Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Interesting thread that reminds me the two different views that exist among quantum physicists on force carriers: the one of the dominant Feynman school (represented here by THHuxleynew ) who infer that perturbation theory and with it virtual particles are universal and apply at all time/energy/distance scales, and the one who realizes the limitations of SM, with force carriers being only a construct of perturbation theory that only applies to high energy particle physics and fails in low energy QCD, bound states, solitons, etc.., which actually represent most of our universe.


    When a new order calculation using perturbation theory leads to a change of several hundreds percent in cross section values, I do not applaud the result (which may be beautiful from a mathematical standpoint), but put into question the physical meaning of the underlying model. I'm a big fan of the like of Hestenes, Barut and Schwinger, much less of Feynman, and still less of where SM is leading us today. In French we have an expression "fuite en avant" that applies so well here.

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    Interesting thread that reminds me the two different views that exist among quantum physicists on force carriers: the one of the dominant Feynman school (represented here by THHuxleynew ) who infer that perturbation theory and with it virtual particles are universal and apply at all time/energy/distance scales, and the one who realizes the limitations of SM, with force carriers being only a construct of perturbation theory that only applies to high energy particle physics and fails in low energy QCD, bound states, solitons, etc.., which actually represent most of our universe.


    When a new order calculation using perturbation theory leads to a change of several hundreds percent in cross section values, I do not applaud the result (which may be beautiful from a mathematical standpoint), but put into question the physical meaning of the underlying model. I'm a big fan of the like of Hestenes, Barut and Schwinger, much less of Feynman, and still less of where SM is leading us today. In French we have an expression "fuite en avant" that applies so well here.


    So my view of that is:


    • the unification got between em / weak / strong is very impressive, and particles as force carriers fit into that for all the forces
    • particles as force carriers are a major simplification - and make sense. They also fit well into a QM-first GUT as you all know I like and looks more and more possible
    • there are loose ends - gravity fits weirdly, and strong force fits not as well as electroweak.
    • qcd is very successful and lots of things - e.g. baryons are composite particles made up of point quarks - have multiple validation. However qcd is horrible to calculate, hence not nice, and the lack of predictivity caused by terminally difficult calculation makes it more difficult to be sure that qcd/strong force is correctly unified in the same framework as electroweak. But electroweak unification under sm is very very very successful and qcd has so much success, that even if there is a deeper representation, the structure supposed has reality.
    • personally, I was a great fan of Hestenes and GA - I knew of Hestenes very early due to friend (Plasma Physicist but no connection CERN colliders) who liked it and also Ed Jaynes. GA is the right way to do spacetime tensor calculus, and provides extra insight into spacetime physics. But that does not mean it provides extra insight into the stuff not covered (like SM) - its insight is good but orthogonal to other development. This might be wrong but after 30 years of hoping it would expand into something else, I rather suspect it will not.
    • No-one sees SM as an end point. Rather it is the best we have, and I at least hope it will all be derivable from something much more fundamental. QM & GR unification gives a lever to get that, so we can reasonably hope.

    DF: Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. It's inhomogeneous. Spacetime curvature is where the inhomogeneity is non-linear.


    Spacetime is curved (in a technical sense) where mass-energy is and around that. That curvature gives rise to gravitation. Curvature is necessarily nonlinear, of course (or it would not be curvature).


    However homogeneity is something different. A very long time ago I wrote a maths dissertation on the topic "Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies". Alas at the time I did not do much work in maths, and it was not a great dissertation, nevertheless I'm aware of what homogeneity is, and homogeneous spacetimes can be curved, or flat.


    So I have to disagree with you unless you use these words in an unusual way.


    Gravitational field relates to mass-energy and can be homogeneous and non-trivial, although obviously when it derives from an inhomogeneous mass-energy distribution it is inhomogeneous.

    Curvature (of spacetime) exists if there is mass-energy, and "gravitation" as an inertial frame acceleration, exists when there is curvature.


    lenr-forum.com/attachment/9937/


    T here is the stress-energy tensor that drives non-flat spacetime, Ruv is the Ricci curvature tensor, R is the (scalar) curvature, which depends on guv and Ruv because R = Traceg Ruv


    everyone will understand that guv is the metric which describes spacetime and differs from Minkowski when there is mass, or when the cosmological constant lambda is non-zero.


    The equation is complex because as here guv depends on Ruv, but then R depends on g (via the index raising necessary to obtain the trace) as well as Ruv, and Ruv depends on second derivatives of g.

    I'm sure you know this stuff, because it is the basic GR equations. My point is that you can be more precise about what you mean by curvature. I'd identify it with Ruv not R which can be 0 when Ruv is non-zero.

    Why SM fails:



    This is the SM QCD Lagrangian based on classic logic gained in electro dynamics and strong field gauge invariant description. The structure looks nice, simple and complete but one small and a really big flaw immediately shows why QCD fails.


    The right outermost term GG assumes a (strong) force that nobody knows and ever has measured and - is assumed to be conservative what is just a guess.


    Unluckily the universe is magnetic and the (strong) force given by the magnitude of charge only depends on m1/2 what has been proven by SO(4) physics and is also a consequence of classic EM.


    Thus SM is based on a freely invented conservative force that in all experiments - so far - shows non conservative behavior...


    The small flaw is on the left side, as this only works with a continuous time and SM makes the free assumption that a nucleus is not stable and changes with time. This only works if you, as SM does, assume that mass is made out of Gremlins or an other unknown substance that does not influence the formula above....


    This leads to further contradictions like: The field is the mass - albeit we know it must be a mass as it has higher inertia than EM theory allows.


    Time to end 90 years of nonsense and self deception!


    So your alternate Lagrangian is?

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Spacetime is curved (in a technical sense) where mass-energy is and around that. That curvature gives rise to gravitation. Curvature is necessarily nonlinear, of course (or it would not be curvature).

    I'm sorry Huxley, but that's wrong. Gravitational force is related to the first derivative of potential. It's the gradient in the potential, the local slope, which equates to the inhomogeneity of space. The tidal force is related to the second derivative of potential, which is in essence spacetime curvature. That's the non-linearity in the inhomogeneity. The inhomogeneity reduces as you move away from the central body. As far as you can tell, the force of gravity in the room you're in is 9.8m/s² at the floor and at the ceiling. So there's no detectable spacetime curvature. However your pencil still falls down. That's readily detectable. In other words, in the rubber-sheet analogy (which is not ideal but not as bad as you might think) the path of the light beam curves wherever the sheet is sloping. The curve of the light beam's path is not the curve of the sheet. The light beam do not "follow the curvature of spacetime".


    rubbersheet.png

    CCASA image by Johnstone, see Wikipedia


    Quote

    However homogeneity is something different. A very long time ago I wrote a maths dissertation on the topic "Homogeneous Relativistic Cosmologies". Alas at the time I did not do much work in maths, and it was not a great dissertation, nevertheless I'm aware of what homogeneity is, and homogeneous spacetimes can be curved, or flat. So I have to disagree with you unless you use these words in an unusual way...

    I'm using the words in the Einstein way. He said this: “’empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν)". Like Wheeler, you're confusing space and spacetime. Curved spacetime is where the inhomogeneity of space is non-linear. See for example the 2008 paper Inhomogeneous vacuum: an alternative interpretation of curved spacetime. Curved space is curved space. It's the electromagnetic field, not the gravitational field.


    Quote

    There is the stress-energy tensor that drives non-flat spacetime, Ruv is the Ricci curvature tensor, R is the (scalar) curvature, which depends on guv and Ruv because R = Traceg Ruv

    Take a look at the Ricci curvature tensor. It "represents the amount by which the volume of a narrow conical piece of a small geodesic ball in a curved Riemannian manifold deviates from that of the standard ball in Euclidean space". Take it literally, but replace the conical piece of a ball with a cube of space. Ricci curvature is telling you how the volume of your cubes vary. Like this:


    Earthspacetime-1024x458.jpg

    Public domain image from NASA (I removed the moon and added the lattice lines and the light beam)


    Quote

    The equation is complex because as here guv depends on Ruv, but then R depends on g (via the index raising necessary to obtain the trace) as well as Ruv, and Ruv depends on second derivatives of g. I'm sure you know this stuff, because it is the basic GR equations. My point is that you can be more precise about what you mean by curvature. I'd identify it with Ruv not R which can be 0 when Ruv is non-zero.

    I'm being precise here Huxley. Spacetime curvature isn't spatial curvature. Somehow that got lost in the wash, along with the spatially-variable speed of light. I think it was in the so-called golden age: "Kip Thorne identifies the "golden age of general relativity" as the period roughly from 1960 to 1975 during which the study of general relativity,which had previously been regarded as something of a curiosity, entered the mainstream of theoretical physics. During this period, many of the concepts and terms which continue to inspire the imagination of gravitation researchers and the general public were introduced".

    Quote

    Curved space is curved space. It's the electromagnetic field, not the gravitational field.


    If yes, what would that imply? I'm aware that you're pushing refraction model of gravitational lensing, but in dense aether model the curved space-time and dense vacuum around massive objects are two complementary perspectives of the same thing (extrinsic and insintric one). We cannot tell which one is better, more general the less. I'm also aware that mainstream science adheres on intrinsic definition of curved space-time, but what you're presenting here is just an opposite bias.


    It depends on position of observer with respect to gravitational lens observed how he would perceive it. Inside the gravitational lens observer would perceive it like curvature of space-time and he would see path of light straight (because observer gets deformed in the same way, like path of light), speed of light invariant and space-time curved (dilatation of time and red shift can be observed there). Outside of lens he would observe space-time flat and path of light curved and speed of light variable (at the center of lens the light is propagating slower, which is also why it can be used in similar way, like optical lens for distant objects magnification and observation). No perspective is more general than another one.


    It's nice to see things from opposite perspective than mainstream - but even better is to understand how both perspectives are seamlessly connected each other in a pluralistic, holistic way. Everyone has its portion of truth here, but the scope of this truth/observational perspective remains limited. Actually aether wave theory is all about consequential application of duality of intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. Scientific people have tendency to specialize itself and to schematize things - but unbiased view should consider all options at the same moment.

    I'm sorry Huxley, but that's wrong. Gravitational force is related to the first derivative of potential. It's the gradient in the potential, the local slope, which equates to the inhomogeneity of space. The tidal force is related to the second derivative of potential,


    GR does not use Newtonian potential. Try again with guv? And note that Ruv is related to the 2nd derivative of guv. I don't think this is useful, because I don't want to talk about homogeneity in a Newtonian approximation - the homogeneous curved spacetimes are relativistic, and you don't want to think about the problem except in Newtonian terms (scalar potential, force).


    I'm using the words in the Einstein way. He said this: “’empty space’ in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gμν)". Like Wheeler, you're confusing space and spacetime. Curved spacetime is where the inhomogeneity of space is non-linear. See for example the 2008 paper Inhomogeneous vacuum: an alternative interpretation of curved spacetime. Curved space is curved space. It's the electromagnetic field, not the gravitational field.


    I've never denied that empty space (in general) is neither isotropic nor homogeneous, because mass exists and distorts things - although, as I pointed out, there are homogeneous and isotropic models with and without (uniform) mass and with or without curvature.

    However, you are not paying attention to the definition of curved spacetime (Ruv not equal 0). Curved spacetime is curved spacetime, Ruv neq 0. I'm not sure how you define curved space, pls give me the maths. As I've pointed out you need to look at the tensor equation for Ruv and what makes it non-zero. This is a second order PDE and Tuv is the source (or lambda if non-zero) that gives rise to curvature. It is a PDE so curvature propagates (as we know because mass generates curvature all around it).


    Anyway - none of this helps you with your non sequitur equating em fields to mass.


    Incidentally, I don't think you are in any position to criticise Wheeler. He may not be right, but as somone who learnt GR from MTW - a beautiful textbook - I'll not accept your critique of Wheeler till you can read and understand it.

    JohnDuffield

    The picture above you shared is false, the one below remains the good one. It's a mistake to separate mass representation , here the earth in 3D, from empty space all around, represented in 2D. Both a mistake to separate space / time from mass / energy on the other side.

    The mass, so the earth here, is only a 3D cylindrical "plication" from surrounding "mesh", so the void.

    the analogy would be a 3D spot on your 2D skin, they are both composed from the same "material".

    Gravity is something else ..




    Quote

    GR does not use Newtonian potential.


    In general relativity the potential energy of curved space-time at certain distance from massive body is indeed given by Newtonian potential given by gravity constant, central mass and distance from it. This is also where gravitational constant appears in general relativity from: from Newton gravitational law. This of course makes relativity an implicit i.e. recursive theory: it modifies just this law, which it's actually using for its derivation. This implicit character has indeed serious consequences for GR predictions at the case of both extremely low, both extremely high space-time curvatures as it makes explicit formulas of GR inconsistent with its own postulates. The implicit form of GR was never used or solved due to its inherent complexity and Einstein himself neglected it by linearization i.e. by introduction of pseudotensors - but if we would iterate them, then the field equations would suddenly give way better predictions at these extreme situations - but it would also become unstable.

    For example the existence of dark matter can be easily deducted from plain general relativity just by consequential application of E=mc^2 formula. Curved space-time in general relativity has its own energy density attributed - so why this energy density has no mass density and gravity field attributed as well? It would perfectly explain behavior of both black holes, both dark matter field, which concentrates at perimeter of massive bodies (stars and galaxies). This is because the space-time curvature gets highest there (in the center of massive bodies the space-time always remains flat) - so it should also have its largest intrinsic mass and gravity field attributed there. This "dark matter" gravity field would act in opposite direction than gravity field of massive body which induced it and it flattens distribution of matter across galaxy and its velocity curves.


    5fEggH9.gif


    From similar reason (i.e. intrinsic flatness of space-time at center of all massive bodies) also black holes can be never formed by true singularity at their centers. Every massive star would collapse only up to level when density of space-time curvature at its perimeter remains lower than density of massive body itself. After then the further gravitational collapse stops and dense object will change into undulating quantum wave which balances gravity field at its center by gravity field of space-time curvature at its perimeter by buoyancy effect. Because on balance of these two energy densities (i.e. Hamiltonian) the Schrodinger equation of quantum mechanics is actually based: the general relativity would seamless switch/merge into quantum mechanics in this way.


    This is also why I'm saying that general relativity is not so bad theory after all once being considered and handled consequentially - but it was crippled by lazy mathematicians (actually high school teachers who maintain model simple enough for have them solvable analytically for their pupils) in similar way, like the Maxwell's theory and/or quantum mechanics.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    GR does not use Newtonian potential. Try again with guv?

    See the Einstein quote! The one where he referred to the gravitation potentials gμν!


    Quote

    I've never denied that empty space (in general) is neither isotropic nor homogeneous, because mass exists and distorts things - although, as I pointed out, there are homogeneous and isotropic models with and without (uniform) mass and with or without curvature.

    You still aren't getting this distinction between space and spacetime. Look again at what Einstein said. A gravitational field is a place where space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. So where space is homogeneous and isotropic, light goes straight, there is no gravitational field, and there is no spacetime curvature. Homogeneous isotropic space is a place where spacetime is flat. Do not confuse yourself with homogeneous spacetimes.


    Quote

    However, you are not paying attention to the definition of curved spacetime (Ruv not equal 0). Curved spacetime is curved spacetime, Ruv neq 0. I'm not sure how you define curved space, pls give me the maths.

    I can't define curved space using maths. Space is curved like bananas are curved. So the path of light is curved. Only we are talking about a very strong curvature here. Remember what Schrödinger said on page 27 of his 1926 paper quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. About light rays influencing one another and showing remarkable curvature. If it helps any see what Percy Hammond said in the 199 Compumag article The Role of the Potentials in Electromagnetism: “We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".


    Quote

    As I've pointed out you need to look at the tensor equation for Ruv and what makes it non-zero. This is a second order PDE and Tuv is the source (or lambda if non-zero) that gives rise to curvature. It is a PDE so curvature propagates (as we know because mass generates curvature all around it).

    Not mass. A concentration of energy results in a gravitational field. Which is inhomogeneous space. Not curved space. Again, spacetime curvature is the non-linearity in this inhomogeneity. Read the original material by Einstein, not the ersatz version from Misner Thorne and Wheeler.


    Quote

    Anyway - none of this helps you with your non sequitur equating em fields to mass.

    It isn't a non-sequitur. It's E=mc² . The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Note how Einstien refers to "body" and "electron" on the same line:


    EinsteinEmc2.png


    Photon energy or photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c. Electron mass is resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going around and around at c. That’s it. It’s as simple as that. The electron is a body, the positron is a body. When they annihilate, they're two radiating bodies losing mass. All of it.


    Quote

    Incidentally, I don't think you are in any position to criticise Wheeler. He may not be right, but as someone who learnt GR from MTW - a beautiful textbook - I'll not accept your critique of Wheeler till you can read and understand it.

    I'm sorry Huxley, but Wheeler was wrong about so many things. Read the Einstein digital papers, and you'll know this. You'll learn that a concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star "conditions" the surrounding space, this effect diminishing with distance in a non-linear fashion. As a result the speed of light is "spatially variable", and as a result of that, light curves. Then because of the wave nature of matter and because spin is real, matter falls down. Misner Thorne and Wheeler don't say any of this. Because they were making it up as they went along. The bottom line is this, Huxley: just about everything you think you know about general relativity is wrong.

    I'm sorry Cydonia, what you're saying isn't clear. Can I say this: there is no curvature in some unseen dimension. The picture shows a “curved metric”, and a metric is associated with measurement. As for what you’re measuring, imagine you could place a 15 x 15 array of optical clocks throughout a horizontal slice of space around the Earth. Then you plot all the clock rates, such that the lower slower clock rates generate data points lower down in a 3D image, and the higher faster clock rates generate data points higher up in the 3D image. When you join the dots, your plot looks like this:

    rubbersheet.png

    It's a plot of the spatially variable speed of light, that's all. Light curves because the speed of light is spatially variable, not for any other reason. Read this: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. This explanation was erased at some point. In the 1960s I think. I'm note sure when. Irwin Shapiro was still talking about the variable speed of light in 1964. His paper was all about what we now call the Shapiro delay. Wikipedia faithfully quotes what Shapiro said, which is that “the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path”.


    OK sorry guys, I've got to go to bed.

    DF: I'm afraid I won't be able to help you much more - and you do spend a lot of time trying to teach me physics at the level of A-level school physics - which is a bit silly. And your level of assumption about what I'm likely to learn in this area makes communication quite difficult.


    Anyway - none of this helps you with your non sequitur equating em fields to mass.


    I should perhaps have been more precise. Of course Fuv (the e-m field tensor, describing electric and magnetic fields and charge) corresponds to mass-energy. However, since we all know that ,I thought you were implying something more radical and unevidenced, e.g. that all mass-energy is e-m fields.


    Apologies for the possible misunderstanding.


    DF: Not mass. A concentration of energy results in a gravitational field.


    mass and energy are equivalent as far as the equations of GR go.

    Quote

    I don't think you are in any position to criticise Wheeler. He may not be right, but as somone who learnt GR from MTW


    Actually Wheeler was first who proposed quasistable solution of general relativity (i.e. without singularities) in form of so-called geons. What black holes are doing is rather close to this prediction (including the "worm hole" or "dark energy" area at their center predicted by Tippler). See also recent article: Are Black Holes Actually "Dark Energy Stars"?

    You still aren't getting this distinction between space and spacetime.... Space is curved like bananas are curved. So the path of light is curved


    This is indeed misunderstanding of GR - in GR space is not only what gets curved but space-time metric gets curved instead. The GR says, that time curvature balances space curvature in such a way, your banana always remains straight - until you get outside space-time curved, so that its time curvature wouldn't apply to you anymore...;) Which is also why we cannot observe gravitational lensing from inside of gravitational lens - only from outside at distance. It has sorta bizarre consequences at the case of black holes which would appear flat for you once you would (and could) observe inside them - whereas the rest of Universe would look curved for you instead.

    Quote

    A concentration of energy results in a gravitational field


    In dense aether model the energy can be introduced in form of both scalar (longitudinal), both electromagnetic (i.e. transverse) waves - and this is where complications begin. The longitudinal portion of energy actually makes space-time negatively curved and it may balance the positive curvature induced by electromagnetic field in lesser or greater degree. This brings the concept of gravitomagnetism and concept of gravitational charge of both polarities (and also mirror matter). All these concepts actually exist in nature and they would be even already recognized as such - if only astrophysicists would realize, where to look for it.


    5crQa8w.gif


    It's worth to note (especially for Mr. Duffield) that despite space-time metric gets curved in opposite way for negative gravity charge, the space itself remains curved in the same way - which is why we cannot distinguish dual lensing of dark matter from common gravitational lensing at distance (until we wouldn't place remote clocks into it). Fortunately both fields can be also distinguished by Shapiro delay above mentioned and their red shifting behavior (Sunayaev-Zheldovich effect remains suppressed for dark matter lensing). And of course also by violations of equivalence principle, as mirror matter particles would repel mutually - but they will be still attracted to perimeter of normal matter: which is just what dark matter usually does.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    However, since we all know that ,I thought you were implying something more radical and unevidenced, e.g. that all mass-energy is e-m fields.


    What people missed the last 90 years using linear math (in the logic , not the fudging) for group level manipulations was given by the old believe that we can only handle linear matrices, tensors - at most a bilinear form and as a force field conservative was the only possible selection.


    This works fine as long as you neglect any magnetic coupling to a force field by a rigid, moving charge. But unluckily the magnetic field coupling is not conservative. The split between potential & kinetic energy is not symmetric and also not first order dependent on any relativistic effect. The magnetic force is not a central force either as it leads to increase/decrease of the rotation if you change the distance between two orbiting magnetic moments. The understanding is simple: A part of the potential energy gets stored in the rigid momentum of the orbiting mass(es). This happens because at a lower orbit the charge/current increases what adds more (rigid) mass to the momentum what would be harmless if the current would stay the same...

    This was the main reason why the reduced mass Bohr model is imprecise as it neglects the magnetic coupling (R. Mills said first) . If we add it, then everything is fine and you get 10 digits precision as the measurement.


    If we use the magnetic mass formula for the proton we also get the right answers and we can derived with highest precision what physics failed to do the last 90 years.


    Without any doubt we can say that most measurements CERN made the last 50 years were based on wrong modeling of the forces and it is highly likely that they have to reevaluate all data for all measurements of the last 50 years.


    I hope that THH at least is able to understand the difference between a "magnetic potential" and conservative potential like the Coulomb potential.


    We can also argument from the perturbation perspective: SM/QCD fails because the model does not reflect the non linear perturbation that a moving charge that is exposed to the field generates.


    Quote from THHuxleynew

    So your alternate Lagrangian is?


    THH asks for a new Lagrangian before he understands what is wrong with SM/QED/QCD. This is typical for people with a religious believe in what they claim to know.


    Unluckily the SO(4) wave structure (2,3,5(,2x2)) is highly complex and only covers the stable state. I do not expect that we can give a Lagrangian as a simple one line formula. The question is only how many partial non linearly coupled differential equation will be enough. We have 3 wave structures and basically 3 couplings thus as SO(4), has 6 dimensions I expect the number to be 6...

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    And of course also by violations of equivalence principle, as mirror matter particles would repel mutually - but they will be still attracted to perimeter of normal matter: which is just what the dark matter usually does.


    Unluckily gravitation has been identified as being an EM force (based on 5 rotations). Thus you have to show a dense EM wave structure that is able to produce a repulsion!


    This is in fact possible if you go to 8 rotations what might explain why a super nova explodes, when matter reaches a state of very high compression and assumes the next higher organization step.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.