Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,851 Year: 18,887/19,786 Month: 1,307/1,705 Week: 113/446 Day: 9/104 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 31 of 309 (662429)
05-15-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 1:37 PM


first assumption
Hi again godsriddle

What you consider objective evidence depends on your first principle. ...

Interestingly, for me the initial assumption is that what we perceive as objective empirical evidence is a measure of reality, thus concepts about reality can be tested against objective empirical evidence to ascertain their validity. What I see as a rock, you would see as a rock, and we would agree that it was a rock when we compare notes.

... The objective is the main mirror on a telescope or the first lens in a microscope. I consider light, gathered and recorded by any instrument as objective evidence. ...

Thus you would agree that the light from SN1987A shows that the speed of light was the same when the supernova occurred as it is today, yes? Which leads to the inevitable conclusion that the light having traveled 167,000 light years to get here at that speed means that the universe is at least that old, yes?

... Scientists on the other hand view mathematics and symbols (causal explanations based on their laws of physics) as objective. ...

When you post falsehoods about what scientists view, you should be careful to do it in a place where there are no scientists.

... Where did they get their empirical system from? From their first principle, an idea promoted by Catholic scholars centuries ago and cemented into place when Newton claimed that reality is what one measures (such as the notion that clocks measure time).

Interesting conspiracy fantasy you have there.

What would the universe look like if all the laws of physics were false, all of them based on a presumption (that atoms are immutable and dither with perpetual motion) upon which the empirical system depends.

I claim it would
1. Look exactly as we see with light in every part of the spectrum. ...

Then you really have not thought about this issue in any real depth.

... 2. It looks exactly as the text of the Bible so plainly states (if one accepts the text heremeutically) ...

Conversely it could look exactly like any fantasy you want to dream up. Once you have discarded the objective empirical evidence as representative of reality, then any concept can be equally valid, and your god/s become master jokesters playing pranks.

... There is not a single verse in the Bible that a contemporary of the author could understand scientifically - since western science is recent.

And the logical conclusion is that the bible was not written to be scientific but to appeal to the people of the time in some other way.

If mass energy and time do not actually have a real existence, if they were contrived mathematically with a false first principle, then we are allowed to believe what is visible. ...

If you want to believe that objective empirical evidence is not a representation of reality then you can believe anything you like, even that your comments about science and scientists are actually valid instead of the purest fantasy.

I suggest joining the galaxyzoo project and spending a few hours examining ancient galaxies. What anyone can see is that galaxies started out as compact and dense with packed together tiny stars. In defiance of every law of physics, they spread out, moved out, took up more space as their atomic clocks also kept accelerating, growing into huge local growth spirals.

Curiously, I suggest you take an entry level course in astronomy. You appear to confuse size with distance.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 1:37 PM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 10:38 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 51 by godsriddle, posted 05-16-2012 12:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 32 of 309 (662431)
05-15-2012 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by godsriddle
05-15-2012 1:42 PM


subduction is an observed objective empirical fact.
Hi again godsriddle,

To add to what frako said:

... My claim is that if the fundamental assumption upon which western science was historically constructed were false, then ...

You can make up any fantasy you want to believe.

... then we would not need to believe in magical things like subduction ... We could simply accept the visible evidence that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe and the seafloors are much younger than the continents. ...

Except that we can measure the rate of spread of the seafloor, we can observe the natural history of that spread, we can measure and note that the current size of the earth is not expanding even though the sea floor is still actively spreading from the mid ocean divergence zones, where we can see new crust being formed.

Except that we can actually observe subduction occurring today, and we can measure the uplift in the coastal areas over the subduction locations.

And we can see why the seafloor is logically younger than the continents when we see the oldest parts of the seafloor being subducted under the continents so that the oldest it could be is limited by the rate of expansion and distance from the divergence zones.

This is visible evidence. Plate tectonics not only explains the fit-up of continents, it explains the rest of the geological objective empirical evidence.

Curiously, calculating how old the boundaries of the observable seafloor would be using the current rates of expansion, we find that the ages measured are compatible with those calculations.

Perhaps you should take an introductory class in geology as well.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by godsriddle, posted 05-15-2012 1:42 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 33 of 309 (662435)
05-15-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
05-12-2012 10:30 AM


Re: Another reality?
I'll let others comment on the physical laws stuff for awhile. If cavediver or Son Goku don't show up, I'll bring the physics later. I'd likely start with a discussion of SN1987A.

But I did want to comment on this alternate reality stuff, because I see a contradiction. You postulate an alternate reality that is undetectable, yet has noticeable and significant impact on this universe. I think such a concept is an oxymoron. Non-physical beings with a physical impact sounds like just magic to me.

Not magic at all. It is quite simple. The alternate reality existed before the physical reality. The alternate reality created the physical reality simply by commanding matter into existence and then commanding that matter to follow some physical laws that were decided by beings in that alternate reality. That alternate reality still has the capability to interact with the physical reality today but chooses not so as not to make itself obvious. It did so in the past but mankind was much more willing to accept a reality beyond the physical in the past. There was a purpose to interacting in the past and not interacting today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2012 10:30 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 309 (662436)
05-15-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:10 PM


Re: Another reality?
Not magic at all. It is quite simple. The alternate reality existed before the physical reality. The alternate reality created the physical reality simply by commanding matter into existence and then commanding that matter to follow some physical laws that were decided by beings in that alternate reality.

How is commanding matter into existence not magic simply by nature of who does the commanding or when the commanding was done? I think you are trying hard to make a difference where none exists.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:10 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:21 PM NoNukes has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 35 of 309 (662437)
05-15-2012 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-12-2012 9:13 AM


Re: change leaves evidence.
One way is by looking at rings produced when various elements radioactively decay. The energy level produced by the decay of a given mass of an element determines the energy level of the particle produced and that energy level determines how far the particle travels before it gets absorbed. The fact that particle emitted by a given isotope of a given element always travels the same distance before being absorbed so that concentric shells are formed is evidence that the energy level of that reaction has remained constant throughout the time involved to create the rings.

When we look at a uranium or radon halo from 1.5 billion years ago it is identical to a uranium or radon halo created today.

The idea that the physical laws were different at anytime during the existence of the Earth has simply been refuted.

It has only been refuted if all the physical laws besides the speed of light stayed the same. The Uranium halo from 1.5 billion years ago could be only from 100,000 years ago if there was accelerated decay. You say that is impossible? It isn't impossible with a greater speed of light. You say that is impossible because of greater energy? It isn't impossible if the very nature of matter was different. What is mass anyway? If particles are not jiggled by the absolute zero vacuum energy, they have zero mass. Particles could have had different mass in the past if the zero vacuum energy were less. The ancient uranium halo and the modern uranium halo are the same size because the ALL the constants involved in radioactive decay changed in TANDEM so that now it appears that todays physical constants have always had the same value as they do today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-12-2012 9:13 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 10:04 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 10:31 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 36 of 309 (662438)
05-15-2012 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


Re: Another reality?
How is commanding matter into existence not magic simply by nature of who does the commanding or when the commanding was done? I think you are trying hard to make a difference where none exists.

It is magic to you because commanding matter into existence in the PHYSICAL reality is MAGIC. Commanding matter into existence in the supernatural reality is simply the way things are done there. They don't have the same rules to abide by as we have here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 9:45 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 78 by DWIII, posted 05-19-2012 8:04 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 37 of 309 (662440)
05-15-2012 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
05-12-2012 2:22 PM


Well that's always possible. Maybe there's an alternative universe with elves, gnomes, tooth fairies and the like. But if it is undetectable, then it has no important effects on the world of our experience, so it has no relevance to us.

I would say that the beginning of the physical universe is a very important effect. If that physical universe has been so distorted by a changing of the physical laws that there is no way to physically detect it as such today, we would be assuming that the present physical reality is the only reality that has ever existed and we would be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 05-12-2012 2:22 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 05-17-2012 9:05 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 38 of 309 (662443)
05-15-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Coragyps
05-12-2012 7:25 PM


There's a Spanish proverb, fev, that goes, "Si su tia tenia cojones, seria su tio." (well, with a few accent signs it goes better....)
That means, "If your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle." That is precisely the sort of "what if" you are engaging in here. Creationism is "proven" wrong because your aunt has no testicles and isn't your uncle. The only reason to even entertain the possibility that "laws were different" is a quirky interpretation of a 3000-year-old document. All the evidence we've ever found indicates that the laws weren't different. Only fundy Christian/Muslim/Jewish "true believers" think otherwise - and their opinions aren't even based on science.

My reply to nwr answers this nicely. The fact that my aunt has no testicles doesn't mean there was never a time when aunt did have testicles. Creationism is only proven wrong if you assume all the physical laws and constants have been the same since the beginning. Like I said to nwr, if the prior physical universe and its laws were so radically changed and its forms radically changed to the point to were there was no way to tell it ever existed, you would have no way of knowing it ever existed. You can have a wild sex party in your parents basement but clean it up and leave everthing exactly the way it was before and make sure everyone has alibis for the time in question, your parents would have no reason to believe there was ever a wild sex party that occurred in their basement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 05-12-2012 7:25 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2012 10:50 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 309 (662444)
05-15-2012 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:21 PM


Re: Another reality?
It is magic to you because commanding matter into existence in the PHYSICAL reality is MAGIC. Commanding matter into existence in the supernatural reality is simply the way things are done there. They don't have the same rules to abide by as we have here.

That's magic with star trek technobabble attached to it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:21 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 40 of 309 (662446)
05-15-2012 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by frako
05-15-2012 4:31 PM


Re: Off-topic Notice
redshift isnt magical have you ever herd a car driving on the road in front of your house or on a straight road.

There is more than one way to make light change frequency.
(1) Doppler, as you suggested, is an apparent shift in the frequencies of light that correlates with relative motion (not sidewise motion).
(2) Atoms can change their EMITTED frequencies depending on the local environment (gravity and temperature)

Modern scientists do not accept that the frequency differences from distant galaxies is due to Doppler alone. (They used to 70 years ago). If they did today they would need to imagine distant galaxies are moving away at seven times the speed of light. Instead they speculate that the vacuum of space time is stretching itself out - dragging all the light frequencies along.

Nothing scientific relies on magic.

Redshift is an example of scientific magic, an ad hoc story for which there is not a shred of evidence. No one has ever observe light changing frequencies as it passed through a void. In fact, light NEVER is observed to changes frequency. What is transmitted is what we observe is received. Even when light passes through an opaque medium (it seems to change its wavelength) by slowing down, but not its frequency.

This is why a careful test of science's first principle is so important to separate out scientific ad hoc stories like redshift and subduction from the real visible evidence. ,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by frako, posted 05-15-2012 4:31 PM frako has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31509
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 41 of 309 (662447)
05-15-2012 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


Re: change leaves evidence.
Again, change leaves evidence.

How does "accelerated decay" change the age of a sample?

We already covered the issue of changing the speed of light in the very post you are replying to. If you change the speed of light you change the energy. The energy of the residue at Oklo is exactly the same as what we see today.

When we look at stars we see exactly the same energy as what we see in our Sun. What we see looking at stars are the laws that were operating millions and billions of years ago.

We also covered the issue of Mass in Message 20. Did you read that message?

Change Mass like you describe and the Earth is not here.

Change mass at all and you change energy.

Change leaves evidence.

It's possible to imagine a universe where the basic laws are different but it's impossible to have this universe.

Evidence.

How do you explain at that as we look back into the past by looking at stars and galaxies we see the exact same laws and constants that we see today?

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Edited by jar, : tro is not a word removed excess 'r'

Edited by jar, : man, really applin spallin

Edited by jar, : No reason given.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 42 of 309 (662451)
05-15-2012 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


lokiism again
Hi foreveryoung

It has only been refuted if all the physical laws besides the speed of light stayed the same. ... The ancient uranium halo and the modern uranium halo are the same size because the ALL the constants involved in radioactive decay changed in TANDEM so that now it appears that todays physical constants have always had the same value as they do today.

In other words, your god/s have made the evidence to fool us, to trick us, to hoodwink, us to delude us, it's all a grand hoax, and instead everything is imaginary, everything is fake and a fraud. This is the universe created by joker god/s.

You must realize that this route taken to the logical conclusion means that you cannot consider a single concept to be any kind of representation of reality -- including the one you want to make feasible by these mental gymnastics, as all you have is fantasy.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5399
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 43 of 309 (662452)
05-15-2012 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:18 PM


Re: change leaves evidence.
It isn't impossible if the very nature of matter was different.

Sure! It might not be impossible. But why, then, do stars whose light left them millions or billions of years ago give us spectra with identical absorptions (except for redshift) as the same elements in the sun, or in the lab? What was "different" about matter back then? And when was "back then," anyway?


"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 05-15-2012 11:07 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 2600 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 44 of 309 (662454)
05-15-2012 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
05-15-2012 7:32 PM


Re: first assumption
Interestingly, for me the initial assumption is that what we perceive as objective empirical evidence is a measure of reality, thus concepts about reality can be tested against objective empirical evidence to ascertain their validity. What I see as a rock, you would see as a rock, and we would agree that it was a rock when we compare notes.

That is not the historical first principle of western science. Historically, the issue was how to invent a valid science when everything is observed to change. It was the medieval Catholics who invented ideas about unchanging being - that the essence of substance does not change.

Seing rocks is not the same thing as measuring them. In order to measure something with an undetectable entity like time, mass or energy - you must first define it operationally. The basic assumption needed for defining such things is that the essence of substance is changeless. Modern empiricism has forgotten its roots. It blindly goes about5 measuring thing that only have symbolical existence, things no one has ever isolated or detected. This is why empiricism is married to mathematics. Scientists seem mathematics as empiricism, but mathematics does not deal with real things, only symbols that only exist in minds.

Conversely it could look exactly like any fantasy you want to dream up. Once you have discarded the objective empirical evidence as representative of reality, then any concept can be equally valid, and your god/s become master jokesters playing pranks.

On the contrary, the Bible says light reveals the truth and exposes error because everything that is visible is light (phos estin in Greek). Matter and light are relationally connected. We never observe any property of matter apart from light. In fact the Bible states that the Earth had no form until Elohim continued to command light to continue to be. We confirm this in billions of ancient galaxies whose atoms shone at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms. We observe with light how the properties of all matter keep on changing as galaxies intrinsically grew from tiny globs of formless matter. We never observe any evidence for black holes. We only observe jets emerging from point sources and the jets do not even bend from the alleged intense gravity of the alleged hole. We see Him continuing to command light to continue to be as matter continues to take form.

Even the Earth does what the Bible says, spreads out in unbroken continuity. Even across the Pacific, the continents fit back together without major seas and the theory of subduction is clearly a scientific myth, since the subduction trenches has layered sediment. The scientists might claim, but we measured the earth and it does not change dimensions.s You measured it with an assumption that is visibly false in every galaxy in the universe.
That is why first principles are so important.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2012 7:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Coragyps, posted 05-15-2012 10:53 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 10:56 PM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2012 11:12 PM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 11:28 PM godsriddle has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.0


(2)
Message 45 of 309 (662456)
05-15-2012 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by foreveryoung
05-15-2012 9:34 PM


Creationism is only proven wrong if you assume all the physical laws and constants have been the same since the beginning.

No, as I said, we can waive that. The problem is all the evidence against it and for something else.

If you told me that God had just created an elephant in my backyard, then it would be foolish for me to argue against this claim by saying: "That's impossible"; because this is not an objection to the supposed action of a being who by definition can transcend the laws of nature. On the other hand, it would be highly germane for me to say that I'd just looked in my back yard and seen no elephant.

Like I said to nwr, if the prior physical universe and its laws were so radically changed and its forms radically changed to the point to were there was no way to tell it ever existed, you would have no way of knowing it ever existed. You can have a wild sex party in your parents basement but clean it up and leave everthing exactly the way it was before and make sure everyone has alibis for the time in question, your parents would have no reason to believe there was ever a wild sex party that occurred in their basement.

Yes, but then I'm sneaky that way. The trouble with omphalism is, it kinda requires God to be sneaky. Apparently he didn't want his parents to find out that he created a universe 6000 years ago, so he faked it like it was 13 billion years old, and then when his parents got back from their trip to the seventh dimension, he was all ... "Oh, that thing. No, you can see that that's been there for billions of years."

It's hardly the conventional idea of God, is it?

Really, what would God have to worry about? (Let's assume he doesn't have stern parents who disapprove of universe-creation, as would seem to be implied by your analogy taken at its most literal.) Why should he be afraid that people would find out that he's done what he's done? What bad thing would happen to God if we found out that the universe was young, that species were produced by fiat creation, etc? Why the terrific care to ensure secrecy about this, as though it were some shameful thing? And then having moved the very laws of time and space to conceal his creation, why didn't he also get all smitey on the ass of the complete fink who gave his secret away by writing the book of Genesis?

---

The other problem is that there's no particular reason to believe it. If you look out of your window now, you'll see evidence of me doing three mighty miracles. Shazam, I teleported a hippopotamus from Africa to outside your window, and abracadabra, at the same moment I made it invisible, and then hocus-pocus, I teleported it back again. I really am awesome, aren't I?

What do you mean, I didn't do any miracles? What you saw was completely consistent in every respect with the hypothesis that I did, and is therefore evidence for that hypothesis, is it not?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by foreveryoung, posted 05-15-2012 9:34 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019