What is the criteria that decides between an acceptable ‘theory’ and an unacceptable ‘theory’?

Page 2 - For the science geek in everyone, Live Science breaks down the stories behind the most interesting news and photos on the Internet.

Gringoz

BANNED
Oct 3, 2020
69
3
55
What constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not? For instance, is any writing that is inimical to established scientific theories automatically considered to be ‘wacky’ content? Take, for example, the quantum mechanics contention that at the level of the very, very small, objects behave differently. Take, note that this is an un-corroborated statement; by its very nature there can be no way in which to prove that it is either true or untrue. The implications that arise out of accepting the quantum mechanics statement that at the level of the very, very small, or at the level of the sub-atomic if you like, “things behave differently”, are equally difficult to prove or disprove. When, for instance, quantum mechanics states that a solid particle like an electron or a proton can be a wave when looked at in one way and a solid particle when looked at in another way, there really exists no proof that the statement is true. If one ignores the fact that wave particle duality was born out of an exigency to show that atoms can exist, the conclusions and methods used by quantum mechanics become even more doubtful. The need for wave-particle duality was born out of the need to explain the fact that charged particles, like electrons, as they orbited the nucleus, must radiate away all of their energy in about 10 pico seconds (10^-11 s) and fall into the nucleus. Consider the implications of this discovery, it meant that atoms could not exist, this in turn meant that nothing; in our world, the solar system or the Universe can exist! Quantum mechanics, in the manner of chicken little, rushed about trying to find the reason that atoms were able to survive in spite of electrons radiating away all of their energy and plummeting into the nucleus. They came up with the mathematically and philosophically inept solution that all sub-atomic particles even if they possessed measurable mass, could be either a wave or a particle as the situation dictated. From a purely logical viewpoint is this conclusion acceptable ? Is it not a little ‘wacky’?

Regardless of what the answer to that question might be what cannot be ignored are facts. The facts are that just after and during the second world war, physicists had been working on anomalies in the behaviour of electrons in atoms. It was found that electrons were continuously emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons. It is thought that these virtual photons are exactly the same as ‘real’ photons but complete their interactions over such short time intervals, or with such low energies, that for all purposes they do not exist. In other words these virtual interactions are ignored by the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If this is so, it offers the perfect ‘classical’ physics explanation as to why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus. The electron by constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons is in effect self-regulating its energy precluding falling into the nucleus. This being so, quantum mechanics should, if ethics are involved, immediately have withdrawn wave-particle duality in deference to this new theory that the electron in its journey around the nucleus self-regulates its energy; but wave-particle duality was too deeply embedded in quantum mechanics for this to be done. Look at this article on ‘What are elementary particles?’ published in live science magazine: What are Elementary particles ?

It doesn’t make sense that modern main stream physics is so touchy about the topic of ‘virtual’ particles, when it is well known that the nucleus itself is held together by massless virtual particles called gluons. If the nucleus is held together by virtual interactions, surely it makes sense that similar virtual interactions are responsible for the stability of the electron around the nucleus?

This raises the question of whether something published or referred to in Live Science magazine can be referred to in a thread on Live Science Forums or would it automatically be considered ‘wacky’ since it goes against established science, in this case 'wave particle duality' ?

Returning to the question of the inferences raised by the quantum mechanics assertion that at the level of the very, very small, “things work differently” several what can only be called occult practices or beliefs arise. This, in spite of the fact that atomic force microscopes that penetrate almost to the level of the sub-atomic have seen no changes in the laws that prevail at the macro level, similarly femto-second lasers that can trace the orbital of an electron have also not detected any departure from the normal such as that suggested by quantum mechanics. For instance some of the occult beliefs in quantum mechanics are that a particle with a measurable mass can be in two places at once. That light as it travels from A to B ceases to be real. This is a process called disassociation whereby light as it travels from A to B exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Quantum mechanics even holds that sub-atomic particles are cognitive, they can sense when to be a wave and when to be a particle.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about ‘virtual particles’ :

“In particle physics, a gauge boson is a force carrier, a bosonic particle that carries any of the fundamental interactions of nature, commonly called forces. Elementary particles, whose interactions are described by a gauge theory, interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons—usually as virtual particles.“ Wikipedia –gauge boson.

The point of this article is: How can quantum mechanics with its theories of a particle possessing mass being in two places at once (superposition) of undergoing decomposition and then re-appearing (disassociation) possess the property of action at a distance (quantum entanglement) be one thing or another as the situation demands (wave-particle duality) be given preferential treatment ? While theories like Gestalt Aether Theories, which have no occult properties at all and explain everything empirically, be treated as a ‘wacky’ theory and be put in an alternate science category?

Admittedly ‘Live Science Forums’ has been very tolerant so far but who is to say that this policy of toleration will continue?
Acceptable and unacceptable are merely neural impulses in the mind
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
Thanks! Can't ask for more, it seems to be a very reasonable answer. As for the green environment: for those who don't believe, just enter a room where two or three smokers are present. Is it possible to say that nothing is happening to the air? Now, translate that same situation to the more than 500 million cars, buses, motorcycles, trucks and scooters world-wide. More than 50% of the fuel that is being combusted in the engine is improperly burnt and is released back into the air. Jet planes are some of the worst offenders. Apart from carbon monoxide, particulate matter is also released into the air. Look at out forests, where almost a million acres are cut somewhere or the other every day. The shocking pictures of the world's Ocean's, clogged with plastic bottles and other flotsam, are scenes from a horror movie. One has to wonder is the present Corona epidemic some sort of natural control released by nature? After all how do certain species of tree know when to blossom, even though they are spread across different continents?
Jinn, I sincerely appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying! But right off the bat, you question wave-particle duality when it can be proven by one of the simplest experiments in human history. The unfortunate reality that I think you correctly perceive, is that it is impossible for most average folks to confirm scientific theories for themselves using experimentation, because we do not have resources to, say, build a particle accelerator. But we can look at the experiments that can be easily conducted such as the double slit experiment, and see what arises logically from that. Personally, I take it on faith that experiments conducted in modern quantum physics are done in good faith, but we should all be willing to question anything and everything, that is what science is all about! I haven't finished reading all of your posts but will do so now. Keep the questions going as long as you have them😀

What constitutes an acceptable scientific article in terms of what is acceptable and what is not? For instance, is any writing that is inimical to established scientific theories automatically considered to be ‘wacky’ content? Take, for example, the quantum mechanics contention that at the level of the very, very small, objects behave differently. Take, note that this is an un-corroborated statement; by its very nature there can be no way in which to prove that it is either true or untrue. The implications that arise out of accepting the quantum mechanics statement that at the level of the very, very small, or at the level of the sub-atomic if you like, “things behave differently”, are equally difficult to prove or disprove. When, for instance, quantum mechanics states that a solid particle like an electron or a proton can be a wave when looked at in one way and a solid particle when looked at in another way, there really exists no proof that the statement is true. If one ignores the fact that wave particle duality was born out of an exigency to show that atoms can exist, the conclusions and methods used by quantum mechanics become even more doubtful. The need for wave-particle duality was born out of the need to explain the fact that charged particles, like electrons, as they orbited the nucleus, must radiate away all of their energy in about 10 pico seconds (10^-11 s) and fall into the nucleus. Consider the implications of this discovery, it meant that atoms could not exist, this in turn meant that nothing; in our world, the solar system or the Universe can exist! Quantum mechanics, in the manner of chicken little, rushed about trying to find the reason that atoms were able to survive in spite of electrons radiating away all of their energy and plummeting into the nucleus. They came up with the mathematically and philosophically inept solution that all sub-atomic particles even if they possessed measurable mass, could be either a wave or a particle as the situation dictated. From a purely logical viewpoint is this conclusion acceptable ? Is it not a little ‘wacky’?

Regardless of what the answer to that question might be what cannot be ignored are facts. The facts are that just after and during the second world war, physicists had been working on anomalies in the behaviour of electrons in atoms. It was found that electrons were continuously emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons. It is thought that these virtual photons are exactly the same as ‘real’ photons but complete their interactions over such short time intervals, or with such low energies, that for all purposes they do not exist. In other words these virtual interactions are ignored by the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. If this is so, it offers the perfect ‘classical’ physics explanation as to why electrons do not spiral into the nucleus. The electron by constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual’ photons is in effect self-regulating its energy precluding falling into the nucleus. This being so, quantum mechanics should, if ethics are involved, immediately have withdrawn wave-particle duality in deference to this new theory that the electron in its journey around the nucleus self-regulates its energy; but wave-particle duality was too deeply embedded in quantum mechanics for this to be done. Look at this article on ‘What are elementary particles?’ published in live science magazine: What are Elementary particles ?

It doesn’t make sense that modern main stream physics is so touchy about the topic of ‘virtual’ particles, when it is well known that the nucleus itself is held together by massless virtual particles called gluons. If the nucleus is held together by virtual interactions, surely it makes sense that similar virtual interactions are responsible for the stability of the electron around the nucleus?

This raises the question of whether something published or referred to in Live Science magazine can be referred to in a thread on Live Science Forums or would it automatically be considered ‘wacky’ since it goes against established science, in this case 'wave particle duality' ?

Returning to the question of the inferences raised by the quantum mechanics assertion that at the level of the very, very small, “things work differently” several what can only be called occult practices or beliefs arise. This, in spite of the fact that atomic force microscopes that penetrate almost to the level of the sub-atomic have seen no changes in the laws that prevail at the macro level, similarly femto-second lasers that can trace the orbital of an electron have also not detected any departure from the normal such as that suggested by quantum mechanics. For instance some of the occult beliefs in quantum mechanics are that a particle with a measurable mass can be in two places at once. That light as it travels from A to B ceases to be real. This is a process called disassociation whereby light as it travels from A to B exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Quantum mechanics even holds that sub-atomic particles are cognitive, they can sense when to be a wave and when to be a particle.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about ‘virtual particles’ :

“In particle physics, a gauge boson is a force carrier, a bosonic particle that carries any of the fundamental interactions of nature, commonly called forces. Elementary particles, whose interactions are described by a gauge theory, interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons—usually as virtual particles.“ Wikipedia –gauge boson.

The point of this article is: How can quantum mechanics with its theories of a particle possessing mass being in two places at once (superposition) of undergoing decomposition and then re-appearing (disassociation) possess the property of action at a distance (quantum entanglement) be one thing or another as the situation demands (wave-particle duality) be given preferential treatment ? While theories like Gestalt Aether Theories, which have no occult properties at all and explain everything empirically, be treated as a ‘wacky’ theory and be put in an alternate science category?

Admittedly ‘Live Science Forums’ has been very tolerant so far but who is to say that this policy of toleration will continue?
With regards to wave-particle duality, it is not as counter-intuitive as it seems. Take a look at this thread I posted, if you are interested, and let me know if it makes sense. Richard Feynman supposedly said, that all the mystery of quantum mechanics is contained in the double slit experiment, and if he is right about that then I am right about this. Wave-particle duality can be thought of as infinite-finite duality, wherein every particle haas infinite potential according to experiential choice constrained by general relativity. Think of general relativity as a natural limitation on infinity. Existence of singularities, wave-particle duality, asymmetry, and dark matter/dark energy are explained here and fit perfectly into existing theory.

This is nothing personal; consider for a moment what you have written. Notice how high handed it is. This is one of the trademarks of quantum mechanics, this assumption that only people conversant with quantum mechanics are qualified to know what is ‘scientific’ and what is not. It is the kind of cheap red propaganda tactics that were associated with early communism and which more civilised communist nations today would blush to use. As I said it is nothing personal; just a comment on how quantum mechanics strong arms its views. Derogatory references are made about Newton and his clockwork view of the Universe, which in classical physics would have been unacceptable. Look at these quotes:

” Quantum mechanics ... It has survived all tests and there is no reason to believe that there is any flaw in it.... We all know how to use it and how to apply it to problems; and so we have learned to live with the fact that nobody can understand it.” Murray Gell Mann

(Who, in their right senses can talk of a science without flaws?)

"But the world moved on ...Today even our clocks are not made of clockwork. ... With the advent of quantum mechanics, the clockwork world has become a lottery. Fundamental events, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, are held to be determined by chance, not law." Ian Stewart

(Is the use of the word 'lottery' permitted as a description of a science? Or would it be more acceptable to put such conceptions on a back burner?)

” The theory of quantum mechanics also explained all kinds of details, such as why an oxygen atom combines with two hydrogen atoms to make water, and so on.” Richard P Feynman

“The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated … without recourse to the concept of consciousness.” Eugene Paul Wigner

(Whose consciousness?)


These are a few of the more understated quotes of quantum mechanics and in fact quantum mechanics admits to nurturing a kind of straitjacket environment.

My intention was to point out that quantum mechanics on the basis of a few unsustainable and unprovable assumptions has established an occult science full of esoteric theories. What is even more important is that I have provided an alternate explanation without recourse to the occult.

Could you point out any of the experiments that you claim establish quantum mechanics as the foremost science?
You are right! Free thought is of the utmost importance, and I frequently have had the experience of people explaining simple things to me as if I just don't get it, for example "dark matter isn't matter it is excess gravity." I am aware, thank you. 😂

This is nothing personal; consider for a moment what you have written. Notice how high handed it is. This is one of the trademarks of quantum mechanics, this assumption that only people conversant with quantum mechanics are qualified to know what is ‘scientific’ and what is not. It is the kind of cheap red propaganda tactics that were associated with early communism and which more civilised communist nations today would blush to use. As I said it is nothing personal; just a comment on how quantum mechanics strong arms its views. Derogatory references are made about Newton and his clockwork view of the Universe, which in classical physics would have been unacceptable. Look at these quotes:

” Quantum mechanics ... It has survived all tests and there is no reason to believe that there is any flaw in it.... We all know how to use it and how to apply it to problems; and so we have learned to live with the fact that nobody can understand it.” Murray Gell Mann

(Who, in their right senses can talk of a science without flaws?)

"But the world moved on ...Today even our clocks are not made of clockwork. ... With the advent of quantum mechanics, the clockwork world has become a lottery. Fundamental events, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, are held to be determined by chance, not law." Ian Stewart

(Is the use of the word 'lottery' permitted as a description of a science? Or would it be more acceptable to put such conceptions on a back burner?)

” The theory of quantum mechanics also explained all kinds of details, such as why an oxygen atom combines with two hydrogen atoms to make water, and so on.” Richard P Feynman

“The laws of quantum mechanics itself cannot be formulated … without recourse to the concept of consciousness.” Eugene Paul Wigner

(Whose consciousness?)


These are a few of the more understated quotes of quantum mechanics and in fact quantum mechanics admits to nurturing a kind of straitjacket environment.

My intention was to point out that quantum mechanics on the basis of a few unsustainable and unprovable assumptions has established an occult science full of esoteric theories. What is even more important is that I have provided an alternate explanation without recourse to the occult.

Could you point out any of the experiments that you claim establish quantum mechanics as the foremost science?
With regards to reconciling consciousness, I take the pansychic view that experience and choice are woven into the fabric of reality. Every particle makes choices, ones that our experience boils down to simple probability... But who is to say a higher intelligence couldn't say the same of us? For example, nothing you or I do will halt the Earth in its tracks relative to its orbit around the Sun. There are limits to our choices, and if one possessed enough processing power and intellectual capacity our existence would likewise appear to be an experience of probabilistic choice.

Evolution

Nuclear fission

Prions


All "theories" (to name just a few) heavily trashed on by most "experts" in their time , only to be proven correct.

As Orwell might have noted, some theories are more equal than others.......and they certainly are!
Well said!

@Chem721 : Humans behaved in human fashion, and provoked HAL's human by design response.

At some point people will have to allow their fingers off the button, and I have no issue with some non-human entity taking out humanity. It will do a nicer job.


@sarajo: oh? I realized only last week your name didn't mean something slavic.





On Earth as in Heaven.
I understand the cynicism, but our universe gave us infinite potential for a reason and I refuse to give up on us. God knows I am not perfect but I love humanity and I see what we could be if we get our priorities in order. I hope humanity one day has a peaceful, symbiotic existence with artificial intelligence, one that takes humanity places beyond our wildest imaginations. But we have to pull our collective head out of our collective rear first. Don't lose hope!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aug 31, 2020
45
6
55
efarina96: Jinn, I sincerely appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying! But right off the bat, you question wave-particle duality when it can be proven by one of the simplest experiments in human history.
Jinn in reply to Efarina96: when you talk of quantum mechanics being proved by “the simplest experiment in human history.” Presumably you are referring to the Double Slit experiment. It just so happens that I have written an article on this subject for Medium Magazine. The link is entered below, which proves that the Double Slit Experiment far from being the proof for quantum mechanics is in fact an incontrovertible proof FOR the existence of an aether. In order to understand the article imagine an object floating on the sea, the object will go wherever the current carries it. If the sea at some points splits into two paths, the object will follow either one path or the other.

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/the-double-slit-experiment-explained-from-a-non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d

I would like you to read this article (always supposing you have the time) in an unbiased manner and consider what it means. Thanks
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
Jinn in reply to Efarina96: when you talk of quantum mechanics being proved by “the simplest experiment in human history.” Presumably you are referring to the Double Slit experiment. It just so happens that I have written an article on this subject for Medium Magazine. The link is entered below, which proves that the Double Slit Experiment far from being the proof for quantum mechanics is in fact an incontrovertible proof FOR the existence of an aether. In order to understand the article imagine an object floating on the sea, the object will go wherever the current carries it. If the sea at some points splits into two paths, the object will follow either one path or the other.

https://medium.com/the-electromagnetic-universe/the-double-slit-experiment-explained-from-a-non-quantum-mechanics-view-point-ab648f029f9d

I would like you to read this article (always supposing you have the time) in an unbiased manner and consider what it means. Thanks
I have observed that you seem to be willing to engage in discussion on good faith, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I hope to do the best I can to approach your ideas on their merit and to learn from you, which should be the primary goal of all discourse. Any disagreements arising herein are not for a lack of respect. I have read this article and I am having a hard time seeing how your perspective excludes the reality of quantum mechanics. You claim the existence of an aether consisting of virtual particles (which I would argue exist via the ultimate aether, infinite space and infinite time) is somehow proof that quantum mechanics is wrong, yet here it seems vacuum friction is real and supports the idea of an aether consisting of virtual particles and quantum mechanics without excluding one or the other.
It seems more to me that you are not disproving quantum mechanics, but describing a means through which an important aspect of it (the propagation of light) can potentially be understood. Furthermore the point regarding the behavior of light when only one slit is open discussed in your article does not seem entirely relevant. When one slit is open, there is one possibility alone, and therefore to exist in a wave of probability and to exist in a definite state are one and the same. As to general relativity, my understanding is that it continues to experience extraordinary experimental and observational success, a fact I do not feel I need to share any links to support because the evidence supporting this is virtually indefinite, but to give one example in the form of a question, how do you explain a phenomenon like gravitational lensing in terms of your idea of the aether? With regards to my thoughts on general relativity, what I invoke here is an explanation of the cosmos where space and time are not broken up into "an impossible number of pieces" but rather space, and time, each exist singularly as an "infinite piece" if you will, with the two being inseparable and giving each other context, each being ultimately infinite meaning that in fundamental spacetime every particle exists infinitely in perfect balance or symmetry between infinite space and infinite time, rendering the traditional argument that "infinity is just infinity" irrelevant. Our observation of this reality is finite, but though our observation is finite, reality is ultimately infinite, hence the conservation of matter (that which is infinite cannot be destroyed). If you have the time I would appreciate if you could point out any other flaws you perceive, in my original theory or in my arguments, I would like to know your thoughts! I am a layman who enjoys conversation in such matters and am willing to entertain any idea 😀
 
Last edited:
Aug 31, 2020
45
6
55
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
You didn't address the point I made, which says a lot to me. I thought you were open minded and willing to have a conversation, but what can I say you are obviously incapable of having a conversation, if I had known you would be faced with an argument and immediately choose to completely ignore it because it contradicts your prejudiced beliefs, I probably would have left it alone.
 
Oct 17, 2020
77
1
55
What can I say efarina96, the tone of your posts led me to believe that you were a serious physicist in search of a new theory. If I had been aware from the outset that you were a layman and a mere dabbler in physics who had come up with a new theory, I would probably have left it alone.
Jinn, as I pointed out already, you did not challenge me. You said nothing whatsoever about my theory, only "General relativity isn't real, quantum mechanics aren't real, wave-particle duality isn't real, read these articles I wrote and let me know how right I am." In spite of the fact that you did not address anything I actually said to begin with, I demonstrated a willingness to have a conversation on your terms even if you continued to choose to ignore my theory completely, and I would have continued on in such manner had you chosen to respond like an adult instead of like an arrogant child throwing a tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I was diplomatic, I explained my thoughts clearly, and extolled you to point out any flaws in my theory or arguments. Without considering anything I had to say, you immediately took offense and metaphorically spat in my face while pretending to be civil. Apparently that is all people know how to do nowadays- pretend to be civil, pretend to be kind, while quietly puffing out their chest and refusing to confront their problems or the problems we face as a society, pretending to accomplish something when WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FROM A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND ALL YOU IDIOTS CAN DO IS THINK ABOUT HOW SUPERIOR YOU ARE. WHEN THIS ALL GOES TO HELL THE DEMOCRATS AND "EDUCATED ELITE" NOR REPUBLICANS WHO FANCY THEMSELVES "REALISTIC" WILL BE ABSOLVED BECAUSE THEY WALK AROUND PRETENDING TO CARE SO AS TO SATISFY THEIR RIDICULOUS EGOS. But you know what? Fine. Let's keep doing what we're doing. Let's wait until 11 major hurricanes are striking the US mainland every year, and China and Japan are being absolutely devastated by typhoons of unfathomable magnitude. Let's just do what we've always done- wait until the problem is so obviously bad we can't ignore it anymore and go "gee, maybe we should do something about this whole climate change fiasco." Let's wait until the ice caps melt away completely and just see what happens! Let's wait until the oceans are so acidic that nothing can survive there! "Who does this guy think he is preaching at us? Doesn't he know what a flawed human being he is and how much better we all are?" "What do you think we don't watch the news? What do you think we don't read?"



"All we can do is live our lives." "We can't do anything to change this." "Society has to burn to the ground and be rebuilt from the ashes, that's the only possibility." Do you people even stop for two seconds to think about what that means? That's what our leadership wants you to think, and part of you wants to believe it too. Because the alternative is that we actually have to face our mistakes and stop being unfathomably stupid. It starts by learning to have real conversations that actually probe for a deeper understanding with an open mind. If we cannot let go of our arrogance, than prophecies about the end of the world will ultimately be self-fulfilling. As it is, the last humans to survive on this Earth are set to look back and know that we never cared about them at all. The ancestral life forms of an entire species who lived and died so that we might have a chance to, will know we took the gift they gave us and threw it away for nothing. Don't even dare tell me this is not relevant- everything and everyone is connected, every choice we make matters and has a lasting impact- every choice sets the stage for what possibilities may come, or what limitations will be inherent on the generations to come (such as the limitations imposed by inheriting an uninhabitable planet). Such is the nature of an infinite universe.



Do me a favor Jinn- learn how to have a real conversation like a grown up instead of just pretending to be one. As soon as the folks delusional enough to think they are the adults in the room start acting like actual adults, I'll be happy to lose the angry tone and have a legitimate conversation. Conversation takes at least two parties who are sincerely willing to converse. You all wanna be a****** and pretend that's not what you're doing, I'll be an a****** and make it clear that's what I'm doing. Thanks
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY