Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Cosmology

Galaxies

An analysis of galaxial forms and motions.

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Message:

* HTML is OFF
* Forum Code is ON

Smilies

[quote][i]Originally posted by pshrodr[/i]
[br]Hi Jim,                   11/1/06

Yes to your question that the motion of the sun through the galaxy arm is forced by other local stars with little effect from the galaxy center.  I wasn’t sufficiently clear about the two options I mentioned for our sun, as both are local star effects.  I should define the situation better as regards to some stars heading back toward center.

I presented earlier the gravitational arm bending mechanism.  The most uncertain action occurs at the end of an arm.  The arm ends because of the increase of bending.  I addressed how the arm bends well beyond horizontal, even to 180 degrees at which point the stars are extending the line back toward center.   But now the prior sections of the line as a whole probably provide some gravitational pull on end stars.  How much is this pull?  Do these stars orbit back around their predecessors as an ultimate function of the star orbits?  If so, does a series of orbiting back cause the whole extension of the line to roll up like the octopus arm?  Or do the stars from the arm end begin to slide back along the under side of the arm more like a chain saw blade?

Sliding back implies a series of gravitational capture and release by stars along the upper part of the line.   If stars are returning to center, they are being helped along by the spin of the stars along the upper edge of the arm.  The logic for that relates to the concept that stars spinning counterclockwise caused those stars above to bend to the left as previously noted.  Now for those stars underneath the main line, stars spinning above cause them to bend/move to the right relative to our view of the system.  Extending the geometry, spinning stars cause others to their left to move downward while causing those to their right to shift upward.   All directions mentioned here are relative to the center, not relative to the flat disk.  Anyway, stars get to the underside of an arm either by sliding back down or via some giant orbit as part of the original arm.  Thus my 2 options in the prior message.   Either our sun is part of the upper line extending and growing outward or it is part of the series of stars sliding back toward center under the influence of upper are stars.  If it is part of the upper line it must currently be in a huge local orbit.

Paul Schroeder

paul schroeder
[/quote]

Check here to include your profile signature.
Check here to subscribe to this topic.

T O P I C R E V I E W
pshrodr	Posted - 21 Oct 2006 : 18:08:10 Some issues of galaxial motion include: 1. Dark matter has been invented to provide an explanation for why all bodies in a galaxy revolve at the same rate. The argument seems to be that the total kinetic energy should be half some imaginary binding energy of galaxies. To accomplish that people offset the heavy weighted center with an imaginary heavy weight external to the system to keep an equilibrium. Maybe it overlooks that there are binding energies throughout the system. Understanding their arguments is not part of my presentation here other than to suggest they are meaningless. I believe Meta Research has numerous reasons why dark matter doesn’t make sense and considers recent arguments for it to be specious. I suggest the overriding reason is that a simple geometric analysis of star groups interacting gravitationally explains the exact motions that galaxies exhibit. With that being the case, the whole discussion of dark matter is spurious. 2. Stars in pairs or groups must move relative to each other to avoid gravitational collapse, and ultimately must orbit each other. By extension, our sun must be jointly orbiting local stars and star groups while those and other stars orbit our sun. We cannot assume we just float around/orbit forever in the external part of the galaxy. 3. A problem that occurs from our sun orbiting one star is it eventually brings our sun into proximity with another star we are not specifically orbiting and we cross between the 2 stars. Our temporary interaction with the second star suggests close calls where it’s solar system encroaches above or below the ecliptic of our system. This occurrence can result in collisions, planet explosions and disoriented/tilted spins such as for Uranus and Triton within our system. I think Meta Research’s outstanding focus on these solar system events is exposing the need to examine stellar orbiting in detail. 4. My early readings of ‘Dark Matter’ led me to contemplate and write about gravitational interactions geometry for bodies of similar sizes. What is written here resulted from that reading and is not an original part of my model. I originally posted this with some other messages under the red shift category. This belongs under the galaxy category so I am reposting it here in somewhat ‘improved’ condition. Then I have added a third posting here that expands the geometry to explain spiral arms, galaxial domes, and other galaxy features. 5. In the following messages I necessarily refer a couple times to my gravity model which is a pushing gravity system with many, but not all features in accordance with Meta Research. The similarities are the reason I joined Meta. . Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
18 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Jim	Posted - 18 Nov 2006 : 15:07:11 For most of your questions I have to rely on data that has been published which you should have no problem finding. As I understand the data all the stars in the disk are moving at about the same speed around the geometric center. As far as CW/CCW goes it depends on what you identify top/bottom(a detail addressed in a prior post). The center of all gravitational structures is empty because the mass is not concentrated at a point as is required by Kepler's law. I may have left something so reask whatever.
pshrodr	Posted - 18 Nov 2006 : 14:24:43 Hi Jim, 11/18/06 I have a few questions for you. 1. By fast stars in the galactic disk, are those ones further out on the arm? 2. By fast, do you mean fast enough to revolve in step with inner stars, or faster yet? 3. By in the same direction, do you mean rotationally, like a clock, or rectilinearly? 4. Which direction? 5. I don’t think I addressed counter forces nor focused on tidal forces. What made you address them to me as pointless logic? Possibly my discussion of speed of stars in memo 2, where I discussed the arm creation, was unclear. When the innermost star in a line rotates 1 degree counterclockwise, there is a sequence of counterclockwise forces by it and by each star further out upon the next star. In that single time period further out stars are multi-shifted at higher angles, up to 90 degrees for example. That creates the arm in this single shift and the further out the star the faster it moves to it’s new position relative to the original line. They do so by all moving/orbiting at the same speed and the same 1 degree shift relative to their prior star which caused the local part of their shifting. Regarding direction of motion, I have seen articles mostly specifying clockwise rotation of the galaxy, with some being uncertain about direction. I don’t know if their view is relative to the galaxy center or to earth. It needs to specify the outside observer, and I don’t know how they define an other wise non-rotating center. My problem here is my model suggests mostly counterclockwise motion as viewed from the hypothetical region above the disk. Regarding your suggestion the model of earth is bogus, Do you imply some degree of emptiness within for earth and thus for the sun? My gravity model relates ‘net gravity’ to spin as that is what diminishes the force of penetrating paeps and effectively defines density. That spin is of the penetrated body itself and of it’s elements via their electron spin. Possibly the spin of the body itself could provide most of the net force so the center supplies little. I do question simply an iron center as that doesn’t seem to provide enough spin force in any gravitation model. Barycenter - a new concept to me. As you mention it doesn’t apply here since the forces are initiated at the two disbursed points, only the resultant revolution focus is at the ‘center of mass’. Paul paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 21:16:45 Hi Paul, You are very much deeper into this topic than I am but one thing you missed is the fast the stars in the galatic disk are all moving very fast in the same direction. That fact will also have an effect on the structure of the disk. As for Kepler and Newton I have dug very deep into their laws and believe them. They don't work on the structure of the disk as currently applied because modelers assume the geometric center of the disk has a lot of mass. In fact the center of any gravational structure is devoid of mass. This is true of the two mass model you are presenting too when the two masses are equal. It is this fact that leads me to conclude the current model of the Earth is bogus as well as models of other structures. No body agrees with me on this detail but some day they will. Anyway, back to the two mass model-if you place all the mass at one body the other body will obay the gravity laws but if you put half the mass at both points they don't act as expected from applying the laws as you are doing. Its because the 1st body is orbiting the 2nd and the 2nd body is orbiting the 1st. Thats not the same as both bodies orbiting a barycenter. Don't get bogged down in pointless logic like tidal force and direction of rotation or forces to counter force that make things move.
pshrodr	Posted - 16 Nov 2006 : 10:53:51 Hi Jim, 11/16/06 I was confused regarding your focus on structure and have stewed about how to respond. I thought detailed description that pictured the structure of galaxies was the goal and that I was providing it. From your concerns about Kepler laws not working and about excessive distances between stars, I finally decided you are asking the hard question of what laws and formula apply to the galaxy. So, I dug deep into my can of worms to reorient my thinking about time, absolute space, etc. I’ve struggled trying to get my worms in a row. I put many of them back in the can. I did gain perspective from them. One need is to more completely generalize existing gravity formulas. Currently the contribution by the orbital appears not properly addressed. Also, for mutual revolutions, we need a non- rectilinear, higher power, coordinate system translation. In overview, Kepler’s laws were derived from known facts about the solar system. The galaxy has different facts so the laws must be different. 1. Law 1; planets move in ellipses with the sun at a focus’ doesn’t apply to galaxies because there is not one focus point. To approximate a focus point you would have to diagram the potential orbit of a point around each discrete central star and average them. 2. Law 2 ; A vector - sun to planet draws out equal areas in equal times’ again suffers from no focal point. There cant be constant speeds relative to one galaxial mass or group of masses due to the influence of all other masses. There has been no observed acceleration dependent upon r in galaxies. 3. Law 3; The cube of the axis/radius is proportional to the period of revolution comes from timing calculations of orbiting point sources relative to the central mass - sun. There are not point sources but rather significant sources in the galaxy. A difference about galaxy centers, which inhibits applying the Kepler formula there, is seen by gradually moving a subject point mass directionally away from the center say toward the west. The central gravitation effect upon it, and upon it’s orbital speed is reduced as you move outward. This reduction is overcome by more total stars being to one side, the east, and jointly gravitating upon the point mass. Kepler’s laws don’t apply in general, so we need details. The first issue leading toward formula modification is that, even using attraction gravity, the path by which the central mass affects its orbital is not the same as the path by which the orbital reciprocates it’s gravitational effect upon the central mass. I assume non instantaneous gravitation here. During the time of passage of gravitational force from one body to another the bodies have moved. Draw the two centripetal lines starting either at the same time or at the same point, where one line ends and the other starts and the lines must bend somewhat relative to each other in order to impact their relocated target. Also, the two attraction forces are directed in the opposite direction. So, my concern is with putting the dependent mass into the Newtonian gravitation equation without also inserting it’s gravitation constant (thus squaring g). You may argue there can be no modifying Newton’s equation since it works so well throughout the solar system. However, all accepted orbiting situations in the solar system consist of a center and an orbital between which the center of mass is within or close to the central body. The central body is thus gravitationally affected by it’s orbital and forced to revolve around an internal point so that it’s result to ‘local’ observers is that it rotates. The orbital body causes the center to spin based principally on the orbitals distance and time of rotation/speed. Kepler’s solar system formula is only used to determine orbital revolution. We haven’t applied it to consider rotation of the center. The need to do so increases in the more complex situation where the center of mass is outside and distant from the central body. Essentially Kepler’s formula defaults to considering the orbitals to be nearly point masses and to be quantified as 1. Were we to analyze the continuous relocation of the sun like if the center of mass were outside the central body, the orbital contribution becomes more recognizable. We might recognize the joint revolution around some central point. The closer to equal the two masses are, the closer to absolute center is their revolution center. This perspective is from the vantage point of an ‘outside’ observer who can identify motion of both bodies. The center relocates as you imagine increasing mass for the orbital. Kepler’s 3rd law doesn’t apply now, but what does? The mass of the orbital, which was previously 1, now plays an increasing role. The maximum orbital contribution is when the two masses are identical. Beyond that, the orbital becomes considered the center. The original masses were relatively so small that using 1 rather than their individual mass was sufficient for the orbital side of the calculation. Now the mass itself matters. Kepler 3rd law must be modified for bodies orbiting the sun which have sufficient mass to position the center of mass outside of the sun. Fortunately our sun is a member of the galaxy, so we can use a modified Kepler formula to relate stars orbiting our sun to planets orbiting our sun. We would like to arrive at the same ratio of time to distance as for the solar system. Unfortunately, the further out the planet, the less it follows the law. A first guess for the dual star situation is to include the mass of the orbiting star as a multiplier. Then the law (in circular, not ellipse form) in first approximation becomes the cube of the radius is proportional to the dependent body’s ‘mass’ times the square of the period of revolution. Thus r(3)m / T(2) = C, C = the same constant as for the planets. One wrinkle here is that the revolution is no longer around the central body, so the relationship needs further modification to account for the smaller orbit radius - ½ as large for equal bodies. Without our perspective and time measures determined relative to earth, Kepler’s laws would be meaningless. Given that we apply the Kepler relationship, we understand it is a ‘revolution vs the center’ phenomena. A planet is a center of it’s own so it should reciprocate and cause the initial center to revolve. A planet would seemingly cause the sun to revolve around a solar internal, point, and thus rotate at the same rate by which the planet orbits. It turns out that there are other orbital planets that also spin the sun so it rotates faster than anything revolves around it. So the sun affects, as I like to say pushes, the planets while they do likewise to it. My reference, providing the development of Newton’s formula, is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by Max Born pages 58 - 64 in case you have that book. In the process of using Kepler’s formula to define the mutual/relative nature of weight, Newton formulates the force of the sun upon the earth and the force of the earth upon the sun. Then, out of the blue there is the statement ‘the reaction equals the action’ after which the two formulae are set equal. This is used for, but doesn’t seem necessary for, finding a single constant of proportionality called the gravitation constant. As an aside, the gravitation of the orbital on the center does modify weight via tidal action. The main issue here is that in reality there is not a ‘reaction’ occurring between the two attractions. A reaction should be something the sun caused such as motion. Instead there are two different and opposite gravitational ‘attractions’ occurring. The elimination of either one in creating the gravity formula is a at best arbitrary. While the orbital’s mass is regularly reentered into the formula, it’s proportionality should be again included as a component so possibly g should be squared in the Newton’s force formula. Regarding Newton’s laws: Galileo showed that all things fall to earth in the same time regardless of their mass. They fall with increasing velocity. From this he deduced the concept of force accelerating their fall. Since some things don’t fall, an offset is required. Since Newton accepted Galileo’s ideas, he used the force heading down and offset it with centrifugal force sideways. Using two perpendicular forces works well as long as they continually offset the acceleration that each would generate without the contribution of the other. I suggest a single source, paeps, as providing the two forces, and essentially netting them out. Having two gravitationally significant masses means each affects the motion of the other. As indicated early, the force lines are slightly separate so the force actions should be considered separately. This means they be calculated separately and then merged to obtain timing considerations. The decision that permanently affects our future knowledge is how to merge the two events. It is highly theoretical since we are more like outside observers formulating a picture of the galaxy than we have been as solar system participants. The Kepler approximation works in the solar system since the masses are so different and the sun dominates. The sun’s motion is rotational and it’s displacement is insignificant. When related to equal sized mass the sun’s orbital motion affects time and the orbital center is between rather than within either mass. It seems arbitrary of Newton to simply back the ‘dependent’ mass into the gravitation formula, but it worked well enough. The real solution will come from new coordinate translations. For most translations we assume absolute space and address rectilinear motion with translation to moving coordinate systems. In these translations the rate of motion becomes different while the acceleration quantity remains the same from one coordinate system to another. Relativity addresses the removal of absolute space and makes time a part of the translation. We are without a translation imposing one rotational motion upon another. A coordinate system centered on the sun is rotated while some coordinate system in which it is a member is also rotated about a distant center. Each center continually relocates the other. The rotations are both accelerations whereas in rectilinear translations, at least one translation was of constant motion. In this dual translation, the rate or at least the direction of acceleration varies. The mathematical description of acceleration identifies ‘delta v’. For this next level, we specify ‘delta a’ to yield a new parameter which remains constant while ‘a’ itself varies. Given no specific pattern yet found, we have two choices to try applying for a galaxial law. We can insert the second gravitational force into Newton equations or we can insert the orbital’s mass into replacement Kepler laws. If a modified law I suggested here is decent, then viewing the structure of the galaxy is a case of repeated application of this two body law. Attending to the details provides a view of the whole picture. My paeps are space itself. The important detail is that gravitation causes the revolutions. Spinning bodies bend the paths of paeps and thus causing a swirl in the space around the body which simply diminishes toward infinity, expiring well beyond a trillion miles. Secondly, there is the previously formulated joint effect of two bodies swirling each other. Then you can picture ‘sphere of influence’ platters upon the galaxy disk representing the swirl and radiating out from every star. Any particular point will be covered to some degree by however many of these platters you chose to use for calculations, be it dozens to millions, depending on how thoroughly you want to sum the forces upon the point. Most platters are spinning counterclockwise, because their origin stars are spinning that way. Then whenever there are more stars to one side than another of that point, it will be pushed directionally. I have previously explained how the concentration of stars in the center causes bending of outer arms to the left and how the concentration of stars within arms causes directional motion of points to either side. All these spheres of influence have to be added up some way to determine how a point will move. It’s like a mass of perturbations. I don’t know how perturbations are calculated. The important concern of these perturbations is determining the directional push of gravity rather than addressing the force of attraction. To formulate reality for the large, the fast, or the distant, a way to tie everything together is to base all actions on the super small, omnipresent, active theoretical element - the paeps of gravitation. They influence all things thus being analogous to the power attributed to God. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 06 Nov 2006 : 20:47:57 Paul, I don't think you are on the track but rather bogged down here by stuff not related to the structure of the galatic disk. The disk is composed of billions of stars if not trillions of stars. The distance between the individual stars is trillions of miles so the stars cannot be orbiting each other at any time because the force of gravity between any two stars is too small(except for binaries which is another detail not related to the disk structure). The gravity force does force the stars to move around the disk as if a central mass was involved. They are all moving around the center much faster than current theory suggests they should because there is no central mass. The mass is spread out over the disk.
pshrodr	Posted - 06 Nov 2006 : 09:44:46 Hi Jim, 11/6/06 I hope what I add here appropriately addresses the issues you have raised. In your prior memo you said the gravity field needs to be defined in some new way and you asked ‘does it move in some way’. I focused my last memo on pushing gravity trying to address those ideas. I will try again because pushing gravity is important for relating to rotation and revolution. In empty space my gravity particles (PAEPS) travel equally in all directions at speed C. Their ‘net’ effect is zero so we detect no force. Now, insert a mass and, while the paeps penetrate the mass, some are blocked by it. Then for a body on one side of the mass the paeps from above are not blocked but some from below are so there is a ‘net’ difference we define as a force. Say in some measure it’s quantity is 10 pressures down and 5 up yielding a net pressure down of quantity 5. As one gets further from the mass, like at a planet such as earth, relative to the sun, the diminished 5 pressures aiming up merge with more 10s to bring their effect to say 9. So there is a ‘net’ pressure/force caused by the sun upon earth of 1. That is represented as a straight line pressure, but there is more. The spin of the sun makes the 5 pressure paeps travel a bit sideways, thus in a bent path. They will therefore impact earth somewhat from the right. There is now this second imbalance with more impacts from the right that from the left so the ‘net’ difference is a force pushing the earth to the left. Paeps also penetrate earth with an imbalance to the right of center because of the bent path of the solar diminished paeps. This ‘net force’ pushes the earth internally so it rotates counterclockwise. The reason to relate via this view has to do with force lines. In the ‘pushing’ picture there are force lines of measure 10 directed at earth from every direction except from the sun. That force line has the ultimate measure of 9 as discussed above. Because mass particles on the spinning sun’s surface impact the paep stream from the side as the paeps depart, their stream travels in a bent path. From such discussions one can understand a bending of the measure 9 force line. The force lines are all directed toward the earth. Using attraction gravity, force lines transfer force in the opposite direction toward the sun. Pulling/attraction gravity suggests a straight centripetal force line. But gravity does more. How are we to understand a force line, which for attraction gravity must originally aim forward in earth’s path and then bend to form a line toward the sun. Do we say that the sun attracts the earth forward in its orbit? From what physical feature would we ever deduce something like that? The difficulty in conceiving of this is why attraction gravity hinders understanding. It’s force is limited to the straight line while pushing gravity force is not. Back to the galaxy, we need the idea discussed above of stars balancing their local environment by both ‘attracting’ nearby bodies and guiding them into orbital motions. Otherwise, with all the stars in the galaxy pulling on each other, some would ultimately collide, or if their original motions kept two apart they would seem to linearly aim toward some other stars. There are so many stars, happenstance would suggest collisions. Now I’ll try to address the structure of the galaxy. I dispute the idea of applying long term motion measures to suggest the nature of the structure of galaxies. I do believe current visual determinations of direction and distance of stars do present a reasonable picture of a domed pinwheel. So, beginning with that structure the local motions are an important next step. From the original memo, two bodies guide each other around themselves, thus orbiting a central point. If we add a third body and the motion of one of the originals results in it becoming closer to the new one than to its original partner, it will change direction under the influence of the new one and approximately orbit that one instead. If you have a series of this type of capture transfers with stars in a line you get something like my chain saw blade motion except with the arm center being more the shape of a boomerang. A very important structure question is whether orbiting stars complete orbits around their original partners or if they are passed along. Maybe it occurs one way toward one end of the arm and otherwise toward the other end. The ability to complete orbits by moving between ones partner and some other star requires some measure of orbit inclination as previously discussed. In the chain saw picture I felt directional discussion was necessary. Given the very slow revolution motion one star makes vs its neighbor, it can be described as being to one side of that neighbor relative to some outside north above either the stars themselves or above the galaxy center. Then before the orbital gets to another side it is released to the nest star in line. By extension, it travels continuously along a path which, as a line, can be identified as being in some direction from it’s original partner. But you are right that suggesting which direction bogs down the description of motions Regarding overall direction of motion, attempts to judge the galaxy rotation from earth’s seeming motion and specify a clockwise circuit in 226 million years is meaningless. For one thing, local motions wash out any significance of the lesser overall motion. Only a picture of most all local motions could yield an overall motion. In fact my construction seemed to suggest a small counterclockwise motion, taking longer than the 226 million year clockwise theory. But as you suggest, how do you define a stationary, non rotating observer to make these judgements. Perhaps your statement about ‘seeing the structure’ relates to being able to calculate what is going on. Clearly there are so many relevant bodies that no local determination will ever be complete. However we can discuss the 2 body problem. There are only 3 factors of importance. They are the distance apart, the measures of masses and the spin/rotation rates. 1. The distance issue is like in the solar system where the greater the distance, the slower the orbital speed. 2. Mass of the central body plays a role by specifying the beginning gravitational measure of the paep stream, ie their - net - component contribution. 3. The spin rate of the central body determines the degree of bending of the paep stream at any distance from the central body. Now, since each of the 2 bodies is central to the other, we must multiply their spin rates together as well as multiplying the masses like in our gravitation formulas. The multiplier effect may alleviate some concern about the minute gravitational interaction between stars. Hopefully this gets us back on track. Further discussion of inclined orbits and structure within the dome region might be useful. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 04 Nov 2006 : 14:36:47 Paul, Using terms like push/pull;up/down;right/left don't add anything to the understanding of the process. Gravity is a force that makes particles move and these terms get in the way of seeing structure as it is rather than how we relate to it. For example, a galaxy rotates clockwise when viewed from above seems to make sense at first glance weather or not its right or wrong. But, atfer a moment of thinking you see it makes no sense. I don't want to get bogged down in the debate about pushing gravity for this reason. If push rather than pull is important for some reason could you say how this is so?
pshrodr	Posted - 03 Nov 2006 : 10:40:49 Hi Jim, 11/3/06 I expect the ‘can of worms’ is bigger than you realize at this point. The topic of galaxies is just the tip of the iceberg. But understanding the motions of galaxies probably only comes from understanding all these concepts as well as the underlying theory which is the “new” description of the gravitational field you suggest. There is so much improved perspective of space that comes from a fully developed ‘pushing gravity type of system’. These concepts I have been suggesting are neither made up ideas to address facts about galaxies nor are they anything I developed in advance of these ‘memos’. I never considered anything about galaxies before. But I have contemplated gravity particles that push for many years. In the first message I made some references to the influence of my gravity theories. Having moving particles to envision makes everything about space clearer. More recently I learned the history of the LeSage system. But a key idea is missing in LeSages theory, and that is the angular motion of the particles. If you think about it, all motions in space are curved rather than straight line, and so understanding and applying angular motion is important Things launched from earth are subject to, and acquire, some of the original motions of their launch site. Those motions are the rotation of earth and the revolution motion of earth in it’s orbit. Extending that idea, gravity particles that penetrate a body such as the sun and leave the other side acquire an angular component of motion due to the rotation of the sun . They don’t go straight up. At an orbital, such as the planet earth, there is then an excess of gravitons to the right of the planet pushing it in its orbit and also causing it’s rotation. For one thing this eliminates the dependence on Newton’s second law of no offsetting force that would interfere with the continuous orbital motion of earth. Relying on the absence of something is so tenuous and even Newton encouraged a particle impetus for gravity in his words to Favio. Regarding the LeSage system, it failed primarily due to ‘gravitons’ inhibiting the orbits of planets. They would do so if their path was rectilinear. But with the bent path caused by their acquired angular motion they assist rather than hinder orbital motions. It is a godsend to find someone who follows any of my developments even as long as you have. You really understand the issues. I have put my ideas (prior to galaxy ideas) into a small book which I would be glad to give to you or anyone else that is interested. To receive one you could send an address to pshrodr8@aol.com. Alternatively I can continue to post piecemeal sections of the gravity theory where relevant. In answer to whether gravity moves at all, it pushes because it moves. Pushing gravity particles move. Regarding the small force stars exert on their neighbors, that refers to the force of attraction. The other effect, the gravitationally caused revolution, spreads throughout space. You might picture the spin of one star creating a turbulence that spreads across space. It doesn’t need to be much to have an effect at a great distance over the long time frame of galaxial rotation. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 19:35:35 You have quite a huge can of worms with this project. The force each star exerts on its neighbors is so small it seems impossible to have the domanant role in shaping the galatic disk. but its a better starting point than assuming a central mass that can't be seen plays the lead role. Don't you need to determine if gravity moves at all? It seems to me a gravity field needs to be described in some new way for this to work.
pshrodr	Posted - 02 Nov 2006 : 08:41:05 Hi Jim, 11/1/06 Yes to your question that the motion of the sun through the galaxy arm is forced by other local stars with little effect from the galaxy center. I wasn’t sufficiently clear about the two options I mentioned for our sun, as both are local star effects. I should define the situation better as regards to some stars heading back toward center. I presented earlier the gravitational arm bending mechanism. The most uncertain action occurs at the end of an arm. The arm ends because of the increase of bending. I addressed how the arm bends well beyond horizontal, even to 180 degrees at which point the stars are extending the line back toward center. But now the prior sections of the line as a whole probably provide some gravitational pull on end stars. How much is this pull? Do these stars orbit back around their predecessors as an ultimate function of the star orbits? If so, does a series of orbiting back cause the whole extension of the line to roll up like the octopus arm? Or do the stars from the arm end begin to slide back along the under side of the arm more like a chain saw blade? Sliding back implies a series of gravitational capture and release by stars along the upper part of the line. If stars are returning to center, they are being helped along by the spin of the stars along the upper edge of the arm. The logic for that relates to the concept that stars spinning counterclockwise caused those stars above to bend to the left as previously noted. Now for those stars underneath the main line, stars spinning above cause them to bend/move to the right relative to our view of the system. Extending the geometry, spinning stars cause others to their left to move downward while causing those to their right to shift upward. All directions mentioned here are relative to the center, not relative to the flat disk. Anyway, stars get to the underside of an arm either by sliding back down or via some giant orbit as part of the original arm. Thus my 2 options in the prior message. Either our sun is part of the upper line extending and growing outward or it is part of the series of stars sliding back toward center under the influence of upper are stars. If it is part of the upper line it must currently be in a huge local orbit. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 20:09:22 Hi Paul, I have never gotten as deep into this topic as you are. The motion of the sun through the galaxy arm should be forced by the stars in the arm don't you think? The standard model assumes the sun and every other star in the galatic structure is forced by the central mass as Kepler's laws require. This is a silly model but it is what is used to construct the puzzle about which are concerned. You seen to be a bit closer to the correct cause of the puzzle than those people who invent stuff like dark mass to account for the observed motion of stars within the structure.
pshrodr	Posted - 31 Oct 2006 : 17:41:18 Jim 10/25/06 Thanks for responding again Jim. I need people to be interested or my motivation disappears. Your mention of Kepler inspires contemplating how to move forward toward providing formulas for predicting relative star motions within galaxies. As I have noted and you reemphasized, the solar system is focused at a center from which Kepler was able to create laws of motion. His probable process would have been to first recognize the geometry, in his case, the elliptical nature of orbits. The clue was that the Copernicus circles are specific figures within the family of ellipses. From his review Kepler could apply the geometric features of the ellipse to analyze motions. Adding in timings of transit gives our solar system rules. Trying to apply formulas to a distributed system is more complex than doing so for our solar system which has only one focus. But as did Kepler, we need a reference base. Instead of a point, my examples show that our reference is a line extending out from the galaxy center. Calling the line the Y axis, our reference starts as a planar coordinate system. The motion within the galaxy is a function of the curve that it’s arms describe. I have suggested the relative motions along some original line which ultimately produce the arm. I expect the next consideration should be of the outer arm where stars will revolve back underneath the arm under my construction. The revolution sequence has outer arm stars achieving motion perpendicular to the Y axis give or take. As they continue to revolve beyond that perpendicular direction, they start heading more toward the galaxy center. So, what’s next as stars move under the arm? Do they continue their orbit of their adjacent star, or is the galaxy center gravity strong enough to pull them downward and gradually roll up the whole arm? Given it’s rapid relative motions, is Barnard’s star one that is wrapping back downward? I asked those question and have subsequently reviewed some sites for galaxy information. I learned that sol is core side (underneath) on its spiral arm - Orion. Per my geometry, that means sol must perform in one of two ways. Either it is core side because 1. It’s orbiting something central on the arm so that it’s local orbital radius is the distance to the arm center, or 2. Sol is rolling back toward the galaxy center underneath it’s arm. The fact that either explanation has us currently orbiting backward and yet we are still calculated as orbiting clockwise at 226 million years per revolution means that most of the rest of the galaxy orbits faster than we currently do. So, I predict that the faster revolution motion of other stars will be revealed sometime in the future. The galaxy concepts I have encountered thus far have led to the aforementioned conclusion. The next goal is to define the formulas describing motions of the galaxy. To pursue analysis of motions requires data, sort of like what Tycho Brahe provided for Kepler. I find that a lot of data has been collected by a Danish study. Do you Jim, or anyone else have suggestions about where to find detail galaxy motion and distance information that is relatively easy to understand and to picture? Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 23:09:56 The thing is Kepler's law is used by modelers for both the solar system and the galatic disk. The problem is Kepler's law requires the mass to be centered at a point. This works well for the solar system because most of the mass is centered at the sun which is a point more or less. In a galaxy the mass is not centered at the center of the galaxy but is distributed throughout the disk. So, you have a structure that does not behave in a manner that the solar system does. Using Kepler's law and assuming the galatic disk will move in the same way the solar system does(that is as if the center is the focus of motion)gets the wrong result. The motion of the galaxy is different than the motion of the solar system simply because the mass is not centered at a point in a galatic disk.
pshrodr	Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 16:47:01 In point 3 above, I meant to say 'I assume this means a shortage of potential energy (and thus an excess of kinetic energy). Paul paul schroeder
pshrodr	Posted - 23 Oct 2006 : 10:20:11 Jim, 10-23-06 I very much appreciate getting your response to my submissions. Now to see if I can understand well enough to make a meaningful response. 1. When you refer to the model being wrong, I assume that is a mathematical model possibly one based on assuming the kinetic energy should be half the gravitational binding energy in galaxies. But the kinetic energy is found to be too high. You mention that the galactic disk has mass spread throughout making it a totally different structure than the solar system. Therefore the model is wrong and a new model is needed. 2. The difference between the galaxy and solar system you mention are main features of the geometric models I presented. I think I have accurately defined the motion causes and effects. However they are not in a mathematical model. 3. I read that galactic rotation curves showing velocity of rotation relative to the distance from galactic center cant be explained by visible matter. I assume this means a shortage of kinetic energy and will address it as so. There are 2 sources of kinetic energy, rotation and revolution. Any time you add rotation to a system by adding another sun, it serves as the source of revolution motion for nearby existing suns. This should be understandable whether you have gravity particles participating in the rotations or in current theory with waves, possibly called density waves causing the angular motion and thus the kinetic energy. Essentially then adding mass adds kinetic energy, it doesn’t matter where the mass is added so distance from the galaxy center doesn’t matter . 4. An issue that stars far from the center of galaxies have much higher velocities than predicted indicates current theories depend on the center to provide the velocities and ignore the velocity sources spread across the galaxy. 5. Perhaps the real question is where does all the kinetic energy/velocity of motion come from in galaxies. The answer is available in my gravitation model and in all pushing gravity theories. There is an unlimited reservoir of potential energy within space itself. It consists of particles that move in all directions netting out to zero in any void place in space. Thus we don’t detect the potential energy. However when a mass is inserted it blocks some of the gravitation so for another mass nearby there is less pressure in one direction. Thus it creates a directional energy field in which any other local body will react with motion/kinetic energy. Overall it is simply the ‘net directional energy’ that has changed, not total energy. There is so much potential energy available in space that multiplying the number of bodies in a galaxy would hardly make a dent. The limiting component is being able to keep all motions from interacting with collisions. 6. A mathematical model to predict motions would tend to vary for each star and would require looking at all nearby gravitation sources as well as considering the galaxy center. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
Jim	Posted - 22 Oct 2006 : 15:34:20 The reason galatic motion does not conform to the model is because the model is wrong for the galatic structure. The model is based on an assumption that works well for structures like the solar system where nearly all the mass of the structure is at or near the center of the structure. The galatic disk has mass that is spread out all over the space within the disk. Its a totally different structure and needs a different model than what is being used to figure the motion.
pshrodr	Posted - 21 Oct 2006 : 18:12:11 Revolution Rates Continued. 10/20/06 As a follow up to the ideas introduced in ‘Revolution Rates Within Galaxies”, I realized there are certain issues that need modification and others that should be expanded to fully explain galaxies. The following improvement issues are covered here: 1. The net motions of all stars which are revolving relative to each other are analyzed here leading to the creation of spiral arms, domes and other features. 2. Proximity concerns as the revolving stars approach other stars. 3. Minor open issues. 1. The first significant modification issue has to do with subsystems and net motions of suns. As my example expanded the number of bodies, to 7 for instance, the analysis led to thinking about 1 and 3 orbiting 2 and 5 and 7 orbiting 6. So then 2 and 6 were suborbital centers. But if you just consider bodies 2,3,and 4 for example then 3 looks like an orbital center. As you keep adding bodies, you can chose any one to view as a center. The better picture is that they are all orbital centers while all orbiting the galaxial center. Given 100 bodies in line on the north and on the south of center, something like body 7 from center on the north line has a line of bodies both to the north and to the south that wish to orbit it and also wish to push it into orbit. The pushes by the north line bodies on body 7 north, are in the opposite direction as the pushes by the southern line bodies. The difference is that there are more total bodies to the south so they will win in the long term. They will force 7 to revolve clockwise around center. By comparison, they will force body 14 north to revolve even faster because of the greater south vs north imbalance it experiences. Likewise body 1 north will revolve slower than any other northern body. So, the better overall picture is of a line revolving, rather than well placed suborbitals. The actual rotation of the line depends on the separation of the bodies along the line. If we accept my original design with bodies equally spaced, then the farther out the body the more it wants to orbit around it’s neighbors. It’s proper motion will exceed the closer in bodies. The greater the proper motion the faster outer orbits will occur which causes the arms to wrap toward center like octopus arms. This suggests the idea that the outer bodies wrap towards the inside ultimately causing the inner bodies to wrap around them and the whole system warps internally. There is then a vortex, which is something like the suborbitals, but not focused on a particular body. The proof of this rotating system, requires examples. Again consider a line of many star bodies numbered 1 - 100 equally spaced north of the center body as we move north. Let’s have body 1 caused to rotate 1 degree left from the line, and thus relative to the central body 0. It would take a long time for this to happen since there are almost as many bodies to body1's north as to it’s south. But, ultimately it will revolve this far, and bring with it to the new angle all other northern bodies. Now body 2 has been moved over by body 0 so that it is off the line by 1 degree. But we haven’t considered the revolution caused on body 2 by body 1. Body 1 is almost like body 0 and thus creates a revolution in body 2. Again the revolution forces are nearly offset, north to south, so the net revolution is small. However, body1 is more offset from center, so the revolution caused by body 1 on body 2 must be slightly more than the revolution caused on body 1 by body 0. Thus body 2 is now offset by 2 degrees, or slightly more, from straight north and from the new north point of body 1. As we continue out the line of bodies, the degree of offset increases and soon reaches 90 degrees. Their motions have become perpendicular to the original line. By then we have something like the spiral arm of the galaxy. Note that the arm extends outward into the direction of motion of the galaxial rotation. This direction is an issue that Meta readers and others have been unable to fathom. It occurs naturally from the logical geometry of the system. All of these reorientations have occurred within a single time unit. With more bodies originally located on the line, or upon considering more time units, we get even higher angles of the revolutions relative to the original line, such as 180 degrees to 270 degrees. So that the arm ultimately spirals in on itself. We must question whether a revolving sun crosses the connection between the two suns prior in the line or whether the whole spiral converges into a new center. I believe that outer stars such as star 100 will incline and cross the connection between stars 99 and 98. If they cross then each will intersect it’s next lower body in a cascading effect. The continuation of this pattern will allow a new line to be created in different sequence from the original. In the example above I assumed a constant increase in the angle of displacement as we focus further outward. There may in fact be a more exponential increase since there is less resistance in the more distant regions of the original line. Then fewer stars would be required to produce spiral arms approaching the 90 degree angle. 2. The other important modification addresses my downplaying concern with stability of the system by saying the original speeds, distances, and sizes are just right to prohibit collapse. There is more to it. The issue is best seen in the 7 body construction where bodies 3 and 5 orbit body 4 and now approach something like their start position in line. The problem is that body 5 for example has more gravitating bodies to one side than to the opposite side. It might then tend to gravitate toward the ‘heavier’ side. My first thought was that on the original line there are so many bodies in both directions that these points are simply like their own centers and have essentially a balance to each side. That is not sufficient to avoid future collisions. Now reconsider the 7 body example when body 5 (or 7) approaches the region between bodies 4 and 6. For ease of explanation, I refer back to my concept that central bodies ‘push’ orbitals along in their orbits via gravity which has been modified by central body spin/rotation. So, body 6 pushes body 5 counterclockwise but as body 5 encounters the system of body 4, it’s spin will tend to counter the motion of body 5. Body 4 spins counterclockwise relative to us outside observers, but when body 5 is nearby, body 4's spin theoretically acts to push body 5 backward in it’s orbit around body 6. Bodies 4 and 5 are now temporarily moving retrograde relative to each other. My model suggests tidal ripples form in the gravitation field between bodies 4 and 6. As such the ripples interfere with the passage of body 5. Body 5 must, and is forced to, travel above or below the tidal action, bringing the 3rd dimension into consideration for the motions within the galaxy. In my model the gravitation of a central spinning body is partly caused by it’s spin. The gravitation is maximum along the extension of the central body’s equator and less as the latitude angle increases. So body 5 drifts up or down when passing near body 4, and does so sufficiently to decrease the gravitation from 4. It’s orbit around body 6 is therefore inclined. We see here a universal reason why orbitals follow paths inclined relative to the equatorial plane during their orbit. Similar reasoning extends to moons crossing equatorial planes as well as to planets crossing the ecliptic. To fully understand solar system cases we need to determine the location and motion of a secondary center of gravitation caused by the forces outside our solar system. There is a region near the galaxy center where much activity occurs above and below the plane of the galaxy which appears as a dome to us. Essentially the inclination I have mentioned needs to be more extreme as bodies are closer to the extra high gravitating center. The higher the angle, relative to the center body, the less gravitation it exerts upon the body. In other words it is necessary for nearby bodies, ever closer to the central body, to travel into ever increasing latitudes of the central body. This follows my model of gravitation as presented for the sun. The sun’s rotation provides gravitational support to bodies along it’s equator more than it does in other directions, and the greater the latitude, the less the support. In our example, as more and more bodies are visualized near the center of the galaxy, there is increasing inclination to the orbits to avoid the tidal action of many bodies passing through the region. More of their orbits must incline and the closer in toward the center the body, the greater the angle of inclination that is required. For this reason there is 3rd dimensional build up called a dome around the center, and to a lesser extent near other suborbital centers within the galaxy. The passage of systems between adjacent systems and the inclination of systems near other systems suggests a period of difficult balancing of the overall system. The stars don’t collide but their appendages might. It is especially difficult in the outer regions of solar systems where suborbitals such as planets my incur masses from an encroaching system. One can also view the ’near center’ situation in the other direction. Consider lines of bodies extending from the central body like we have been doing, however, now angling somewhat above or below the galactic plane. The same analysis given for planar bodies can be applied to bodies in these lines except that the length of the line must be less because the central body gravitation force is less in that direction. The length of the line is dependent upon the angle of inclination because the central body provides less gravitation as the latitude angle increases. Less spin is applied to the gravity particles. 3. Moving on to lesser issues, my construction was initiated with bodies in line, which is not necessarily an actual relationship between bodies. As the system progresses the bodies move offline, and there is no absolute reason to believe they will ever regain this initial relationship. It is only in theory that, by the impossible task of backing up the system that the linear relationship might ever be found. My construction has bodies initially equally spaced. What happens if the separations vary? An example would be to assume bodies at locations 1, 2, and 4. Then you could picture 1 and 2 orbiting each other with center at location 1.5. But body 4 confuses the picture by orbiting 1, 2, and their center. The new center, if one exists must be outside of 1 and 2, such as at 2.1. But gravitationally the imbalance seems to make it impossible. However if we add a body at 5, then we have a balanced system centered at location 3. So occasional missing pieces is allowed without collapsing the system. Additionally my concept of gravitation as the medium provides the potential of system self adjustment to compensate for local disturbing events. My original construction assumed all bodies being of the same size. In reality there are, and must be, variations due to the role spin plays in determining density and therefore in determining mass. Given there were one denser body, it would have some of the ‘regular’ bodies orbiting it and would carry them with it around the center. The only apparent requirement is that there be a similar such body on the other side of the galaxy to balance the system rotation. As soon as we consider multiple subsystems, we have interference between them causing gravitational effects by “pulling’ on each other. While we try to discuss circular orbits within systems, the variations of pulling by a nearby system causes the internal orbits to become oblong/elliptical, rather than circular. Such interaction ultimately leads to the nature of the second focus of an ellipse as being a virtual center. Then the reason the orbital motion is slower in the vicinity of the second focus is that it provides none of the orbital push that the central body does. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder
pshrodr	Posted - 21 Oct 2006 : 18:10:25 Revolution Rates Within Galaxies 10/19/06 Why are constant rotation rates observed for galaxies when a slower revolution of outer vs inner planets occurs in the solar system? The bottom line of this extended explanation is that the revolution pattern of individual bodies has to do with relative size. In galaxies the orbitals are stars that are similar to each other while in the solar system we have the large central body sun and relatively tiny orbiting planets. There is much internal orbiting going on in Galaxies. I personally view orbital systems from a perspective in which the central bodies net gravitational effect on it’s orbitals is to both attract and also to push orbiting bodies along in their orbits. I define pushing gravity particles which penetrate the central body, escape the opposite side of that gravitating body, incur angular motion from that body’s spin and apply that ‘now angular pressure’ to orbitals which the gravity subsequently encounters. So, if I reference bodies pushing each other it simply refers to the obvious requirement that adjacent bodies must be in motion relative to each other. However you view gravity, the underlying issue is that 2 adjacent bodies in space must move relative to each other or gravity will pull them together to collide/crash. Gravity likewise keeps them from departing each other, so the motions must be some form of orbiting. Consider 2 equal sized bodies, call them stars. For them to coexist nearby they must be moving or revolving relative to each other. Revolution and rotation here will always be assumed counterclockwise. The bodies then orbit each other. An outside observer would observe their motion along the circumference of the circle of their joint orbiting as having a continuous velocity. Next consider 3 equal sized bodies along a line with 1 and 3 equidistant from 2. So, 1 and 2 would try to orbit each other and while 1 would pretty much succeed, 2 would be affected by the outside influence of 3. In fact 2 and 3 try to orbit each other and while 3 pretty much succeeds, 2 is interfered with by 1. Essentially 1 and 3 motivate 2 to orbit in exactly opposite directions. So, 2 ends up being stationary while 1 and 3 revolve around it. The lesser influence of 1 and 3 on each other motivate them to revolve around each other essentially enhancing their joint revolutions around 2. This coincides with my model where bodies cause both revolution and rotation in others via gravitation. As such, body 2 gains rotation/spin, which now is double the rotation of the other two bodies. This rotation defines an increased density for body 2, so conveniently it acts a bit like a central body. The appearance of this system to an outside observer is very much the same as the 2 body system above. As an aside, the galaxy picture is somewhat like the sun, earth. moon system where 2 bodies orbit the circumference in approximately equal periods due to mutual gravitation. At the same time the galaxy picture differs from the solar system which essentially pictures one central body causing the gravitating. The four equal sized bodies system gets much more complex. With 2 bodies there was 1 interaction. With 3 bodies there are 3 interactions. With 4 bodies there are 6 interactions. To picture this, place the 4 bodies along a line drawn vertically on a page, at distance marks 1,2,3, and 4 with 1 at the top end of the line. It isn’t clear which interaction to look at first, so analyze 1 vs 2 and 3 vs 4. Consider them to represent 2 clocks, where 1 is 12 o’clock and 2 is 6 o’clock on clock 1, while 3 is 12 o’clock and 4 is 6 o’clock on clock 2. Then 1 is being pushed left by 2 while 4 is pushed right by 3. Bodies 2 and 3 are influenced from both sides and their motion is less clear. When 1 reaches a point I’ll call 11 o’clock, 4 reaches 5 o’clock on his clock. Because 2 and 3 influence each other while being influenced by their clock mates, they move less than 1 digit on their clock. They move so little that now 2 might be at 5:50 while 3 is at 11:50. A complicating concern is that having moved so little from the line, their lack of revolution relative to each other might cause gravity to pull them together a bit. But we need not fear as somehow the original speeds, distances and sizes are just right to prohibit a catastrophic collapse. Following the revolutions onward, I suggest next time locations for bodies 1,2,3,and4 might be 10 o’clock, 5:30, 11:30, and 4 o’clock. Then comes 9,5,11, and 3 o’clock. The bodies are far off the original line with the 1,2 clock to the left of the line while the 3,4 clock is right of the line. Note, there is always an equal balance relative to the original center point. Given approximately another time period and the 4 spheres now appear to serve as the corners of a rectangle. The distances and motions now cause the clocks to separate a bit. This is incomplete because we have only inspected the originally stronger interactions. We will ignore1 acting with 3, 2 acting with 4 nor 1 acting with 4. Overall, the flow of separations should keep the average size of the system unchanged. Also the system shows a relatively consistent velocity along it’s circumference to outside observers. There are extra gravitation effects near the inner system which are conveniently absorbed by an increase in the spin/rotation of the inner spheres. The 5 body system has 10 interactions. A quick inspection seems to imply it is similar to the 4 body system with body 3 now acquiring the features of a central body. Body 3 replaces the space that was between 2 and 4 and was at distance 2.5. It gains spin as did body 2 in the 3 body example. I conclude any odd number system has a central body around which all other bodies revolve. The 6 body system presents complications similar to the 4 body system, but here, the 7 body problem is more interesting. In that system, body 2 acts partly as a center to 1 and 3 while 6 acts partly as a center to 5 and 7. We can denote them as subsystems and then analyze the other function of 2 and 6 which is to orbit around 4. In this process, body 2 brings 1 and 3 with it, however in inconsistent patterns of forward and backward motions relative to the central body. As we add more bodies, the back and forth motions are less distinguishable than is the overall forward orbiting of all the bodies around the center. But, if we could look closely enough at galaxies we should detect second and maybe third levels of subordinate orbiting centers somewhat distant from the galaxy center. In summary, the motivation for providing these constructions is the theoretical violation of Newton’s law by the orbiting in constellations. Newton said that bodies further from the central body will orbit more slowly than those closer to the center. The structure discussed above does not violate that law The law is visibly apparent in our solar system where planet 1 and planet 2 both orbit the sun and the more distant one takes longer to complete an orbit. These planets essentially do not coincidentally orbit each other. Our galaxy example suggests that every body/star over the long term is the same ‘average’ distance from the galaxial center. Most will move in and out and back and forth in suborbits, but their average distance must all be the same. Thus over the long term they will all take the same average time to orbit the center. Newton’s law accepts that objects at the same ‘average’ distance take the same average time to orbit. Our system must be orbiting around other star groups within the galaxy besides the center itself. We should maybe find those group centers. Since the environment within the galaxy may differ depending on distance from center, it is possible the most likely regions for other civilizations is out on galaxial arms the same distance from center as we are. Paul Schroeder paul schroeder

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 1.03 seconds.