Fermilab and symmetry breaking

Fermilab and symmetry breaking
Source:
http://www.symmetry magazine. org/breaking/ 2008/10/08/ fermilab- and-
symmetry- breaking/

My comment.
Quotations from: Fermilab and symmetry breaking

Yoichiro Nambu, Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa won the 2008
Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on symmetry breaking in the
world of elementary particles and forces.
Nambu’s formulation of symmetry breaking allows physicists to explain
why there is matter in the universe,
while the work of Kobayashi and Maskawa provides the theoretical
tools to explain why the universe contains no antimatter.
When physicists discuss symmetries, they refer to things that appear
identical.
Symmetry breaking is a way of explaining why things look different
from each other.
=========.
Sadovnik.
How is possible to speak about antimatter if nobody knows what
antimatter is?
==========.
From the combination of spontaneous symmetry breaking and
electroweak
unification comes an exciting prediction: a new particle called the
Higgs boson.
The Higgs is the hammer that breaks the symmetry and gives different
particles
different masses.
===============.
Sadovnik.
Does “the combination of spontaneous symmetry” describe
Physical or pure Mathematical process?
Does anybody find “ the Higgs boson “?
=========.

Currently, close to a thousand physicists from around the world are
searching
for the Higgs boson in collisions produced by the Tevatron
accelerator at Fermilab.
Makoto Kobayashi and Toshihide Maskawa formulated a mechanism to
explain symmetry breaking between matter and antimatter, typically
called CP violation.
===============.
Sadovnik.
This mechanism explains symmetry breaking between {matter and
antimatter),
Between things which we don’t know.
==========.
In 1963, Nicola Cabibbo made a modification to Enrico Fermi’s theory
of the weak interactions to explain the observed decay rates of heavy
quarks into light quarks. Cabibbo showed that the strength of the weak
force differs for different quarks.
Kobayashi and Maskawa expanded upon these ideas and made further
modifications to allow for a difference in the interactions between
quarks and those between antiquarks.
The combined picture, the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, describes
all the interactions of quarks.
The CKM picture of the universe allows for the difference in the
behavior of matter and antimatter that allowed matter to survive after
the Big Bang, while antimatter disappeared from the universe.
================.
Sadovnik.
Nobody saw quark.

Comment:
Years ago, I attended a lecture at Caltech by Gell-Mann in which he
explained why he developed the THEORY of the quark. He was looking
for
a common denomenator to the atomic zoo -- a common denominator of
characteristics. He found some (3) and didn't know what they really
were so he called them Quarks. Later he found more, so he had 6. From
there the theory grew like topsey and develped colors -- BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE. Some theory.
(Then there's "up" "down" --- and I'm waiting for "sideways" :-) )
The quark has never been isolated. So instead of admitting there was
no
such thing, it was pronounced that it could not escape the nucleus.
How
convenient..
Bill uses as an argument that the rest of humanity believes in the
quark. Humanity believed in Ptolemy's universe for FOURTEEN
CENTURIES.
And more recently, practically all of humanity celebrated New Year
2000
as the beginning of a new milleniuim while the FACT is the new
millenium started with the year 2001.
"Humanity" can be very stupid at times.
A more apropos story for the non-existent quarks is the fable about
the
King who wore no clothes. Everybody commented on how COLORFUL his
clothes were (the same colors as have quarks) but, alas, the king was
naked.
If anyone wants to read a theory of the sub-particle structure of the
universe, they can go to http://www.wbabin.net (The General Science
Journal) --find the list of authors pull down -- click on Vertner
Vergon and read the monograph, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

VERGON

Is “the Big Bang “ real, complete theory?
================.
Besides helping to explain the absence of antimatter, Kobayashi and
Maskawa’s
theories make many other predictions that experimental discoveries
at Fermilab have shown to be true.
The KM mechanism predicted the existence of a third generation of
elementary particles.
Of the particles in this third generation, 75 percent have been
discovered at Fermilab: the bottom quark, the top quark, and the tau
neutrino.
==========.
Sadovnik.
So, we must search new “a third generation of elementary particles. “
My opinion.

