<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I said "often" because Newton made a logicl
requirement for that calculation, that the object under study must be symmmetric
for all the Integration to perfectly cancel out. When an object is not
symmetric, such as some asteroids, the Shell Theorems cannot apply.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We are discussing Newton's Theorems XXX and
XXXI.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You don't consider "Kepler's Laws" to be
mathematical calculations??? A hundred years after those CALCULATIONS of
Kepler, where he ignored the mass of the planets, Newton and his Fluxions
corrected them with the more accurate versions. Kepler had incorrectly
assumed that ONLY the Sun's mass counted for the math. Newton (with his
Theorems XXX and XXXI and others) corrected those errors and he even explained
and showed why. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Newton waas not aware that the Milky Way Galaxy was
an entity, or he would have made sure that no one should use Kepler's Laws for a
"distributed mass which was not symmetric".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>YOU claim to know the MASS of the Galaxy, but that
is likely to be incorrect as it is based on Kepler's Law regarding the position
and velocity of the Sun and Earth and its distsance to the
Core.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But I guess it is foolish to try to explain this
to someone who believes he is the smartest person who ever
lived.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>For anyone else, the process of trying to calculate
the parameters of the Galaxy are far more obscure than most people
realize. In the 1920s, star velocities were found for thousands of nearby
stars. The stars which are OPPOSITE the Core were found to appear to
"Drift" in a relatively common direction, and the ones that are TOWARD the Core
appeared to "Drift" very slightly faster. This isi essentially the
entirety of the available data. The DIRECTION of those Drifts was the
reason why we feel we are "orbiting" the Core, in a specific direction, called
the Apex of the Sun's Way. The DIFFERENCE of the two Drifts are the
entire source of information regarding how FAST we believe the Sun is orbitting
in the Galaxy. These VERY approximate estimates were then used in Kepler's
Law to calculate the mass of the Galaxy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>We don't actually even know WHERE the Core of the
Galaxy is. Yes, it is in the DIRECTION of sagittarius, but no one knows
how far away the Core is. The ONLY real evidence is based on the fact that
we know where a couple hundred Globular Clusters are, and it was assumed that
they are in a spherical pattern around the Core. We can never SEE the core
due to too much intervening material and gases, but most astronomers THINK it is
around 29,000 light years away from where we are. If you look, you will
see some experts who think it is much greater or less than that. And when
the above-mentioned "tangential velocity" and "radial distance" are put in
Kepler's Law, a value for the mass of the Galaxy is found. But experts
vary tremendously on that. Some of my associates think it is triple that
mass, while others think it is half. The accuracy of the minnimal data is
terrible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Around twenty years ago, I published an article
which discussed all this and more at <A
href="http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html">http://mb-soft.com/public/galaxy.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>A large graphic sky map is included which shows the
Apex of the Sun's Way, the Core, the tangential distance for us in the Galaxy,
andn they are quite far apart. The Apex of the Sun's Way is angled INWARD
from the alleged direction we are orbiting, and it is also UPWARD. Others
than me had done those calculations, which decently match up with my
figures. Given the THICKNESS of the Galaxy in our region, the UPWARD
velocity indicates that we will likely LEAVE THE GALAXY in only around nine
million years, which is totally illogical. THAT information was the basis
for my hypothesis that we are "cycling" up and down in our Arm, with a fairly
brief cycle time. Similar information regardingn the Apex of the Sun's Way
showed me that we are also currently moving "coreward" at a minimal velocity,
where we will soon (a couple million years) stop and begin to accelerate toward
the mass of the stasrs in our Arm. Rather than using Kepler's Law for such
calculations, I had to INDIVIDUALLY calculate the gravitational attraction of
each star for the Sun, and then numerically Integrate that net Force, which
resulted in my math saying that we cycle radially in our Arm with a period of
around 52 million years and we are currently around 13 million years from having
passed theough the Arm centerline.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In 1997, relatively few observational astronomers
used powerful computers. I KNOW because I ASKED a number of my associates
about needing more powerful computers than the four PCs which I had running
nearly constantly in doing all the Newton gravitational Force calculations and
summing them, and then repeating all that for various locations along the
"cross-Arm cycle path". I had to do all that to arrive at the 52 million
year cycle period. At the time, few of them were using even their
University computers for very significant math. I hope that has changed
now. Since I was in regular communication with those Astronomy
Departments at the time, I suppose I should not be surprised that YOU KNOW
that they had results that they then kept secret from me. Several of them
ENCOURAGED my efforts and even awaited my results at the time. Obviously,
they informed YOU of the "more accurate results" that I was then struggling to
calculate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>