[timey (OP)]

Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.

Mike - 'evidence' is a bit of a strong term for velocity related red shift interpretation.

Evidence was found to support a correlation between red shift and distance, but there is no evidence to support the velocity related interpretation. The 'speed' of a red shift could just as easily be interpreted as a 'rate of time'.

[pasala]

Mr. timey
Well, about dark energy:
Dark energy is unknown form of energy presumed to be exist througt the space and  It is also said to be causing expansion of universe.  Dark energy is  homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. 

Dark energy is said to be slowing down.

Do dark energy causing expansion of universe:

Dark energy is also known as vacuum energy.  Do this vacuum is having power. 

Ok, let us study it with simple example, basing on which our predecessors estimated strength of  dark energy.

Let us take a plastic bucket filled with water.  Take another plastic bucket, close the first one using this bucket. Now create vacuum in between these two buckets.  Water in the bucket start raising.  It is said when vacuum is created, dark energy started creating pressure on the water.

This is incorrect.  When vacuum is created, pressure on the water is lost and it is just relaxed and start raising.  Here, pressure in between two buckets is low, but pressure inside water is high and it tries to occupy the gap.

Here power of vacuum is possible only when:
01  Pressure outside is high

Actually it is not the power or strength of the Dark energy but outside energy.

So, naturally Dark energy has no role in the expansion or contraction of universe.

Yours
Psreddy

[Colin2B]

 

Ah - Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.

I'm not foolish enough to get drawn into this discussion, but as you (I hope) persevere with learning more maths you will find that more of your views change with an understanding of what I was saying.

 

This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?

A constant is a constant not a variable, but you have to determine the correct value of the constant and equivalences like this can help. However, you are dropping in to the borderland between standard model and GR and one of the more interesting areas of speculation. I'm sure you are already aware of the quantum fluctuation problem and it's link to dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc and no doubt Mike will be happy to discuss it.
 
Just a final comment. As I look at Alan's recent posts I note you commented:

Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.

The observation doesn't just disappear like a mirage. Last year I took the trouble to write out a simplified explanation of how this works. I note that Pete has also linked to an explanation using a diagrammatic approach, but he also seems convinced you haven't read it.
I'm not going to go over old ground & repeat myself here, because I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive. However, the effect is real but like many measurements eg speed, energy, momentum, it is dependant on where the measurement is being made.

[Mike Gale]

Hubble didn't find a cause, just evidence. But otherwise I think you are correct. See my edit to my last comment.

Mike - 'evidence' is a bit of a strong term for velocity related red shift interpretation.

Evidence was found to support a correlation between red shift and distance, but there is no evidence to support the velocity related interpretation. The 'speed' of a red shift could just as easily be interpreted as a 'rate of time'.

My point was simply that Hubble made the measurements and noticed the correlation between distance and speed. He left it up to theorists (like Einstein) to explain the cause of that correlation.

[Mike Gale]

I don't think you can get accelerated expansion out of a constant though. You'd have to change it to a variable of some sort.

I assume you are familiar with ρ_vac = ρ_Λ   ≡ Λ/8πG
Sorry, equation fn on here isn't working yet so bit laborious to type out with alt codes.
Didn't mean to interrupt your discussion, I'll leave you to it.

I am not. That would be the energy density of free space for c=1 I think. Nicely done though. I hadn't thought of using alt codes to render Greek letters.
Wikipedia says "A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe, as observed." I speculated in a previous comment that the constant would have to be changed to a variable in order to account for accelerated expansion because that wasn't discovered until 1998. Why would Einstein drop the constant if GR predicts accelerated expansion and Hubble's data did not? The answer must be that Hubble did observe accelerated expansion and the new data just suggests a faster rate. The literature could be much clearer on this point, but Wikipedia also notes that the level of confidence in the 1998 analysis has dropped from 5-sigma to 3-sigma so the cosmological constant (and the dark energy from whence it is presumed to originate) may be doomed again.

[timey (OP)]

Ah - Colin, well firstly so say so, it's starting to look like I may have to eat my hat on YouTube for you concerning G and g, but I do stand firmly by my position on the marks, in the context that I was using them.

I'm not foolish enough to get drawn into this discussion, but as you (I hope) persevere with learning more maths you will find that more of your views change with an understanding of what I was saying.

 

This is relevant to Einstein's constant as a variable, and p is what renders variability?

A constant is a constant not a variable, but you have to determine the correct value of the constant and equivalences like this can help. However, you are dropping in to the borderland between standard model and GR and one of the more interesting areas of speculation. I'm sure you are already aware of the quantum fluctuation problem and it's link to dark energy, the cosmological constant, etc and no doubt Mike will be happy to discuss it.
 
Just a final comment. As I look at Alan's recent posts I note you commented:

Yet physics states the frequency of the clock observed in the other gravity potential as observer dependent, and that if one places oneself with the clock in the other gravity potential that this observation disappears like some sort of mirage and the clock in the other gravity potential is ticking normally.

The observation doesn't just disappear like a mirage. Last year I took the trouble to write out a simplified explanation of how this works. I note that Pete has also linked to an explanation using a diagrammatic approach, but he also seems convinced you haven't read it.
I'm not going to go over old ground & repeat myself here, because I think further discussion is unlikely to be productive. However, the effect is real but like many measurements eg speed, energy, momentum, it is dependant on where the measurement is being made.

I wasn't trying to draw you into a conversation of such type.  Just an answer as to why you referred to the sum would have been fine.

Something along the lines of:
"Yes timey, if you add the equation I mention like this, for this reason, this resulting in maths that can describe an accelerative or decelerative aspect to adding, or subtracting the lambada constant equation to or from Einstein's equation"
...i.e. putting your input into context, would be just fine.


The only reason that I mentioned to you that my understanding had been altered is a) to try and break the ice a little, and b) because I realise that the system within the current maths by which my model can be calculated is much simpler than I first thought.
Edit: And it was in talking to Alan that I realised this actually..

I know very well that the cosmological constant is related to Dark Energy, and the standard model, and to quantum.
And... as my model, via a subtle change to the equivalence principle, unites the standard model with gravity for a continuum in quantum, I very much hope the conversation gets that far, where conversations with Mike are enjoyable because although he too is a fairly staunch relative fan, he actually thinks what I'm saying through and the conversation is progressive.

As to some of my conversations you refer to, I really do not need anybody to explain to me how conventional relativity views the situation.  I am saying to try viewing it a differing way.  And quoting current physics, saying that that is just relativity and pointing me to A-level physics, or making enigmatic remarks doesn't cut it for me, but maths explanations 'are' very helpful.
I already know that the results of viewing the situation in the way that conventional relativity does are that the standard model is not united with gravity, there is no formal theory on time, and physics cannot get behind the Big Bang or the event horizon of a black hole.
You may prefer to go down the observer dependent rabbit hole, and be my guest, but what happens when there is no observer?  sh1t still happens man!  And it's what's happening that interests me...
And in any case, the measuring of anywhere is entirely dependent on which time you hold measurement relative to.  Make measurements over there by over there's rate of time, all measurements remain the same.

Nobody is ever going to 'tell me' what to think under any circumstances, in any field.  I question everything without fail, think it through, make investigation...and hey, do you know what Colin, my investigations tell me that physics is looking for a theory that can unite the current physics.
Has this information reached your ears, Colin?

Or are you prejudice to the possibility that an uneducated non-mathematician is capable of inspired thought, and your commentary trending towards the notion that I will somehow be struck by the foolishness of my notions in the face of the infallible logic of current physics, and that having read many books by cutting edge professional physicists, this will occur due to commentary posted upon this site?

If so I will duly apologise...  I always do if I'm in the wrong.

[Mike Gale]

The expansion of the universe without the Dark Energy notion wasn't thought to be a constant speed.  It was thought to be slowing down.
However - you do have a point there...

I wrote this before seeing your post:
So in order to describe a contracting universe it would be necessary to add the constant twice right?
But would that be the whole term Lambada*u*v, or Lambada*g*u*v as you say, or would it be a case of doubling the Lambada value?
The Lambada value is 0.5 so doubling that would be in as much as saying +1*u*v or +1*g*u*v (I'll have to look at the program again tomorrow to see if I wrote it down wrong)

if Einstein's equation minus the constant caused an expanding universe, there must be a rate to this expansion within the maths of the equation surely?

And... If the constant stops this rate of expansion, surely there must be an equal and equalising negative rate within that constant?

Wikipedia says Λ=1.19×10^-52 m^-2
Note that u and v are indices, not multiplicative factors.

[timey (OP)]

Mike - a woman who's name I posted earlier this thread (edit: Henrietta Swan Leavitt, as she should be remembered), noticed that there was a correlation between red shift and distance.*  Needless to say a speed would not be noticeable due to the photographic nature of the observation, impossible to observe in real time anyway, and is indeed more to the point entirely experimentally unverifiable.

*Actually to be more precise Leavitt discovered the luminosity-time period to determine distance, and:
quote wiki:

After Leavitt's death, Edwin Hubble used the luminosity–period relation for Cepheids together with spectral shifts first measured by fellow astronomer Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory to determine that the universe is expanding (see Hubble's law).

Hubble's interpretation added the velocity related aspect...
This interpretation can be interpreted differently to the same dimensions by  interpreting the observation as being related to this third time dilation, rather than being velocity related, where the rate of velocity of a red shift can be directly re-calculated as a rate of time.  Where we are now (of course) considering that galaxies are not expanding away from each other.

By knowing the mass of the star, and the distance of star, one can know the frequency the light started out with and the value of the g-field between.
The third time dilation I propose is inherent to the g-field where light will shift in frequency, as has been experimentally proven, and the third time dilation of the g-field will cause the light to take a longer time to travel.  i:e. physical cause for curvature.

Edit:  In reply to your post.   What I do understand is that the right hand expression of Einstein's equation is equal to the left side.  How it gets equal doesn't concern me.  What I'm interested in is the fact that without the added expression on the left side, Einstein's equation describes an expanding universe, so there must be some multiplying variable over time inclusive within the left side.
And that by adding the mathematical expression of his constant on the left side, to counteract this expansion over time, there must be an action that is negative with respect to this multiplying variable factor of the left side expression, within the additional expression of the constant to the left side in order to achieve the desired steady state universe that Einstein first sought.

Edit 2: The the multiplying factor over time may well occur on the right side for all I know, but that the equation without the added constant expression causes expansion, and that with it is stopping this expansion is where I'm coming from.

[timey (OP)]

In addition to post above:

Don't get me wrong Mike - I have watched the GR Susskind lectures and am well aware of the complexity that is summed up in those mathematical expressions.
I also understand that I can view the summing up of that complexity into the form of Einstein's equation as the bigger picture of that complexity.

So yes the logic of adding or not adding, or indeed subtracting this mathematical expression of Einstein's constant interests me for the reasons I've said above.

[Mike Gale]

Leavitt's story is unfortunately typical. Credit rarely goes where credit is due. Galileo, Kepler and Darwin are all guilty of the same crime. (I only recently learned of Kepler's guilt in that book you recommended by Smolin. A top rate book. It should be mandatory reading for all would be scientists.)

[Mike Gale]

Note that you can put the cosmological constant on either side of the equation. In fact, the energy density representation is traditionally placed on the RHS with a corresponding change in sign. The equality expressed in Einstein's field equation is that between spacetime curvature and energy.

[jeffreyH]

Contravariance, covariance, basis vectors and dual basis vectors. Vectors and 1-forms. Keep reading timey.

[McQueen]

  pasala:  Friends, I would like to add few lines, regarding my opinion on time dilation and c. Well, it is true that time dilates for two reasons gravity and velocity. 

It is almost axiomatic that gravity will affect not time, but a clock, this is especially so when a single second is equal to 9,192,631,770  ticks as in an atomic clock. Hence even raising the clock by a few centimetres will result in a difference in the gravitational potential and the loss of whatever fractions of a tick or tock that that translates to. But to say that this is a proof of General Relativity is absolutely nonsensical. It is understandable that if the tick (or tock) was really due to gravity that there should be a quantifiable difference in the time shown by clocks near the sun and clocks near the earth due to the gravitational force of the sun being proportionately greater and with the degrees of measurement available today this is probably what will be found if an experiment is done.     

On the other hand if the difference in time were really due to General Relativity the difference in time would not be measured in individual ticks or tocks or fractions of ticks and tocks but in whole minutes, this of course palpably does not happen. So to treat any slight variations in ticks and tocks as a proof of General Relativity is absurd.

Secondly any difference in time in clocks subjected to velocity is adequately explained using purely classical physics.  A clock on a plane automatically acquires the velocity of the plane itself and this might also cause a difference in a tick or a tock again nowhere near what is needed to satisfy relativity.

pasala : Speed of light: There are number of invisible things influencing speed of light.  At present we are taking two mirrors, focusing light on them and measuring the time taken to travel.  But we are feeling that outside is empty and that fresh ray is created each time.  This is not at all correct and no fresh ray is created. 

I agree with this assessment, it is another way of stating that looking at an object from a different point of  view does not necessarily result in a new frame of reference. As I have repeatedly pointed out the existence of a Universal aether would sort out all of these problems in a very prosaic, day to day manner, without any of the exoticism of GR or SR. Also if the speed of light is made constant and everything else is variable what can't you change? You can morph a kitten into a tiger and do anything else you want.

Coming back to the main gist of the argument,  it is a great , a very great pity,  that not enough attention is given to an investigation of the first causes surrounding the rise of special and general relativity. If the situation is examined it is found to be the ultimate absurdity. Michelson and Morley were looking for an aether that was several millions of time more rigid  than steel  yet permeable enough for the sun and the planets to pass easily through and at the same time was so elusive as to evade any attempts at detection. What is even more titillating or shocking, depending on one's point of view, is the fact that the Michelson & Morley non-experiment is still referred to today as if it were the ultimate proof that General Relativity and Special Relativity do in fact exist and are real tangible proofs of the way the Universe functions.  As the great GBS said: 'Politics is the last resource of the scoundrel.' It could be equally true to say that "Relativity (whether special or general) is the last resort of a desperate scientist."

All of the greatest Scientific minds including Poincare, Lorentz, Maxwell and indeed Einstein himself  truly believed that an aether especially one with electromagnetic properties would solve every problem in physics. Unfortunately no such aether model was forthcoming and as stated above special relativity and general relativity were accepted in an act of desperation since there was no other alternative. 

Today Neo-Classical physics ( also known as Gestalt Aether Theory) offers a model of the aether which accounts for every known phenomena in physics from electromagnetism, to radio waves to gravity and neutrinos.  This theory deserves greater notice.
 

[timey (OP)]

Leavitt's story is unfortunately typical. Credit rarely goes where credit is due. Galileo, Kepler and Darwin are all guilty of the same crime. (I only recently learned of Kepler's guilt in that book you recommended by Smolin. A top rate book. It should be mandatory reading for all would be scientists.)

Oh good Mike, I'm glad you rated the book.  I found it to be incredibly informative about where current theories do correspond with each other.  Smolin gives specific instruction about precisely which issues are causing problem, and provides a template within his book concerning the matters that need to be examined marked out in the 5 big questions that cause the current theories not to be unified.
Now I know you have read it, I will get my copy out and reread it that I may talk with you in more precise terms about these questions.

Smolin also talks about the relationship between non-mathematicians and mathematicians concerning theoretical physics, making interesting psychological observations, also giving description of the type of religious dogma that both mathematicians and non-mathematicians can fall foul of when trying to put forward new ideas, and the fact that this attitude towards new ideas can only hamper the progress of physics.

Where he has already laid out an examination of time itself within the remit of current physics, making observation of how SR, GR and the standard model regard the phenomenon of time and what those differences are, concludes the book in discussing his notion that the underlying fault in physics may lie with our perception of time, and that he would have to get his thinking cap on.

My model is derived straight from these observations that Smolin makes about time, where I have taken the view that time is a reactive phenomenon that is inherent to the universe itself, and that this time phenomenon is energy related.

So Einstein's equation and an equality between spacetime curvature and energy is exactly what I want to be looking at, and because my model changes the remit of Hubble's velocity related red shift interpretation, and the model is contracting from just after my model's differing rendition of an inflation period, the fact of adding in, not adding in, or subtracting the mathematical expression of Einstein's  constant to his original equation is also of relevance.  This being because re-interpreting the red shift distance correlation in the way I suggest results in a non-expanding universe, however because the universe must be either expanding or contracting, I look towards it contracting and am looking for a way to calculate that within the current maths.

But...there is a possibility within the remit of the reinterpretation my model makes of Hubble's velocity related red shifts that the universe may be a steady state of sorts.  This could only be so if there is a precise balance between the formation of black holes from matter, and the formation of stars and planets associated with the 'emissions' either from a black hole, or from the actions surrounding the event horizon that give rise to clouds of high energy particles.  There is some evidence to support this type of balance within the data concerning thunder clouds, in that positrons have been observed at high altitude (where there shouldn't be any) and high energy particle transitions are occurring.
In a steady state balanced universe what we would be looking at is a bit of a 'convection (?)' system of transference from one state to the other, and the vague possibility of particle creation within Compton scattering and high energy particle interaction.

This steady state balance does not give description of the Big Bang though. Therefore I prefer the contracting cyclic model that I'm proposing which suggests a bigger picture balance of an eventual transference over sequential time of all clumped matter back to individual particles via a universal singularity of 'all' matter in the form of a singular black hole.  Which without having any counterpart gravitational partner to be a balancing factor will explode. (This black hole of the final throws of a universes cycle could be described as the 'white hole' that you have mentioned)

However Mike (chuckle)... Although my mathematical understanding gets better by the day, it really will be quite some time before I will be able to juggle the complexities of current mathematics to competently describe a contracting model as I propose.
Therefore I am looking for a mathematician, in much the same way one might look for an architect to design the type of house one has in mind, who would be up for producing the mathematics that will describe my contracting model.
I know it can be done.  Anything can be calculated, (for better or worse, I appreciate).  It's just a case of my finding someone who wants to.

[timey (OP)]

Test post:

This topic is not refreshing to recent topics page.

[LB7]

Not at all, the mass doesn't exist, so what we called a mass is only an electromagnetic rotor, each piece of matter is an electromagnetic rotor. If the distance is low, the rotors can be in phase, so there is an attraction. If the distance is higher, (very far in Universe, not km !) the rotors can't be in phase and the gravity can be negative. The inertia is the energy needed to deform matter, and when a matter is moving there is a deformation, when an object moves in translation for example, the deformation gives a potential energy what we called "kinetic energy". So, the inertia mass is the same than the gravity, because the mass doesn't exist, there is only the inertia.

My theory needed only to create the energy and my device do it.

[Mike Gale]

Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.

[LB7]

She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself

I'm agree with that, for me, to change the clock I need a velocity or a mass (not 2 masses). It is explained easily: the matter (each part of matter) is an electromagnetic rotor. The is a high electromagnetic attraction followed by a high electromagnetic repulsion, the mean is an attraction when the distance is low (at level of Universe) and can be a repulsion at far distance when it is not possible to synchronized the rotors because there is an inertia and there is the problem of synchronized N rotors.

How the clock can change with a mass: the electromagnetic rotor (a planet for example) is synchronized with the "clock-particle" of the clock. The clock-particle of the clock rotate around itself at a velocity 'c' (light speed). Attraction: the clock-particle will accelerate because there is an attraction, but it is not possible because the clock-particle is already at 'c'. Repulsion: the clock-particle will decelerate and it can. So the clock-particle need more time to make its round. And a round is necessary to change a step of the matter.

I don't know what is the clock-particle but maybe it has no mass, in fact I don't need a mass for that particle.

I don't know exactly how it operate the attraction/repulsion of the electromagnetic field, especially in 3 dimensions, I would appreciate the Universe more in 2 dimensions because it could be easier to understand my theory and less maths. 

The attraction is very (very !) high like the repulsion, it is not a small attraction like gravity.

[Colin2B]

Or are you prejudice to the possibility that an uneducated non-mathematician is capable of inspired thought.

You really don't know me well enough to make that accusation. Those who do know me suggest I might lean in the opposite direction. May be partly due to in my early schooling being mis-streamed so spent a great deal of time with people the school judged to be 'below average'. In many cases below average does not mean lower intelligence, I saw many reasons – prolonged childhood illness (more common then), frequent school moves, lack of home support for learning are just some. I have remained friends with some of those school friends and despite their not having paper qualifications they are more than capable of inspired thought and it is interesting how many who, not having the paper qualifications for a job to match their capabilities, have set up and run their own very successful businesses.
I was fortunate in that my problem was diagnosed and treated, but the slow start meant I left school with no real qualifications. So I had to rely on evening classes to get the qualifications I needed to go into full-time study, but again in those evening classes I met intelligent thinkers who had missed out.
I have also spend quite a lot of time supporting adult numeracy courses, probably because of what I saw at school, and again I have met very intelligent people who have just not been well served by the school system they were in, or by personal circumstances. We had educational psychologists test our intake to see whether it was possible to tailor teaching technique to individual students, they commented that it  was interesting that, despite this being a self-selecting group, a large number scored well above average on both verbal and non-verbal reasoning tests. So no, I don't link intelligence and level of education.
And before you leap to a different conclusion, we have raised 3 daughters and I'm married to a very intelligent woman, so I have no illusions about the intelligence and technical ability of women.

To be honest I don't think you stopped to think before writing this, if you had you might have wondered why I previously suggested you were capable of an OU degree if you lack the ability to think. We might disagree on some ideas and calculations, but that doesn't mean I downrate your intelligence.

At the risk of causing even more misunderstanding:

No, I don't expect you to have a Damascus moment and decide current physics is perfect – even I don't think it is. What I did mean is based on my own experience anything new I learn is reflected back and may change my previous understanding – a sort of 'Ah that's what was meant'.

Neither do I intend to try and teach you relativity. The two items I mentioned show, in different ways, that the way Pete & I think about time dilation (and I'm sure Jeff as well) has common ground with some of your thoughts. Pete has some good diagrams that show why the usual textbook explanation  can be misleading, but for some reason they aren't showing in the browser, I've pm'd him about it.

I might remove this in a few days so as not to block the thread.

Pasala, LB7 and McQueen seem to be peddling new (and incomplete) theories of their own. The format of this forum is not conducive to that level of complexity. Let's try to stay focused, shall we? We're trying to figure out how timey's theory differs from mainstream physics. Comparisons with other fringe theories is not helpful. Here's the state of affairs as I understand them. Timey can correct me if I'm wrong.
She is proposing a new source of time dilation that is due to the gravitating mass itself as opposed to an interaction between masses. I don't understand the distinction yet and we have yet to establish the recipe, but I think she is trying to address the dark energy dilemma. She thinks that conventional relativity will be unaffected, but some aspects of it (spatial dilation I think) may have to be interpreted differently.

Mike
The open nature of the thread title makes it difficult to limit contributions from others. I've said before that the way the theory is presented and the analogies used don't help to make the ideas clear to a reader, particularly as they are spread over a large number of posts stretching back years.
Can I suggest that you agree with Timey a thread title something like 'Scoping and defining Inverted Time Theory'. I think it would be useful to have all the propositions, assumptions, effects eg how is light affected vs test mass, inputs eg evidence, etc and to do so in a brainstorming format ie no critique or analysis at this stage, just clarification.
That way it would be possible limit off topic contributions. I'm sure Jeff would agree to join me in policing any off topic input.




 

[timey (OP)]

Colin - it was a question not an accusation, but I am conscious of how others reading may perceive conversations that occur on this site, so thanks for your post above. Appreciated!