {/quote]

No, this is saying that I have already caught you lying several times.

(And frankly, I suspect something is not right in your head)

+ the density of the upper crust

Click to expand...

That too, but except for very strong anomalies, the effect on the FAG is small.

Bye Bye Hans, this is enough

Click to expand...

By all means. I have nothing on stake here, and your entertainment value has been steadily declining. ... It has been like hearing the same old jokes over and over, lately.

Anyway, I'm flying to Taiwan tonight, so I'll be offline for a while.

Hans

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

(And frankly, I suspect something is not right in your head)

It has been like hearing the same old jokes over and over, lately.

You mean like the (nuts) joke that dark matter is bombarding you head again and again. Penetrating you and even is inside you head.
THIS is science my friend.
I call it naive religion.
Once that joke was funny,- now when the majority take such for serious, - it only shows that cows head seems to be more sound.

Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true. by Niels Bohr. ..

But I think Neils Bohr did not imaging it could be SO crazy as the dark matter creeds....

Even though my ADG idea sound crazy, it can at no circumstances compare anyway with the prevailing total madness.

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

Firstly, how does your new theory explain things such as gravitational lensing, if gravity doesn't distort space?

I prefer answering that question with questions.
Have you ever seen that space is curving?
Can you imagine that it really curves?
I prefer the expression “the space density is stretching”
“Curvature” is too clumsy and narrow minded.
It it is a dead end for even trying to understand and see that phenomena in a holistic way, for exsample relative to the expanding property of space and a lot more.

Secondly, if your new theory is mathematically indistinguishable from relativity, then how are you going to test whether it's correct or not? How are you going to make predictions that relativity doesn't?

It agrees with both special and general relativity, but it does also extend general relativity, - because when time is stretching distances too are affected.
Much points to that fact, - for example the huge canyon on Mars, the cause of subduction, and the real cause of cosmological redshift, which in fact is only gravitionel redshift.

Finally, don't you think you owe a few people in this thread apologies for the number of times you've called them stupid, ignorant

You are a liar, since I never call people in this thread stupid.
When I say ; it is too stupid to believe that dark matter is matter, I did not say you is stupid...
But when a person claims: ""(And frankly, I suspect something is not right in your head)"" I believe we both agree that person is attacking me in a flatten way and personal.
Do you feel such dirt is all right SIR?
You see this is where - action = reactions come in, - so soon he does just a small mistake, for example when he believes water is lighter than air, and refuse that clouds are carrying water (rain) and therefore are heavier than the air around the clouds. .the hammer will fall.

Ignorant or liars

Who in this thread was the first to call someone liar or ignorant do you think?
If you believe in parallel universes plenty of dimensions hiigs and blab bla bla and tell it to stupid naïve people, do I then have the right to call you liar?
We are discussion Newton, - do you know the law; action = reaction.

for interpreting your data to show it agrees with relativity

What reality are you talking about ?

if you now yourself believe that it agrees with relativity, in mathematical terms? Turns out that they were right all along, and not stupid, ignorant or liars.

I think you should try to worry what is upside down in this thread, and who was the first to flatten who?

Reality Check · Feb 9, 2011

How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun

Bjarne said:
I prefer answering that question with questions.

Wrong - that is called

avoiding the question or
proving that your theory is useless

The question was:

Firstly, how does your new theory explain things such as gravitational lensing, if gravity doesn't distort space?

What is your answer?

And a question from me:
How does your new theory explain the d eflection of light by the Sun?

What values does it predict for the deflection of light by the Sun or is your theory totally useless?

This is the deflection that was first predicted by Newton's theory. Einstien predicted a deflection that was twice that of Newton and this has been measured and confirmed in several experiments.

Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

Paul · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
I prefer answering that question with questions.

Try answering it with an answer for a change. The unavoidable conclusion of continued refusal is that you are either unwilling or unable to do so.

Have you ever seen that space is curving?
Can you imagine that it really curves?

I'll put it this way:

"Einstein explained gravity as a result of the curvature of space-time near the presence of a mass. The differences between general relativity and Newton's law of gravity only become noticeable when the gravitational force is very strong.

Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the crowning intellectual achievements of the 20th century and led to such predictions as black holes, gravitational lenses, and the expanding universe. So far it has passed every experimental test with flying colors."Paul Heckert, PhD

I prefer the expression “the space density is stretching”

I prefer the phrase I am a theoretical puffin, but that doesn't help either.

“Curvature” is too clumsy and narrow minded

Poor stupid narrow-minded Einstein, I guess we'll just have to ignore everything he said and listen to you instead.

It it is a dead end for even trying to understand and see that phenomena in a holistic way, for exsample relative to the expanding property of space and a lot more.

Not understanding something has no bearing on it's validity, specially in your case.

It agrees with both special and general relativity, but it does also extend general relativity, - because when time is stretching distances too are affected.
Much points to that fact, - for example the huge canyon on Mars, the cause of subduction, and the real cause of cosmological redshift, which in fact is only gravitionel redshift.

I suppose you can actually demostrate all of that?

And by demostrate I mean actually show using science.

You are a liar, since I never call people in this thread stupid.

That is disingenuous in the extreme.

From the beginning you have been calling ideas, theories and even physics in general stupid. To claim that you haven't thereby impugned the intellect of anyone professing those ideas is, quite frankly, stupid.

Also, you said "he is stupid and he is wrong", "all he needed to do was just to replace that stupid emphty “bend” with; stretch."(about Einstein), "I too can make a looongggg list to and show people how stupid you is", "You know even a cow can blab la bal how stupid you are", "It is not because of Hans is stupid that he fires with such blank cartridges; the only problem is that the gunpowder is beginning to get wheat.", "Such a Stupid conclution", and of course this "I do not say everybody are stupid, - but only that there are too stupid many prejudiced and too stupid many reserved, and too stupid many authoritarian believers, and too stupid many lazy, and too stupid many orthodox believers, and too stupid too much brainwash, and too stupid too many inflexibilities, and too stupid too little Openness."

You see this is where - action = reactions come in, - so soon he does just a small mistake, for example when he believes water is lighter than air, and refuse that clouds are carrying water (rain) and therefore are heavier than the air around the clouds. .the hammer will fall.

I can't believe you're still trying this nonsense.

Who in this thread was the first to call someone liar or ignorant do you think?

As you seem so interested, I'll tell you. It was you.

On July 15^th you called Hans a liar twice in one post. Calling someone ignorant is neither here nor there, but you constantly lie about what you say and do.

If you believe in parallel universes plenty of dimensions hiigs and blab bla bla and tell it to stupid naïve people, do I then have the right to call you liar?

No. Holding an opinion different to youra is not lying.

We are discussion Newton, - do you know the law; action = reaction.

I thought you were re-writing GR.

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun?

The fact that it happens do not mean that space really bends / curves.
I mean nobody have seen curved space or have anyone do you think ?
Space around a object is not like railway tracks that curves.

So what really happens is in fact not “solved”.

I mean imaging you was a photon how you would experience space, or that spaces “bends” ?

It is fine we can put some kind of expression on that phenomena, but it is far from the big total TRUTH.

My view on that begins a difference place and this is by so called gravity valves.
What would happen when the Sun would disappear?

Notice in decade’s science has tried to detect gravity valves, it “should” be possible BUT it have never happen.

There are enough supernova explosions, so that is not the excuse.
Rather is seems that gravity valves not are and not acts as we believe.

I do not believe that the theory is wrong, but I am just starting with the question; what are really gravity valves?

What kind of “stuff” are these made of ?

The answer is that gravity valves are (off course) space density, - space stretching towards the star, as well as space density consumed / absorbed inside that star, - that is released....

When the star would suddenly disappear, that space would be released as a “valve” and I do also agree it will happen with the ‘speed’ “c”.

But we would not discover anything when a star far away would release all its contracted space (energy),- because space here would just expand a little faster. - Everything included the meter stick (close to that star) would just shrink proportional, because the space tension outside and inside matter would stretch less.

Space is today stretching/pulled towards the Sun, and absorbed inside the Sun.
When our Sun suddenly would disappear the Earth (that now is pulled towards the Sun via the elastic stretching space) would no longer “feel” that space tension towards the Sun.

Space would be released from the Sun and hence distances between the Sun and the planets would increase, (with he speed c) and the planet would no longer orbit, since the mass attraction (stretcheth space between the bodies would be gone)..

Distances to photons near the Sun would also increase. – All this is easy to understand / imaging.
It is almost the same as the well known bigbang but just smaller.

The change (release) of the Space tension would be the reason to that nothing, also not light, would orbit (or bend) the place where the star once were.

Imaging that I was eating half of the space between you and me, you would now be dragged towards me, because space was missing. When I would released that space you would move further always from me.

So in such perspective it is all easy to understand, what really happens. Space is simply missing and stretching.

But if you ask me how a photon can know that a star have consumes space, and there is “missing space” around it, - or if it can know sapce is stretching I cannot answer you.

As well as you cannot answer me how a photon can “see” or experience how space is curving / bending or whether this really is what happens.

We can easy put words and expression on space, but its real nature is far beyond the wildest imagination.

It is easy to understand that the space tension due to the Sun drags a planet, because the planet is connected with space.

But photons are in fact strange; these are not in the same way connected to space.

None of the theories can get very much closer to the reality of a photon. Furthermore photons do not know what time or distances really is, this will not make the reality of photons easier really to understand.

All what we can say, if space suddenly is released, both the photon and the planet would be “pushed” away from the star due to space release.

We are dealing with 2 very strange worlds, space is the one and photon the other. Which is the most mysterious do you think?

Try to think about what is light really , well it is naturally we know it we deal with it, we do a lot with it. BUT WHAT is it?

Space is exactly as strange as that.

Don't be imaginary; we have not even reached the food of a 2 mysterious mountains. Doesn’t matter how smart expression we can find, - reality cannot be comprehended by any..It is simply much bigger as words and expression. ..

Therefore don’t make that silly mistake to limit you to one persons random chose of expressions.

Paul · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
The fact that it happens do not mean that space really bends / curves...snip snippity snip snip

The only thing that comes to mind is that you should start taking your medication. Or stop taking the acid.

Reality Check · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
The fact that it happens do not mean that space really bends / curves.
I mean nobody have seen curved space or have anyone do you think ?
Space around a object is not like railway tracks that curves.

So what really happens is in fact not “solved”.

I mean imaging you was a photon how you would experience space, or that spaces “bends” ?

It is fine we can put some kind of expression on that phenomena, but it is far from the big total TRUTH.

My view on that begins a difference place and this is by so called gravity valves.
What would happen when the Sun would disappear?

Notice in decade’s science has tried to detect gravity valves, it “should” be possible BUT it have never happen.

There are enough supernova explosions, so that is not the excuse.
Rather is seems that gravity valves not are and not acts as we believe.

I do not believe that the theory is wrong, but I am just starting with the question; what are really gravity valves?

What kind of “stuff” are these made of ?

The answer is that gravity valves are (off course) space density, - space stretching towards the star, as well as space density consumed / absorbed inside that star, - that is released....

When the star would suddenly disappear, that space would be released as a “valve” and I do also agree it will happen with the ‘speed’ “c”.

But we would not discover anything when a star far away would release all its contracted space (energy),- because space here would just expand a little faster. - Everything included the meter stick (close to that star) would just shrink proportional, because the space tension outside and inside matter would stretch less.

Space is today stretching/pulled towards the Sun, and absorbed inside the Sun.
When our Sun suddenly would disappear the Earth (that now is pulled towards the Sun via the elastic stretching space) would no longer “feel” that space tension towards the Sun.

Space would be released from the Sun and hence distances between the Sun and the planets would increase, (with he speed c) and the planet would no longer orbit, since the mass attraction (stretcheth space between the bodies would be gone)..

Distances to photons near the Sun would also increase. – All this is easy to understand / imaging.
It is almost the same as the well known bigbang but just smaller.

The change (release) of the Space tension would be the reason to that nothing, also not light, would orbit (or bend) the place where the star once were.

Imaging that I was eating half of the space between you and me, you would now be dragged towards me, because space was missing. When I would released that space you would move further always from me.

So in such perspective it is all easy to understand, what really happens. Space is simply missing and stretching.

But if you ask me how a photon can know that a star have consumes space, and there is “missing space” around it, - or if it can know sapce is stretching I cannot answer you.

As well as you cannot answer me how a photon can “see” or experience how space is curving / bending or whether this really is what happens.

We can easy put words and expression on space, but its real nature is far beyond the wildest imagination.

It is easy to understand that the space tension due to the Sun drags a planet, because the planet is connected with space.

But photons are in fact strange; these are not in the same way connected to space.

None of the theories can get very much closer to the reality of a photon. Furthermore photons do not know what time or distances really is, this will not make the reality of photons easier really to understand.

All what we can say, if space suddenly is released, both the photon and the planet would be “pushed” away from the star due to space release.

We are dealing with 2 very strange worlds, space is the one and photon the other. Which is the most mysterious do you think?

Try to think about what is light really , well it is naturally we know it we deal with it, we do a lot with it. BUT WHAT is it?

Space is exactly as strange as that.

Don't be imaginary; we have not even reached the food of a 2 mysterious mountains. Doesn’t matter how smart expression we can find, - reality cannot be comprehended by any..It is simply much bigger as words and expression. ..

Therefore don’t make that silly mistake to limit you to one persons random chose of expressions.

A lot of gibberish so:
How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun?

Or is it totally useless: Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

steenkh · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
The fact that it happens do not mean that space really bends / curves.
I mean nobody have seen curved space or have anyone do you think ?
Space around a object is not like railway tracks that curves.

So what really happens is in fact not “solved”.

So you want to replace a theory that is well tested and can explain everything with a fantasy of your own that is not even able to explain something that was predicted by relativity?

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

So you want to replace a theory that is well tested and can explain everything with a fantasy of your own that is not even able to explain something that was predicted by relativity

There is no doubt that light bends near a star or that this is tested and proven
BUT try so hard you can to write me about 20 words about what that curvature of space really is, and how a photon get on that "track"
The truth is you have no idea even how to imaging that.
So what are you really blaming my theory for ?

Reality Check · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
There is no doubt that light bends near a star or that this is tested and proven

So: How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun?

Bjarne said:
BUT try so hard you can to write me about 20 words about what that curvature of space really is, and how a photon get on that "track"
The truth is you have no idea even how to imaging that.
So what are you really blaming my theory for ?

The curvature is space is really the curvature of space!
Photons just follow a geodesic (a "straight" line in curved space).

How to "imagine" it is explained in many places, e.g. the rubber sheet model.

What we are blamimg your theory for is its total inability to predict anything and the simple fact that it is debunked: Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

Bjarne · Feb 9, 2011

The curvature is space is really the curvature of space!

And a cow is really a cow.
But this does not explain how it is to be a cow.

Reality Check · Feb 9, 2011

Bjarne said:
And a cow is really a cow.
But this does not explain how it is to be a cow.

Curvature is a property of space. There is no "how" unless you are into religion or ignorance.

There is a mathematical how, i.e. the mathematics of general relativity.

So: How does your new theory explain the deflection of light by the Sun?
Bjarne's completely debunked "central gravity"

Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Share this page

ISF - Join now!