geistkiesel

Gertwor, Your post that expressed your belief systemm as interesting as it was still scienticially void, a null and vapid offering for consideration by others in ths forum. Everything you discarded here on beleif grounds is of no observable difference than the religious beliefs that you are attempting to put to sleep, pleasant dreams. Yiou have it completely wrong. The brain is not the source, nor the oprigin of mental thoughts, thinking and is not the store house of mental data. The brain is a mere complex signal processor that digests nonlocal mental fields, including memory functions, into recognizable local mental analogues. You, Zeo, are the observer in a physical body, youi are, Zeo, in a word, nonlocal, whether you are mentally able to appreciate it or not.

Zeo, Do you believe for a moment that what you just described regarding "all possibilities"? Have you any physical evidence supporting your statements or is the post a complete ad hoc and random creation? Geistkiesel

Swansont, You will have to answer the question yourself. When I read Miller's paper and recognize that his 200,000 tests have not been duiplicated, certainly not with the precision that Miller took in his experimental acitivity. Muioller refers to some of the experiments hilself, and does the same shrug of the shoulders that you just did. If youare really concerned that this may jave soem scioentific value, thenj check it out is all I can offer, Millers results also were diurnal and to my satisfaction his systematic errors were no heat caused as claimed by Shankland. Miller discusses the heat problem with more clarity and than Shankland did. Likewise, the 8km/sec value that MM and Miller both obtained was not nrear the noise of scientiic accuracy. The 8/km number was slightly greater than 1/4 of the expectred value when considering the orbital velocity of earth at 30km/sec. However, as relative velocty had not been scrutinized with the depoth apllied by MM or M, the scientific workld was stunned at the resultant difference in the observed from the expected. What is sham,eful is the contnued reference to MM results as "null" whc the number "8 km/sec" is certainly not. You have either misread Miller and MM or you do not understand the results. Miller systematuically ansd consistently reproduced results for over 30 years. I disagree strongly with your statement that the failure to reproduce Miller's result implies that Miller's results are corrupted by soem intrinsic experimental error. Let me correct you. The experiments that followed MM and Miller need to be scrutinized on their own merits. Your statement assumes that post Miller experiments experimental error free, which has not been shown to be the case, especially here, as you do';t know any of the paritculars one way or the other. Your statement further confuses the scientific aspects of the problem with assumptions that are definitiely biased and irrationa for your rejection of Miller out of hand, meaning with no reference to any experiomental results supporting yopu statements, You do understand what i am saying here? Obviously you fear the effect implied by Miller's results. What else could it be? Your statements certainly weren't just careless utterances, were they? You know what you are saying very clearly. You are a conscious and aware person and "8 km/sec" is a fatal shot to the heart of SRT do you not agree? Geistkiesel;

Johnny5, Some of the confusion goes to the use of the words "isotropic light moyion"/? There are postulates of light that assert light is constant and measured the same from all inertial frames - all relative velocity of ftrame and phootns are supposed to be measured as C. When one start using the expressions, c + v and c - v, the expressions get modified by the Safnacs who state that light is nonisogtrpoic, meaning that light can be slower ar faster than C motion in Sagnac frames. The speed of light is not changed in Sagnac frames but the relaive motion is not restericted to negaqting frame motion as demanded by SRT. Of course this is how SRT ists say that one will always measure C as the relative motion of frame and photon.Simply set the frame velocity zero in the mathematical expressions.

Swansont, You may assume anything you desire, be it realistic or otherwise, after all. you are an SR theorist aren't you?

Swansont, There may be terms in SRT, but these effects cancel each other. I understand that there is no software correction to the kinetic and so-acalled ghravitational effects on GPS clock timig circuits.

losfomot What exactly do you mean " ...hence timing correction." GHeistkiesel

The Sagnac Effect - This basically is the current focus on Special Relativity effects. The Sagnac effect basically destroys special relativity but committed SR theorists die hard, you see? Something tells me you are novice at this level of physics. Maybe I'm wrong, it has happened before; once in the third grade I was wrong about something. It was no big deal, maybe not. But you are here which indicates an interest, If you want to cheat a bit and take a giant step into the real woirld of professional physics the Sagnac effect is a perfect place to start, simple actually. I suggest you read the following links at least read the first one firsr, Google on sagbnac effect when you run out of material, this is how I got the links for you.in the order presented. If you stumble on a word or phrase search the internet with a google machine. It will all be developed for you. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=sagnac+effect'>http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htmhttp://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=sagnac+effect http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node2.html http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-45,GGLD:en&q=sagnac+effect http://www.ldolphin.org/sagnac.html http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~bauer/habil_online/node11.html#sagnac2 http://olympus.het.brown.edu/pipermail/spr/Week-of-Mon-0020930/004262.html This is what I have been working on, what about you? Geistkiesel

Swansont, I learned the basic rules of simultabeity initially from gedanken. One discussed by AE in his book, "Relativity" the other from David Bohm's book The Theory of Relativity" At least to my own satisfaction my analysis of these two gedanken proved that, at the very least, simultaneity could not be proved. In other words it a straight forward process to determine alternative conclusions based on unexercised possibilities by the moving observer. If it is true relativistically that the observer can consider himself at rest, or moving with egalitarian equivalence, he may opt for a state of rest or motion while being assured that either option is justified for the purposes of analysis of the motion of the inertial frames. With an equivalence postulate granting equal justification to opt for a state of rest or motion the selection effectively determines one of two grossly variant results or conslusions. The option to assume a state of rest for the "train" is equivalent to assuming the embankment is moving and the determination of physical results grossly at odds with the result had the observer on the train assumed his frame of reference was in motion and the embankment at rest .This latter option drives the analysis along the lines of a classical model. It is aopparent to me that under these conditions the application of the equivalence of inertial frames does not apply in a physical sense. This is not to say that the equivalnce postulate is untrue totally, only that it cannot be applied with physcal signifcicance to granting the choice of motion to an obserber on an inertial frame. The fact of physical law cannot rational be left to the arbitrary choices of human observers. Do you agree? If no then please explain, If yes then please also explain.. Gristkiesel

who were you before NeonBlack? G

I thought the frame dependence was avoided and that the inertial frame (having nothing to do the hardware or massive objects) was the result. I had the vison that the production of absolute motion, including absolute zero velocity was a trivial task to produce. From this the invariant "Zero-point [of omission] would suffice as such an absolute point from which all motion could be measured. I am not saying this is the only point in space but that the construction of such point trivializes the measurement of the motion of objects wrt an unambiguous point , located in space, that did not vary in space and that did not rely on any other moving object, including photons, once the photons were emitted into a well defined straight-line trajectory. It is of no consequence that there may be difficulty in recognizing the location but theoretically the schematic shows the realtive ease n which it can be accomplished. I recognize the heresy, very clearly, and am waiting for the word that cuts the conclusions I have arrived at to the quick. Either way I will be satisified, Naturallhy, preferring the continued longevity of the zero-point model, I defend it tenaciously. It is slightly worse than you stated here. I have concluded that the observer on the moving frame is said to be justified in assuming he is at rest wrt another inertial frame of reference, and while the photon is not a recognized frame of reference, the only way (via SRT) to always measure C wrt all moving frames is to always negate motion of the frame, and then , guess what(?), the speed of light will always measure C, wrt the frame velocity Vf = 0. When measuring doppler phenomena, for instance is not the motion of the observer discounted? The theoretical discarding of the frame motion is a crude corruption of the science of physics. SRT says the moving observer will always measure the speed of light as constant c. So no, there is no "same time difference" when the photons are emitted from the midpoint of the clock/mirrors located at the ends of the frame and arriving at L and R Under the conditions of the schematic the photons will alweys arrive at L and R simulataneously says SRT, but as yiou observed when theframe is moving, t' > 0, teh frame is measured inmotion, absolute motion. When the observer on the frame in the opening post considers himself at rest then, because he has witnessed many such reflection experiments on the embankment, the stationary frame, he knows the photons always arrive at the L and R clocks simultaneously. So considering himself at rest with respect to the stationary frame, the photonas always arrive at the L and R clocks simultaeouasly.[he has the task, however, of explaining the t', the time dfifference in round triop of the photons movingh in tehmoving frame wrt the stationary experiments. SRT has negated motion. If the observer determines the photons are arriving sequentially he will conclude, says SRT, that one or the other photons was emitted before the other there by determining, in irrational denial of experimental evidence, the sequential arrival, even though he was told the photons were emitted simultaneously from his frame of reference. If he sees the photons emitted simultaneously and he sees the data of the arrival times after the photons have retiurned back to the physical midpoint with the data embedded in the return signals, and sees the sequesntuial arrival tiems at l and R then one or the other was emitted before the other. This is the case even if the observrer is told about the set up and how the photonsnwere emitted . Here is a clear simple example of the silliness. An observer on a moving frame arrives at the midpoint of the L and R reflectors just as the photons arrive at the midpoint. The observer assuming he is justified in assuming he is at rest thinks the embankment of the surface of the ground has moved (to the left) while he is stationary. so when the photons arrive simultaneously with his "at rest position" he concludes that the photon from the left moving against the motion of the earth passing by was emitted before the right photon was emitted in order to justify the simultaneous arrival of photons and physical midpoint of the stationary frame. A good example Samuel Becket wrote a one act play wiith dialogue between two older men who are lolling around with seeming nothing to do except to 'wait for Godot' are discussing the arriival of 'Godot', a represenattion for "God" . The play is more humor than drama and more tragedy than philosophical. Geistkiesel

I think that the assumption regarding the truith of Lorentz contractions being true and simultaneity concluded from this as being absolute is not logically damaged by the mere fact that there are other conclusions resulting from the assumption, other than the one stated i.e. that simultaneity is absolute. Sure SR is concluded false, not assumed false Perhaps we have misread the statement. If this is so then we have an easy solution. We examine the statement and ultimately determine if any ambiguity exists, which has not been claimed, The error claimed as I read your post here is a claim for the truth of Lorentz contraction results in at least the absoluteness of simtaneity and consequently the falsity of SR. We must agree that such a conclusion is true For indeed, if simultaneity is absolute, then SR is false, do you not agree to this? As I see the matter at this point in the progression of the thread is the necessity to establish a factual error in the assumption made. Here the truth or falsity of the of the Lorentz contraction is our only topic left to discuss. I see no ambiguities here. I read and re read the statement and I see no corruption of the logical form. Perhaps one or both of us have misread the thread of the developed statements, buit if so they have not been pointed out to me, or to anyone else AFAIK.

Is it the agreement of obserevrs that concerns SRT so much or is it the physical implications of the data acquired in a scientific manner?. If the latter, then the loss of simultaneity has serious problems. Briefly, in Einsteins famous train-station=moving-train gedanken AE places the onus on one observer in a train load of passengers whose conclusion it was to to discard simultaneity. This was preamture and did not contain an adequate anlayctical process. Photons are emitted simultaneously from A and B sources just as the train observer is located at the midpoint of the sources of the pulses of light at A and B concludes that the forward light, B, say, was emitted before the A light catchng up from behind. The measurmentr sequence goe as follows: The B photon measured by O , then A and B arrive simultaneously at the stationary midpoint observed by at least one passenger colocate with the nmmidpoint on the train, who also is at the midpoint when the photons arrive. Then the A photon is observed by the moving observer mAll passengers on he train from friont to reaer observed and tiem the arrivakl of he A and B photrons as the problem decribes and, all passenegers are able to compare the arrival times of the photons just as easily as did the "official" observer. Historically, the official observer concludes B must have been emitted first which necessarily means the train observer considers himself at rest wrt the train and the train station, the embankment, which is a physical imposssibility to produce in reality. The pen and paper used in analysis and writing of equations and formulae are not themselves data, they are the mere convenient tools of human mental activity. If the passengers are strung out along the train and each have a perfect watch all synchronized wrt each other on the train, then the most forward passengers see the B light before the A light and conversely for the rearward located passengers. All passengers comparing the arrival times of the light from gtheir their position on the tran allows them to easily detemine that the photons were emitted simultaneously from the A and B a sources. Certainly simultaneity is not up to the decision by a single member of observers on the moving frames. There has to be an objective standard, and for simultaneity I see none. Further, the observer is (theoretically) justified in considering the possibility that he is indeed moving and when he takes this approach then all passengers also easily agree. If, for instance, when the moving observer was at the midpoint when the photons were emitted he could have tested for the possibility of motion by marking proper places on the train as the embankment whizzed by thereby maintaining a point that "remains at the midpoint" at least by continuously subtacting observed embankment motion from the point in space that maintained colocation with the midpoint. Is there a preference for the moving observer to assume the physically impossible condition that the nonaccelerating frame, the embankment, is actually in motion and he is at rest? Probably not. And most certainly, teh embankment is never observed to accelerate ibn such a manner that relaive motion between frame and embankment are obswerved as a reulst of that accleration. Certainly we do not exclude trained (pun intended) observers conversant with motion, acceleration and even familiar with analysis and observation of experiments conducted where the train is actually at rest wrt the embankment. Clocks and observers colocated with the emitted photons on bothe front and rear extremes of the train can verify the simltaneity of emission by the comparison of data. When the moving observer concludes he is at rest wrt the embankment he does so with an obvious experimental bias - gthe negation iof possible motion of the frame of reference. The assumptions of rest invariably occur before the collection and analysis of any data; Before any photons arrive; before the passengers make any comparison of the arrival times of the photons. This kind of intrinsic theoretical assumption cannot be considered a rational and scientific mode of determining the dynamics of the relative motion of frame and photon. Certainly ignorance of factual matters on the part of observers is not a necessary postulate or attribute for the theoretical basis of SR. I do not see an assumption of contradicting statements that Assume A and assume (not A) in this thread by any participant. If you assume that the relative moion between all reference frames and photons is eternally C, then you must accept the consequences of your assumption. By assuming X is a moment in time and Y another moment in time and X before Y then X before Y in all times is a normal and notextraordinary logical process. There can be no other conclusion. To assert that the foregoing results is a corruption of logic is not justified, merely because it negates a strongly held belief. Any assumption or conclusion to the contrary, withiout more, is logically erroneous. For X before Y for all times then whatever the effect of the original assumption that X and Y are different moment in time then the logical progression of the statement is used throughout and the chips fall where they may. That relativity is contradicted is equivalent to the negagtion of the measured constant of the relative velocity of frame and photon . This is not a misuse of logic; simply, it is logic being used in a most direct and proper sense.. Geistkiesel

The statement went that the asumption is that Lorentz contraction is true and from this assumption he concluded that simultaneity is absolute. The logical statements of assuimption and conclusion do not focus on the same node. The statement was a progression of logic and the conslusions that are traced to the assumptions. Nothing wrong with this in the slightest, in fact this is thew way it is supposed to be: logical, rational, intuitive and instinctive. Geuistkiesel

Good point. I use the term somewhat generically to mean the mathematical models of SRT, or what ever I am discussing, no more no less. I agree here. If we just coinsider the daily rotation of the earth frame we see a rotation rate of approximately 360/24x3600 = .0042 degrees / sec. Would not making any measurement within this limit negate the turning motion of the earth regarding the measurement of light, in most parcticalapplications? Also, whgen a relative motion between the embankemnt, Ve and any other recogniziable object, say Vf, it is always the Vf seen to accelerate wrt Ve, never does Ve contribute any accelerated or otherwise measured motion to the realtive velocity of Ve wrt Vf. For massive physical objects the Ve can be considerd a perfect Ve = 0 frame of reference, an inertial frame. Now when an observer sees himslef stationary wrt Vf and consideres himslef at rest wrt Ve using gthe equivalnce of inertial frames as justification I see some serious problems. If Vf assumes a state of rest he is assuming a physical impossibility. Emankments do not accelerate and add motion to the measured relative velocity ergo all the realtive motion resides in the accelerated Vf frame. As Vf observers are equally justified in assuming themselves moving and the Ve at rest it woul seem physically much more justified (even onkly justifierd) if this were the ONLY consideration the moving observers were to make. Virtually overnight there would be3 a return to simultaneity, absolute soace and time and rational thought supplanted by direwct observation. To insist theoretically that the moving Vf will always measure a relative velocity of frame and ophoton as c this theoretically hegates the very concept of motion of the Vf for theory's convenience . My thread on absolute velocity zero was intended to point out the fallacy of the assumpption of the realtive velocigty of frame and photon. The speed of light is not affected by ncluding the frame motion and the gain in arriving at the "true" measured velocity of objects is predictably enormous. I read Ashby's paper again and also read hjatch's paper again on GPS and while you may consider my conclusions biased, I vote for Hatch's version fopr any number of reasons. Mostly, however, I see a rational structure, that word again, as Hatch describes matters, nit perfectly mind you but consistentlhy. This togethetr with postulates of light that abound i can only conclude that we live in basically Newtonian world as I see it. I have brought this subject up before and no one has jumoped on it for any kind of comments, but please humor me briefly. The sun has been measured as moving at 208 km/sec, effectively orthogonal to the rotational and orbiting motion of the planet. When the velocity vectors are summed, I get a resultant total velocity vector pointing tan-130.497/208 = 8.3 degrees along a general a north = souith eartyh axis line. Assuming for the sake of argument that the velocities are measured as stated, what do you see the physical affect of the rotational vector considered alone? The earth turns at one revolution /24 hours (more or less) but can the the rotational velocity vector ever be considered very significant measured separately from the sun trajectory velocity, or even the orbiting motion? Dayton Miller who reproduced the MM experiments many thousands of time over found the same result as Michelson, i.e. about 8.8 km/sec absolute velocity wrt "the ether". The effect was diurnal and left Miller shaking his head. In twenty four hours the sun trajectory has moves 208x24x 3600 = 16 x 10[su]6[/sup] km to the earth rotation distnce of 42000 km, so where is the earth velocity vector pointing from any one spot on the surface? From what I gather, the velocity vectors seem to act independently of each other, what say you? I have read that others have found a different direction for the solar system other than Miller's, but my question has to do mostly with the physical addition of velocity vectors of stellar objects generally, not just the ones discussed here,

; ' Look at the schematic, The math is much simpler when breaking the motion into the 0,1,2,3 sections as you see, The difference in the total round trip tiome of the photons compared tot he experiment copnmducted in a stationary frame of refrerence, is derived from the right photon after moving a distance initially of, ct. THis photon will arrive at R after travelling another distance 2vt plus a small distance vt' that the frame move when the photon acrosses this litle 2vt space, t' turn out to be the added time for the round trip of the photon from emission to the simultaneous arrival back at the physical midpoint of the frame.as compared to the experiment being conducted in the stationary frame. ct' = 2vt + vt'' you can do the algebra to extract the t' term. Johnny5, You seem to have grasped the matter quite thorughly. The schematic in pretty colors I posted is "half a circular Sagnac" set up,. One of the references points to the finding that whether the measurements were made from the moving frame or the lab the results were identical. My schematic is merely a "lnear Sagnac" machine. It was discoverd that the SE is not just a rotational effect, it is in effect concerning the velocity of moving measuring devices and the relative speed of frame and photon that is not measured as C always. In other words SRT has negated the concept of velocity when measuring the speed of light aby asserting traht all moviong frame s will always measure the relative velocity of frame and photon as c. Silly isn't it? The papers are more in accord with each other thna you statement below describes. After all they are identifiable humans each with a unique personality being manifest describing what hhey think is useful and benefical, significant. Their individual terms vary, but they are really together theoretically. If you haven't grasped what I considerd the "major" point is that the emitted photons define a zero-point corrdinate system, with a physically defned origin. From here velocity can be measured with respect to zero velocity, absolute zero velocity as the emission point does not move. The physical device from which the photons were emitted moves, but the zero-point, ZP is an abstract eternal location in space from which all motion can be referfenced. You can appreciate the problems such devices make for SRT ists? This device is the highest form of heresey!! Good post. BTW, how and where did you prove your statement regarding the use of Gallilean coordinate systems being universally proper re EM radiation? Swansont gave you short shruift on your mathematical work. Where is the paper I aseek? The coordinate system here is such a system. Caveat Emptor regarding responding to SRT supporters, they will try to distract you answerin bs questions to throw your focus away from SRT. Geistkiesel

Atheist, This goes to the heart of special relativity theory, a religion practiced by many.. When the photons are emitted at the midpoint of the mirrors/clocks that emission point is invarinat in space. teh point does not move, eeven thouigh tghe frame does move. Look at the photon moving to the left, It moves a distance ct from where it was emitted before striking the L clock and is immediately reflected back . In another ct distance the photon is back at the exact point in space from which it was emitted, The photons define the zero point coordinate system. it defines a common velocity = zero point. Notice that the right moving photon does not strike the R clock in the first ct distance it travelled, therefore the photons do not arrive at the clocks simutaneously. Hence, the light may be measured nonisotropically i.e. that the speed of light changes from frame to frame. or at least the effective measured speed changes, It doesn't change the speed ofof light, as what is emasured is the relative velocity of frame and photon. SRT says unambiguously and with fervor that the photons will arrive at the L and R clocks at the same time from teh perspective iof the observer on the moving frame.. Do you believe this? , The physical location of the midpoint changes with motion, but not the point the photons were emitted. Because the left photon is moving to the L clock which is nmoving toward trhe oncoming light the light will strike the L befotre the right moving photon strikeas the R clock that is moving away. Special relativity does not recognize that the left phootn can be considererd moving at a velocity of C + V, and that the right photon moving at c - v. This says to the SRT crowd that the speed of light is not isotropic, that is that the speed of light is measured here as c + v and c -v, as if the speed of light was being increased or decreased, when al it measnis a measure of the relative veloicty iof rame and photon. Isotropic means the speed of light is conmstant and measured as C for all frames of reference. What is not considered is that the c = V and c - V terms are merely statements describing the diffeence in the speed of light with respect to the frame of reference. Can you see anyway that the light can arrive at the two moving clocks simultaneously when emitted from a common point at the midpoint of the clocks, if the frame is moving? Brief enough? So Atheist, are you waiting fior Godot? Geistkiesel

Swansont, SR may be a subset of GR, but this does not fix the fact that SR is an inertial system. Also, it seems you missed the part where the gravitational and kinetic terms cancel out. The fact that GPS uses a preferred frame doesn't bother SR people much because SR doesn't apply , say some. In any event time dilation is a relative motion effect and the fact that the GPS uses the ECEF places any dilation questions into the camp of Lorentz transformations, not SRT. This means of course that SRT depends on the relative motion of inertial fframes, which sxcludes SRT from any consideration as being applicable to GPS. There us a significant difference in the two theoretical systems. Geistkiesel

Swansont, These effects canel each other. Geistkiesel

Swansont, It isn't quite as simple as you may suggest. Here is a quote. "Second, the effect is also demonstrated by the reference clocks in the GPS tracking stations. The tracking stations provide the data which are used to compute the predicted GPS orbits for uploading and subsequent broadcast of the estimated GPS satellite position. It is observed that all clocks at sea level in an earth-centered non-rotating frame run at the same rate. A clock at sea level at the equator runs slower because of the earth's spin, but that same spin via centrifugal force causes the earth to assume an oblate shape so that the clock at the equator is located at a higher gravitational potential. At this higher gravitational potential, the clock runs faster per equation (3). The net result is that the velocity effect and the gravitational-potential effect exactly cancel, and the equatorial sea-level clock runs at the same rate as the polar sea-level clock." Geistkiesel

OOps, I need to apply a transfom to the "Now" word to make it (T)Now -> No. Thanks Severian. Any thouights on the Conservation of Angular Momentum as a repalcement for current gravity models?. We still start with 'noareobserved force' but the flavor of the possibilities we have to sctrutinize iis certainly full of interesting observable situations. The general helical form of the solar system being "dragged" through space by the central body, the sun open up possibilities. I have seen papers claiming the sun is moving at 208 km/sec in the general direction of the north-south earth axis (to the south) . The earth-sun orbit velociy of 30 km/sec means th earth has moved 943, 477,796 km (or 946,755, 920 using 30 x 24x 3600x 365.26 seconds) in a year 6,564,160,512 km . The ratios of the distances are .14 earth orbit km/year wrt the sun distance traveled. The earth sun radius of 1.5 x 10^8 meters means the sun distance travled per year confines the earh helix to a very small tube, The combined velocity vectors of the earth: rotation, sun orbit and sun trajectory points the earth velocity vector confined to a narrow 1,3 degrees rotating 360 degress per year. Geistkiesel

5614, Have you heard of the inflationary model of the BB? In the beginning gravity had to "push" to get the many orders of magnitude doubling in size in some 10^-34 seconds or so. Yes, soem claim that gravity uswd tro push, but that was in the olden days. Geistkiesel