Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms, is not more than challenging

[A post with a wee bit of emotion...]

"The contents of arXiv conform to Cornell University academic standards."
from http://arxiv.org/

Cornell may wish to update those absolutely absurd claims on Wikipedia, then, that suggest they endorse people to the exclusion of ideas, much less accuracy (see below). After all, I KNOW an Ivy League institution would not operate on such a feudal level...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

I'm starting to get a little irritated here and am starting to feel awfully qualified by the deafening quietude in Academia to start asking some questions that need asking in a free and pluralistic society...

All due respect, of course, to any who read this. I'm sure it's not you, standing by and doing nothing...

Kindest Regards,

Raphie Frank

================================
from Wikipedia...

Peer-review

Although the arXiv is not peer-reviewed, an "endorsement" system was introduced in January 2004 as part of an effort to ensure content that is relevant and of interest to current research in the specified disciplines. The new system has attracted its own share of criticism for allegedly restricting inquiry. Under the system, an author must first get endorsed. Endorsement comes from either another arXiv author who is an endorser or is automatic, depending on various evolving criteria, which are not publicly spelled out. Endorsers are not asked to review the paper for errors, but to check if the paper is appropriate for the intended subject area. New authors from recognized academic institutions generally receive automatic endorsement, which in practice means that they do not need to deal with the endorsement system at all.

The lack of peer-review, while a concern to some, is not considered a hindrance to those who use the arXiv. Many authors exercise care in what they post. A majority of the e-prints are also submitted to journals for publication, but some work, including even very influential papers, remains purely as e-prints and is never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A well-known example of the latter is a potential proof of Thurston's geometrization conjecture, including the Poincaré conjecture as a particular case, uploaded by Grigori Perelman in November 2002. Perelman appears content to forgo the traditional peer-reviewed journal process, stating "If anybody is interested in my way of solving the problem, it's all there [on the arXiv] - let them go and read about it."[2]

While the arXiv does contain some dubious e-prints, such as those claiming to refute famous theorems or proving famous conjectures such as Fermat's last theorem using only high school mathematics, they are "surprisingly rare" (see Jackson 2002 in references). The arXiv generally re-classifies these works, e.g. in "General mathematics", rather than deleting them. [3]
A few scientists, for example, Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, complain that their papers are not accepted or are forcibly recategorised by the administrators of the arXiv due to the controversial nature of their work, in what amounts to intellectual censorship.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 2 2007, 01:13 PM

==============
Started in Aug 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a fully automated electronic archive and distribution server for research papers... etc. etc. the creator of the site no longer wants any affiliation with it, but the Physics department can answer some questions if needed.

from ArXiv
http://www.arxiv.org
==============

Very odd phrasing!

Does anyone happen to know who the creator of the site was or, perchance why they desire no affiliation with the site? Such vague statements might lead to one getting the wrong idea. If I were the creator of the standard-bearer and herald of scientific progress, I would want to brag about it to the world!

I must say, however, it is very forthright of ArXiv to post this online and I commend them for it.

I wonder, just thinking here... does anyone suppose the work of Grigory Perelman, who turned down the Field's Medal in 2006, would be accepted by ArXiv had he posted it later than 2002?

Manifold Destiny (The New Yorker)
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact2

Just a question... and I merely mention it based on a little research I did pertaining to another Perelman, Carlos Castro Perelman, whose work after 2002 is now amongst the "disappeareds" of scientific knowledge (at least at ArXiv). Interesting, since the endorsement system was instituted in 2004, not 2003.

Is his work any good? The Carlos Perelman, that is, as opposed to the Grigory one? I'm not qualified to comment on that. I can't say. But the scientific community could... I mean, that is, if they had ACCESS to it.

But whatever... as I said, just wondering...

Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank

P.S. The obvious retort. "Ah, but he can post it elsewhere!" Indeed, he can, so let's just head that off at the pass by referencing both Zipf's Law and The Long Tail. I can post links, of course, but I'm figuring I shouldn't have to do all the work here :-)

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 3 2007, 01:08 AM

No one challenges the challenging!

"No longer is it crucial to have the correct connections or to be on exclusive mailing lists to be
kept informed of progress in one’s field." - Dr. Paul Ginsparg

from...

@xxx.lanl.gov
first steps towards electronic research communication
by Paul Ginsparg

Number 22, Los Alamos Science p. 191
http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00285556.pdf

(xxx.lanl.gov, apparently was the original creator of AirXiv, that "no longer wishes to be affiliated" with the archives)

I would suggest that Dr. Ginsparg and Cornell University clearly, clearly wish to do the right thing, but they are NOT doing it, and SOMEBODY with clout needs to tell them before Dr. Ginsparg unnecessarily tarnishes what seems, to me at least, to be a hard-earned reputation.

He is a pioneer of open-access and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Now, it seems to me at least, he is at the vanguard of closing the very gates he himself helped to open.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 4 2007, 01:07 AM

"The problem with the global village is all the global village idiots."
-- Paul Ginsparg
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hulld/q2007-08-17.html

==========================

A visual allegory:

Here is the link for the faculty of the Cornell Physics department:
http://www.physics.cornell.edu/people/faculty/

Of the 54 Professors listed in the department, only two do not have links to email, Dr. Louis Hand, who actually much reminds me of my Grandfather, a Professor of Economics here in NYC for 45 years...

... and Dr. Paul Ginsparg

I SUSPECT, but certainly do not know, that Dr. Ginsparg would make the case of harassment as the reason for not having his email listed publicly.

Very, very VERY convenient... as one cannot change the mind of a man who is no longer listening.

==========================

That quote above, incidentally, is a common misattribution. Ginsparg himself credits it to Sydney Coleman, according to Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ginsparg

But one could be forgiven for believing it originated with him. It certainly "SEEMS" something he might say. But appearances, of course, can be quite deceiving. Things are often NOT what they seem. Dr. Ginsparg, himself, would do well to remember that.

I am setting the record straight for Dr. Ginsparg in the hopes he will consider also setting the record straight with regards to those he has unjustly condemned, HOWEVER UNKNOWINGLY, to Intellectual Gulags within the cyber-sphere.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 4 2007, 02:32 AM

PAUL GINSPARG - cancelled address from Wikimania 2006
(according to Wikipedia)

http://wikimania2006.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:PG2

=====================================

Is Eternal Vigilance the Price of Freedom? (or Revenge of the Global Village Idiots)

Abstract
Scholarly communities have long self-organized to create, certify, and disseminate knowledge, frequently in the form of collaboratively generated content. The methodologies employed involve both important similarities and dissimilarities to those more recently adopted by Wikipedia. This talk will identify some of the principles underlying scholarly practices, and survey how these practices have been slowly adapting to modern electronic communication technology. Despite their differing incentive and assessment structures, and differing roles of their core communities, conventional scholarly publishing and Wikipedia can benefit from understanding each other's notable successes, as well as each other's noticeable shortcomings. Assessing how open access research sites of the future can best interoperate with commons based peer-production raises more general questions of information authority and uncertainty in the global networked knowledge environment, and reinforces the need for an effective scalable framework to neutralize the efforts of intellectual outliers.

Author: Paul Ginsparg
Track: Free Knowledge and Access to Information

=====================================

I'm a bit slow on the uptake here... can someone define for me please "INTELLECTUAL OUTLIER"?

Is that, like, someone with ideas not currently in the mainstream? If so, has anyone the merest whiff of a clue as to why the scientific establishment would ever consider "NEUTRALIZING" such efforts?

IF SO, and I would hate to mischaracterize Dr. Ginsparg's usage of the term, perhaps he just meant "crackpots," as opposed to those with new and different ideas not yet accepted by the scientific establishment, Einstein & Pauli & Galileo and many, many others -- I can only imagine -- are rolling in their graves.

=====================================

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 4 2007, 06:31 AM

Name removed to protect privacy, which all by itself should say a lot...
==============================================


Dear [friend],

Thank you for sharing that information with me regarding your work on "Extended Relativistic Particle Physics." You are not alone in your work in this area. I know of others doing similar work who are effectively "blacklisted" from the corridors of scientific progress.

One way you can indirectly affect the debate is to send people to a thread on PhysOrg I have been posting to "Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms." I have made several posts you may find of interest since it was started. People need to get involved and have their voices heard, because silence is your worst enemy; because without the "shout out" to the world at large, no one else can hear the quietude I am positive rings all too clearly in your head. Here is a direct link to the second page of the thread...

Challenging Dominant Physics Paradigms
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18909&st=15

Information, after all, is power, kind of the point of the conversation in the first place.

My feeling is that the Scientific Community may not be capable of dealing with this on their own as Noam Chomsky suggested [they ought to do] in his letter to Carlos Castro Perelman -- the power dynamics are too entrenched -- and the 4th Estate needs to get involved. As a microcosm of the bigger picture, in terms of FEAR -- and the fact that you "half-expect" yourself to be relegated to the margin yourself is quite indicative of this dynamic -- please do also take a gander here...

Laissez Faire Libel?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18931

As for me, [friend], my personal stake, aside from a healthy dose of outrage at what strikes me as out and out "censorship" is this:

In Jungian/Paulian fashion, I believe that patterns of perception and organization that arise from natural phenomena follow also natural law, meaning e=mc^2 and Quantum Mechanics and so on, may well apply to people and social systems as well as to the workings of the cosmos. The connecting principle? Essentially what one might refer to as "social string theory." This is, of course, all HYPOTHESIS, but given what we EMPIRICALLY know already, for instance regarding the Butterfly Effect and Zipf's Law and The Long Tail, and via the work of physicists such as Barabasi, it certainly seems a less than ludicrous area to pursue, or at least talk about pursuing within the ivory halls of Academia.

My dream, or one of them (I have many), is to be ONE OF the founders of a new discipline "Cognitive Physics," which would be a consilience-based approach to the natural sciences incorporating some of the statistical and qualitative techniques of the social sciences -- the goal would be to get physicists and psychologists, sociologists and mathematicians, etc. all working together and cross-pollinating knowledge -- but in order to do that I must first get inside the "system," specifically into Academia (I want to study Economic Sociology through a Network Theory / Functionalist / Symbolic Interactionist lens...).

Is there a place for me inside "the system"?

Maybe, yes, maybe no. But this much I do know: There OUGHT to be a place for me, and others like me. The time may have come, but only if we WILL it to come.

Bottom line is that our interests are aligned. I look forward to further communication down the line.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

Letter from Noam Chomsky to Carlos Castro Perelman
http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Chomsky.html

What is Consilience?
(via Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience:_...ty_of_Knowledge

P.S. Other very relevant fields? Biology, Chemistry, Cultural Anthropology and Economics all come to mind...

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 4 2007, 10:23 PM

Yes, they do. People have challenged and do challenge all the major paradigms in physics. You'll find papers published on a number of pseudo-viable non-mainstream ideas like MONDs or Higgsless models.

Cranks don't actually directly challenge the challenging precisely because it's challenging. You cannot attack GR properly because it's too challenging for you to grasp. The cranks here can't attack string theory properly because even basic QFT is too challenging for them to grasp. Heck, basic high school calculus is too much to ask.

Notice how the vast majority of pet theories on these forums (and elsewhere) are 99.999% words and the equations which are used are simple things like E=mc^2 or F=ma, despite neither of these being able to describe physical systems properly (as experiments prove). But that's all the 'challenging physics' cranks can manage.

It is possible to suggest alternatives to the mainstream view, it's a down right essential requirement of the physics community. But it's important that a number of pre-requesites are met first.

1. The challenger or non-mainstream proponent needs to have demonstrated a very good working understanding of mainstream theory if he or she is suggesting it doesn't work on some large area. Without understanding the area, such claims are utterly unjustified. It's like a court calling a witness who couldn't possibly have seen anything relevent, it's ridicolous logic to employ.

2. The challenger must be able to coherently and methodically walk the reader through the particular area of the mainstream area they think has failed and explain, in detail, why they have failed and how the author would have done it properly.

3. These corrections must then be developed in a methodical manner through to a an 'end result' similar in format to the mainstream prediction (ie so if the mainstream prediction is an equation of motion x' = f(x), the new prediction of x' = g(x) is derived with comparible rigour).

4. The physical and phenomenological implications of this correction are discussed in detail, with specific quantative predictions made and the experiment to carry such measurements out is describe (if it's not already known). Computation of how much experimentation to get quantities like a '5 sigma confidence' should be done. Of course if the author doesn't know what such a thing is, it doesn't bode well for their ability to evaluate current models.

When you look at the kinds of things submitted to ArXiv by the local cadre of cranks on these forums, it's no suprise they 'don't challenge the challenging', they make no attempt to follow through with that method. Of course, if you disagree with that method, feel free to point out where and what I don't agree with.

Dear Alphanumeric,

Thank you for your response. Wonderful to have a conversation...

First, could you please be so kind as to define "crank" for me?

Second, do these two journals fall under the rubrik of "Crank Physics" in your mind, along, with, presumably, all authors who are published in them?

"Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion & Supersymmetry"

"International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics"

Kindest Regards,
Raphie

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 5 2007, 12:18 AM

Dear Alphanumeric,

I will answer indirectly at least part of the questions above for you. As time permits, I will post more.

For starters, here is the beginning of the resume (not perhaps the most current, although I have his most revent CV in my email inbox) of one man Dr. Paul Ginsparg has branded an "obvious nut," Carlos Castro Perelman. Furthermore, Dr. Castro Perelman's reputation has been sullied with -- let's be euphemistic about this -- the sins of others; scholars who have been less than forthright regarding their credentials. I will not name names because the intent here is not to embarass, but to ask questions that need asking, to rectify past injustices and to prevent new ones...

===================

CARLOS CASTRO PERELMAN - Resume

Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems, Clark Atlanta University
Atlanta, Georgia 30314, USA.

Goals:
Continuing Research in the Extended Relativity Theory developed by the
author; Gravity, Strings and Membranes; Fractals, Quantum Field Theory,
Mathematical Physics, Noncommutative Geometry and Number Theory

Education:
Ph.D. in Physics University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1991 with a 3.93 Grade
Point Average out of 4.0. Prof. Yuval Ne’eman advisor B.S. in Physics MIT,
1980 under Prof. Phillip Morrison.

Experience:
Research Affiliate of the NSF Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical
Systems. Clark Atlanta University. Atlanta. GA. 30314.

===================

If you would like to read the rest of the resume -- and it is a formidable resume -- feel free to simply do a Google search for the following key words:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantization in Astrophysics, Brownian Motion & Supersymmetry Castro
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Carlos Castro Perelman, whether you agree or disagree with him, constitute a "crank" in your mind?

In the Wall Street Investment world, there is a saying:

"Where there is Smoke there is Fire."

Dr. Castro Perelman, I might add, has become extremely agitated at times, even with me when I first approached him. His pump has been a bit primed, so to speak. I dare say if the gatekeeper of Science were doing his utmost, or so it seemed, to destroy MY career, I might go a bit "nutty" too.

I do not for a moment doubt Dr. Ginsparg's integrity, but I have quite salient and well-justified concerns regarding his ability to objectively assess the situation. The same applies to any working with him. They can not be deemed "unbiased" for they too have careers to protect.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank

More on the Archive Freedom Website
http://www.archivefreedom.org

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 5 2007, 02:45 AM

In an earlier post, I made note of the fact that the creator of the ArXiv.org site did not wish to be affiliated with it...

==================

FOR RELEASE: July 16, 2001
Contact: Bill Steele
Office: 607-255-7164
E-Mail: ws21@cornell.edu

ITHACA, N.Y. -- The Los Alamos E-Print Archive, which is widely credited with revolutionizing the way physical scientists and mathematicians communicate, is moving from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico to Cornell University.

Physicist Paul Ginsparg, who created and maintains the archive -- known by scientists around the world as "arXiv.org" -- will join the Cornell faculty this fall, and he is bringing the archive with him. It will become a service of Cornell University Library, which has developed several other digital academic resources. Both Ginsparg and library officials express hope that the archive will improve and expand in its new home.

The archive currently is receiving about 2 million visits a week, more than two-thirds of them from outside the United States...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/July0...archive.ws.html

==================

Good gosh, why on this sterling good earth would the man largely responsible for running the archives not wish to be affiliated with HIMSELF?

a:: humility
b:: some other reason? Perhaps CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 5 2007, 03:04 AM

Out of respect for truth2k's passion, (see related thread "An Exceptionally Simple Theory Of Everything? - A New Paper by Garrett Lisi" @ http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19183&st=15 ) I will not go so far as to label the abstract below the sign off as "this or that," (/edit ...and it's always possible that there is a "framing" or "translational" issue involved) but would like to point out the absolute ABSURDITY that the below can be published on ArXiv.org, but papers by certains physicists, such as Carlos Castro Perelman who has been published extensively in peer reviewed journals, cannot.

A few Case Histories on Archive Freedom
http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm

Without question in my mind at this point, Dr. Paul Ginsparg is on the clear verge of making a bloody fool of himself and I respectfully urge any with influence within the scientific community who may come across this post to protect him from becoming a laughing stock for the ages.

Kindest Regards,
Raphie Frank


===============================
The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity

Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))
The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 20 2007, 01:40 AM

===============================

NOTE: I do not "endorse" the work of Paul LaViolette, referred to in this post, but neither either will I pass any concrete judgement upon it, although his work is a bit too "fringe" for my tastes and I am not much the "New Age" fan. Rather I am far more "Jungian" in approach and believe the "spooky" and "mystical" have their bases either in natural phenomena we do not yet understand or are a consequence of "psychic energy/energies" that find conscious manifestation in the form of "visions," "night terrors" etc.. Regardless, I find the experiences of Dr. LaViolette extremely disturbing.

===============================

ON THE ARXIV "ENDORSEMENT" SYSTEM

From the Archive Freedom Website
http://archivefreedom.org/casehistories.htm

In January 2004, arXiv.org introduced an automated endorsement system which was touted by operators of the system as an answer to complaints about the archive's restrictive policies. However, there have been cases where blacklisted scientists have attempted to use this supposedly objective endorsement system and the outcome has been overriden to ensure that their works are still blocked.

Another drawback is that most endorsers are fearful of endorsing novel papers because they worry that they could lose their endorser status if their decision runs counter to the tastes of the arXiv moderators. In fact, the arXiv.org website states that the archive administrators reserve the right to revoke any endorser's endorsement status. When one blacklisted scientist's paper was rejected, the reason given by the archive moderator was: "No legitimate endorsements from current users." When the scientist then asked "will you guarantee that persons who endorse me will not be victimised by having their arXiv privileges withdrawn?" no substantive response was forthcoming.

=============================
PARTIAL CASE HISTORY - PAUL LAVIOLETTE
http://etheric.com/physarchive/history2.html#11


January 20, 2005: LaViolette is endorsed and next attempts to upload his paper.
On January 21st, LaViolette once again attempted to upload his paper. This time the arXiv system allowed him to upload and gave him a paper ID number and password:
User-ID: astro-ph/0501485
Password: 2n7yw

But, when he then put in the ID and password to view his uploaded paper, he got back the automated response "invalid password." This continued for the next few days. Then on the fourth day he found that his paper number had been assigned to someone else and that his paper had in fact been suppressed by the arXiv.org administration.

At first, confused about the password rejection problem, he wrote to archive administration informing them of the problem:

1/22/05
To: www-admin@arxiv.org

After having my paper endorsed and uploaded, your system sent me a paper number and paper password (see below). But when I use these to access my listing I get the response that the password is invalid. What do you advise?

Paul LaViolette

There was no reply. Then, after discovering his paper number had been reassigned, he wrote to them once again.

1/25/05
To: www-admin@arxiv.org

After having my paper endorsed and uploaded, your system sent me a paper number and paper password (see below). But when I used these to access my listing I got the response that the password is invalid. Now when I put in that astro-ph paper number I see that it has been reassigned to a Ms. G. Shaw. So what has happened to my uploaded paper? I have not had a response also to my previous inquiry of three days ago.

Paul LaViolette

===============================

ABOUT PAUL LAVIOLETTE

PAUL A. LaVIOLETTE, PH.D, is author of Earth Under Fire, Beyond the Big Bang, Subquantum Kinetics, and editor of A Systems View of Man. He has also published many original papers in physics, astronomy, climatology, systems theory, and psychology.

He received his BA in physics from Johns Hopkins, MBA from the University of Chicago, PhD from Portland State University

He is currently president of The Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary scientific research institute. He has served as a solar energy consultant for the UN, Greek government, and Club of Rome Goals for Mankind Project and has also consulted Fortune 500 companies on ways of stimulating innovation.

From...
http://earthchangesmedia.com/tvguests/biolaviolette.htm

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 20 2007, 08:51 PM

A crank is someone who complains about supposed problems with a group (in this case, scientists/physicists) while exhibiting the same problems just as badly, if not worse. Someone who claims to be a shining light of knowledge while exhibiting extreme ignorance. Someone who refuses to accept any correction or the possibility they might be wrong, regardless of the evidence against them. Extreme cases involve descending into complete incoherence as a way of avoiding accepting their flaws. Someone who conforms strongly to the following two websites :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I am unfamiliar with either of those journals. However, the title of the first journal is enormously questionable. It doesn't even make any sense.

I believe that to be a wonderful definition of "crank" Alphanumeric. Thank you.

I might add, it is a very, very fine line at times between the genius and the crank and often the two overlap and it can become difficult to discern the value beneath the vitriol.

For one example of genius gone horribly awry, see the website of Gene Ray

Time Cube
http://www.timecube.com/

It is rather painful to read and I can only thank whatever Gods there may be that this guy is not in a position of power.

This post has been edited by Raphie Frank on Nov 20 2007, 09:08 PM