In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has
deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence
of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all
the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m
depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…
etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
===========================..
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.
========.

In 1964, Cronin and Fitch discovered CP violation in K mesons. The KM
mechanism, formulated to explain Cronin and Fitch’s discovery, also
predicted still further differences in the way matter and antimatter
relate to each other. This led to the discovery of a new type of CP
violation in kaons at Fermilab and to the discovery of matter-
antimatter oscillations in Bs mesons at the Tevatron. Another
prediction pointed to a new way to produce heavy particles, a
mechanism also discovered at Tevatron experiments through the
observation of single top quarks.
As in the case of matter generation, physicists expect to find the
Higgs boson at the heart of matter–antimatter asymmetry. With a lot of
work and a little luck, the Higgs boson may be the next great
discovery at Fermilab to grow out of the work of these latest Nobel
laureates and many other great physicists of our times.
===================.
Sadovnik.
Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters:“Forward to abstraction”,
“Forward to the absurd” and we all follow them.
We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Quoth "Socratus" on the Primacy of Math uber alles syndrome :

Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters:“Forward to abstraction”,
“Forward to the absurd” and we all follow them.
We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

:-)

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Quoth "Socratus" on the Primacy of Math uber alles syndrome :

Now mathematics goes ahead of science and physics follows it.
Mathematicians carry the posters:“Forward to abstraction”,
“Forward to the absurd” and we all follow them.
We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

:-)

Oh, no no no! I'm not going to let you *or* Socratus
off *that* easy! g

I'll be the first to admit that your "primacy of math"
premise has a ring of truth to it. The great radiologist,
chemist and physicist, Marie Curie once quipped...

"There are sadistic scientists who hurry to hunt down
errors instead of establishing the truth."

And nowadays, there just isn't enough of this "hunting
down errors". We need more of her "sadistic scientists"
who are, in reality, "sadistic skeptics". Unlike the great
and illustrious Madame Curie, i believe that the skeptics
are absolutely required in "establishing the truth".

In theoretical physics, cosmology, astrophysics and that
most esoteric quantum mechanics, math has led to many
great discoveries. There have been several dead ends,
too, and yes, science is still "circling" in some of these
"attractive" cul de sacs.

And yet, mathematicians are like road workers. They
build the road in a certain direction, while others follow
the road to wherever it may lead. And while many of
their roads are dead ends, and while many of these cul
de sacs are attractive and difficult to *see* as the dead
ends they are, some of the roads *do* lead to the truth.

If math is "primal", it's because that's the nature of the
beast. Without math, science would have no idea which
way to go. It's better to have a road to follow, and to
maybe find truth at the end of the road, than it would be
to not have any road at all.

The physical reality is... there would be no "creature
comforts", no computers, no internet/UseNet, none of
the great scientific feats that we take for granted, if it
were not for the "primacy of math"!

I am not a mathematician, not even close. However, i
do recognize the crucial importance of mathematicians,
both those who study the beauty of the pure, and those
who tackle the practical and useful "applied" math. It
is my contention that there are no greater scientists on
Earth than these lovers and users of mathematics!

In a way, they're like cops and firemen. The rest of us
run away from crime, fire, and from ugh! math. The
mathematicians run *toward* the very math we find
ugly. While they are all "certifiable", crazy, insane(!), g
they are all to be venerated and praised! Firemen,
Cops and, yes, Mathematicians!

T H E UNSUNG S A L T O F T H E E A R T H !

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be
understood. Now is the time to understand more,
so that we may fear less."
Marie Curie--chemist & physicist

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

Heh.. always fun to spar on the 'Primacy of math', Paine. Like i allus
sed, there's no argument with the *utility* of math which gives us our
creature comforts and technologies. But the Primacy of math, that is,
making The Math supplant and *substitute for* the literal mechanism it
purports to describe, is where the train derails. And this Pof M
syndrome is exclusive to cosmology, astrophysics, and theoretical
physics. It gave us the "gift that keeps on giving", the VSP with its
plethora of 'sidebars' like 'eleven dimensions' (or whatever number is
currently in vogue), a 'one-shot' BB, 'ever-accelerating expansion
unto entropic heat death', "dark matter/dark energy", and on and on,
"adding epicycles" whenever the paradigm bogs down and needs another
kludge.
Math, in its secondary, descriptive 'bookeeping'
role, is fine. But when math is given Primacy and then *applied to a
false premise*, a "trainwreck" results.. like the epicycles of
geocentrism and the 'sidebars' of the VSP.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...

Heh.. always fun to spar on the 'Primacy of math', Paine. Like i allus
sed, there's no argument with the *utility* of math which gives us our
creature comforts and technologies. But the Primacy of math, that is,
making The Math supplant and *substitute for* the literal mechanism it
purports to describe, is where the train derails. And this Pof M
syndrome is exclusive to cosmology, astrophysics, and theoretical
physics. It gave us the "gift that keeps on giving", the VSP with its
plethora of 'sidebars' like 'eleven dimensions' (or whatever number is
currently in vogue), a 'one-shot' BB, 'ever-accelerating expansion
unto entropic heat death', "dark matter/dark energy", and on and on,
"adding epicycles" whenever the paradigm bogs down and needs another
kludge.
Math, in its secondary, descriptive 'bookeeping'
role, is fine. But when math is given Primacy and then *applied to a
false premise*, a "trainwreck" results.. like the epicycles of
geocentrism and the 'sidebars' of the VSP.

But it's all there is for now, oc. Science does not yet
know enough about gravity to go any farther than the
theoretical math of GR. Spacetime curves, but that
can't be completely real because, well, there's really
nothing there to actually curve. So GR must mean
that "spacetime curves" thing as an abstract concept
of mathematics. How can it be anything else? head
scratch

Until science finally decides to face the truth, that the
UGLY, despicable, HATED, asinine, INFANTILE concept
of the ugh! a e t h e r arghh! is just as *REAL*
now as it was before Einstein trotted his two little legs
on the scene, until they realize that this aether is no
more, no less than a huge expanse of energy, whose
frequency of vibration is SO high, whose wavelengths
are SO tiny and minuscule so that it behaves almost
completely particle-like, and that it is this very real
attribute of space that energetically FLOWS into mass
and thereby directly causes gravity, science will sadly
continue to run around in random fashion just like the
classic "Brownian motion".

Science needs to take an objective "random walk"
down the distasteful path of self-scrutiny. The ego of
science is far too great for its own good. A wakeup
call might be coming soon, and science is ill-prepared.

Fighting the "primacy of math" as you've defined it
above is like David facing Goliath without a slingshot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the
dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid
of the light."
Plato

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Oct 12, 11:06*am, "Painius" wrote:

*Science does not yet
know enough about gravity to go any farther than the
theoretical math of GR. *Spacetime curves, but that
can't be completely real because, well, there's really
nothing there to actually curve. *So GR must mean
that "spacetime curves" thing as an abstract concept
of mathematics. *How can it be anything else? *head
scratch

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. *"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the
* * * *dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid
* * * *of the light."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Plato

P.P.S.: *http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
* * * * * * * * * *http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *http://painellsworth.net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
=============================================.
SRT.
Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT.
In SRT gravity is absent.
It means Minkowski spacetime does not has gravity and this
spacetime is Pseudo-Euclid's flat spacetime.
Minkowski spacetime is absolute conception.
2.
GRT.
When Einstein put mass into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved.
When Friedman put time into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved too.
In GRT the "spacetime curves".
If Minkowski spacetime is curved it isn’t more Minkowski spacetime.
( you wrote too: The curvature is gravity.)

This “Minkowski spacetime” is now Gravity space.
Gravity space has 3-D + time.
Gravity space (3-D + time) is relative conception..
======================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

On Oct 12, 2:06*am, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" sed :

* * * * * * * * *Math, in its secondary, descriptive 'bookeeping'
role, is fine. But when math is given Primacy and then *applied to a
false premise*, a "trainwreck" results.. like the epicycles of
geocentrism and the 'sidebars' of the VSP.

But it's all there is for now, oc. *Science does not yet
know enough about gravity to go any farther than the
theoretical math of GR. *Spacetime curves, but that
can't be completely real because, well, there's really
nothing there to actually curve. *So GR must mean
that "spacetime curves" thing as an abstract concept
of mathematics. *How can it be anything else? *head
scratch

Bingo, amigo. "Space-time" is a pure abstraction, albeit one that
'works' amazingly well mathematically as a *description* of
Something.. "Something-whose-existance-must-be denied-at-all-cost".
When Uncle Albert trotted out his innocuous little statement,
"Remember, gentlemen, we have not proven that the aether does not
exist, we have only proven that we do not need it (for mathematical
purposes)", the mainstream pounced on it and spun it as heralding a
new age of reason in science. Math now supplanted the old
superstition. The "aether" was dead. The Primacy of Math doctrine was
born. And the rest is history. "Space-time" became Uncle A's
euphamism, his surrogate, FOR the "aether", the spatial medium we now
recognize as the sub-Planck(ian) energy domain or SPED. Once the
reality of the SPED is recognized, the need for abstract code words
and euphamisms evaporates. "4-D fields", geometry, "space-time" and
'curvature' thereof, are now recognized as mere *descriptions of
effects*. We finally recognize the very real _mechanism_ responsible
for causing those effects.

Until science finally decides to face the truth, that the
UGLY, despicable, HATED, asinine, INFANTILE concept
of the ugh! *a e t h e r *arghh! is just as *REAL*
now as it was before Einstein trotted his two little legs
on the scene, until they realize that this aether is no
more, no less than a huge expanse of energy, whose
frequency of vibration is SO high, whose wavelengths
are SO tiny and minuscule so that it behaves almost
completely particle-like, and that it is this very real
attribute of space that energetically FLOWS into mass
and thereby directly causes gravity, science will sadly
continue to run around in random fashion just like the
classic "Brownian motion".

The old rigid/immobile "aether" of Lorentz and Einstein was thrown out
and rightly so. It just needed one major modification : recognize it
as NOT rigid/immobile but highly mobile, fluidic, compressible/
expansible, and amenable to density gradients. The baby was thrown out
with the bathwater and the "afterbirth", the VSP and Pof M, raised
instead.

Science needs to take an objective "random walk"
down the distasteful path of self-scrutiny. *The ego of
science is far too great for its own good. *A wakeup
call might be coming soon, and science is ill-prepared.

Fighting the "primacy of math" as you've defined it
above is like David facing Goliath without a slingshot.

* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

It won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future, and just as well
considering humanity's present level of maturity. Science will remain
safely "corraled" in the playpen of the VSP.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 12, 2:06 am, "Painius" wrote:

Fighting the "primacy of math" as you've defined it
above is like David facing Goliath without a slingshot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

It won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future, and just as well
considering humanity's present level of maturity. Science will remain
safely "corraled" in the playpen of the VSP.

It's a serious, sometimes unsettling problem, though.

After many years of you and i and others talking about
it, it seems so obvious that space is high-grade energy.

Yet, scientists continue to observe and work tirelessly
to tie their observations to existing theory. This is a
serious problem with the science policy to establish a
theory, to embed an idea that may very well turn out
to be, if not incorrect, then only a glimpse, a shadowy,
nebulous glimpse of physical reality.

Each new observation should fall into the category of
"zero bias". Instead of ardently trying to tie the new
observation to existing theory, scientists ought to put
the observation into a "let's try to falsify the existing
theory with this observation" category. And with this
sort of attitude in mind, the new observation just may
lead to refinement of existing theory toward a clearer
picture of physical reality.

But science is stuck in a Brownian rut. At this point, it
would take a better, smarter person than even Albert
E. to break science out of its self-made, impassive cul
that resembles a large, heavy box with steel walls.

"A scientist without imagination is like a haystack
without a needle."
Paine Ellsworth g

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the
dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid
of the light."
Plato

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Oct 12, 2:55*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Yet, scientists continue to observe and work tirelessly
to tie their observations to existing theory... *

....and invent whatever kludge is necessary to make the existing
theory, invariably predicated on the VSP, "work".

Each new observation should fall into the category of
"zero bias". *Instead of ardently trying to tie the new
observation to existing theory, scientists ought to put
the observation into a "let's try to falsify the existing
theory with this observation" category. *

A perfect example would be the flat rotation curves of galaxies,
presumed to be held in step by an invisible sticky goo, "dark matter".
'Member as to how, over the years, we speculated that mutual
gravitation of the peripheral mass in the disc might be partly
responsible. Then more recently, there appeared that article on low-
brightness stars in the "halo" which further eroded need for DM. Then,
just recently in our discussion of lensing by the Bullet Cluster,
there came that "Aha!" moment, when with crystal clarity, it became
obvious that the BC's lensing is due to CO-ENTRAINMENT of both matter
AND the spatial medium. Both matter and space itself are flowing in
unison, like dust borne on the wind. At that moment, it became obvious
that in spiral galaxies, co-entrainment is likewise at work, and is
the PRIMARY reason for the flat (non-Keplerian) rotation curves. Space
is co-rotating _with_ visible matter in the disc. Space itself IS the
invisible and enigmatic "dark matter"! It shoulda been so damned
obvious from the very outset.
This co-entrainment / co-rotation is visible
evidence of the Lense-Thirring ('frame dragging') effect on the
galactic scale (the only difference is - it's space dragging matter,
not vice-versa). On the scale of the Solar System, the effect is many
orders of magnitude smaller, and thus Keplerian rotation
predominates.


And with this
sort of attitude in mind, the new observation just may
lead to refinement of existing theory toward a clearer
picture of physical reality.

But science is stuck in a Brownian rut. At this point, it
would take a better, smarter person than even Albert
E. to break science out of its self-made, impassive cul
that resembles a large, heavy box with steel walls.

"A scientist without imagination is like a haystack
without a needle."

"socratus" wrote in message...
...
On Oct 12, 11:06 am, "Painius" wrote:

Science does not yet
know enough about gravity to go any farther than the
theoretical math of GR. Spacetime curves, but that
can't be completely real because, well, there's really
nothing there to actually curve. So GR must mean
that "spacetime curves" thing as an abstract concept
of mathematics. How can it be anything else? head
scratch

=============================================.
SRT.
Minkowski spacetime was born in SRT.
In SRT gravity is absent.
It means Minkowski spacetime does not has gravity and this
spacetime is Pseudo-Euclid's flat spacetime.
Minkowski spacetime is absolute conception.
2.
GRT.
When Einstein put mass into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved.
When Friedman put time into Minkowski spacetime
it is curved too.
In GRT the "spacetime curves".
If Minkowski spacetime is curved it isn’t more Minkowski spacetime.
( you wrote too: The curvature is gravity.)

This “Minkowski spacetime” is now Gravity space.
Gravity space has 3-D + time.
Gravity space (3-D + time) is relative conception..
======================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Thank you, Socratus! Both Newton and Einstein in
concert with many other great scientists have tried
and tried to deduce the nature of gravity, indeed
the very CAUSE of gravity. But Isaac Newton gave
up; he stated in a letter to a friend that he didn't
really have a clue as to what actually causes this
strange, and at the same time, *familiar* thing we
call "gravity". Newton believed that God causes
gravity.

Einstein couldn't quite pin it down either, working
most of his life after SR and GR to discover exactly
what causes gravity, so that it could be understood
how it works in terms of the other forces. He never
gave up like Newton did, but he was unable to take
general relativity beyond being a mere "description
of the effects" of gravity. He never found the cause
of gravity.

To understand what causes gravity, one must get
one's mind off of the Earth, off of simple reflecting
matter like planets and moons. One must focus
one's mind on a star... the Sun? Why not? Sun is
a perfectly good star, isn't it? It's certainly done a
great and awesome service to us by providing us
with light and warmth. The Sun is the true place
for us to begin.

Focus your mind upon the Sun, and the cause of
gravity just might SPRING forth into your mind, as
it has done into mine. And after you have thought
about this, our wonderful star, then let me know if
you still have questions about what causes gravity.
For i shall be happy to share the answer with you!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S. "We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the
dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid
of the light."
Plato

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://garden-of-ebooks.blogspot.com
http://painellsworth.net