Where Do These Speeds Come From?

[emperor_of_localgroup]

We have planets moving around the sun at high speed, we have galaxies traveling like speeding bullets, billions of stars moving through space at tremendous speeds with their unimaginable masses. Let's do some math. <br /><br />mass of earth m=6x10²⁴ Kg. <br /><br />speed around the sun v=28962 m/sec (18 miles/sec) <br /><br />With these, kinetic energy, KE=(1/2)mv²=2.5x10³³ Joules <br /><br />Hiroshima bomb had equivalent energy of 8.372x10¹⁶ Joules. <br /><br />Which means earth's kinetic energy is equivalent to 3x10¹⁶ Hiroshima bombs. That is 30 million billion bombs. <br /><br />Our earth is absolutely an insignificant object in the universe. Now imagine how much energy was required to put all these objects in the universe in motion, if Newton's first law is correct? <br /><br />It is possible the concept of big bang arose from these enormous speed of massive objects, specially the fast receding galaxies. Can internal energies also set these objects in motion? Anyone wants to touch this touchy subject?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

The big bang theory comes from the observation of the metric expansion of space. The fast receding galaxies aren't actually moving at that speed at all. They are moving slowly in their local area <i> inertially, </i> much as our galaxy is moving relative to Andromeda. It is the space in between us and the distant galaxies that is growing, causing the <i> apparent </i> superluminal speed of recession.<br /><br />Yes, there was a huge amount of energy involved with the big bang, but this energy is not translated into the apparent motion of distant objects, only the relative movement of objects within gravitationally bound systems.<br /><br />Few objects in the universe seem to be moving at "enormous speed" through inertia - inertia has nothing to do with the expansion of space and the big bang theory that arose from the observation of that expansion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Metric expansion or not, the energy from speeds of all masses in the universe still add up to an unthinkable amount of energy, even using the relative speeds. A single point origin of this energy, in my stupid mind, seem very impractical.<br /><br />Also, doesn't metric expansion cause more problems than it solves? If space is expanding, its 'density' (for the lack of a better term) will get lower causing electromagnetic fields and waves to behave erratically. If the density of space remains the same then new 'space' must be poured in.<br /><br />Think of a balloon filled with water. There are 2 ways the balloon can expand. (a) Pour more water into it, in such case density remains the same. (b) The balloon can somehow also expand from inside, in such case the density of contents will either fall or rise, most likely it will fall.<br /><br />My other guess is this speed and energy may be explained by using reference frames. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

And to go even further, in 'typical stationary mass', like let's say, your hand, the kinetic energy of the constituent gluons, quarks, whatever, accounts for ~1/2 of the 'heft'.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[weeman]

I typically think that things in the universe are extreme and ridiculous because the universe is everything. If the universe is all that there is, what stops it from exceeding ridiculous numbers? Like its size, its dynamics, and its speed of expansion. <br /><br />The universe is big because the universe is all that there is. It has to live up to its name to keep its reputation, if it was only the size of a single planet, then it wouldn't be very impressive <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Of course, for all we know, our entire universe exists within a single atom of an entirely seperate universe!<br /><br />Sorry if my post isn't scientific, but it's the first thing that I thought of when I read the title to this thread <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="red">Of course, for all we know, our entire universe exists within a single atom of an entirely seperate universe! </font> <br /><br />At this time I don't rule out anything, unlike many other people here who believe or think 'we already know enough'. I have seen your thread which basically raise similar question, but I have to get something off my chest here before I move onto that thread. Btw, logical comments are as good as scientific arguments.<br /><br />If you don't see or hear the start of an explosion but see only fragments of materials are flying past you, your logical conclusion would be, 'there was an explosion'. Is this one of the reasons (note, I said one of..) how big bang idea is conceived? <br /><br /><font color="red">@Speedfreak:</font> Metric expansion may also be correct if we consider the space is not isotropic everywhere. Space may be isotropic in and around our galaxy, but at the farthest distances the space may be more 'diluted'. A diluted space, I can safely guess, will have less resistance to speed. <br /><br />Now let's go back to the single point origin of all these hoopla in the universe. If there is no concept of time and space before big bang, why don't the big bangers claim 'a point in pre-big bang space has no meaning, a point can be as large as this present universe we see'.?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> "Metric expansion or not, the energy from speeds of all masses in the universe still add up to an unthinkable amount of energy, even using the relative speeds. A single point origin of this energy, in my stupid mind, seem very impractical." </i><br /><br />That's one of the reasons why the current cosmological model includes an <i> inflationary </i> epoch. Before inflation it is theorised that the universe was empty except for the four forces which were unified. There was expansion already, but the universe only contained the unified forces (if super symmetry is correct).<br /><br />Space was expanding from the beginning and as it expanded, gravity separated from the other forces. At a certain point, the relationship between these unified forces and gravity caused the exponential expansion we call <i> inflation. </i><br /><br />So before the inflation (according to this theory), the universe was <i> empty </i> of anything but the unified forces and gravity. As inflation occurred, the forces tended towards their lowest possible state and when they reached it, inflation ended with a tremendous release of potential energy (from the inflation) which decayed into a hot relativistic quark-gluon plasma. This release of all the energy is known as <i> reheating. </i><br /><br />So the energy you are referring to didn't come from a point source, but came from the release of the <i> potential </i> energy of the inflation field. The energy came <i> after </i> inflation, from a source that was larger than a single point.<br /><br /><i> "Also, doesn't metric expansion cause more problems than it solves? If space is expanding, its 'density' (for the lack of a better term) will get lower causing electromagnetic fields and waves to behave erratically. If the density of space remains the same then new 'space' must be poured in." </i><br /><br />Metric expansion means that the <i> metric that defines distance is changing. </i> This is taken to mean that space <i> is </i> being created in area <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I don't understand metric expansion at expert level, but understand just enough to see its relation to big bang. Its not difficult to see if space is not treated as isotropic everywhere, the mathematical model would be so difficult to solve, and no one wants to wind up with unsolvable equations. One direct consequence of non-uniform space I can see right now is the speed of light <br /><br />c=sqrt[1/(permittivity*permeability)] <br /><br />In reality, expanded space should have a varying permittivity and permeability, changing the speed of light. Do not forget theoretical scientists heavily rely on approximations to arrive at a reasonable answer. <br /><br />You sound like an insider. An insider will have difficulty in comprehending the points of views of outsiders who try to understand the world with realistic eyes and mind. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

I think I try to understand the world, our scientific experiments <i> and </i> our observations with an open mind. As for the term <i> realistic, </i> well the whole point of the exercise is to understand what reality is.<br /><br />I do see your point, but the best data we have so far is that the universe is isotropic to within 1 part in 100,000 (from analysis of the CMB).<br /><br />Why do you think expanded space, in <i> reality </i> should have varying permittivity and permeability, when the expansion only occurs in regions with no gravity bound systems? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

When we zoom out (enlarge) a picture, to keep the picture quality the same, that is to keep resolution of the picture same, we interpolate data (pixels) into the picture. Without this interpolation picture's property (quality) will change dramatically.<br />If the space gets physically enlarged, gravity or no gravity, there must be some sort of 'interpolation' into space. Unless, as some groups maintain, space is not a medium. Interpolation into space is also possible if we consider some kind of 'inputs' into the space (universe) from outside. In such case you have to accept zero point energy as energy input from outside. Many scientists, I think, will vehemently oppose any outside interference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Now I think I see where you are coming from. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Earlier you mentioned my <i> inside thinking. </i> Well I think one of the problems we humans have (and I reckon you will agree with me here) is that we tend to want to compartmentalise subjects into defined categories. Inside or outside, finite or infinite, black or white etc. It helps us to rationalise our universe. But it is sometimes a failing which can actually handicap our understanding.<br /><br />It all comes down to the nature of causality in the end. If virtual particles can pop in and out of existence, do they have to come from "outside"? Indeed, do they have to come from "inside"?<br /><br />A bad scientist will say "There is NO outside!", whereas an open minded one will say something like "We do not have any information for "outside" so we cannot consider it until we have more data".<br /><br />To me, space is a dimension. If it enlarges there doesn't have to be any additional <i> input </i> as such, as it is just empty space increasing in distance. <b> But...</b> if particles pop in and out of existence within that empty space, we have to look at whether there would be a finite amount of potential virtual particles to distribute throughout empty space, in which case you might argue that their distribution would be less dense. Or maybe there are an infinite amount of potential virtual particles in which case there is no problem. Then again, seeing as these particles decay almost instantly, maybe neither scenario is relevant to the concept we are discussing here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

If space-time is expanding as currently observed, wouldn't that in part help explain orbital velocities putting gravity aside?<br /><br />This is hard to explain in simple terms, but I'll try. Acceleration of any body increases its "potential mass".<br /><br />To the converse, that would mean that a body's potential velocity is dependent on its mass.<br /><br />Now consider a force that equally and proportionally moderates expansion of any system. IOW, what outside force might keep Earth from being drawn in to the Sun due to its gravity that would explain the required orbital velocity to prevent that?<br /><br />There has to be an explanation for <b>how</b> Earth and its mass remains in a stable orbit. Gravity illustrates the effect of such a phenomenon, but is it the explanation?<br /><br />It just seems to me that the reason behind the expansion of the Universe and the Earth's behavior in its orbit around the Sun might be interrelated in some way.<br /><br />After all, it would seem intuitive to me that any force that can cause the majority of the mass in the Universe to fly away from its colleagues despite potential gravitational attraction would have more than an insignificant effect at the "local" level.<br /><br />We seem to seek an explanation based on the premise that there is a force or forces "pushing" all that mass apart. What if it's the exact opposite? Rather than being pushed away, an "outside" force" is pulling the Universe apart?<br /><br />Imagine a balloon full of air being put into space. Vacuum will try to pull the balloon apart. The tensile strength of the balloon determines whether or not we have a Bigelow Hab, or a bad accident when the balloon ruptures.<br /><br />I'm suggesting that a greater force might be in play that allows free fall without orbital decay. The observed lack of orbital momentum decay of massive bodies might indicate that.<br /><br />It seems to be a case of Nature having things both ways. The solar wind stops low mass particles from being suc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<font color="red">Speedfreek</font>, thanks for very efficiently filling the gap left by SteveHw with your informative and knowledgeable posts in SDC. You may be an insider (scientific community) but you keep an open mind. That is very important for any true scientist. <br /><br />I understand when you say everything is not just 'black' and 'white' when it comes to space expansion, there is also some 'fuzzy' area. If virtual particles just pops in and out of space, doesn't it also mean the 'particles' or whatever are dormant in space? If the space expands at the expense of this dormant particles, there still will be some structural or property change in space because of 'used up or lost' particles. Our common experience tells us, if there is any deformation in an object, the deformation will accompany certain, doesn't matter how minute they are, change in properties. <br /><br /><br /><font color="red">Dragon04</font><font color="blue">I'm suggesting that a greater force might be in play that allows free fall without orbital decay. The observed lack of orbital momentum decay of massive bodies might indicate that. </font> <br /><br />This has been bugging me for years. Using simple college physics it is easy to prove that the planets or the moon stay in their orbits because <br /><br />Newtonian Gravitational Force=Centripetal Force [some call it centrifugal] <br /><br />Centripetal force is another mystery to me. I can use math and show how change in direction creates this force or why a force is necessary to change direction of a revolving object, but why does the same principle hold when there is no physical connection between the center and the object? Note that the same thing happens to a moving charge in a magnetic field. If any one has any non-textbook answer I'd like to hear that. <br /><br />It is mind boggling as you said there is no change in orbital momentum for not 1 or 2 but several billion years with the exception of 1 msec in 100 years, IIRC. I know mathematically earth's p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<i> "If virtual particles just pops in and out of space, doesn't it also mean the 'particles' or whatever are dormant in space?" </i><br /><br />It might do, or it might not - don't be tricked into that black and white thinking! Maybe they are a manifestation from another dimension... maybe they come from <i> outside! </i> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /><i> Our common experience tells us, if there is any deformation in an object, the deformation will accompany certain, doesn't matter how minute they are, change in properties. </i><br /><br />Remember, our common experience gets thrown out of the window when we start looking at the quantum level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Emperor,<br /><br />To me, for what my poor mind can understand of relativity, you can assimilate kinetic energy to spin energy. If you draw a one D space vs time diagram [space horizontal, time vertical], you the observer will appear as a vertical line, and the moving object with a kinetic energy as an oblique line. (of slope v). As you would do with a spinning object for which you want to reorientate the axis between 2 space dimensions, you will inject energy to make the oblique line rotate so as to coincide with your vertical line of events (in your referential). The needed energy 1/2 mv2 is also 1/2 E0/c2 . v2 i.e. E0/2 . (v/c)2. The steady state energy E0 is representative of an inertia, and v/c, adimensional, of an angle between two vectors. <br />Then you can consider it akin to landing to North pole and synchronizing your rotational spin axis and spin value with Earth's to be able to land. <br />The kinetic energy stored in universe by relative motions is therefore to me of the same nature as the rotational energy of many objects or structures in universe: illustrating angular differences in the spacetime referentials.<br /><br />Distance is to me as well measured by the energy needed to make referential coincide. Assume a motionless object at a distance d from you. To merge its referential with yours (including the origin of the referential), you have to wait for some time (so that the point in spacetilme where/when you merge lies in the future, in the common causality cones). The time t in the future you choose as merging point is />d/c. The minmum energy for the merger is by setting the object in motion as soon as possible at v=d/t, then when arriving cancelling v. Total enegy to spend is > 2 . 1/2 mv2 = E0.(v/c)2 = E0. (d/[ct])2 . Again d/(ct) is the slope in the spacetime diagram between object at t=0 and object at time of referentail mergers t.<br />Hence d = ct. sqrt (Emin/E0).<br />To rotate an object to align its spatial axes to yours to overcome an a

