Jump to content

Exist borders between Physic’s and Metaphysic’s issues?


dhimokritis

Recommended Posts

                Exist borders between Physic’s and Metaphysic’s issues?

 I suppose that this is a broader list of issues, as the studies of nature are in so many fields.

 I am interested only in the issue of  “particularity” of matter, and indeed in my last post question of why “electron and proton particles” are what they are, so stabile, and so different. As I remember I had “not any answer” on my post about this conundrum.

And always, when I have not any satisfactory answer, I scratch my pot of speculation, for finding “whatever kind of a speculative answer” to satisfy myself.

Here are my speculations:

In Nature must be two kinds of frequencies:

1----“ Electric frequency ” created by movement of two electric charges. I base it in the case of common mass particles (me, mp) because they have Compton wave -length, and indeed with this “Compton frequency”. In mass particles, electric charge, I suppose move toward each other in spherical trajectories, and in a exact radius.

I know that all this is out of main - stream in physics, but I beg some patience, until I display my hypothesis in classical manner. The Compton frequency in general is:

I--    Fxe. = c / ( 2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx ) = 3.436417376 * 10^5 * Rx Hz.

    Here  ‘x’ for whatever radius, and ‘e’ for frequency created by electric charge.               I say this because I suppose that exist another kind of frequency that “depends” by mass of this particle, or by me, that “determines” that mass. Now it is hard to swallow my hypothesis for a ‘sub particles” that posses “electric charge” ( don’t confound with electron particle “me”), and a “mass chargeM = MPl * α^0.5.  =  1.859389978 * 10^ - kg.m./m. and a radius R = LPl  * α^0.5 = 1.380543856 * 10 ^-36 m.

Electric charges, interacting with each other, create potential electric energy in relative static status toward each other, via:

E = e^2 / (4*pi*ε* Rc)  (coulomb)

Gravity charges, too, interacting with each other, create potential mass energy in relative static status toward each other, via:

E = G * M^2 / Rc   (Newton)  =  (R * c^2 / M) * M^2 / Rc = (M * R / Rc) * c^2 =

 = mc. * c^2 (Einstein )

(If you want “mass”, you must devised each kind of energy with c^2. You will have the same quantity mass. for the same Compton radius)

 Now let see the other kind of velocity: mass gravity velocity: ĉ

                      ĉ = ( G * mx / Rx ) ^ 0.5 m/sec = (G * M ) / ( c * Rx ) m./sec.

example: ĉ = ( G * me / Rec.) ^0.5 = 1.468720438 * 10^ -13 m /sec

                ĉ = ( G * M ) / ( c * Rec. ) =1.468720486*10^-13 m/sec

                ĉ = ( R * C^2 / M ) * M / (c * Rec. ) = c * ( R / Rec) =1.468720488*10^-13

Velocity  ĉ “ is not a constant, like velocity “c”, it depends by report  (R / Rx) and change in a big diapason, from 1.188679435 8 * 10^-33 m/sec and ending in “ c “ velocity in Planck area.

If we admits that exist this kind of velocity, then must exist too a frequency the same way as electric frequency:

           II – fxM.  =  ĉ / (2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx) =  c * ( R / Rx) / (2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx) =

           =(c * R / ( 2 * pi * α^-1 ) / Rx^2 = 4.8068035 * 10^-31 / Rx^2

As is evident from above formula, fxM.  is proportional with Rx^2. different from electric fxc, which is proportional only with Rx

 

             fxM.  = 1  for Rx = 6.933111495* 10 ^ -16 m.

This conclusion is very important, to see that above radius is between the radius of electron (2.8179401*10*-15m and radius of proton ( 1.534698256*10^ -18 m.) . This means that mass gravity frequency determine area of “me” and “mp” in broader span of possible radiuses from 385 km. to 1.36*10^-36 m.

Now about my post : Exist any limit between Physic’s and metaphysic’s phenomena.

I think that physic’s phenomena in the structure of basic elementary particles, are bordered between:

a)     frequency  1” Hz. because radius of a hypothetic particle can’t be more than 349 km that is les 1 Hz. and wave length more than 299792458 m.

b)     more than frequency 2.522063132*10^41 Hz  which is the same for electric velocity “c” and mass gravity “ĉ” . This happen only  for Rc = R  when ĉ became equal “c”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

                Exist borders between Physic’s and Metaphysic’s issues?

 I suppose that this is a broader list of issues, as the studies of nature are in so many fields.

 I am interested only in the issue of  “particularity” of matter, and indeed in my last post question of why “electron and proton particles” are what they are, so stabile, and so different. As I remember I had “not any answer” on my post about this conundrum.

And always, when I have not any satisfactory answer, I scratch my pot of speculation, for finding “whatever kind of a speculative answer” to satisfy myself.

Here are my speculations:

In Nature must be two kinds of frequencies:

1----“ Electric frequency ” created by movement of two electric charges. I base it in the case of common mass particles (me, mp) because they have Compton wave -length, and indeed with this “Compton frequency”. In mass particles, electric charge, I suppose move toward each other in spherical trajectories, and in a exact radius.

I know that all this is out of main - stream in physics, but I beg some patience, until I display my hypothesis in classical manner. The Compton frequency in general is:

I--    Fxe. = c / ( 2 * pi * α^-1 * Rx ) = 3.436417376 * 10^5 * Rx Hz.

    Here  ‘x’ for whatever radius, and ‘e’ for frequency created by electric charge.  

You should be able to derive this. The electrostatic interaction and centripetal acceleration are pretty straightforward.  

It looks to me like you are multiplying terms together just for the hell of it, but without any underlying justification. Like using the Compton wavelength, just because.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, swansont said:

You should be able to derive this. The electrostatic interaction and centripetal acceleration are pretty straightforward.  

It looks to me like you are multiplying terms together just for the hell of it, but without any underlying justification. Like using the Compton wavelength, just because.

I see my lapse in typing.

The formula is about “electric frequency”, of two sub - particles, that are moving in spherical movement toward each other, in “X” segment of space “Rx” between them. It depends from this “main” factor (segment of space) in inverse manner.

Example:  fx = [C/ (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx is:

1)    For radius = wave length 3.481818762 *10^5m = f1 = 1 Hz.

2)    for radius =1m, frequency is 3.481818762 *10^5 Hz.

3)    for electron radius Re,    fe = 1.23559006*10^21Hz.

4)    For [Planck Radius * α^-0.5],  fpl. = 2.522063132*10^41 Hz.

It seems to me, that this dependence is going in logarithmic manner.
The sub-particle, i make hypothesis, is without inertia when it is alone, there are a par (two) charges “e” and “M” (in one “mater sub- particle”) that has dimension = Rplanck.

The electrostatic and centripetal interactions, between two sub-particles, are in equilibrium when the signs of charges “e” and ”M” began to act and movement is taking form in curved – line. This is explained by:

   F = (e*e / 4*pi*ε) / Rx^2 = (G * M^2) / Rx^2

The question is why, for only electron and proton particles, this equilibrium is “firm” for- ever?

This post is a tentative approach, introducing three ideas about mass of common particles “me” and “mp”.

1)     Speculation that “M” = Mpl. * α^-0.5 is considered a charge of mass creation.

2)     Speculation that in a common stabile particle exist a kind of velocity that depends by radius via:  ĉ = ( G * M ) / Rx = ( c * R / Rx) m/sec which is variable in a big span, from ĉ = 1.2*10^-31 m/sec till 299792458 m/sec.

3)     Speculation, if admit this kind of velocity we can have a kind of mass frequency analogue with electron charge frequency:

  fM = [ĉ / (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx. = [( c * R / Rx) / (2*pi* α^-1)] / Rx. Which as we see is inverse proportional with Rx ^ 2 instead of electric frequency which depends only by Rx.

I find that the "mass frequency" became equal 1 unity, for radius equal

 Rc = 3.933*10^-16 m which is near frequencies of stable particles “me”, “mp”.

and i think narrow the area of search.

 

 

 

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a derivation. You've presented an equation out of thin air. Where does it come from? What is the interaction? 

Two objects in orbit is standard physics. You need to reconcile that with what you've posted. Before you move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't see a derivation. You've presented an equation out of thin air. Where does it come from? What is the interaction? 

Two objects in orbit is standard physics. You need to reconcile that with what you've posted. Before you move on.

I think that you don’t approve known formulas only because they do not contain factor time, result of which is T = period of time (“segment” of time ?).

 The given formula use space instead. The result of it, is direct “inverse synonym” --- “frequency”.

To easy calculations, the lay man use logarithmic conversion of formulas:

Using Ln2 = Ln X / Ln2 then :

 Ln2 (fx ) = ln 2 (C / (2*pi* α^-1) – Ln2 X     here (Rx = 2^X) as a variable.

This method squishes span of frequencies in a linear logarithmic numerical row from 0 --- for fe1 = 1Hz till---- 137.5336563 for fPl. = 2.522063132 * 10^41 Hz.

( I am a little sad that it is not 137. 036.)

This method I use for all kind of formulas, and with it I ease calculations, transforming those in simple arithmetic. For example:

In ixis and ypsilon logarithmic coordinates I find: 137.5336563 / 2 = 68.76682814 equal ln2 of fe = 5.0220124668^10^20 Hz. that is the electric frequency where gravity - mass frequency is  fM = 1 and Ln2 (fM) = 0.

Now about derivation from where formula for electric frequency come:

fex = (c / (2*pi* α^-1)) / Rx

 In this formula you contests ( I suppose) part (2*pi* α^-1). Or c / Rx, which you think is wrong?

 The main stream insists fx = 1 / dt  

 but dt = d(Rx) / c,  hence:

 fx = c / d(Rx) .

Truly I am disappointed why you contests, my formula of frequency (which is precise with Compton wave length) for simple elementary particles.

So let move on for mass – gravity frequency fM, where I think and suppose, must be contested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/07/2018 at 6:55 PM, dhimokritis said:

As I remember I had “not any answer” on my post about this conundrum.

You had plenty of answers. You just chose to ignore them and carry on making stuff up. 

On 26/07/2018 at 6:55 PM, dhimokritis said:

And always, when I have not any satisfactory answer, I scratch my pot of speculation, for finding “whatever kind of a speculative answer” to satisfy myself.

You may satisfy yourself (which is why this activity is sometimes called “mental masturbation”. 

On 26/07/2018 at 6:55 PM, dhimokritis said:

Exist borders between Physic’s and Metaphysic’s issues?

What does this have to do with metaphysics? It seems to be just (error filled) physics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Strange said:

You had plenty of answers. You just chose to ignore them and carry on making stuff up. 

You may satisfy yourself (which is why this activity is sometimes called “mental masturbation”. 

What does this have to do with metaphysics? It seems to be just (error filled) physics. 

Answer for Swanson:

 Electric frequency     fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e ^ - ln (x )

Gravity frequency       fMx = (  c * R / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e^ - ln (x^2)

For Strange :

1=--- I don’t remember your answer. So please tell me why “me” and “mp” are so long-live particles. And please without dodge answers.

2 --- I have seen a statue of Einstein in lying position in pensive mood and and very sad for not achieving another of his big aim.

         I have seen a picture of Richard Feynman in lying position too very relaxed, pleased and smiling---sure after hard mind working achieving something.

          I don’t know what kind of sensations you have after mind working.

3 ---   Sure you know very well what divide physics from meta physics, and how it has to do with “me” and “mp” .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that you can generally connect metaphysics with physics. Physics is derived from a mathematical representation and metaphysics is more of a philosophical interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 12:05 PM, ALine said:

I am not sure that you can generally connect metaphysics with physics. Physics is derived from a mathematical representation and metaphysics is more of a philosophical interpretation.

Alison.

For this I am asking physicists of the forum, “ exists any border in Physic’s issues that they “ jump over “ in their calculations, and with this Physic’s sciences became philosophic issue, and every body may interpret by he/her wish.

In fact I am interested about particles with live-time stabile, what make them so different, and about their hypothetic structure, which I think speak something about some hypothetic borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dhimokritis said:

For this I am asking physicists of the forum, “ exists any border in Physic’s issues that they “ jump over “ in their calculations, and with this Physic’s sciences became philosophic issue, and every body may interpret by he/her wish.

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else.

But note that it is not science any more.

And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/30/2018 at 12:23 PM, dhimokritis said:

Answer for Swanson:

 Electric frequency     fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e ^ - ln (x )

Gravity frequency       fMx = (  c * R / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e^ - ln (x^2)

 

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation.

Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency

On 7/30/2018 at 12:23 PM, dhimokritis said:

 1=--- I don’t remember your answer. So please tell me why “me” and “mp” are so long-live particles. And please without dodge answers.

me usually denotes the mass of the electron, and mp for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses

There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy.

It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2018 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation.

Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency

me usually denotes the mass of the electron, and mp for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses

There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy.

It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

 

 

On 8/1/2018 at 10:06 AM, Strange said:

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else.

But note that it is not science any more.

And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

 

On 8/1/2018 at 10:06 AM, Strange said:

Well, physicists and other scientists speculate about "reality" and "meaning" and other meaningless concepts just as much as anyone else.

But note that it is not science any more.

And there are things like interpretations of theories, which attempt to provide an explanation of what the theory means; for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 

It is not about interpretations, of theories. I think that some theories have in their base, presumed aims that conduct in those interpretations. And for justify trespass on pickets of classic physics, which are barrier toward unleashed fly of math fantasy, they call those pickets outdated.   

On 8/1/2018 at 11:40 AM, swansont said:

That's wasn't the question. I asked where the equation came from. What physics you start with, and how you get from that physics to the equation.

Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

But, as a side note, your equation for frequency does not have the units of frequency

me usually denotes the mass of the electron, and mp for proton. I'll assume that you meant these particles, rather than their masses

There is nothing for them to decay into. No way to release energy spontaneously and create more entropy.

It is analogous to asking why a ball at the bottom of a hill does not continue to roll downhill. There is no point that is downhill from the bottom.

 

 About three first paragraphs of your answer:

Frequency, I think, is interpreted as numbers of cycles of a body in the unity of time. This depends by radius of cycle and velocity, for movements of only mass - gravity bodies.

And is f = V / ( 2*pi * R )  (m/sec) /m    (Hz.)     

For bodies that are under the rule not only mass-gravity charge but even of electric potential (of electric charge), this movement (2 * pi * α^-1 ) go in spherical cycles and create a number plane cycles, (Which I think is about 137) in mean time that the planes create a full 360 grade cycle. This is one Hz. The frequency in this case is the number of combined movements in 1 sec.

For this in elementary particles ( me and mp ) frequency will be :

  •             fx = fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) / e ^ ln (x )  

  • For “me” Rx = Re = 2.8179401*19^-15 m

  • ---------------------

  • (digression post: Frequency on points that are Rx away the center of mass body .

  • Ex.

  •          Vx=V(earth) (On position of earth): = ( ( G * Msun ) / (149.6 ^ 10 ^9 )) ^ 0.5 = 29 756 m/sec  

  • The frequency will be:

  •            Fr. = Vx / (2*pi* 149.  6 * 10^9) = 3.16563934 * 10 ^-8 Hz  (1 / sec)

  • For a full cycle is 31589196 sec. = 8775 = 365 * 24

  •  ----------------

  • As you see this is not create by your very civilian expression:

  • Otherwise, it looks like the answer is "I pulled it out of my a$$"  

  •             fx = c / ((2 * pi * α^-1 ) / Rx =

  •             fx = fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) * e ^ - ln (x ) =
  •             fx = fex = (  c / (2 * pi * α^-1 ) ) / e ^ ln (x )  

  • For “me” Rx = Re = 2.8179401*19^-15 m

  • The last paragraphs truly appalled me: The elementary particles “me”. and “mp”. are in the lowest post of a hill , in the bottom of possible generation  energy. !?

    What about : E”me” = me * c^2          after my hypothesis

    = (G * M ^2) / (Rme)

    = M * c * ĉe =

    = M * c ^2 * R / Rme   

    and in full equilibrium with

    E(me) = e^2 / ( 4*pi * ε * Re )  

    ( why not with Forces)

    As for absence of decay and disintegration and “annihilation” they are other issues.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dhimokritis said:

 

For bodies that are under the rule not only mass-gravity charge but even of electric potential (of electric charge), this movement (2 * pi * α^-1 ) go in spherical cycles and create a number plane cycles, (Which I think is about 137) in mean time that the planes create a full 360 grade cycle. This is one Hz. The frequency in this case is the number of combined movements in 1 sec.        

Where does this come from? What is the physics involved?

stop being obtuse about this. 

 

Quote

For this in elementary particles ( me and mp ) frequency will be :

What particles are me and mp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Where does this come from? What is the physics involved?

stop being obtuse about this. 

 

What particles are me and mp?

In my first post in this forum, I introduced idea of spherical movements of the “hypothetic sub-particles of mater” that posses in itself both electric charge “e” and mass charge “M” = MPl.* α. Those charges display self, alike, but some kind different properties, which became evident in the same moment when one sub-particle interact with another sub particle. In this interaction both subs “want” to move via planetary mode, forced by field of Mass gravity charges. In the same time electric charges want to move in planetary mode but in different plane. The result is a spherical linear movement, in which are involved two or three subs.

Obtuse.  May be. Until (for an analogy) you show me how hydrogen atom of Bohr is generated in a spherical atom. Don’t forget that Bohr used only Newton law.

Yes “me” is for elementary common particle of mater, and “mp” for proton, both the main basic common particles that together of an immense number of photon particles and neutrinos create everything in nature.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

In my first post in this forum, I introduced idea of spherical movements of the “hypothetic sub-particles of mater” that posses in itself both electric charge “e” and mass charge “M” = MPl.* α. Those charges display self, alike, but some kind different properties, which became evident in the same moment when one sub-particle interact with another sub particle. In this interaction both subs “want” to move via planetary mode, forced by field of Mass gravity charges. In the same time electric charges want to move in planetary mode but in different plane. The result is a spherical linear movement, in which are involved two or three subs.

Mass. Gravity. You should be able to derive any motion from Newton's gravitational law.

Which, btw, does not have alpha in it.

And crap like "spherical linear movement" may sound good to you, but is nonsense.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Obtuse.  May be. Until (for an analogy) you show me how hydrogen atom of Bohr is generated in a spherical atom. Don’t forget that Bohr used only Newton law.

News flash: Bohr's model is wrong. However, it is easily derived from Coulomb's law of electrostatics with the constraint of quantized angular momentum. (see e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Bohr.html) That's the analogous thing I want from you.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

Yes “me” is for elementary common particle of mater, and “mp” for proton, both the main basic common particles

Protons are not elementary particles.

1 hour ago, dhimokritis said:

that together of an immense number of photon particles and neutrinos create everything in nature.

Discussing why this is wrong would be a thread unto itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Mass. Gravity. You should be able to derive any motion from Newton's gravitational law.

Which, btw, does not have alpha in it.

And crap like "spherical linear movement" may sound good to you, but is nonsense.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

News flash: Bohr's model is wrong. However, it is easily derived from Coulomb's law of electrostatics with the constraint of quantized angular momentum. (see e.g. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Bohr.html) That's the analogous thing I want from you.

Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

Protons are not elementary particles.

Discussing why this is wrong would be a thread unto itself.

 

 

In Newton law, as in Coulomb law, the “mass gravity energy” and “ electrostatic energy are in Planck hypothetic charges: “e” (for electric phenomena), and “M” (for mass gravity) static phenomena (Relative for cyclic movements of two bodies).:

For static cyclic movement (where don’t change the radius), formulas of energy ( in Planck hypothetic two sub-particles are:

  Ee = e * e / (4 * pi * ε * (Rx -> R) ) = e * U * (Rx -> R) = EM = G * M^2 / ( Rx -> R )

It’s simple “logarithmic laws”.   I prefer logarithm with base 2.

But those formulas are for relative static status, in mean time we are sure that every thing is moving and “generally normal” in cyclic movements, that is in frequency laws. On the other hand, static logarithmic laws are for an immense broad span of energies from zero till Planck energy (if we at least put a border: Planck, other ways from zero to infinite).    This means that I would have (With my crap (coined by you) hypothesis) an infinite different “me” and different “mp”.

This post is in support of a new hypothesis that state:

 Parallel with electric frequency we may have a mass gravity frequency, and a new energy for this kind of frequency. I found and explained, above, that this frequency depends by inverse of Rx^2 and it became “1” for energy hm = 3.32762149 * 10 ^-13 j / Hm. Around this point in span of mass gravity frequency are cornered “me” and “mp”. like possible stable particles. At least so I suppose and hope.

If you see, the sub – particle’s charges ‘e” and “M” alike Siamese brothers, the brother “e” is leading in the trip. Hence frequency of “M” will have alpha.  

------- About “hyperphysics” that corrected Bohr, can I know when is ‘invented” ? And in the span from Bohr till this invention, atoms have been “flat” and nobody was concerned?

About: protons are not elementary particles.

I don’t say are “elementary particles”. I say electron and proton are elementary COMMON particles, and with this I intend to hypotheses that both, even “me”, are composed by more simple sub particles. In femto-cosmos I am trying to implement some thing from Planck and Einstein works, which both were not too happy with quanta- mechanics extremism. I admit that is a shame that I have misused and deformed some of their ideas, transforming them to conform my hypothesis. It was like a dwarf that dare to correct the works of titans.

 About: Show me the math, or this thread is finished.

The only math I have is based in hypothesis : Physics dependence of static energy of electric field in what-ever point of space around is inverse by segment “Rx” between  sub particle and point. The same for field of Mass gravity and its static energy.

The dependence of electric frequency is inverse with radius Rx.

The dependence of mass gravity frequency is inverse with radius Rx^2

This all I have to say.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.