ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2017, 10:01 PM   #1201
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
It has some flaws I'll admit. I really have to nail the Goldich Dissolution Series, during water world stages of stellar evolution. I've been neglecting that. Oh and Marklund convection, that's essentially completely ignored in the literature. Its wild how two processes that are central to stellar evolution are ignored.

Nope, not "completely ignored in the literature."


http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/Fun...Streng06LS.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gold...JKOxd41lofz5M:

https://books.google.com/books?id=2d...Series&f=false


https://books.google.com/books?id=wt...ection&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=__...ection&f=false


The ignorance remains simply yours.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 10:31 PM   #1202
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
None of them did in this theory, the "solar system" is a system of independent objects. They are all in different stages to their own evolution, and were adopted by the Sun.

As well, the objects that orbit the intermediate aged stars, Jupiter and Saturn, were also adopted by Jupiter and Saturn. So in essence we live in a multiple star system, star system.

A facet to the worldview that is being replaced is that it is assumed the solar system is a singular body. It is not. It is composed of thousands of separate bodies.

Astronomers have an outdated worldview, that has been outdated since the 1920's. The Great Debate is centered on why this is the case. It was assumed that the observed disk nebulas in the sky were forming solar systems. When Hubble found out they were entire galaxies, some people forgot to change their worldview.

If the disks are actual galaxies, with billions of stars, and not forming solar systems, then why did they keep the idea that the solar system was formed from a disk? Habit. Literature. Repetition. Not only that, but it was accepted that the Earth and the Sun were around the same age. They're not anywhere near the same age. Not only that, but they didn't even form from the same cloud.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-than-the-sun/

Their problem is with isotopic abundances. They don't match. If the Earth formed from the same material as the Sun, they would match. They don't though. There's a higher concentration of O-16 in the Sun than on Earth.

That is overviewed in this paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1707.0205v1.pdf

I also miss-spelled isotopic. Ha. I have it as isotropic.
You also missed that your example does not work.

The article your reference actually asserts the deuterium abundance as a hold over form the nebular cloud. That's deuterium mind you, making heavy water. A result of heavy hydrogen not heavy oxygen.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:31 AM   #1203
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You also missed that your example does not work.

The article your reference actually asserts the deuterium abundance as a hold over form the nebular cloud. That's deuterium mind you, making heavy water. A result of heavy hydrogen not heavy oxygen.
https://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/...s/isotopes.htm

It is oxygen abundances too. Heavy hydrogen and heavy oxygen. The ratios are off, which means the Earth and the Sun did not form from the same cloud.

This is predicted by stellar metamorphosis, as Earth is the remains of a star vastly older than the Sun.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0107
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:33 AM   #1204
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You're not realizing what is happening here. I am explaining the differentiation process of the internal regions of a star as it differentiates itself internally, by applying the Goldich Dissolution Series to star evolution.

It is ignored in the literature in the sense that no astrophysics books, in all the universities on the Earth mention it. It is 100% ignored in 100% of the literature except my own.

Which brings us directly back to square one. We are dealing with the realization that geophysics IS astrophysics. Stars cool, die and evolve, differentiating their interiors becoming "planets". They were never mutually exclusive. Geology is the study of the Earth, and since Earth is an ancient star, the study of the Earth is astrophysical. The worldview of Earth being independent of the galaxy is an outdated one, it is only one of hundreds of billions. It is not special by any means, simply because we live here. I mean, it may be special to us, but there are hundreds of billions of them in all different stages of evolution, so its just another fish in the ocean.

It is especially wild because they say that planet formation cannot be witnessed, and if it can its in a disk. Which is horrendously outdated. The difference is that the differentiation process is internal, so that means we can only view the external properties and then infer and reverse engineer based on the Earth's and other much older star's characteristics.

Those little dots in the night sky aren't light bulbs, they are new, big, hot planets.

The theory is very, very large, and it needs lots more work done. Unfortunately it also makes many people upset because their worldview is being challenged. So the nasty behavior is expected really.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

Last edited by jeffreyw; 5th October 2017 at 07:54 AM. Reason: geophysics
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 08:55 AM   #1205
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

It is ignored in the literature in the sense that no astrophysics books, in all the universities on the Earth mention it.
You think there are rocks on the Sun?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:02 AM   #1206
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 295
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You think there are rocks on the Sun?
No, the star cools, dies and differentiates itself while losing mass over many billions of years, becoming a "planet". This means planet formation is stellar evolution. Or stated differently, stars have never been mutually exclusive objects of planets. They are the same objects, only in different stages to their evolution. The really old stars that have combined their elements into molecules (rocks) are called "planets". The really young, hot planets are still called "stars", and are mostly at the highest enthalpy, which is called plasma.

The really young stars like the Sun do not have rocks. They become differentiated worlds with giant iron/nickel cores with rocky layers as they evolve.

The problem for new folks that come here is this: Astronomers assumed the hot, big planets were something else. They called them "stars" because of the fact that they appear different.

So appearances have deceived them.

The truth is that young planets are really big, hot and bright.

They have separated the most massive, populous celestial objects in space into two distinct categories. When in fact, the categories were ad hoc.

Stars as we know them are simply hot, young planets, and planets as we know them are simply cool, old, highly evolved stars. They are conceptually the same objects.

If we want to see what young planets look like, all we have to do is look up on a clear dark night... or if you have welder's glasses you can see one during the day, given it is a cloudless afternoon.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

Last edited by jeffreyw; 5th October 2017 at 10:03 AM. Reason: added a sentence
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 10:54 AM   #1207
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,602
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No, [rest of irrelevant post snipped]
Which explains why Goldich Dissolution is "ignored" by astrophysicists.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 12:50 PM   #1208
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,308
Thumbs down jeffreyw: A delsuiuon the Sun and Earth did not form from the same cloud

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/...s/isotopes.htm

It is oxygen abundances too. Heavy hydrogen and heavy oxygen. The ratios are off, which means the Earth and the Sun did not form from the same cloud.

This is predicted by stellar metamorphosis, as Earth is the remains of a star vastly older than the Sun.
What Are Isotopes, and Why Should We Care?
Followed by:
6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A delusion that different isotope abundances between the Sun and Earth means that did not they form from the same cloud.
He links to the Genesis project where
Quote:
And Genesis scientists are hard at work determining the isotopic composition of the Sun to help solve the puzzle of how the planets began to form out of a cloud of gas and dust
The entire Solar System formed from the same cloud because it is physically impossible for the Sun to have collected the planets especially with asteroids and other objects after formation as we observe them.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that his delusions predict anything, including isotope abundances.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 01:20 PM   #1209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,308
Thumbs down jeffreyw: A inane delusion about weathering on the Earth's surface

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
You're not realizing what is happening here.
We do know what is happing here. You are digging deeper into a pit of ignorant delusions that high school science students know are wrong and stating complete delusions about irrelevant science.
6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A inane and abysmally ignorant delusion that weathering on the Earth's surface applies to the interiors of stars.

5 October 2017 jeffreyw: Idiocy that the Goldich dissolution series has something to do with his deluded stellar evolution.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: The delusion that astronomers are so stupid that they think that the interior of stars are the surface of the Earth!
Astrophysics ignores geology because stars are balls of plasma, not balls of rock .
Astrophysics specifically ignores the Goldich dissolution series because stars are not balls of rock surrounded by atmospheres with chemical weathering !
Next we will have the delusion that astrophysics it wrong because it ignores the equally irrelevant human immune system!

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: The ignorant delusion that "geophysics IS astrophysics" from stars becoming planets stupidity.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A lie abut the Earth being an ancient star (it is a planet younger than the Sun).

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A fantasy of a "worldview of Earth being independent of the galaxy".
Earth being a special place was discarded abut 400 years ago (Copernicus, etc.). That has been a fundamental postulate in science for centuries.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A lie that planet formation cannot be observed when we have observed it!
The truth is that planet formation does not happen on timescales that we can observe it from starts to finish in a single system. We have observed the stages of planet formation in systems with different ages from new stars pushing gas away from them to new planets clearing their orbits.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A "horrendously outdated" lie when the models of planet formation are up to date.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: Still thinks an idiotic and lying cartoon is valid scientific evidence.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: Thinks people pointing out that he has obviously ignorant, wrong and deluded ideas makes it "nasty".
We are not upset by yet another Internet crank spouting ignorant and deluded fantasies. Plenty of these ignorant people have popped up here. There is even a wiki listing then and here you are: Jeffrey Wolynski
Quote:
Jeffrey J. Wolynski (born 1984) is an obscure, scarcely known physics crank. Despite his exaggerated claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are other wannabe physicists, conspiracy theorists, UFO nuts, Nibiru believers, Electric Universe, and aetherometry proponents.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th October 2017 at 02:20 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 02:58 PM   #1210
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,308
Thumbs down jeffreyw: Repeats ignorant delusions about stars.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
No, ...
6 October 2017 jeffreyw: Repeats ignorant delusions about stars including being ignorant about his delusions !
He cannot understand that his delusion means that stars do not have rock and so geology is irrelevant until they become "planets" with rocks and geology! Thus it is idiotic to apply the physics of the chemical weathering of the surfaces of balls of rock to balls to plasma (stars).

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: Abysmal ignorance of plasma which is a not label for "highest enthalpy".
Plasma is a gas that has a physically significant proportion of ions.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: 2 lies that young planets are "really big, hot and bright".
Planets have a single size whether young or old, e.g. the Earth has been the same size for 4.6 billion years.
Planets only reflect light so their brightness depends mainly on their distance from their star.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: The usual lie that astronomers assume.
6 October 2017 jeffreyw: The idiocy that stars only "appear" different from planets - they are physically different, e.g. emit their own light.

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: A "They have separated the most massive, populous celestial objects in space into two distinct categories" lie.
Stars are the most massive (hundreds of thousands of time more massive than planets), populous celestial objects in space. They are separated into dozens of spectral types.
Planets are the light, may be slightly more populous than stars (Like the Caltech group, other teams of astronomers have estimated that there is roughly one planet per star) celestial objects in space. As for population: moons outnumber planets, asteroids outnumber planets, trillions of Oort cloud objects outnumber planets !

6 October 2017 jeffreyw: An abysmally ignorant lie that the difference between planets and stars is adhoc.
This is a planet. This is a star. They have definitions based on their physical properties, e.g. stars have fusion, planets do not.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:01 AM   #1211
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
https://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/...s/isotopes.htm

It is oxygen abundances too. Heavy hydrogen and heavy oxygen. The ratios are off, which means the Earth and the Sun did not form from the same cloud.
Nope, it doesn't. The very article you cited asserted that. Citing articles that actuality oppose your fundamental claims is either lazy, ignorant or both.


Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
This is predicted by stellar metamorphosis, as Earth is the remains of a star vastly older than the Sun.
Again, your own example doesn't even support what you claim '"is predicted by stellar metamorphosis" changes in abundance ratios according to weight.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 07:34 AM   #1212
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
You're not realizing what is happening here. I am explaining the differentiation process of the internal regions of a star as it differentiates itself internally, by applying the Goldich Dissolution Series to star evolution.
.

Nope, it,s just that "You,re not realizing what is happening here", your own cited article and your own example don't support your claims.

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
It is ignored in the literature in the sense that no astrophysics books, in all the universities on the Earth mention it. It is 100% ignored in 100% of the literature except my own.
As noted above even you ignore your own "literature". By all means please let us know when you can get your own citations and examples to agree with your own "literature".

Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post

Which brings us directly back to square one. We are dealing with the realization that geophysics IS astrophysics. Stars cool, die and evolve, differentiating their interiors becoming "planets". They were never mutually exclusive. Geology is the study of the Earth, and since Earth is an ancient star, the study of the Earth is astrophysical. The worldview of Earth being independent of the galaxy is an outdated one, it is only one of hundreds of billions. It is not special by any means, simply because we live here. I mean, it may be special to us, but there are hundreds of billions of them in all different stages of evolution, so its just another fish in the ocean.

It is especially wild because they say that planet formation cannot be witnessed, and if it can its in a disk. Which is horrendously outdated. The difference is that the differentiation process is internal, so that means we can only view the external properties and then infer and reverse engineer based on the Earth's and other much older star's characteristics.

Those little dots in the night sky aren't light bulbs, they are new, big, hot planets. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Fa-snj_YZ...s1600/snip.JPG

The theory is very, very large, and it needs lots more work done. Unfortunately it also makes many people upset because their worldview is being challenged. So the nasty behavior is expected really.

Why you expect yourself to be nasty or upset is of little concern. However, if you can't even be bothered to apply your own claims to your own citations and examples such that they fundamentally agree with rather than refute those claims. Then both "The theory", your own understanding of it and how you go about actually applying it, needs some serious work. That work relating to your understanding of it and how you go about actually applying it unfortunately, is work you must primarily do. People here are certainly willing and trying to help but it still remains up to you to accept and actually apply such help. Heck, as far as I'm concerned you can be as upset or nasty as you are able or please, if you just accept and actually apply the help being given.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 04:15 PM   #1213
jeffreyw
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL
Posts: 295
Edited by Agatha:  Do not discuss your ignore list. Doing so is a breach or rule 0, rule 11 and rule 12.
__________________
Planets are not formed from disks, that would be in violation of the conservation of angular momentum.

A "planet" is just an ancient star. They were never mutually exclusive.

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0107

Last edited by Agatha; 7th October 2017 at 05:58 AM.
jeffreyw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 10:29 PM   #1214
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,963
Yes, arguing and pointing out flaws is how science works. But then, you are not doing science.
You are preaching, and noone is good like preachers at ignoring actual well written opposition. Hence your liberal use of the ignore feature. Pretty soon everyone you see in this thread will agree with you, and they will all be called Jeffryw.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 07:53 AM   #1215
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Originally Posted by jeffreyw View Post
Edited by Agatha:  Do not discuss your ignore list. Doing so is a breach or rule 0, rule 11 and rule 12.

Asserting (evidently) expanded deliberate ignorance won't help you with the "lots more work" that you at least don't entirely ignore.

Bemoaning how people won't help you while (again evidently) ignoring those who do try to help you, apparently simply because you don't like the implications of that help, indicates it is primarily you who just won't help you.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 08:03 AM   #1216
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,531
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Asserting (evidently) expanded deliberate ignorance won't help you with the "lots more work" that you at least don't entirely ignore.

Bemoaning how people won't help you while (again evidently) ignoring those who do try to help you, apparently simply because you don't like the implications of that help, indicates it is primarily you who just won't help you.
Quoted for truth, and for the benefit of those wilfully ignoring it.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 11:19 AM   #1217
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 12,066
Thanks Pixel42.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 12:01 PM   #1218
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,055
In JW's universe, are there any old stars (planets) with young stars orbiting them. Say an Earth being orbited by the sun? If not, how do these old stars know to find a young star and slip into the ecliptic?
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2017, 01:23 PM   #1219
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,308
In JW's universe, stellar systems are sets of randomly collected objects (so the Solar System does not exist !) so some of them would be a planet orbited by a star. However that is the same as a star orbited by a planet - just a swap of reference frames.
The "slip into the ecliptic" magic is one real world fact that makes his idea into a delusion.
Add his delusion that rocky planets are older than gas giants and we have these random collected planets also magically sorting by age.
Add asteroids (and a delusion that they must be trillions of years old?), and they also magically slide between Mars and Jupiter.
Add Kuiper Belt objects (and a delusion that they must be tens of trillions of years old?).
Add Oort Cloud objects!
And what about dust?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.