Remember me
▼ Content

The Emissivity Question

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Emissivity Question > Page 2


Page 2 of 2<12
05-06-2017 20:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 05-06-2017 20:27
05-06-2017 20:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4034)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.
05-06-2017 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.


So you don't think the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is science, eh?

What about radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 don't you understand?

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-06-2017 22:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4034)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.


So you don't think the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is science, eh?

What about radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 don't you understand?


Because you ignorant fool - adding emissivity to the calculation is to try to correct a grey body to a black body. And since that is a general correction it is only partially accurate you damned fool.
06-06-2017 04:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.


So you don't think the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is science, eh?

What about radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 don't you understand?


Because you ignorant fool - adding emissivity to the calculation is to try to correct a grey body to a black body. And since that is a general correction it is only partially accurate you damned fool.


No, the emissivity term is not trying to correct anything. It has always been part of the equation.

You seemed to have entered a paradox.

1) S-B applies only to ideal black bodies.
2) S-B applies to Earth, Venus, or any other planet.

Which is it, dude?

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2017 21:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4034)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.


So you don't think the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is science, eh?

What about radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 don't you understand?


Because you ignorant fool - adding emissivity to the calculation is to try to correct a grey body to a black body. And since that is a general correction it is only partially accurate you damned fool.


No, the emissivity term is not trying to correct anything. It has always been part of the equation.

You seemed to have entered a paradox.

1) S-B applies only to ideal black bodies.
2) S-B applies to Earth, Venus, or any other planet.

Which is it, dude?


I should not be speaking to you in such a manner and I apologize.

But at the same time I expect you to actually be willing to learn things instead of making up your own inventions.

Originally the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not contain an emissivity correction because it was a thought problem that regarded blackbodies only. It was supposed to deduce the radii of stars and not describe heat effects from cold bodies such as the Earth. This is what led eventually to emissivity factor being added later.

After it became apparent that this could have a real use in the real world it occurred to them that the the entire cosmos is a grey body with E < 1 they added e. And since MOST of the universe is a combination of materials and not a single thing none of the emissivities are correct. They are only broad generalizations with holes in their emission bands.

I would urge you to study the subjects you seem to want to use so frequently incorrectly. When you do this you do not do your cause of showing AGW as a false science. You merely give the other side a chance to criticize your failures rather than address their own BS.
06-06-2017 23:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: So don't be mad - just go away.

You got the quote wrong.


But I got the idea correct.


Don't think so.


I don't believe you have the ability to think. I gave you a list of every F'ing thing you were wrong on but I still haven't seen you correct any of them.


You are presuming they need correcting. Several items on that list are contextomies. If you can't understand what is being explained to you, that's YOUR problem.

Any particular issue you want to deal with?


I am presuming nothing. You have the inability to think. And that is not a presumption - that shows plainly in your inability to properly use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while quoting it continuously to your inability to transpose terms in any equation.

You are simply too stupid to be making any comments because you believe you understand a minor detail.


So you don't think the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is science, eh?

What about radiance = S-B constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4 don't you understand?


Because you ignorant fool - adding emissivity to the calculation is to try to correct a grey body to a black body. And since that is a general correction it is only partially accurate you damned fool.


No, the emissivity term is not trying to correct anything. It has always been part of the equation.

You seemed to have entered a paradox.

1) S-B applies only to ideal black bodies.
2) S-B applies to Earth, Venus, or any other planet.

Which is it, dude?


I should not be speaking to you in such a manner and I apologize.

Accepted. Let's forget it.
Wake wrote:
But at the same time I expect you to actually be willing to learn things instead of making up your own inventions.

It is my business to learn things and make up my own inventions. I am an engineer. I am also a scientist., mathematician, etymologist, historian, chemist, welder, philosopher, computer programmer, businessman, radio operator, pilot, mechanic, and a host of other things.

Learning does not involve capitulating to your beliefs.

Wake wrote:
Originally the Stefan-Boltzmann equation did not contain an emissivity correction because it was a thought problem that regarded blackbodies only.

Wrong. The S-B equation has the emissivity factor in it for all cases. It always has.
Wake wrote:
It was supposed to deduce the radii of stars

The S-B law does not deduce the radii of anything.
Wake wrote:
and not describe heat effects from cold bodies such as the Earth.

The Earth is not a cold body. It is emitting light, like all substances do, according to Stefan-Boltzmann. That light happens to be in the infrared range. It does not have sufficient energy to glow with visible light (thankfully!).
Wake wrote:
This is what led eventually to emissivity factor being added later.

It has always been part of the equation.
Wake wrote:
After it became apparent that this could have a real use in the real world it occurred to them that the the entire cosmos is a grey body with E < 1 they added e.

It was not added. Emissivity is part of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation...period.
Wake wrote:
And since MOST of the universe is a combination of materials and not a single thing none of the emissivities are correct.

This is true.
Wake wrote:
They are only broad generalizations with holes in their emission bands.

That's being generous. As far as I'm concerned, the emissivity used is pure speculation.
Wake wrote:
I would urge you to study the subjects you seem to want to use so frequently incorrectly.

You should study where the Stefan-Boltzmann law comes from, how it can be derived from Planck's law, and why trying to calculate the temperature by using a radiance doesn't work.
Wake wrote:
When you do this you do not do your cause of showing AGW as a false science.

The Church of Global Warming is not science because these idiots can't even define what 'global warming' actually is without using circular arguments. Science does not base any theory on undefined things. Indeed, no theory can...not even a non-scientific theory. Global Warming is not even a theory of any kind. It is a vacuous argument, which is a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You merely give the other side a chance to criticize your failures rather than address their own BS.

We are dealing with a religion here. They are going to twist science any way they can to make it conform to their religion. Nothing I say or do will change the deeply religious. It does point out their fallacies, however, and may cause a silent reader to possibly reconsider the arguments they make.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-06-2017 23:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4034)
Into the Night wrote:.
(Stop breaking up the discussion. If you wish to answer a subject then answer that and make another posting for another)

Again, if you don't know transposition of terms you are not any kind of mathematician. You invent science as you see fit. It doesn't matter if it is all incorrect. And as I say - it is nothing more than smokescreen for the AGW group to use instead of answering the real questions.
07-06-2017 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:.
(Stop breaking up the discussion. If you wish to answer a subject then answer that and make another posting for another)
I break up responses to each topic I am responding to. If you don't like it, then discuss only one topic at a time in your posts.
Wake wrote:
Again, if you don't know transposition of terms you are not any kind of mathematician.
I know what transposition of terms is. It won't work for S-B and planets because you don't know the emissivity of a planet. Emissivity is a measured value. To measure it, you must first accurately know the temperature of the surface you are measuring.
Wake wrote:
You invent science as you see fit.
I have invented no science with the Stefan-Boltzmann law or Planck's law (where it comes from). I suggest you study the papers from the authors of these theories to gain an insight into them. I suggest you study in particular the mathematical method by which S-B is derived from Planck's law.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is all incorrect.
I have described nothing incorrect.
Wake wrote:
And as I say - it is nothing more than smokescreen for the AGW group to use instead of answering the real questions.

The Church of Global Warming produces its own smokescreens. It can't even define what 'global warming' actually means!

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2017 20:14
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is not a cold body. It is emitting light, like all substances do, according to Stefan-Boltzmann. That light happens to be in the infrared range. It does not have sufficient energy to glow with visible light (thankfully!).


But it is damn close! Earth is practically a glowing body, it only has a very thin shell in the crust. What are your thoughts on the glowing interior and the fact that it has been excluded from all investigations of earth climate? Logically, we should consider the atmosphere temperature as well as surface temperature in terms of an externally heated engine with a wet outside of the enclosure walls. But why has sceptics not used this in their arguments? Without doubt, any solar heating must be finally balanced to the core that has about the same temperature as the sun surface.

Why has no one mentioned the fact that effective emission at 255K inevitably must have a source with the power 4*sigma255K^2? Let´s see how the gh-theory tries to explain that with dry ice and water vapor.
Edited on 22-06-2017 20:16
22-06-2017 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is not a cold body. It is emitting light, like all substances do, according to Stefan-Boltzmann. That light happens to be in the infrared range. It does not have sufficient energy to glow with visible light (thankfully!).


But it is damn close!
Not really.Define 'damn close'.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Earth is practically a glowing body,
It IS a glowing body. It's just not a visible glow (other than reflected or refracted light)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
it only has a very thin shell in the crust.
True.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
What are your thoughts on the glowing interior and the fact that it has been excluded from all investigations of earth climate?
That there is no such thing as an Earth climate.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Logically, we should consider the atmosphere temperature as well as surface temperature in terms of an externally heated engine with a wet outside of the enclosure walls. But why has sceptics not used this in their arguments? Without doubt, any solar heating must be finally balanced to the core that has about the same temperature as the sun surface.

Which brings me back around to the basic question:

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.

LifeIsThermal wrote:
Why has no one mentioned the fact that effective emission at 255K inevitably must have a source with the power 4*sigma255K^2? Let´s see how the gh-theory tries to explain that with dry ice and water vapor.

Because no one knows the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to determine that value.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-06-2017 22:18
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
Not really.Define 'damn close'.


Close, as in tinfoil close, the separation between the glow and space is only about 0.3% of the radius


That there is no such thing as an Earth climate.


My conclusion exactly. But since thermodynamics should be a big part of all education concerning anything including temperatures, how come no one has raised the question that you need an internal source for effective emission of 255K that is 960W/m^2? It´s not like radiation bounces at the surface, it heats the glowing ball.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


Why should I? My goal is to destroy it in public debate to a level where I get a free pass to punch Michael Mann in the face using Bill Nye as a bat, in front of cameras. As entertainment.

But since you ask. It is a theory where the knowledge of thermodynamics is so low that it builds on the idea that adding heat absorbers to a constant limited heat flow, will increase temperature. Even though it means less heat per molecule. It is explained with blankets, which does the opposite of the gh-effect in reality when they "retain heat" by preventing absorption in cold air. My view of global warming is that it is a detailed list of only violations of the most solid physics to date. Thermodynamics is the only 100% consensus science, and the gh-theory violates it in every single claim it makes.

Because no one knows the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to determine that value.


And how do you think emissivity affect things? Why is that important in the exterior of a cavity with glowing interior heated by another glowing body?

What is your definition of emissivity, in own words?
22-06-2017 22:22
LifeIsThermal
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
4*sigma255K^2?


Should of course be ^4
22-06-2017 23:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4034)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is not a cold body. It is emitting light, like all substances do, according to Stefan-Boltzmann. That light happens to be in the infrared range. It does not have sufficient energy to glow with visible light (thankfully!).


But it is damn close! Earth is practically a glowing body, it only has a very thin shell in the crust. What are your thoughts on the glowing interior and the fact that it has been excluded from all investigations of earth climate? Logically, we should consider the atmosphere temperature as well as surface temperature in terms of an externally heated engine with a wet outside of the enclosure walls. But why has sceptics not used this in their arguments? Without doubt, any solar heating must be finally balanced to the core that has about the same temperature as the sun surface.

Why has no one mentioned the fact that effective emission at 255K inevitably must have a source with the power 4*sigma255K^2? Let´s see how the gh-theory tries to explain that with dry ice and water vapor.


The lower end of the IR is almost down into the radio frequencies. I would not call that even close to "glowing".

And the energy that is CAUSING that IR radiation is the energy budget of the Sun.

I can't make out what you're talking about visa vi electrostatic forces so perhaps you have a theory in there that can come up with explanations more directly that the methods used presently with heat from the Sun and an additions 0.3% from the Earth itself.

I think that you are a bit over-excited and should calm down and work your thoughts out in a more logical manner.
23-06-2017 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Not really.Define 'damn close'.


Close, as in tinfoil close, the separation between the glow and space is only about 0.3% of the radius


That there is no such thing as an Earth climate.


My conclusion exactly. But since thermodynamics should be a big part of all education concerning anything including temperatures, how come no one has raised the question that you need an internal source for effective emission of 255K that is 960W/m^2? It´s not like radiation bounces at the surface, it heats the glowing ball.

Define 'global warming' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.


Why should I? My goal is to destroy it in public debate to a level where I get a free pass to punch Michael Mann in the face using Bill Nye as a bat, in front of cameras. As entertainment.

I am not asking you this question to expect an answer from you. I am asking this question to point out the circular nature of the Church of Global Warming. All religions are based on an initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
But since you ask. It is a theory where the knowledge of thermodynamics is so low that it builds on the idea that adding heat absorbers to a constant limited heat flow, will increase temperature.

A circular definition. 'Global warming' cannot be defined as a wordier version of 'global warming', even if you use the intermediary of 'greenhouse effect' to do it.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Thermodynamics is the only 100% consensus science

Science doesn't use consensus, not even for thermodynamics. Thermodynamics happen to be a set of falsifiable theories about thermal energy.
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Because no one knows the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible to determine that value.


And how do you think emissivity affect things? Why is that important in the exterior of a cavity with glowing interior heated by another glowing body?

What is your definition of emissivity, in own words?

Emissivity is the ability of a material to emit or absorb electromagnetic energy. It is the inverse of albedo. It is a value ranging from an ideal black body (perfect absorber), to a perfect white body (perfect reflector) and is expressed as a percentage, or from zero to one.

Emissivity is part of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which relates radiance to temperature. The emissivity term, which is a constant (derived from a measured value), is what makes the S-B law applicable to all bodies.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 23-06-2017 00:55
23-06-2017 01:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22434)
Wake wrote:
LifeIsThermal wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Earth is not a cold body. It is emitting light, like all substances do, according to Stefan-Boltzmann. That light happens to be in the infrared range. It does not have sufficient energy to glow with visible light (thankfully!).


But it is damn close! Earth is practically a glowing body, it only has a very thin shell in the crust. What are your thoughts on the glowing interior and the fact that it has been excluded from all investigations of earth climate? Logically, we should consider the atmosphere temperature as well as surface temperature in terms of an externally heated engine with a wet outside of the enclosure walls. But why has sceptics not used this in their arguments? Without doubt, any solar heating must be finally balanced to the core that has about the same temperature as the sun surface.

Why has no one mentioned the fact that effective emission at 255K inevitably must have a source with the power 4*sigma255K^2? Let´s see how the gh-theory tries to explain that with dry ice and water vapor.


The lower end of the IR is almost down into the radio frequencies. I would not call that even close to "glowing".
I would certainly call it 'glowing'. Even broadcast AM radio antennas 'glow' at that frequency.
Wake wrote:
And the energy that is CAUSING that IR radiation is the energy budget of the Sun.
Certainly the major portion of it.
Wake wrote:
I can't make out what you're talking about visa vi electrostatic forces so perhaps you have a theory in there that can come up with explanations more directly that the methods used presently with heat from the Sun and an additions 0.3% from the Earth itself.

Yet he does bring up an interesting point which I also have been making.

Just what IS 'global warming'? Is it just the surface? Does it include the atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? Underground? How far? From what starting point of measurement to what ending point of measurement? Why are these two points important? Why are any other two points NOT important?

Wake wrote:
I think that you are a bit over-excited and should calm down and work your thoughts out in a more logical manner.


The effect of Earth's internal energy is small compared to the Sun, but it is not zero.

The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The Emissivity Question:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
General Question in General Forum.16128-05-2024 08:33
How would YOU know? It's a valid question.6610-05-2024 00:30
12V DC motor question2418-02-2024 23:24
Just one simple question3925-10-2023 02:31
Honest Question for Christians10229-12-2022 16:57
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact