Redshift z

[modest]

I didn't find anything in this link that supports your position.

 

My point was that extrinsic or intrinsic curvature makes no difference. The quote was "It is an intrinsic property which can be determined by measuring length and angles and does not depend on the way the surface is embedded in space"

 

The geodesics on a sphere converge whether intrinsically curved or extrinsically curved in a higher dimension.

 

That depends on your interpretation and extrapolation of GR, from local to global considerations.

 

If you solved GR rather than interpreting it then you would see it demands precise answers as to the way matter moves. It is an equation whose variables have real physical meaning.

 

A Gaussian manifold of constant curvature such as a sphere (K = 1) or a pseudosphere (K = -1), has the same magnitude of curvature, the same gravitational potential (in Newtonian terms), at all points on the manifold.

 

QT is right. Flat spacetime, such as the area inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell, has constant gravitational potential. The potential need not be zero, but it is the same anywhere in the hollow sphere—anywhere along the flat spacetime. The gravitational force is zero in that case because gravitational force is the derivative of potential and the derivative of a constant function is zero.

 

In curved spacetime the potential is not constant along space which is why there is a gravitational force. There is a slope to the potential.

 

"constant spacetime curvature" does *not* mean "constant potential" or "constant force". It means quite the opposite.

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Hey Qtop, did you ever here of, or read anything by Ernst Fischer? If not check out An Equilibrium Balance of the Universe

 

Let me know what you think.

 

 

My point was that extrinsic or intrinsic curvature makes no difference. The quote was "It is an intrinsic property which can be determined by measuring length and angles and does not depend on the way the surface is embedded in space" The geodesics on a sphere converge whether intrinsically curved or extrinsically curved in a higher dimension.

 

My point in mentioning that the global Gaussian curvature is intrinsic, as opposed to extrinsic, was simply to show that inhabitants of a four dimensional spacetime manifold can measure the degree of curvature. And, that such information can be used to deduce the cause of redshift z, as well as explain the stability of the universe.

 

 

If you solved GR rather than interpreting it then you would see it demands precise answers as to the way matter moves. It is an equation whose variables have real physical meaning.

 

General relativity is not solely a theory of gravity that describes how objects move. It is a theory of gravity that described the curvature of spacetime.

 

 

QT is right. Flat spacetime, such as the area inside a spherically symmetric hollow shell, has constant gravitational potential. The potential need not be zero, but it is the same anywhere in the hollow sphere—anywhere along the flat spacetime. The gravitational force is zero in that case because gravitational force is the derivative of potential and the derivative of a constant function is zero.

 

This case is of historical interest, but it has little to do with surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature.

 

 

In curved spacetime the potential is not constant along space which is why there is a gravitational force. There is a slope to the potential.

 

Not exactly. You are correct, if you refer to local gravitational fields (in the vicinity of massive objects). The topic under review here is that of a globally homogenous spacetimes of constant Gaussian/Riemannian curvature (K = 1 and K = -1). Clearly, constant curvature, in this case, implies that the value of curvature is the same everywhere. BUt the situation is a little more complicated than that.

 

"constant spacetime curvature" does *not* mean "constant potential" or "constant force". It means quite the opposite.

 

By definition, a Gaussian/Riemannian manifold is basically flat (Euclidean) on a sufficiently small scales (a fact that corresponds to the Einstein equivalence principle for the spacetime manifold). It follows that there exist coordinates at any given point on the manifold such that the geodesic paths through that point are essentially straight lines. From this point of view (i.e., that of an observer) curvature increases with distance. The appearance is that curvature vanishes locally, and reaches a maximum at the horizon. In terms of gravitational potential, this would imply that the maximum potential is attained at the visible horizon, and that the potential os zero locally.

 

However, this observation does not preserve coordinate independence. The observer finds herself in a privileged reference frame. By measuring distances in such an intrinsic manifold she will come to the conclusion that spacetime is globally curved. And depending on distance measurements she will be able to tell (albeit, with difficulty) if the curvature is constant or not. She will also be able to distinguish between two types of curvature. Depending on whether objects appear further, or closer, than would be expected in a Euclidean universe, she can determine whether the global curvature is positive or negative (spherical or hyperbolic).

 

And because of her assumption of homogeneity and isotropy she will conclude that there is no preferred reference frame. All points are equal. What appears observationally as a change in the value of curvature (flat locally, increasing curvature with distance) will be interpreted as an effect induced by the fact that photons propagate through a geodesically curved spacetime, an so lose energy proportionally with distance. She simply places herself at the origin of a polar coordinate system.

 

From her perspective, the coordinates must vary smoothly along any given trajectory in order to maintain a geodesic path on the curved manifold. Obviously, if we insert the polar metric components into Gauss's curvature formula we get either K = 1 or K = -1, consistent with the fact that the surface is continuously curved.

 

Of course, this is not the only interpretation that can be made consistent with observations. Redshift can also be interpreted as due to radial motion in flat space (with curved coordinates). Both real motion (due to a change in the scale factor or whatever) and intrinsic Gaussian curvature (interpreted as a globally homogeneous gravitational field) would comply with the equivalence principle. The point of the equivalence principle is that curving coordinates are indistinguishable from gravitation, so there is no intrinsic ontological difference between pseudo-gravity (due to accelerated motion) and a true gravitational field (due to the mass-energy content).

 

In the former interpretation, you are entitled to consider a coordinate independent homogeneous field of constant curvature as varying in time in accord with the FLRW metric (and others). That is, constant spacetime curvature does not mean constant potential or constant force.

 

However, in the latter interpretation, if coordinate independence is to be maintained, constant spacetime curvature means constant potential or constant force at all points in the manifold. The gradient of curvature is constant.

 

Therefor we have a conceptual necessity of identifying and disentangling the purely geometrical effects of non-inertial coordinates with the physical phenomenon of gravitation (as an intrinsic metrical property of the surface).

 

It would be a mistake to assume all points in all spaces of constant curvature are the same. Points is a Lorentz spacetime of constant curvature, for example, are not the same. Neither are all points the same in the de Sitter, mentioned above. Yet these can be spaces of constant curvature.

 

Here, however, we assume the most simple example of a Riemannian manifold of constant sectional curvature.

 

Riemannian manifolds with constant sectional curvature are the most simple. These are called space forms. By rescaling the metric there are three possible cases

• negative curvature −1, hyperbolic geometry

• zero curvature, Euclidean geometry

• positive curvature +1, elliptic geometry

The model manifolds for the three geometries are hyperbolic space, Euclidean space and a unit sphere. They are the only complete, simply connected Riemannian manifolds of given sectional curvature. All other complete constant curvature manifolds are quotients of those by some group of isometries.

If for each point in a connected Riemannian manifold (of dimension three or greater) the sectional curvature is independent of the tangent 2-plane, then the sectional curvature is in fact constant on the whole manifold.

 

These are symmetric, maximal homogeneous manifolds of constant curvature. They are all conformally flat locally, i.e. they admit conformal mappings into Euclidean space given small enough regions.

 

All bodies in such a field are equally and uniformly accelerated. Because the curvature of the manifold is constant, the acceleration due to the Gaussian curvature is uniform in all directions. And since there is no preferred direction objects do not move geodesically. This is exactly the same as if all objects were freely-falling in a gravitational field. And because there is no preferred direction in which to free-fall in a homogeneous manifold of continuous Gaussian curvature, objects essentially remain unmoved, unperturbed, by the global field.

 

Physically, objects can be regarded as being in a space free-of gravitational fields. (See for example: On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light Einstein, 1911).

 

What we appear to have, then, is a universe that remains in equilibrium globally, yet the stuff in it evolves with time...

 

CC

[modest]

The appearance is that curvature vanishes locally, and reaches a maximum at the horizon. In terms of gravitational potential, this would imply that the maximum potential is attained at the visible horizon, and that the potential os zero locally.

 

However, this observation does not preserve coordinate independence. The observer finds herself in a privileged reference frame.

 

It's probably not a good sign when the posts are getting longer.

 

Let me ask a simple questions, CC, pertaining to the quote above.

 

If I am in a rocket and my friend Bob is in a rocket and it appears to me that Bob is moving half the speed of light then how much kinetic energy do I have and how much does Bob have?

 

Is my frame privileged?

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

It's probably not a good sign when the posts are getting longer.

 

Tell me when to stop... :lol:

 

Let me ask a simple questions, CC, pertaining to the quote above.

 

If I am in a rocket and my friend Bob is in a rocket and it appears to me that Bob is moving half the speed of light then how much kinetic energy do I have and how much does Bob have?

 

Is my frame privileged?

 

The observers frame is always privileged, in a sense.

 

The point of my sentence was that, sure the observer sees the universe a certain way (as if from a privileged frame), but the actual situation is that every observer will see the universe in such a manner. That is in part because of the limited velocity of light c. Every observer finds herself centered on the celestial sphere. But she knows she is not centrally located, and she suspects, rightly so, that there is no center to the universe.

 

So her preliminary conclusion that her local space was gravity-free (with respect to global Gaussian curvature) and that there was an ultra-massive horizon (where redshift tends to infinity) was erroneous. The universe at the horizon is no more or less massive than it is locally.

 

The frame-independent world-view is the correct interpretation. Our observer can safely assume that she lives in a globally homogeneous and isotropic Gaussian manifold of constant positive or negative intrinsic curvature. And, that by measuring distances in such a manifold she will be able to determine empirically if the curvature has a positive or negative signature. Either that or she can conclude the universe is expanding. But the flight down the latter path will present itself with some irreducible obstacles that tend dangerously towards metaphysics (that is to say pure speculation).

 

To answer your question about kinetic energy: I don't know. :unsure:

 

CC

[quantumtopology]

Hey Qtop, did you ever here of, or read anything by Ernst Fischer? If not check out An Equilibrium Balance of the Universe

No, I didn't, I'll take a look.

 

All bodies in such a field are equally and uniformly accelerated. Because the curvature of the manifold is constant, the acceleration due to the Gaussian curvature is uniform in all directions. And since there is no preferred direction objects do not move geodesically. This is exactly the same as if all objects were freely-falling in a gravitational field. And because there is no preferred direction in which to free-fall in a homogeneous manifold of continuous Gaussian curvature, objects essentially remain unmoved, unperturbed, by the global field.

Wouldn't this be more accurately expressed by saying that all bodies move geodesically with no preferred direction and therefore stability is kept? To say that objects remain "unmoved" is like saying at rest in an absolute way and that is not allowed by relativity.

 

 

Physically, objects can be regarded as being in a space free-of gravitational fields. (See for example: On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light Einstein, 1911).

This is a seminal paper by Einstein but i can't locate where in it "objects in free of gravitational fields are mentioned, it's mostly about energy and light's behaviour. Can you point me to the specific part you refer to?

 

 

What we appear to have, then, is a universe that remains in equilibrium globally, yet the stuff in it evolves with time...

I agree.

[modest]

Tell me when to stop... :lol:

 

 

 

The observers frame is always privileged, in a sense.

 

...

 

To answer your question about kinetic energy: I don't know. :unsure:

 

From my perspective, Bob has quite a lot of velocity and quite a lot of kinetic energy, and from Bob's perspective I have quite a lot of velocity and quite a lot of kinetic energy and he has none.

 

This does not imply that any frame is privileged. this is just relativity at work. The next question is: are Bob and I really moving away from one another? Each thinks the other has kinetic energy, does this somehow cancel out the actual physical movement between us? Yes? No?

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Wouldn't this be more accurately expressed by saying that all bodies move geodesically with no preferred direction and therefore stability is kept? To say that objects remain "unmoved" is like saying at rest in an absolute way and that is not allowed by relativity.

 

Sure, if you like. But objects move geodesically because of local inhomogeneities, because of local gravitational interactions, not at all because of the global Gaussian curvature. Motion is thus a local phenomenon, not a bulk global response to Gaussian curvature. Obviously all objects are moving with respect to other objects (or not, relatively speaking). The unmoved is only in relation to the general Gaussian manifold of constant curvature (which induces no motion at all).

 

 

 

This is a seminal paper by Einstein but i can't locate where in it "objects in free of gravitational fields are mentioned, it's mostly about energy and light's behaviour. Can you point me to the specific part you refer to?

 

 

For the accelerated system K' this follows directly from Galileo's principle, but for the system K, at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field, from the experience that all bodies in such a field are equally and uniformly accelerated. This experience, of the equal falling of all bodies in the gravitational field, is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded, but in spite of that the law has not found any place in the foundations of our edifice of the physical universe.

 

But we arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; [note 2] and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course.

[coldcreation]

From my perspective, Bob has quite a lot of velocity and quite a lot of kinetic energy, and from Bob's perspective I have quite a lot of velocity and quite a lot of kinetic energy and he has none.

 

This does not imply that any frame is privileged. this is just relativity at work. The next question is: are Bob and I really moving away from one another? Each thinks the other has kinetic energy, does this somehow cancel out the actual physical movement between us? Yes? No?

 

~modest

 

But you're talking about local motion in the absence of gravity, and I'm talking about global curvature in the absence of bulk motion.

 

I'm not saying that any frame is privileged, only that from the observers point of view her frame may 'appear' that way. And that one should not be misled in this respect.

 

CC

[quantumtopology]

For the accelerated system K' this follows directly from Galileo's principle, but for the system K, at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field, from the experience that all bodies in such a field are equally and uniformly accelerated. This experience, of the equal falling of all bodies in the gravitational field, is one of the most universal which the observation of nature has yielded, but in spite of that the law has not found any place in the foundations of our edifice of the physical universe.

 

But we arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as uniformly accelerated. This assumption of exact physical equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the absolute velocity of a system; [note 2] and it makes the equal falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a matter of course

 

This is the EP, K is in a space free of gravitational field if we regard it as uniformly accelerated so it has a motion.

[coldcreation]

This is the EP, K is in a space free of gravitational field if we regard it as uniformly accelerated so it has a motion.

 

Yes, and this refers to local phenomenon, while we are discussing cosmology. The uniformly accelerated objects are the analogue of galaxies in an expanding space. While the objects at rest in a gravitational field are the analogue to which I attach importance: System K [located in a homogeneous gravitational field, a stationary system of co-ordinates] can be regarded as being in a space free from gravitational fields.

 

Something like that, lol.

 

CC

[modest]

But you're talking about local motion in the absence of gravity

 

I don't know what "local motion" is apart from any other kind of motion.

 

 

and I'm talking about global curvature in the absence of bulk motion.

 

I don't know what "bulk motion" is apart from any other kind. "motion" of any kind and in any situation means "the distance between two things is increasing or decreasing over time".

 

What I'm talking about is kinetic energy.

 

I'm not saying that any frame is privileged, only that from the observers point of view her frame may 'appear' that way. And that one should not be misled in this respect.

 

No one would think that a comoving observer in homogeneous space is privileged and I'm trying to explain why.

 

If Alice is moving relative to Bob then Alice thinks Bob has kinetic energy while she has none. Bob thinks the reciprocal—that he has no kinetic energy while Alice does. The point is that there is an actual physical difference between them. They are moving relative to one another.

 

Now consider a Lorentzian manifold with constant positive curvature. Let's say there are two observers, Bob and Alice. Bob solves his metric first. He finds himself at the top of a 'hill' of gravitational potential. The top of the hill is flat which means the slope in potential is zero. Slope in potential is gravitational force, so he doesn't think he is being forced in any direction due to gravity.

 

But, according to Bob, Alice is on a downward sloping line of potential. He concludes that she has less gravitational potential than he, himself, does. And, the gravitational potential that she has is being converted to kinetic energy as she is forced away from him—falling, as it were, down the hill.

 

Alice solves her metric and comes to the reciprocal conclusion. She believes she is at the top of the hill. Bob is sliding down falling away from her with a force proportional to the slope in potential.

 

Neither person in this situation is privileged and both have come to the same description of what is happening physically. They are being forced away from one another. Exactly who is doing the moving and who is static is a relative matter as it should be. So, let's look at what you said again,

 

The appearance is that curvature vanishes locally, and reaches a maximum at the horizon. In terms of gravitational potential, this would imply that the maximum potential is attained at the visible horizon, and that the potential os zero locally.

 

However, this observation does not preserve coordinate independence. The observer finds herself in a privileged reference frame.

 

Bob and Alice can, indeed, both solve the metric concluding that they themselves have more gravitational potential than anyone else in the universe and the motion between them can be real without any frame being privileged.

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

[...]What I'm talking about is kinetic energy.

 

I'll try to keep this short and sweet. What I'm talking about is a global homogeneous and isotropic gravitational field with constant Gaussian curvature.

 

 

[snip]No one would think that a comoving observer in homogeneous space is privileged and I'm trying to explain why.[...]

 

I never implied the contrary. Everyone knows this already.

 

 

Now consider a Lorentzian manifold with constant positive curvature. [...]

 

Alice solves her metric and comes to the reciprocal conclusion. She believes she is at the top of the hill. Bob is sliding down falling away from her with a force proportional to the slope in potential.[...]

 

Bob and Alice can, indeed, both solve the metric concluding that they themselves have more gravitational potential than anyone else in the universe and the motion between them can be real without any frame being privileged.

 

Here is the problem. In fact there are two problems: (1) In your two related thought experiments, you assume that Bob and Alice are comoving, i.e, they are in motion relative to one another.

 

Locally there are ways to determine if an objects is actually moving relative to the observer. One is by actually seeing it move over time. Globally, in cosmology that is, where cosmological redshift z begins to manifest itself in the spectra of distant light emitting sources, the observer has no way of knowing whether an object is actually moving (radially relative to the rest frame of the observer) or whether the objects is immersed is a homogeneous gravitational field of constant curvature (of the Gaussian/Riemannian types). We don't see objects moving (they are not displaced from one image to another taken at a later time). All we see is a change in the spectral lines, along with the associated time dilation factor.

 

If we are to generalize, in the context of Bob and Alice, it can be interpreted judging from spectral shifts, that both Bob and Alice are actually stationary (not comoving) relative to one another, and that what appears to be radial motion is actually the result of the geodesic path distorting the EMR emanating from either (and/or both) observer(s) in a curved spacetime.

 

So the concerns of general relativity are not solely centered on motion, but too, curved spacetime phenomena in the relative absence of motion. Of course, in cosmology, depending on intrinsic motion, there will be added a Doppler shift towards the blue or red end of the spectrum, superimposed on the cosmological redshift (as well, to some small extent, an additional z due to intrinsic gravitational redshift).

 

So, there are at least three seemingly viable interpretations: (1) Bob and Alice are both moving, (2) only one is moving, or (3) neither Bob or Alice are moving. In all three case there are no privileged reference frames.

 

It is the latter geometrical approach (3) which I have been addressing (without discarding the motion hypotheses pending further investigation). Until you accept and address such a possibility (3), you are missing the full scope of general relativity. Recall, it is mathematically in the language of differential geometry that general relativity describes the universe of events.

 

 

(2) You are discussing the special case of a Lorentzian manifold, while I am discussing a more general case of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (and simple Riemannian manifolds). The distinction is an important one, for several reasons, one of which is that a Lorentzian frame, describes space with or without any gravitational fields, world-lines of a particles in the absence of gravity are initially parallel will continue along parallel world-lines. In the presence of gravitational fields, world-lines of free-falling particles initially parallel will in general, approach, diverge, or even intersect each other. This lack of parallelism cannot be described as arising from the curvature of the world-lines, since the world-lines of free-falling particles are defined as "straight lines." Instead, the effect can be attributed to the curvature of spacetime itself. But even here, Lorentzian geometry is a description of a special case where curvature is negligible.

 

Lorentz frames make motion simple in general relativity: objects move along straight lines when no nongravitational forces are acting upon them.

 

Furthermore, there is no Lorentz frame for the entire universe. So there is no natural expectation of being able to define a global principle of conservation of momentum. That is why conservation laws are difficult (or impossible) to formulate within the framework of general relativity (i.e, globally). There is no single Lorentz frame that could cover the entire universe. This is one of the reasons why extrapolation of the equivalence principle to cosmology are so tenuous. In another way, the EP implies that it's always possible to define a local Lorentz frame in a particular neighborhood of spacetime, but it's impossible to do so globally. (Source)

 

 

I'm pretty sure that if this discussion is going to move forwards, we should be discussing, rather than a special case, the more general pseudo-Riemannian (or Riemannian) manifolds of constant positive or negative Gaussian curvature, and how that should be interpreted within the framework of GR, in terms of cosmological redshift z and global stability. :P

 

CC

[modest]

(2) You are discussing the special case of a Lorentzian manifold, while I am discussing a more general case of a Riemannian manifold. The distinction is an important one, for several reasons, one of which is that a Lorentzian frame, describes space without any gravitational fields

 

 

I don't think your post was responsive.

 

You speak with a remarkable assuredness, but the information is 100% mistaken. This could cause problems for people who are searching for information, for example, about Lorentzian manifolds.

 

An underlying assumption of general relativity is that spacetime can be modeled with a Lorentzian manifold, *not* a Riemannian manifold.

 

Also, a Lorentzian manifold is *not* a special case of a Riemannian manifold.

 

You might be mixing up Minkowski spacetime with Lorentzian manifolds. I seriously have to walk out the door, but very succinctly...

 

Special relativity is done on a Minkowskian metric and general relativiyt is done on the more general case of a Lorentzian metric. The Minkowski metric is flat while a Lorentzian metric is not necessarily flat. A manifold of either Lorentzian or Minkowski's metric is called a "pseudo-Riemannian" manifold—*not* a "Riemann manifold"—that is something different (Riemannian manifolds have positive-definite metrics) and inapplicable.

 

Point being—GR is modeled with a Lorentzian manifold.

 

~modest

[quantumtopology]

 

I don't think your post was responsive.

 

You speak with a remarkable assuredness, but the information is 100% mistaken. This could cause problems for people who are searching for information, for example, about Lorentzian manifolds.

 

An underlying assumption of general relativity is that spacetime can be modeled with a Lorentzian manifold, *not* a Riemannian manifold.

 

Also, a Lorentzian manifold is *not* a special case of a Riemannian manifold.

 

You might be mixing up Minkowski spacetime with Lorentzian manifolds. I seriously have to walk out the door, but very succinctly...

 

Special relativity is done on a Minkowskian metric and general relativiyt is done on the more general case of a Lorentzian metric. The Minkowski metric is flat while a Lorentzian metric is not necessarily flat. A manifold of either Lorentzian or Minkowski's metric is called a "pseudo-Riemannian" manifold—*not* a "Riemann manifold"—that is something different (Riemannian manifolds have positive-definite metrics) and inapplicable.

 

Point being—GR is modeled with a Lorentzian manifold.

 

~modest

 

Modest, I think you are completely right about the nomenclature here and it's good of you to correct it, but I also think that we know what CC meant, you said it yourself, when talking about Lorentzian manifolds he meant Minkowski spacetime, and by Riemannian he meant curved spacetime, so it's nice to get the names correctly, but you skipped the bottom line of his reasoning on that post, which by the way I think is basically correct, maybe you don't mind reading it again and telling what you find wrong besides the misnaming of manifolds.

 

 

Regards

QTop

[coldcreation]

 

I don't think your post was responsive.

 

You speak with a remarkable assuredness, but the information is 100% mistaken.

 

Well, maybe not 100%.

 

What I meant to say was a Lorentzian manifold is a special case of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (not of a Riemannian manifold). I neglected to add "pseudo."

 

And a pseudo-Riemannian manifold is a generalization of a Riemannian manifold.

 

That, I'm pretty sure, was the only error.

 

I just edited the post with pseudo- added, in case someone looks it up.

 

Don't worry modest. Be :)

 

CC

[modest]

when talking about Lorentzian manifolds he meant Minkowski spacetime, and by Riemannian he meant curved spacetime

 

Apparently not.

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

Apparently not.

 

~modest

 

Correct. :huh: