 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008Rainbows only exist on Earth
To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. On planets where humans do not exist there are no eyes and no color vision to percieve the phenomenon of a curved multi-colored arc in the sky on a rainy day. With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on observation by a conscious entity. > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. How do the raindrops arange into circles from the sky? Mitch Raemsch > > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch Finally, someone who knows less about physics than I do. This comment supports my original post. There are no circles in the sky. There are no colors in nature. All of this does not exist, or only exists as a conscious thought in a human brain. Reality is simply a large number of vibrating strings----everything else is in our brains, or maybe only in my brain. (Or maybe in a CPU in another universe). > > > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > > > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > sky. There are no colors in nature. All of this does not exist, or > only exists as a conscious thought in a human brain. Colours are defined by science as different levels of electromagnetic energy. >>>To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of >>>specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This comment supports my original post. There are no circles in the > sky. There are no colors in nature. There are varying wavelengths of light. > All of this does not exist, or > only exists as a conscious thought in a human brain. > Reality is simply a large number of vibrating strings----everything > else is in our brains, or maybe only in my brain. (Or maybe in a CPU > in another universe). > > Finally, someone who knows less about physics than I do. > > This comment supports my original post. There are no circles in the > > sky. There are no colors in nature. > > There are varying wavelengths of light. Almost right. Colors are defined in terms of the human eye. The human eye processes energy with mixtures of wavelengths into color. Unfortunately, the mapping between colors and wavelength is not unique. A mixture of different wavelengths of light can look the same shade of green as a monochromatic beam of light. In the rainbow, wavelengths are separated. Our interpretation of the rainbow does not exist without human beings. But the wavelengths will still be there. A bee would see an entirely different rainbow, but it would be the same wavelengths of light. Different eyes interprete wavelengths differently. In fact, a color blind human would still see the rainbow. He just wouldn't see the different wavelengths. He would see a bright arc in the sky. It may look white. But it would still be a rainbow. I have seen experiments where a high power laser beam was pulsed and incident on a small droplet. The droplet could contain bacteria (I don't know if any experiments were done with bacteria, but I do know they were planned). The droplet exploded, starting with a thin arc on the surface of the droplet. This arc corresponded to the "rainbow angles." Though a human didn't "see" this rainbow, any bacteria in the droplet would certainly have notice the distribution of energy. Attributions are wrong. >>>Finally, someone who knows less about physics than I do. >>>This comment supports my original post. There are no circles in the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > angles." Though a human didn't "see" this rainbow, any bacteria in the > droplet would certainly have notice the distribution of energy. > > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch They dont . They dont move. Only the stationary drops at the correct angle between you, the sun and the drop reflect sunlight back to you, thus forming the rainbow, and it's geometry is a circle. It's hard to tell if you deliberately ask "Leif Robinson" simplistic questions, or if you're a 4-year-old who's accidentally been given access to a computer. >To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of >specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on >observation by a conscious entity. Following this train of thought, there is no light anywhere else in the universe. Also, there is no sound, even on those celestial objects that collide and cluster into planets, moons, etc. > >To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > >specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the universe. Also, there is no sound, even on those celestial objects > that collide and cluster into planets, moons, etc. No. Light and sound have physical effects, whether conscious beings are present or not. But the fact that all the refracted light from raindrops looks like a arc to me is not because there is a real arc out there in nature. There is not. This phenomena only exists because a conscious being is observing. Same with colors. There is no color "red" in nature---there is an electromagnetic wave of 650nm in length, but the "red" is created by the observer. > > >To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > > >specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "red" in nature---there is an electromagnetic wave of 650nm in length, > but the "red" is created by the observer. What if the observer is color-blind and can't perceive red. Red still exists, whether he sees it or not.  SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ At some point it becomes necessary to behead all the architects and begin construction. -- Abi-Bar-Shim (Project Mgr. - Great Pyramid) > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. A garden hose set to 'spray" will do it. So will high clouds at sunset. > On planets where humans do not exist there are no eyes and no color > vision to percieve the phenomenon of a curved multi-colored arc in the > sky on a rainy day. Hey f.cking stooopid - what makes you think the rainbow stops at red and violet? > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. Hey f.cking stooopid - where were PSR J0737-3039A/B before somebody looked? f.cking stooopid osmium sould expose a sheet of photographic film or paper to light. Develop. Where is the world? Only a meat puppet with its brainless head rammed high into its colon http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg would believe Fourier transform by a positive lens would create the world. What about a zone plate, stooopid, or a Fresnel lens, binary optics, a pinhole, a hologram of a positve lens... Somebody shoot this git with 12 ga. #4 buck 34 pellets... in the dark. Don't look! When you sit on a thumbtack, git, does your a.s have eyes? SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. Always after noon and always facing generally eastward. > On planets where humans do not exist there are no eyes and no color > vision to percieve the phenomenon of a curved multi-colored arc in the > sky on a rainy day. You predict planets with atmospheres and weather like enough to ours? > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. Not so. Once more, you have exhibited your idiocy for all to witness. > Once more, you have exhibited your idiocy for all to witness. If there are no witnesses, is it still stupidity? SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything. - Bart Simpson >> To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of >> specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. > >Always after noon and always facing generally eastward. I grew up on a ranch in western Oklahoma. They get some rather unusual weather patterns in that area. Many of the storm systems move in from the northwest while the sky is still clear to the east. I've seen many rainbows in the morning, while facing westward with the early morning sun shining on my back. I even saw one rainbow that formed a complete circle around the noon-time sun as the clouds broke apart and let the sun shine through an opening while rain was still falling from the clouds all around that opening. >>>To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of >>>specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an opening while rain was still falling from the clouds all around > that opening. We're well used to experiencing all sorts of claims in these newsgroups. > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. How do the raindrops on these other planets know whether a human (or other being with color vision) is watching? Here's a though experiment: Lets say we drop you somewhere in Siberia, hundreds of miles from the anyone else. You are there alone. Now, a rain shower starts, but it is behind you. You do not turn around to look at it, so there is no rainbow. However, you take out your digital camera and, without looking, aim it over your shoulder and snap a picture. What do you see on the display? Is that a rainbow? Think about your answer carefully, or we're not sending the helicopter back to Siberia to pick you up if you answer incorrectly. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I have a truly marvellous sig which this margin is too narrow to contain. The dinosaurs saw rainbows. Mitch Raemsch In sci.physics, BURT <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:24:12 -0700 (PDT) <d5c51841-19b4-4bf7-a882-2e45a48dbfa3@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com>: > The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > > Mitch Raemsch No doubt they did (something had to rain on the lush vegetation for the herbivores), though from current theory it is highly doubtful they even began to understand them, as many of their brains were the size of a walnut, if that. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #992381111: while(bit&BITMASK) ; ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >In sci.physics, BURT ><macromitch@yahoo.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >it is highly doubtful they even began to understand them, >as many of their brains were the size of a walnut, if that. I've read that some of those very large dinosaurs had two brains...one in their head and one in their pelvis. This was necessary because their length made it impractical for a single brain at the head to adequately control and coordinate the motions of those rear quarters that were so far away. In fact it has been speculated that this lack of coordination between the fore and aft quarters led to the demise and perhaps curtailed the life span of those larger beasts. The front brain would perceive a cliff or other danger but could not get the message to the rear quarters quickly enough to keep those powerful hind legs from pushing the front end over the cliff, or into the tar pit, etc Gordon. > The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > > Mitch Raemsch I understand they were as color blind as dogs. Do dogs see rainbows? Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > > The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA They probably looked white to the dogs. Mitch Raemsch > > The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA Why are we leaving out the circumzenithal arc in this discussion? >>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why are we leaving out the circumzenithal arc in this discussion? Because most of the people (beginning with BURT) involved in this discussion have severe limitations to their knowledge as well as any interest in research and study. There are many structures in the universe that can create rainbows. I suggest that Saturn's rings, for example, have that ability as well. An ordinary prism can create a rainbow segment. How about interference? (snip) >> Why are we leaving out the circumzenithal arc in this discussion? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >that ability as well. An ordinary prism can create a rainbow >segment. How about interference? This is a bit off the main subject, but may I ask if anyone has any information relating to the possibility of Saturn type rings around Earth, and maybe around other planets, in the past? If so, what became of them? Gordon In sci.physics, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> wrote on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:31:44 -0500 <bh1p84t6beagvvb0q5fe3ls499cdjrvchl@4ax.com>: > (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Earth, and maybe around other planets, in the past? If so, what became > of them? Gordon An interesting question, and my understanding of the Moon's formation is that it was originally in the form of a ring which was slammed up into orbit when a Mars-sized planetoid crashed into us, gouging out the Pacific Ocean basin. The ring eventually coalesced into Luna. Why Saturn's rings didn't coalesce long ago, I for one can't say. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all! ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >In sci.physics, Antares 531 ><gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Why Saturn's rings didn't coalesce long ago, I for one can't say. Aren't Saturn's rings mostly ice, nucleated onto small dust particles? I seem to remember from a long time back, reading that the earth also had these ice crystal rings but some near-miss by a string of comets, by means of something like a Holoman transfer interaction, robbed those orbiting ice particles of most of their orbital velocity and they dropped into the earth's atmosphere. That is, the momentum of the ice crystal particles in the earth's rings was transferred to the Sumaker-Levy type string of comets, leaving the ice particles stalled out well below the required orbital velocity. Gordon > >>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that ability as well. An ordinary prism can create a rainbow > segment. How about interference? The book "Rainbows.Halos and Glories" is pretty conprehaenice for all thes eidffernt effects. If one considers different possible chemical compositions of an XT planet's atmosphere, and the different colors of different stars, the number of possible atmospheric phenomena become very great > > >>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > that ability as well. An ordinary prism can create a rainbow > > segment. How about interference? The book "Rainbows, Halos and Glories" is pretty comprehensive for all these different effects. If one considers different possible chemical compositions of an XT planet's atmosphere, and the different colors of different stars, the number of possible atmospheric phenomena become very great > >>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Why is a rainbow round? Science cannot prove it san. Mitch Raemsch >>>>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Why is a rainbow round? Science cannot prove it san. Why do you keep repeating falsehoods and insisting that they are right? Don't you have better things to do? On Jul 27, 9:05 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>The dinosaurs saw rainbows. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Mitch Raemsch I think it's hopeless to try to explain anything to you, for your game is to post falsehoods just to see if anyone bites. A rainbow is circular because it is formed by raindrops which are at a 42 degree angle to the observer's anti-solar point, and this geometry ensures that it is an arc of a circle. Now, Mitch: 2 + 2 = 5. > On Jul 27, 9:05 pm, Mitch Raemsch <mitch.nicolas.raem...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I think it's hopeless to try to explain anything to you, for your game > is to post falsehoods just to see if anyone bites. If science had a rectum he'd be in it to the hilt. > A rainbow is > circular because it is formed by raindrops which are at a 42 degree > angle to the observer's anti-solar point, and this geometry ensures > that it is an arc of a circle. > > Now, Mitch: 2 + 2 = 5. > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. God creates rainbows to tell man where he is at in terms of hope. Mitch Raemsch [snip] > God creates rainbows to tell man where he is at in terms of hope. Ever try to reach the end of a rainbow? Your god sure has a sadistic sense of humor. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky The pot is God's excuse. Mitch Raemsch > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The pot is God's excuse. I don't know about that. If he did a little ganja now and then, I think he'd be a lot less nasty. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't hate yourself in the morning -- sleep till noon. In sci.physics, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:18:17 -0700 <488BF709.23E9FDD5@hovnanian.com>: >> > [snip] >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't know about that. If he did a little ganja now and then, I think > he'd be a lot less nasty. I think he was referring to the pot o' gold. Then again, from what little I know about weed, some of it might indeed be considered gold... ;-) Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net Windows Vista. Now in nine exciting editions. Try them all! ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > observation by a conscious entity. This thesis is obviously false. I've personally taken photographs of rainbows and there's nothing "conscious" about a camera. Dwib > > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of > > specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on > > observation by a conscious entity. > This thesis is obviously false. > I've personally taken photographs of rainbows and there's nothing > "conscious" about a camera. > Dwib My uncle, Con Guiney, needed to be guided across the street, having been (partially) blind from birth. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is King! Anyway, he got on well with all of us, even if we were a bit saddened by his circumstances. Existential dilemma? Not obvious that he did not exist when he was not being observed, though, for sure, he was still there. Thus, there must have been something else ... . What might that have been? -- 'foolsrushin.' http://www.ciclops.org/view/3280/Rainbow_on_the_Rings?js=1 No land, no one to be blind, rainbow anyway, not on Earth. David A. Smith >http://www.ciclops.org/view/3280/Rainbow_on_the_Rings?js=1 > >No land, no one to be blind, rainbow anyway, not on Earth. > >David A. Smith On the subject of Saturn's rings...is there any geological or astronomical evidence that Earth or any of the other solar planets ever had rings such as these? If so, what became of them? Gordon Dear Antares 531: ... > On the subject of Saturn's rings...is there > any geological or astronomical evidence that > Earth or any of the other solar planets ever > had rings such as these? If so, what became > of them? Jupiter has rings: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970205.html Neptune has rings: http://pds-rings.seti.org/neptune/ Uranus has rings: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/uranus.htm Pluto may have rings: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060222_pluto_moons.html From Mars inwards, there appear to be no rings. My guess would be that the inner solar system is better swept by solar wind, and solar tidal effects, such that any tiny particles would be unstable and either fall into the planet's surface or be dragged out- system. It is expected that rings are sourced from gravitaitonally bound bodies drifting within the "Roche limit" of the planet they orbit, where they are slowly ripped apart. David A. Smith Dear Antares 531: ... > On the subject of Saturn's rings...is there > any geological or astronomical evidence that > Earth or any of the other solar planets ever > had rings such as these? If so, what became > of them? Specifically to the Earth, our Moon started out much closer to the Earth (how much closer remains to be settled on). So,had we had rings prior to the Moon separating from (or captured by) the Earth, the Moon would have swept it clear. David A. Smith An Niagara Falls is the world capital of the rainbow. I love rainbows and so do newly weds Bert Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:44:36 -0500 schrieb Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@swbell.net> in cotr84l3v0gen7n30i1uibahsp1ibpfueq@4ax.com in sci.physics.relativity (belongs in sci.astro or alt.sci.astro): [...] > On the subject of Saturn's rings...is there any geological or > astronomical evidence that Earth or any of the other solar planets ever > had rings such as these? If so, what became of them? Gordon Yes, Uranus and Neptune have rings though they be smaller. As for Jupiter, it has a faint ring that resembles Saturn's. However, the Io torus is more pronounced, even though there is some discussion among astronomers as to whether it really is a "ring". As for the evidence, the ring evidence for Jupiter and Neptune are Voyager photographs. The first evidence of a ring for Uranus came from the Kuiper airborne observatory where the rings eclipsed a star. The Io torus had some circumstantial evidence before Pioneer, but between Pioneer 9 & 10 and the Voyager probes, the Io torus was proven. There currently is no evidence for the other 4 planets ever having a ring. However, since the best explanation for the Moon's origin seems to have been a collision with Earth, it seems that Earth may have had a ring which became the Moon. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! Am Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:00:18 -0700 schrieb "foolsrushin." <dolomite8@hotmail.com> in ab76b33c-1ab0-402c-b5fc-edb77263c2d8@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com in sci.physics.relativity: >> > To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of [...] > Existential dilemma? Not obvious that he did not exist when he was not [...] Why is it that the Mensa newsgroup is so adept at posting off-topic stuff here? Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > Am Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:00:18 -0700 schrieb "foolsrushin." > <dolomite8@hotmail.com> in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why is it that the Mensa newsgroup is so adept at posting off-topic stuff > here? It seems as though BURT felt overwhelmed and underappreciated in the sci newsgroups so he transferred himself to rec.org.mensa where he mistakenly thought he'd be better appreciated. In his "infinite wisdom" he thought he'd make the sci guys jealous and get them to beg him to return to the sci newsgroups. You're the first one (and only one so far) to fall for his little ploy. Osmium is merely following in BURT's footsteps because he's discovered that most of his postings aren't appreciated anywhere. Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:22:56 -0500 schrieb Sanforized <sanforized@naol.con> in d5815$488e54d7$cdd085b4$31140@DIALUPUSA.NET in sci.physics.relativity: >> Am Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:00:18 -0700 schrieb "foolsrushin." >> <dolomite8@hotmail.com> in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It seems as though BURT felt overwhelmed and underappreciated in the sci [...] Except that the origin of this thread didn't come from BURT or Osmium. I've noticed a lot of crap getting tossed our way from the Mensa group. This is just speculation, but it seems that either Mensa dudes aren't as smart as their reputation implies, or that someone is trying to take Mensa's reputation down a notch. - Just seems that way. Signature// The TimeLord says: // Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us! > Except that the origin of this thread didn't come from BURT or Osmium. > I've noticed a lot of crap getting tossed our way from the Mensa group. Ditto to cam.misc. More often than not it's racist spammers who think we need to be "converted" to their ideals. Some chance. Jon SignatureSPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines'. >> Except that the origin of this thread didn't come from BURT or Osmium. >> I've noticed a lot of crap getting tossed our way from the Mensa group. > > Ditto to cam.misc. More often than not it's racist spammers who think > we need to be "converted" to their ideals. Some chance. You folks are more in need of being edjumicated than converted. The DimeLord complained like a baby and redirected followups to alt.test: > Am Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:22:56 -0500 schrieb Sanforized > <sanforized@naol.con> in d5815$488e54d7$cdd085b4$31140@DIALUPUSA.NET in [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > smart as their reputation implies, or that someone is trying to take > Mensa's reputation down a notch. - Just seems that way. Hey Dimelord, are you always such a jackass or is this something new with you? All you had to do was look in the archives. Oh let me check, this sounds like a WebTV guy doing his very best. Here's the text of Osmium's posting on 7/25/2008, the very beginning of this thread, and posted to both r.o.m and sci.physics. "To see a rainbow a person must be in the right position for light of specified wavelengths to enter the eye at certain angles. "On planets where humans do not exist there are no eyes and no color vision to perceive the phenomenon of a curved multi-colored arc in the sky on a rainy day. "With this example it is easier to see how existence depends on observation by a conscious entity." Osmium is a troll with a very long track record. I wouldn't attempt to guess his motivations at any point in time. AFAIC Mensa deserves any reputation it achieves regardless of the source. Only status seekers and social misfits need apply for membership. I guess you're just a troll too. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.