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

H2Ouniverse:<br />Let me see if I can download this gif file with your math equations in the last post. Wish SDC had a math equation writer with their forum software. I rewritten the equations so that they are readable and we can discuss.<br />The gif file looks better in Firefox, but not in IE.<br /><br />Apparently we cant attach a gif file with our post. I dont see any trace of the gif file?<br /><br />Ok, no pic. Let me ask you some questions about your equations.<br />1) Why did you multiply energy by 2? For both linear and rotational energy?<br />2) You replaced Inertia (i.e. moment of inertia, I) by mass*(massonic Inertia)? What is massonic inertia?<br />3) Did you try to prove linear distance 'd' requires the same amount of energy as angular distance 'alpha'? According to your equation, they are not equal. There is a term in the denominator for 'alpha' equation.<br /><br />But I liked the way you related distance 'd' with energy. Someday I hope someone totally replaces 't' with energy.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Emperor,<br />Sorry for my laziness but actually there is no gif. I did not bother to have formal equations. Consider v2 as meaning v squared or v^2. (or v² ?)<br />1) when assessing the energy to overcome distance or angle between a motionless object and you, you have also to consider the direction of time. And to "parallelize the time directions" in relativity theory language, that corresponds in plain language as zeroing relative speeds (linear or angular). You need first 1/2 mv2 for setting the object in motion, then another 1/2 mv2 to stop it when it has overcome the distance d. Hence the factor 2.<br />2) by massic inertia (not massonic) I meant moment of inertia per unit of mass (sorry for this improper term in my poor english); I/m is commensurable to a squared distance; I did that to make E0 appear in equation<br />3) to me they are of similar nature; another way to word it would be to define D, an equivalent distance characterizing the shape of object, so that I=mD2. For a perfect sphere of radius R, we have D=R.sqrt(2/5). For a cube of edge 2R we have D= R.sqrt(2/3). Then you have as minimum energy to overcome differential angle alpha: Emin = E0 (alpha/ct)² (D²) = E0 (alphaD / ct)². Inverted this gives: alpha.D = ct. sqrt(Emin / E0). You can see there the similarity with the issue of overcoming distance.<br />Best regards.

 

[h2ouniverse]

I have a sketch that is more explicit, but I do not know how to display it. I may send it by mail if you want. I will try to transform it into jpg tomorrow.<br /><br />To make two referentials with relative motion v coincide, you need to “rotate†the time direction.<br />For v<<c this means bringing an energy of ½ mv², i.e. (E0/2) (v/c)².<br /><br />To make two referentials with relative rotational motion coincide, you need to stop the rotational speed omega.<br />This means bringing an energy of ½ I.omega², i.e. (E0/2) (omega.D/c)².<br /><br />In first case, time is homogeneized with space by multiplication by c.<br />v/c=ï„x/(cï„t) (ï„ = delta, sorry for the font)<br />In second case, space dimensions x and y (assuming you rotate about z) are homogeneized with angles by division by characteristic distance D, and time is homogeneized with angle by multiplication by c/D.<br />Then you write omega.D/c=ï„alpha/(cï„t/D)=[ï„x/D]/[y/D]/(cï„t/D).<br /><br />With D = sqrt(I/m), characteristic of distribution of density in the object about z. D is used as a factor of homogeneization. If I follow the analogy, c/D is a factor of homogeneisation between time and angle, that is dependant on distribution of matter in the object.<br />In the four dimensions of spacetime, inertia around say axis z can also be seen as inertia in x,y plane, or inertia "about" z, ct plane. You can then define too a "moment of inertia" in x,ct plane, identical to the one "about" y, z plane (remember we are in four dimensions). If D' is the associated characteristic distance, you will have kinetic energy = 1/2 mv² = 1/2 I omega² where I=mD'², and omega represents speed in angle-homogeneized units of distance (x/D') versus time (ct/D'). We have then omega= v/D'.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I understand the steps in your math completely, but I'm failing in interpreting them. In one equation you have<br /><br />alpha*D=(ct)sqrt(Emin/E0) <br /><br />If we look at the units, the right side gives us distance (meter), and the left side is (radian*meter), which is actually 'arc length' and can be termed as meter also. Is one part of your calculation is to find 'energy spent in traveling through an arc length of a complete circle'? An example can be a segment of earth's orbit around the sun?<br /><br />In other words, what is the final goal of these equations? On my part, equations usually become very hard to interpret by common sense, or by realistic logic, when time is introduced as a physical axes. But I'll spend more time on your equations by plugging in some numbers and will see if they really reveal anything important. I have to wait for the weekend to do that. After all, the universe is my hobby, not profession. HAHAHAHA. <br /><br /><font color="red">Thamior:</font>Interesting thinking. But we know very little about physical nature of 'strings' in string theory at this time. We have to wait.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[thamior]

Thanks, I reread it when I was more awake and realized that the second part was a bit...well, just slightly too far. So, I deleted it ^_^ Maybe when I think about it some more, or when we know more about strings I'll start a thread.. As for the white hole-Dark matter hypothesis, it seems reasonable enough to me.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>--What is the truth but a wisp of truly un-attainable information.  There is no absolute truth anyways, only false perceptions and misgivings.--     </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

A drawing is worth one thousand words.

 

[h2ouniverse]

And the same for translation.<br />If you had all mass at equal distance from rotation centre, i.e at this very distance D, arc length alpha.D is the distance run. <br />In drawing below D stands for the D' of my previous mails (equivalent average distance for moment of inertia about y,z plane) not just moment of inertia about z like in "relative rotation" figure".<br />Also the label "c delta t = ..." is misplaced suggesting this is the delta along time line whereas this is v delta t. The nearby dotted-lined arrow has (in differential calculation) an arc length of delta x, i.e. D.delta alpha (by definition of alpha therein), or v. delta t.<br />I will correct the diagram tomorrow.

 

[h2ouniverse]

To me this view of relativity gives physical sense. I hope I made this as clear as it is in my poor mind, to sustain this feeling of equivalence. <br />To try to anwer your initial question: where do these speeds come from? If you are prepared to consider logical that a collapsing cloud sees its rotational speed increase when becoming denser (skater's effect), then why not accepting that local spacetime distortions translate into different orientation of time line, (what we call linear motion)? <br /><br />Having said that, I do like the consequences of EPR paradox, proven by Aspect's experiment: <br />* space and time are illusions (non-locality)<br />* and/or the universe is not a succession of causes and effects <br />Even weirder to common sense, but underlying unity of things. This is to weaken even more the notions of space and time, and hence, of speeds...<br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Let me try downloading a gif file first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

First of all a little correction to my first post, where I ignored spin energy of the earth. Equation (1) in the above picture shows my calculation of total spin energy of the earth is equivalent to 3 trillion Hiroshima bombs. <br /><br />I think I have found one problem with your equations. If I understood you right, you have tried to prove equation (2) in the pic. The problem is you have used the same angular speed <font size="4">omega</font> for both translation and rotation. But they are not the same. I have given an example for the earth in equations (3) and (4) showing why they are different. One is for orbit and the other is for spin. <br /><br />Your equations led to the good old relations between angular speed and linear speed, v=(omega)R. R is the radius of a "rolling" ball. This equality holds only when object is rolling, without slipping, on a surface. This prompted me to check out if the earth is really rolling or not. It turned out, the earth would take 23499 days to make one year if it rolled on an invisible space-time surface. Even then 'D' in your equations should be replaced with earth radius 'R'. <br /><br />Please correct me if I have understood you incorrectly. <br /><br />One caution to all: All my calculated numbers are approximate, and I have assumed a perfect circular orbit of the earth, which in reality is not correct.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>