the mirror image of the matter
- Thread starter eanassir
- Start date
The aether and the aethereal world
The aether gives the better explanation; this is according to the late interpreter of the Quran and Bible: Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly, in his book The Universe and the Quran.
The ether
"The ether fills every space, and goes through or permeates the intermolecular spaces of all material objects."
This was what I translated; now I correct my translation: "permeates the inter-particle spaces of all material objects." This is what he exactly said in Arabic.
The ethereal heavens
While in the book Man after Death, see this link:
The matter and the ether
The ether
The ether fills the entire universe; celestial objects: planets, moons, suns, meteorites and others all swim in the waves of the ether.
The ether fills every space, and it permeates the material objects and occupy the spaces between the praticles of the matter and material objects to form an ethereal skeleton of every material object.
The particles of the ether are far more minute than the matter particles, and we cannot touch or perceive the ether in the normal circumstances; but only spiritual beings like angels and human souls can see, touch and perceive the ether.
The ether
=================================================
Man consists of his material body and its mirror image or identical copy: the human soul or spirit which is exactly like the human body, but the soul consists of the ethereal particles:
The eye has its ethereal mirror image: the sight (which is the eye of the soul);
The ear has its ethereal true copy: the hearing (which is the ear of the soul);
The heart has its ethereal analogue: the ethereal heart (which is the heart of the soul.)
The matter and the ether
The soul
The aether gives the better explanation; this is according to the late interpreter of the Quran and Bible: Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly, in his book The Universe and the Quran.
The ether
"The ether fills every space, and goes through or permeates the intermolecular spaces of all material objects."
This was what I translated; now I correct my translation: "permeates the inter-particle spaces of all material objects." This is what he exactly said in Arabic.
The ethereal heavens
While in the book Man after Death, see this link:
The matter and the ether
The ether
The ether fills the entire universe; celestial objects: planets, moons, suns, meteorites and others all swim in the waves of the ether.
The ether fills every space, and it permeates the material objects and occupy the spaces between the praticles of the matter and material objects to form an ethereal skeleton of every material object.
The particles of the ether are far more minute than the matter particles, and we cannot touch or perceive the ether in the normal circumstances; but only spiritual beings like angels and human souls can see, touch and perceive the ether.
The ether
=================================================
Man consists of his material body and its mirror image or identical copy: the human soul or spirit which is exactly like the human body, but the soul consists of the ethereal particles:
The eye has its ethereal mirror image: the sight (which is the eye of the soul);
The ear has its ethereal true copy: the hearing (which is the ear of the soul);
The heart has its ethereal analogue: the ethereal heart (which is the heart of the soul.)
The matter and the ether
The soul
The aether explains nothing useful, physics abandoned it about a century ago after consistently getting null results in all attempts to detect it and the realization that the mechanical properties it would need to have were too bizarre to be taken seriously. It would have to be extremely rigid and dense to account for the velocity of light through it, for instance, yet offer no resistance to the passage of material bodies through it. General relativity and quantum theory provide much better explanations, and as usual, Al-Hilly shows himself to be hopelessly ignorant. Both of you continue to be wrong about pretty much everything, and that's all I'm going to say about this latest pathetic attempt to use the Quran and Al-Hilly as scientific authorities.
The aetherial world is an energetic one with no matter or particles in it. It can't be measured by any instrument known to man and is therefore, unknown and unknowable to science. Your religious explanation of it is lacking substance and attributes properties to it that are far fetched. There may be a force or energy that holds all of the Universe together or permeates it but your explanation is too simplistic to be of any value. It is not called aether anyway. Calling it that, or any other name, will only confuse people. Suffice it to say that there are realms of existence (consciousness) outside our normal understanding of physical reality. Naming them will only invalidate their existence.
As usual your assertion is not any scientific way of approaching such subject as the ether.
If you want to be really scientific, you may only give possibilities, but your insisting is no way any scientific.
Now, they speak about the antimatter, and say many things about the beginning of the universe, and you take this for certainty, while this too is wrong. They constructed tunnels for several kilometers as for to capture the positrone, and to this you agree without hesitation, which is wrong also.
The aether is more reasonable explanation of things more it is the antimatter.
While you said "It would have to be extremely rigid and dense to account for the velocity of light through it, for instance, yet offer no resistance to the passage of material bodies through it."
The ether is not rigid neither is it dense. It is very thin, but its large amount may bring about its function to carry such objects as the planets and moons. Moreover, it explains the world of spirits: to which there have been many observations.
Last edited:
The material object is the mould for making the ethereal structure; so that when the formation of the ethereal structure inside the material object is complete, and then the material object is destroyed for any reason --> the ethereal structure will separate from the destroyed material object, and the ethereal structure will endure for ever and will not be broken afterwards.
Therefore, when the solar system will be broken up in the coming Doomsday, the ethereal true copy or the ethereal mirror image of this solar system will separate to be a new ethereal layer or ethereal heaven.
The ethereal heavens
As opposed to your dogmatic certainty based on the presumed authority of the Quran and that ignorant loon Al-Hilly? Practice what you preach and admit that you might be wrong about all the scientific claims you've posted here.
I have been for a considerable period of time, trying to explain many things about the Quran and its interpretation, not to you in particular, but to any who may read my words, which are based on the interpreter's words.
And you said many words that are not acceptable including the transgress on the person of the late interpreter, which is not accepted.
I cannot compel you or others to accept our words, but only I display the subject, and I don't mind if all people refuse it.
The dictionary is full of many words that I can use which is very proper for you and your like.
Therefore, what you said about the interpreter that he was loon; no he was not; he was a wise man living righteously and he disciplined his family members to honor and morality, and he was not any charlatan; if he had been an impostor, then you would have found a large number of people following him; but he used to tell all people frankly the truth that would not be accepted by most people.
So people, who were foolish started to call him loon, while in fact they were the loon who lost themselves and their families in Hell in the next afterlife.
(ن: [N.] [: Nabi or Prophet: i.e. you Mohammed are a prophet, and you are not possessed as do these infidels say], [I swear] by the pen and what they [: the angels] write down! [i.e. what they said that you are loon is written by the angels, and We shall punish them accordingly when they will be transported to the spirit world.]
With [the apostlehood:] the grace of your Lord, you [Mohammed] are not mad.
Surely, yours will be a reward, unfailing.
And surely you [Mohammed] have an excellent morality.
So you [Mohammed] will see and they will see [when they will die and go to the world of souls.]
Which [party] of you is afflicted with madness.
Surely your Lord knows best him who errs from His way [: His religion], and He knows best those who may accept guidance.
Therefore, obey not the deniers [of the Quran, as to what they invite you.] )
The above between brackets is the explanation of the Quran 68: 1-4
ن وَالْقَلَمِ وَمَا يَسْطُرُونَ . مَا أَنتَ بِنِعْمَةِ رَبِّكَبِمَجْنُونٍ . وَإِنَّ لَكَ لَأَجْرًا غَيْرَمَمْنُونٍ. وَإِنَّكَ لَعَلى خُلُقٍ عَظِيمٍ
Here is the complete soora 68:
http://www.mp3quran.net/newMedia.php?id=68&file=http://server7.mp3quran.net/shur/068.mp3
I've no quarrel with that, I'm certainly prepared to believe he was a righteous family man of honour, duty, dignity, and the highest ethical standards. But on matters of science, he was an ignorant loon, didn't even avail himself of modern scientific findings that were available during his lifetime, he just made it all up based on the Quran, and probably the Hadith as well, and at least in the parts of his book that I've read he was consistently, provably, wrong.
I should not be enthusiastic about Al-Hilly - salam be to him.
But I tell you something about him: When he became old, he had hypertension, Prostatic hypertrophy and tremor of the elderly; but his thinking and memory kept alert till his death. He took the medicine and searched about the medical drugs and treatment although he knew certainly that the health and cure is up to God. About the tremor, he used the excercise bicycle which releaved him from the tremor.
He made many things to benefit people, in the time when medicine was not good in the country: like making to people the eyedrops of zinc sulphate when some conjuncitivitis was prevalent, and people were grateful to him and prayed God for him.
He had the scientific mind of testing things: like he tried to make some paste to suit the purpose of cushion for the denture: trying to solve the plastic powder by the plastic solvents and with many trials to reach a formula where the mixture will not dry and keep soft.
He made a crucible for melting metals, using some cheep materials and he registered that as patent recorded by his name to make use of it in economic way.
He was a photographer and the first photographer in his city at his time, and had a hobby with chemistry, and he said this benefited me in the interpretation.
And althogh he did not graduate at any school, but only he learnt at a local public teacher the writing and reading of Arabic; he read different books available to him, and he was not against the scientific progress; on the contrary he encouraged others to study and investigate.
Now, I come to your science:
Which should not be rigid at some level or at reaching some information and take it as absolute, and any other idea is wrong because it does not agree with some available information.
About the Quran, some people do not believe it is the word of God --> therefore they do not take the words of the Quran seriously.
So this is how the Quran say about some subject and this is its interpretation which is true and correct even if it contradicts some available information; so go and check and will find it correct.
Part of the available science now is considered correct, when it is certainly not correct (compare this to the science before 2000 years or more or less: they thought it is the correct and any other idea is wrong)
Last edited:
Argument from authority fallacy again. Evidence and reason trump revelation. Every time, all the time.
Again you left behind all the reply, and centred on this point.
This is not the argument from authority; no, but only I display to you what is in the Quran of truths and invite you and all people to see what marvels it includes.
======================================================================
Can we prove or see the ether?
The ether, the ethereal world and the ethereal beings cannot be seen, heard, touched or perceived in the normal and usual situations.
On the other hand, there may be some situations, circumstances and ways when some of the ethereal beings or parts may be possibly seen and proved.
1- In some instances, like what I said when I and my son saw a ghost of my father: there had been some contrast: difference of light and darkness: he was outside the window, and we were inside a somewhat darker room than outside. The refraction of light through the glass of the window might have played a role to bring about this observation.
2- In other situations where fog, humidity and temperature in addition to the light degree that brought about another spiritual observation, in some volcano island.
3- Photography at night and in darkness: no flash of light is used, the place should be quiet, the diaphragm of the camera is to be open wide and open for some prolonged period than the photography at day time.
Here a tree branch was captured by the camera; the branch emitted some flourescent like light.
And some persons appeared in such photography who had died since long time ago.
4- I had an idea, to which some of our friends objected: If a very thick long distance of ether, and we see this through the telescope: will this give some shadow or some light indicating the ether?
I mean: if we see a little amount of water: it will be colorless, while seeing a very deep water: it might acquire some color; and if the air cannot be seen, but seeing a very high atmosphere: it may give some color.
Last edited:
You are asserting that what is in the Quran must be true simply because it is in the Quran, and you are further asserting that if evidence contradicts the Quran the evidence must be wrong. That is the essence of your complete misunderstanding of science, and it is precisely the argument from authority fallacy. You have it completely backwards. When religion makes empirical claims that evidence says are wrong, religion has to yield. Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
We have two parts:
The Quran tells the truth, but you don't want to consider, and keep up saying it was since 1400 years. This is your assertion to which you cling.
The other part is your science going to and fro. One time it says something is true and another time it discovers it is false. And we have to respect the science: it is our tool to have more knowledge and to discover and correct our mistakes and progress forward.
The Quran is the truth but you don't want to yield; the science will prove true, and the Quran is true, and the science will prove the Quran, and it can't be the science is contrary to the Quran the word of God.
But to other distorted religion, and to some annovated concepts attributed to the religion of God, when God Most Gracious did not reveal such a thing --> this will prove false.
"God -be exalted - said in the Quran 41: 53
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
The explanation:
(We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky] and among themselves, until it will become manifest to them that [the Quran] is the truth. Is it not enough that your Lord [O Mohammed] does witness all things?)
[ The interpretation: ]
- (We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky] ) means: the portents or the signs which have just been mentioned, like the fixation of Moon and its cleavage, and the other extraordinary events.
- ( and among themselves) means: and We shall show them one of Our signs among them; i.e. it will descend into them, and it is one of them, of their like and their language; that is the Awaited Mehdi, who is called the Paraclete in the Gospel [and is the same Elia(orElijah ) who will be raised in the last days; as in the Hebrew Bible. Elia in Hebrew is the synonym of Ali in Arabic; the name of the Awaited Mehdi is Mohammed-Ali.]"
Last edited:
Diagram showing the four elements, seasons and body types, based on an edition of Isidore of Seville’s Liber de Responsione Mundi (6th or 7th century CE), Augsburg in 1472. Courtesy Huntington Library.
May 31, 2010
A cornerstone of ancient Greek science was the theory of the four elements: Pythagoreans, Platonists, Aristotelians and Stoics alike subscribed to the idea that all visible matter is formed of earth, water, air and fire, varying only in concentration and mode of intermixture.The 'four element theory' reached its standard form when Empedocles of Acragas (±492-432 BCE) synthesised earlier attempts to identify the prima materia, the primary or original substance from which all else was derived – historically as well as chemically.
During the formative period of Greek philosophy, Thales of Miletus (±624-547 BC) had argued that “the beginning and end of the universe was water”, while the Pythagorean Hippasus of Metapontum (±500 BCE), Heraclitus of Ephesus (±535-475 BCE) and Zeno of Elea (±490-±430 BCE?) all recognised fire as the first principle. Other opinions were voiced as well.
The notion of the four classical elements remained intact for centuries and was used to account for commonly observed physical processes, including weather and climate, as well as for cosmogonic theories. The only significant modification was Aristotle’s treatment of the ‘fire’ constituting stars and planets as a separate, fifth element called ‘aether’, an innovation which only the Aristotelians seem to have embraced. As one follower put it: “The substance of the heaven and the stars we call aether … it is an element different from the four elements, pure and divine.” The idea was that aethereal objects were perfectly immutable, while ‘fiery’ ones were prone to change and decay.
The theory fell out of favour with the rise of modern chemistry in the late 17th century. In 1669, the German physician and alchemist, Johann Joachim Becher, split the element of earth into three, corresponding to different degrees of viscosity and fluidity. During the same decade, the Irish alchemist, Robert Boyle, while pioneering chemical analysis, theorised that the traditional elements really were compounds and mixtures, consisting of smaller particles with a greater diversity.
As the infant science of chemistry progressed, the number of recognised elements rose from 33 in 1789 and 49 in 1818 to the 66 that Dmitri Mendeleyev incorporated in his periodic table in 1869. This further increased to the 118 elements that have been observed up until now, either in the laboratory, in space or in nature.
From this point of view, the ancient Greek notion of ‘four elements’ sounds hopelessly obsolete, but is it reasonable to view it as a precursor to the modern chemical definition of ‘elements’? Are ancient and modern ‘elements’ really the same thing? It is true that Platonists associated each of the four elements with one of the regular polyhedra, so as to make sense of their physical properties. But were these philosophers really so naïve as to imagine that all known physical behaviour is reducible to just four constituents?
A recurrent topic in the classical literature concerned the cycles according to which one ‘element’ would transform into another. In the modern sense of the word, elements jumping positions in the periodic table must be understood either in terms of alchemy or of nuclear chemistry, such as radioactive decay or nuclear fusion. Yet it is clear that this is not what Greek philosophers were preoccupied with. Heraclitus, for example, “called change the upward and the downward path, and held that the world comes into being in virtue of this.
When fire is condensed, it becomes moist, and when compressed it turns to water, water being congealed thus turns to earth, and this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards”. Clearly, speculations of this type do not involve chemical elements, but states of aggregation.
After the English natural philosopher, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), successfully isolated different ‘airs’ or gases, including oxygen, three states of matter were widely recognised – solids, liquids, and gases. At a later date, one of the most significant fall-outs of the study of electromagnetism was the recognition of a fourth state. Its discoverer, the English scientist, Michael Faraday (1791-1867), dubbed it “radiant matter”:
“If now we conceive a change as far beyond vaporisation as that is above fluidity, and then take into account also the proportional increased extent of alteration as the changes rise, we shall perhaps, if we can form any conception at all, not fall far short of radiant matter … The simplicity of such a system is singularly beautiful, the idea grand, and worthy of Newton’s approbation.”
Sixty years later, it was Faraday’s compatriot, Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), who followed up in earnest the suggestion of “Matter classed into four states – solid, liquid, gaseous, and radiant – which depend upon differences in the essential properties”. The term plasma was employed for the “radiant” or partly ionised gases by the Nobel-prize winning American chemist and physicist, Irving Langmuir (1861-1957), in 1928.
The discovery of the plasma state allows a reappraisal of the ancient theory of elements. If the four ‘elements’ of the Greeks were really states of matter, the concept is no longer antiquated, but up to speed with current understanding. If ‘earth’ corresponds to solids, ‘water’ to liquids, ‘air’ to gases, and ‘fire’ to plasmas, the likes of Empedocles effectively anticipated Faraday by more than two millennia with their insight that fire and lightning represent an essentially different regime of matter than ordinary ‘air’. Faraday himself was acutely aware of this connection: “It was what the ancients believed, and it may be what a future race will realise.”
With remarkable prescience, Crookes, too, foresaw the immense scientific potential of the ‘radiant’ state as early as 1879:
“In studying this Fourth state of Matter we seem at length to have within our grasp and obedient to our control the little indivisible particles which with good warrant are supposed to constitute the physical basis of the universe. … We have actually touched the border land where Matter and Force seem to merge into one another, the shadowy realm between Known and Unknown which for me has always had peculiar temptations. I venture to think that the greatest scientific problems of the future will find their solution in this Border Land, and even beyond …”
Those at the forefront of plasma science today would agree that plasma constitutes “the physical basis of the universe” and that it can potentially solve “the greatest scientific problems”. Indeed, owing to its ubiquity in space, plasma has been promoted from being the ‘fourth’ state to the fundamental state of matter. And this, again, accords quite well with Heraclitus’ hoary adage: Tà dè pánta oiakízei keraunós – ‘Thunderbolt steers all things’.
Contributed by Rens Van Der Sluijs
Diagram showing the four elements, seasons and body types, based on an edition of Isidore of Seville’s Liber de Responsione Mundi (6th or 7th century CE), Augsburg in 1472. Courtesy Huntington Library.
Elementary Knowledge
May 31, 2010
A cornerstone of ancient Greek science was the theory of the four elements: Pythagoreans, Platonists, Aristotelians and Stoics alike subscribed to the idea that all visible matter is formed of earth, water, air and fire, varying only in concentration and mode of intermixture.The 'four element theory' reached its standard form when Empedocles of Acragas (±492-432 BCE) synthesised earlier attempts to identify the prima materia, the primary or original substance from which all else was derived – historically as well as chemically.
During the formative period of Greek philosophy, Thales of Miletus (±624-547 BC) had argued that “the beginning and end of the universe was water”, while the Pythagorean Hippasus of Metapontum (±500 BCE), Heraclitus of Ephesus (±535-475 BCE) and Zeno of Elea (±490-±430 BCE?) all recognised fire as the first principle. Other opinions were voiced as well.
The notion of the four classical elements remained intact for centuries and was used to account for commonly observed physical processes, including weather and climate, as well as for cosmogonic theories. The only significant modification was Aristotle’s treatment of the ‘fire’ constituting stars and planets as a separate, fifth element called ‘aether’, an innovation which only the Aristotelians seem to have embraced. As one follower put it: “The substance of the heaven and the stars we call aether … it is an element different from the four elements, pure and divine.” The idea was that aethereal objects were perfectly immutable, while ‘fiery’ ones were prone to change and decay.
The theory fell out of favour with the rise of modern chemistry in the late 17th century. In 1669, the German physician and alchemist, Johann Joachim Becher, split the element of earth into three, corresponding to different degrees of viscosity and fluidity. During the same decade, the Irish alchemist, Robert Boyle, while pioneering chemical analysis, theorised that the traditional elements really were compounds and mixtures, consisting of smaller particles with a greater diversity.
As the infant science of chemistry progressed, the number of recognised elements rose from 33 in 1789 and 49 in 1818 to the 66 that Dmitri Mendeleyev incorporated in his periodic table in 1869. This further increased to the 118 elements that have been observed up until now, either in the laboratory, in space or in nature.
From this point of view, the ancient Greek notion of ‘four elements’ sounds hopelessly obsolete, but is it reasonable to view it as a precursor to the modern chemical definition of ‘elements’? Are ancient and modern ‘elements’ really the same thing? It is true that Platonists associated each of the four elements with one of the regular polyhedra, so as to make sense of their physical properties. But were these philosophers really so naïve as to imagine that all known physical behaviour is reducible to just four constituents?
A recurrent topic in the classical literature concerned the cycles according to which one ‘element’ would transform into another. In the modern sense of the word, elements jumping positions in the periodic table must be understood either in terms of alchemy or of nuclear chemistry, such as radioactive decay or nuclear fusion. Yet it is clear that this is not what Greek philosophers were preoccupied with. Heraclitus, for example, “called change the upward and the downward path, and held that the world comes into being in virtue of this.
When fire is condensed, it becomes moist, and when compressed it turns to water, water being congealed thus turns to earth, and this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that everything else; for he refers almost everything to the evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards”. Clearly, speculations of this type do not involve chemical elements, but states of aggregation.
After the English natural philosopher, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804), successfully isolated different ‘airs’ or gases, including oxygen, three states of matter were widely recognised – solids, liquids, and gases. At a later date, one of the most significant fall-outs of the study of electromagnetism was the recognition of a fourth state. Its discoverer, the English scientist, Michael Faraday (1791-1867), dubbed it “radiant matter”:
“If now we conceive a change as far beyond vaporisation as that is above fluidity, and then take into account also the proportional increased extent of alteration as the changes rise, we shall perhaps, if we can form any conception at all, not fall far short of radiant matter … The simplicity of such a system is singularly beautiful, the idea grand, and worthy of Newton’s approbation.”
Sixty years later, it was Faraday’s compatriot, Sir William Crookes (1832-1919), who followed up in earnest the suggestion of “Matter classed into four states – solid, liquid, gaseous, and radiant – which depend upon differences in the essential properties”. The term plasma was employed for the “radiant” or partly ionised gases by the Nobel-prize winning American chemist and physicist, Irving Langmuir (1861-1957), in 1928.
The discovery of the plasma state allows a reappraisal of the ancient theory of elements. If the four ‘elements’ of the Greeks were really states of matter, the concept is no longer antiquated, but up to speed with current understanding. If ‘earth’ corresponds to solids, ‘water’ to liquids, ‘air’ to gases, and ‘fire’ to plasmas, the likes of Empedocles effectively anticipated Faraday by more than two millennia with their insight that fire and lightning represent an essentially different regime of matter than ordinary ‘air’. Faraday himself was acutely aware of this connection: “It was what the ancients believed, and it may be what a future race will realise.”
With remarkable prescience, Crookes, too, foresaw the immense scientific potential of the ‘radiant’ state as early as 1879:
“In studying this Fourth state of Matter we seem at length to have within our grasp and obedient to our control the little indivisible particles which with good warrant are supposed to constitute the physical basis of the universe. … We have actually touched the border land where Matter and Force seem to merge into one another, the shadowy realm between Known and Unknown which for me has always had peculiar temptations. I venture to think that the greatest scientific problems of the future will find their solution in this Border Land, and even beyond …”
Those at the forefront of plasma science today would agree that plasma constitutes “the physical basis of the universe” and that it can potentially solve “the greatest scientific problems”. Indeed, owing to its ubiquity in space, plasma has been promoted from being the ‘fourth’ state to the fundamental state of matter. And this, again, accords quite well with Heraclitus’ hoary adage: Tà dè pánta oiakízei keraunós – ‘Thunderbolt steers all things’.
Contributed by Rens Van Der Sluijs
This is the material science which progresses forward all time, in trial to reach understanding of the surrounding world.
This is not in any revealed book from God that He said: the elements are four or the element is one.
=======================================================================
IMO the boxing is not a good sport; it includes harm of the boxers and extreme risk, and it is the violence and savage feelings of players and the people attending the boxing.
Another sport which is bad is the bullfighting, and the cockfight, where people see this and enjoy themselves at the harm of such animals.
Last edited: