Philosophy of space and time.

The existence and nature of space and time (or space-time) are central topics in the philosophy of physics.

Time.

Time is often thought to be a fundamental quantity (that is, a quantity which cannot be defined in terms of other quantities), because time seems like a fundamentally basic concept, such that one cannot define it in terms of anything simpler. However, certain theories such as loop quantum gravity claim that spacetime is emergent. As Carlo Rovelli, one of the founders of loop quantum gravity has said: "No more fields on spacetime: just fields on fields". Time is defined via measurement—by its standard time interval. Currently, the standard time interval (called "conventional second", or simply "second") is defined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a hyperfine transition in the 133 caesium atom. (ISO 31-1). What time is and how it works follows from the above definition. Time then can be combined mathematically with the fundamental quantities of space and mass to define concepts such as velocity, momentum, energy, and fields.  Both Newton and Galileo, as well as most people up until the 20th century, thought that time was the same for everyone everywhere. The modern conception of time is based on Einstein's theory of relativity and Minkowski's spacetime, in which rates of time run differently in different inertial frames of reference, and space and time are merged into spacetime. Time may be quantized, with the theoretical smallest time being on the order of the Planck time. Einstein's general relativity as well as the redshift of the light from receding distant galaxies indicate that the entire Universe and possibly space-time itself began about 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. Einstein's theory of special relativity mostly (though not universally) made theories of time where there is something metaphysically special about the present seem much less plausible, as the reference-frame-dependence of time seems to not allow the idea of a privileged present moment.

Time travel.

Some theories, most notably special and general relativity, suggest that suitable geometries of spacetime, or certain types of motion in space, may allow time travel into the past and future. Concepts that aid such understanding include the closed timelike curve.  Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity (and, by extension, the general theory) predicts time dilation that could be interpreted as time travel. The theory states that, relative to a stationary observer, time appears to pass more slowly for faster-moving bodies: for example, a moving clock will appear to run slow; as a clock approaches the speed of light its hands will appear to nearly stop moving. The effects of this sort of time dilation are discussed further in the popular "twin paradox". These results are experimentally observable and affect the operation of GPS satellites and other high-tech systems used in daily life.  A second, similar type of time travel is permitted by general relativity. In this type a distant observer sees time passing more slowly for a clock at the bottom of a deep gravity well, and a clock lowered into a deep gravity well and pulled back up will indicate that less time has passed compared to a stationary clock that stayed with the distant observer.  Many in the scientific community believe that backward time travel is highly unlikely, because it violates causality i.e. the logic of cause and effect. For example, what happens if you attempt to go back in time and kill yourself at an earlier stage in your life (or your grandfather, which leads to the grandfather paradox)? Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes a strong argument against the existence of time travel— a variant of the Fermi paradox, with time travelers instead of alien visitors.

Space.

Space is one of the few fundamental quantities in physics, meaning that it cannot be defined via other quantities because there is nothing more fundamental known at present. Thus, similar to the definition of other fundamental quantities (like time and mass), space is defined via measurement. Currently, the standard space interval, called a standard metre or simply metre, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second (exact).  In classical physics, space is a three-dimensional Euclidean space where any position can be described using three coordinates and parameterised by time. Special and general relativity use four-dimensional spacetime rather than three-dimensional space; and currently there are many speculative theories which use more than four spatial dimensions.

Philosophy of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is a large focus of contemporary philosophy of physics, specifically concerning the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Very broadly, much of the philosophical work that is done in quantum theory is trying to make sense of superposition states: the property that particles seem to not just be in one determinate position at one time, but are somewhere 'here', and also 'there' at the same time. Such a radical view turns many common sense metaphysical ideas on their head. Much of contemporary philosophy of quantum mechanics aims to make sense of what the very empirically successful formalism of quantum mechanics tells us about the physical world.

The Everett interpretation.

The Everett, or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics claims that the wave-function of a quantum system is telling us claims about the reality of that physical system. It denies wavefunction collapse, and claims that superposition states should be interpreted literally as describing the reality of many-worlds where objects are located, and not simply indicating the indeterminacy of those variables. This is sometimes argued as a corollary of scientific realism, which states that scientific theories aim to give us literally true descriptions of the world.  One issue for the Everett interpretation is the role that probability plays on this account. The Everettian account is completely deterministic, whereas probability seems to play an ineliminable role in quantum mechanics. Contemporary Everettians have argued that one can get an account of probability that follows the Born Rule through certain decision-theoretic proofs.  Physicist Roland Omnés noted that it is impossible to experimentally differentiate between Everett's view, which says that as the wave-function decoheres into distinct worlds, each of which exists equally, and the more traditional view that says that a decoherent wave-function leaves only one unique real result. Hence, the dispute between the two views represents a great "chasm." "Every characteristic of reality has reappeared in its reconstruction by our theoretical model; every feature except one: the uniqueness of facts."

Uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle is a mathematical relation asserting an upper limit to the accuracy of the simultaneous measurement of any pair of conjugate variables, e.g. position and momentum. In the formalism of operator notation, this limit is the evaluation of the commutator of the variables' corresponding operators.  The uncertainty principle arose as an answer to the question: How does one measure the location of an electron around a nucleus if an electron is a wave? When quantum mechanics was developed, it was seen to be a relation between the classical and quantum descriptions of a system using wave mechanics.  In March 1927, working in Niels Bohr's institute, Werner Heisenberg formulated the principle of uncertainty thereby laying the foundation of what became known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg had been studying the papers of Paul Dirac and Pascual Jordan. He discovered a problem with measurement of basic variables in the equations. His analysis showed that uncertainties, or imprecisions, always turned up if one tried to measure the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time. Heisenberg concluded that these uncertainties or imprecisions in the measurements were not the fault of the experimenter, but fundamental in nature and are inherent mathematical properties of operators in quantum mechanics arising from definitions of these operators.  The term Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was often used interchangeably with and as a synonym for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by detractors (such as Einstein and the physicist Alfred Landé) who believed in determinism and saw the common features of the Bohr–Heisenberg theories as a threat. Within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle was taken to mean that on an elementary level, the physical universe does not exist in a deterministic form, but rather as a collection of probabilities, or possible outcomes. For example, the pattern (probability distribution) produced by millions of photons passing through a diffraction slit can be calculated using quantum mechanics, but the exact path of each photon cannot be predicted by any known method. The Copenhagen interpretation holds that it cannot be predicted by any method, not even with theoretically infinitely precise measurements.

History of the philosophy of physics.

Aristotelian physics.

Aristotelian physics viewed the universe as a sphere with a center. Matter, composed of the classical elements, earth, water, air, and fire, sought to go down towards the center of the universe, the center of the earth, or up, away from it. Things in the aether such as the moon, the sun, planets, or stars circled the center of the universe. Movement is defined as change in place, i.e. space.

Newtonian physics.

The implicit axioms of Aristotelian physics with respect to movement of matter in space were superseded in Newtonian physics by Newton's First Law of Motion. "Every body" includes the Moon, and an apple; and includes all types of matter, air as well as water, stones, or even a flame. Nothing has a natural or inherent motion. Absolute space being three-dimensional Euclidean space, infinite and without a center. Being "at rest" means being at the same place in absolute space over time. The topology and affine structure of space must permit movement in a straight line at a uniform velocity; thus both space and time must have definite, stable dimensions.

Leibniz.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, 1646 – 1716, was a contemporary of Newton. He contributed a fair amount to the statics and dynamics emerging around him, often disagreeing with Descartes and Newton. He devised a new theory of motion (dynamics) based on kinetic energy and potential energy, which posited space as relative, whereas Newton was thoroughly convinced that space was absolute. An important example of Leibniz's mature physical thinking is his "Specimen Dynamicum" of 1695.  Until the discovery of subatomic particles and the quantum mechanics governing them, many of Leibniz's speculative ideas about aspects of nature not reducible to statics and dynamics made little sense. For instance, he anticipated Albert Einstein by arguing, against Newton, that space, time and motion are relative, not absolute: "As for my own opinion, I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something merely relative, as time is, that I hold it to be an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions."

Quotes from Einstein's work on the importance of the philosophy of physics.

Albert Einstein was extremely interested in the philosophical conclusions of his work. He writes:  "I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." Einstein. letter to Robert A. Thornton, 7 December 1944. "EA" 61–574.  Elsewhere:  "How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment.... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc."  "The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long-commonplace concepts and exhibiting [revealing, exposing? -Ed.] those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken." Einstein, 1916, "Memorial notice for Ernst Mach," "Physikalische Zeitschrift" 17: 101–02.

In philosophy, philosophy of physics deals with conceptual and interpretational issues in modern physics, many of which overlap with research done by certain kinds of theoretical physicists. Philosophy of physics can be broadly lumped into three areas:

Die Philosophie der Physik kann als ein Teilgebiet der Wissenschaftstheorie oder der Naturphilosophie und damit der Ontologie verstanden werden und beschäftigt sich mit philosophischen Problemen, die Theorien der modernen Physik aufwerfen sowie mit konzeptionellen Grundlagen dieser Theorien.


Preparations.

At the end of 1455, John Hunyadi began preparations for the defence of Belgrade. At his own expense, he provisioned and armed the fortress with a strong garrison under the command of his brother-in-law Mihály Szilágyi and his own eldest son László. Hunyadi then proceeded to form a relief army and an additional fleet of two hundred corvettes. The barons feared Hunyadi's growing power more than the Ottoman threat and left him entirely to his own devices.  An Italian Franciscan friar allied to Hunyadi, Giovanni da Capistrano, preached a crusade to attract peasants and local countryside landlords to Hunyadi's cause. The recruits were ill-armed, many with only slings and scythes, but they were highly motivated. The recruits came under Hunyadi's banner, the core of which consisted of smaller bands of seasoned mercenaries and a few groups of minor knights. All in all, Hunyadi managed to build a force of 25–30,000 men.

Siege.

Before Hunyadi could assemble his forces, the army of Mehmed II (160,000 men in early accounts, 60-70,000 according to newer research) arrived at Belgrade. The siege began on July 4, 1456. Szilágyi could rely on a force of only 5,000-7,000 men in the castle. Mehmed set up his siege on the neck of the headland and started heavily bombarding the city's walls on June 29. He arrayed his men in three sections: The Rumelian corps had the majority of his 300 cannons, while his fleet of 200 river war vessels had the rest of them. The Rumelians were arrayed on the right wing and the Anatolian corps were arrayed on the left. In the middle were the personal guards of the Sultan, the Janissaries, and his command post. The Anatolian corps and the Janissaries were both heavy infantry troops. Mehmed posted his river vessels mainly to the northwest of the city to patrol the marshes and ensure that the fortress was not reinforced. They also kept an eye on the Sava river to the southwest to avoid the infantry from being outflanked by Hunyadi's army. The zone from the Danube eastwards was guarded by the Sipahi, the Sultan's feudal heavy cavalry corps, to avoid being outflanked on the right.  When Hunyadi was informed of this, he was in the south of Hungary recruiting additional light cavalry troops for the army, with which he would intend to lift the siege. Although relatively few, his fellow nobles were willing to provide manpower, and the peasants were more than willing to do so. Friar John of Capistrano had been sent to Hungary by the Vatican both to preach against heretics and to preach a crusade against the Ottomans. Capistrano managed to raise a large, albeit poorly trained and equipped, peasant army, with which he advanced towards Belgrade. Capistrano and Hunyadi traveled together though commanding the army separately. Both of them had gathered around 40,000-50,000 troops altogether.  The outnumbered defenders relied mainly on the strength of the formidable castle of Belgrade, which was at the time one of the best engineered in the Balkans. Belgrade had been designated as the capital of the Serbian Despotate by Stefan Lazarević 53 years prior.  The fortress was designed in an elaborate form with three lines of defense: the inner castle with the palace, a huge upper town with the main military camps, four gates and a double wall, as well as the lower town with the cathedral in the urban center and a port at the Danube. This building endeavor was one of the most elaborate military architecture achievements of the Middle Ages. After the Siege, the Hungarians reinforced the north and eastern side with an additional gate and several towers, one of which, the Nebojša Tower, was designed for artillery purposes.  On July 14, 1456, Hunyadi arrived to the completely encircled city with his flotilla on the Danube, while the Ottoman navy lay astride the Danube River. He broke the naval blockade on July 14, sinking three large Ottoman galleys and capturing four large vessels and 20 smaller ones. By destroying the Sultan's fleet, Hunyadi was able to transport his troops and much-needed food into the city. The fort's defense was also reinforced.  But Mehmed II was not willing to end the siege and after a week of heavy bombardment, the walls of the fortress were breached in several places. On July 21 Mehmed ordered an all-out assault that began at sundown and continued all night. The besieging army flooded the city and then started its assault on the fort. As this was the most crucial moment of the siege, Hunyadi ordered the defenders to throw tarred wood and other flammable material, and then set it afire. Soon a wall of flames separated the Janissaries fighting in the city from their fellow soldiers trying to breach through the gaps into the upper town. The fierce battle between the encircled Janissaries and Szilágyi's soldiers inside the upper town was turning in favour of the Christians, and the Hungarians managed to beat off the fierce assault from outside the walls. The Janissaries remaining inside the city were thus massacred while the Ottoman troops trying to breach the upper town suffered heavy losses.

Battle.

The next day something unexpected happened. By some accounts, the peasant crusaders started a spontaneous action, and forced Capistrano and Hunyadi to make use of the situation. Despite Hunyadi's orders to the defenders not to try to loot the Ottoman positions, some of the units crept out from demolished ramparts, took up positions across from the Ottoman line, and began harassing enemy soldiers. Ottoman Sipahis tried without success to disperse the harassing force. At once, more defenders joined those outside the wall. What began as an isolated incident quickly escalated into a full-scale battle.  John of Capistrano at first tried to order his men back inside the walls, but soon found himself surrounded by about 2,000 peasant levymen. He then began leading them toward the Ottoman lines, crying, "The Lord who made the beginning will take care of the finish!" Capistrano led his crusaders to the Ottoman rear across the Sava river. At the same time, Hunyadi started a desperate charge out of the fort to take the cannon positions in the Ottoman encampment.  Taken by surprise at this strange turn of events and, as some chroniclers say, seemingly paralyzed by some inexplicable fear, the Ottomans took flight. The Sultan's bodyguard of about 5,000 Janissaries tried desperately to stop the panic and recapture the camp, but by that time Hunyadi's army had also joined the unplanned battle, and the Ottoman efforts became hopeless. The Sultan himself advanced into the fight and killed a knight in single combat, but then took an arrow in the thigh and was rendered unconscious. After the battle, the Hungarian raiders were ordered to spend the night behind the walls of the fortress and to be on the alert for a possible renewal of the battle, but the Ottoman counterattack never came.  Under cover of darkness the Ottomans retreated in haste, bearing their wounded in 140 wagons. They withdrew to Constantinople.

Aftermath.

However, the Hungarians paid dearly for this victory. Plague broke out in the camp, from which John Hunyadi himself died three weeks later (August 11, 1456). He was buried in the Cathedral of "Gyulafehérvár" (now Alba Iulia), the capital of Transylvania.  As the design of the fortress had proved its merits during the siege, some additional reinforcements were made by the Hungarians. The weaker eastern walls, where the Ottomans broke through into the upper town were reinforced by the Zindan gate and the heavy Nebojša tower. This was the last of the great modifications to the fortress until 1521, when Mehmed's great-grandson Suleiman eventually captured it.

Noon Bell.

Pope Callixtus III ordered the bells of every European church to be rung every day at noon, as a call for believers to pray for the defenders of the city. The practice of the noon bell is traditionally attributed to the international commemoration of the victory at Belgrade and to the order of Pope Callixtus III, since in many countries (like England and the Spanish Kingdoms) news of the victory arrived before the order, and the ringing of the church bells at noon was thus transformed into a commemoration of the victory. The Pope didn't withdraw the order, and Catholic and the older Protestant churches still ring the noon bell to this day.  This custom still exists also among Protestant and Orthodox congregations. In the history of the University of Oxford, the victory was welcomed with the ringing of bells and great celebrations in England. Hunyadi sent a special courier, Erasmus Fullar, among others to Oxford with the news of the victory.

Legacy.

The victory stopped the Ottoman advance towards Europe for 70 years, though they made other incursions such as the taking of Otranto between 1480 and 1481; and the raid of Croatia and Styria in 1493. Belgrade would continue to protect Hungary from Ottoman attacks until the fort fell to the Ottomans in 1521.  After the Siege of Belgrade stopped the advance of Mehmed II towards Central Europe; Serbia and Bosnia were absorbed into the Empire. Wallachia, the Crimean Khanate, and eventually Moldavia were merely converted into vassal states due to the strong military resistance to Mehmed's attempts of conquest. There were several reasons of why the Sultan did not directly attack Hungary and why he gave up the idea of advancing in that direction after his unsuccessful siege of Belgrade. The mishap at Belgrade indicated that the Empire could not expand further until Serbia and Bosnia were transformed into a secure base of operations. Furthermore, the significant political and military power of Hungary under Matthias Corvinus in the region surely influenced this hesitation too. Moreover, Mehmed was also distracted in his attempts to suppress insubordination from his Moldovan and Wallachian vassals.  With Hunyadi's victory at Belgrade, both Vlad III the Impaler and Stephen III of Moldavia came to power in their own domains, and Hunyadi himself went to great lengths to have his son Matthias placed on the Hungarian throne.  While fierce resistance and Hunyadi's effective leadership ensured that the daring and ambitious Sultan Mehmed would only get as far into Europe as the Balkans, the Sultan had already managed to transform the Ottoman Empire into what would become one of the most feared powers in Europe (as well as in Asia) for centuries. Most of Hungary was eventually conquered in 1526 at the Battle of Mohács. Ottoman Muslim expansion into Europe continued with menacing success until the Siege of Vienna in 1529, although Ottoman power in Europe remained strong and still threatening to Central Europe at times until the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

Literature.

It is claimed that, after the defeat and while he and his army were retreating into Bulgaria, this sound defeat as well as the ensuing loss of no less than 24.000 of his best soldiers, angered Mehmed in such a manner that, in an uncontrollable fit of fury, he wounded a number of his generals with his own sword, just before getting them executed. The Sultan later came into conflict with Stephen III of Moldavia, resulting in an even worse defeat at Battle of Vaslui and later a pyrrhic victory at the Battle of Valea Albă.  A fictional account from the viewpoint of a Christian mercenary is Christian Cameron, "Tom Swan and the Siege of Belgrade" (Orion,2014-2016).

The Siege of Belgrade, Battle of Belgrade or Siege of Nándorfehérvár (; lit. "Triumph of Nándorfehérvár") was a military blockade of Belgrade that occurred from July 4–22, 1456. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror rallied his resources in order to subjugate the Kingdom of Hungary. His immediate objective was the border fort of the town of Belgrade (in ). John Hunyadi, the Count of Temes and captain-general of Hungary, who had fought many battles against the Turks in the previous two decades, prepared the defenses of the fortress.

Die Belagerung Belgrads (altungarisch "Nándorfehérvár") dauerte vom 4. bis zum 22. Juli 1456. Die zum Königreich Ungarn gehörende Stadt war nach der Eroberung von Konstantinopel in das Blickfeld des osmanischen Sultans Mehmed II. geraten, und ihr Besitz hätte zweifellos eine gute Ausgangsbasis für die weitere Eroberung ungarischer Gebiete abgegeben.


Life and career.

Hannen Swaffer was born in Lindfield, Sussex, the eldest of eight children of a Folkestone draper, Henry Joseph Swaffer, and his wife, Kate Eugenie Hannen. He was educated first at St George's Church of England School in Ramsgate and then at Stroud Green Grammar School, Kent, and joined a local newspaper in Folkestone as an apprentice reporter. His first published article was a review of a performance by George Grossmith at the local town hall. Swaffer's reviews were so vituperative that he was banned from the local theatre, the first of many such bans during his career. While at Folkestone he read Robert Blatchford's book of socialist essays, "Merrie England", and adopted its left-wing views for the rest of his life.  After further experience in provincial journalism, he joined the "Daily Mail" in 1902, and worked for its proprietor Alfred Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe) for the next seventeen years. Swaffer married Helen Hannah, daughter of John Sitton, a Clapham grocer, in 1904; they had no children. They remained married until her death in 1956, although he left her at intervals for various mistresses.  He was editor of Northcliffe's "Weekly Dispatch" and then helped develop the "Daily Mirror", originally a paper for women, into a mass-market title. In 1913, he initiated "Mr Gossip" for the "Daily Sketch". He also began "Mr London" for "The Daily Graphic", and contributed the "Plays and Players" column to "The Sunday Times". Swaffer was appointed editor of "The People" in 1924, but was unsuited to the duties of editing a paper, and held the post for only a few months. He became drama critic of the "Daily Express" and its sister "Sunday Express" in 1926. Later, he said that although he enjoyed the company of actors, he disliked having to watch them acting, and he accused Noël Coward and others of being "non-existent talents".  Swaffer became interested in spiritualism in the 1930s; it became one of the causes he promoted, along with socialism and the abolition of the death penalty. He claimed that his spiritualist circle had conjured up the ghost of his former employer, Northcliffe, as well as those of other dead celebrities.  "The Manchester Guardian" commented on Swaffer's "air of self-importance equal to that of Bernard Shaw himself... he raised professional egotism to a fine art." Described by "The Times" as "something of a "poseur"", he was conspicuous for his flamboyant clothes, and was, according to "The British Journalism Review", "remembered for little more than the mixture of dandruff and cigarette ash on his velvet collar, and for defining freedom of the press as 'freedom to print such of the proprietor's prejudices as the advertisers don't object to'." He claimed to have renounced his early anti-Semitic views, but it has been said that he remained implacably racist and attempted to have black actors banned from the theatre. On the other hand, a study of the press and the holocaust highlighted his "solitary voice of protest" and outrage in the "Daily Herald" against mass pogroms of Jews in Poland.  For some years in the 1950s, he wrote a regular column in the then popular Sunday paper "The People", headed by an image of his part-profile and trademark hat.  Swaffer died in London at the age of eighty-two, having outlived his wife by six years.  His books included "Northcliffe's Return" (1925), "Really Behind the Scenes" (1929), "Hannen Swaffer's Who's Who" (1929) and "Inspiration" (1929). After the British Press Awards were established in the year of his death, they were, for their first four years, named in his honour. A biography of Swaffer by Tom Driberg was published in 1974.

Frederick Charles Hannen Swaffer (1 November 1879 – 16 January 1962) was an English journalist and drama critic. Although his views were left-wing, he worked mostly for right-wing publications, many of them owned by Lord Northcliffe. He was a proponent of spiritualism, and an opponent of capital punishment.

Hannen Swaffer (* 1. November 1879 in Lindfield, Sussex, England; † 16. Januar 1962 in London) war ein britischer Journalist und Theaterkritiker.


Design.

In the case of ball bearings, the bearing has inner and outer "races" and a set of balls. Each race is a ring with a groove where the balls rest. The groove is usually shaped so the ball is a slightly loose fit in the groove. Thus, in principle, the ball contacts each race at a single point. However, a load on an infinitely small point would cause infinitely high contact pressure. In practice, the ball deforms (flattens) slightly where it contacts each race, much as a tire flattens where it touches the road. The race also dents slightly where each ball presses on it. Thus, the contact between ball and race is of finite size and has finite pressure. The deformed ball and race do not roll entirely smoothly because different parts of the ball are moving at different speeds as it rolls. Thus, there are opposing forces and sliding motions at each ball/race contact. Overall, these cause bearing drag. "V" groove raceways distribute the load evenly over the balls as they travel on four points of contact, creating a straight line rolling effect and decreasing the amount of friction created by a full contact round groove design.  In some applications the two races may be arranged on plates parallel to the plane of the balls, rather than on inner and outer sleeves. In this case, the inner and outer sides of the grooves that form the race should have different angles with respect to this plane, with a steeper angle on the inside groove and a shallower angle on the outside groove, so that each ball can rotate properly without slipping.

Manufacture.

Centerless grinding.

The outer diameter (OD) of the races are often centerless ground using the throughfeed process. Centerless grinding can achieve a very high degree of accuracy, especially when done in stages. These stages are: rough, semi-finish and finish. Each grinding stage is designed to remove enough stock material from the casing so that the next stage does not encounter any problems such as burning or surface chatter, the finish stage achieves the final dimension. Each grinding wheel at all of the aforementioned stages has a varying degree of abrasive quality (finish being the finest grade) to achieve the appropriate stock removal for the next stage and final surface finish required.

Feeding.

Bearing casings are introduced to the grinding action via means of a transfer from the delivery system to a pair of infeed rollers, these infeed rollers are tapered to a certain angle so that the casings are driven forward until the regulating wheel and grinding wheel catch them and slow them to their grinding speed which can be altered by speed control of the regulating wheel. The casings are constantly rotating and are fed into the grinding area to prevent separation which can cause finish/size problems or even a "bump" that can potentially crack or destroy casings and will damage the grinding and regulating wheels.

Work rest blade.

Whilst grinding, the bearing cases run through the grinding stages in one long tube of casings that is showered with a cutting fluid. The 'tube' rests on a hardened steel blade with an angled, highly ground surface held on a horizontal plane between the grinding wheel and regulating wheel, often named a Work Rest Blade, the tube causes wear on the working surface of the blade so it must be reground at regular intervals. The height of the work rest blade perfectly aligns the bearing casing with the horizontal centreline of the grinding wheel creating a flawless ground finish, the work rest blade height can be altered using packing bars placed underneath the blade, height adjustments must be made depending on the diameter of the casings being ground.

Inspection.

Each casing exits the grinding zone onto a high speed conveyor that delivers them to whatever storage and/or inspection arrangement a manufacturer may have, inspection is also carried out by the operator of the centreless line, by checking finish appearance, diameter, squareness and roundness by use of a dial test indicator in varying configurations, size allowances are permitted but are extremely tight depending on the customers requirements and can vary plus or minus within micrometres of finish diameter, Sizes can be adjusted on all grinding stages via a compensation button which can be pushed to remove extra material in varying micrometre units, the grinding wheel can move away at the same compensation to make the casings bigger if so required if the casing size moves from the operators target, and as the grinding wheel wears. Because a centerless grinding line has typically three grinding machines the operator must be in complete control and must prevent blockages in transfers, grinding exits and packing areas, also size and quality must constantly be checked, so the operator is always alert while operating the line and checking for problems and quality issues.

Safety.

Safety features include an emergency stop button which immediately moves the grinding wheel away from the ground rings on its revolutionary axis. Because of the wheel's momentum, it cannot be stopped but the power is cut and the wheel slows naturally, it cannot be reactivated until the emergency stop is reset. After the emergency stop is activated, the size of the workpiece must be re-established before the line can be reactivated into production mode.

Finishing.

The outer and inner bearing casings are then sent on for raceway grinding, superfinishing and final assembly.

The rolling-elements of a rolling-element bearing ride on races. The large race that goes into a bore is called the "outer race", and the small race that the shaft rides in is called the "inner race".

Lagerschalen dienen bei Wälzlagern zum Abrollen und Abstützen der Wälzkörper. Lagerschalen werden dort auch als Lagerringe oder Lageraußenring und Lagerinnenring bezeichnet. Bei einigen Bauformen (z. B. Kegelrollenlager) sind Innenring und Wälzkörper durch einen Käfig verbunden, was bei einigen Herstellern als Lager oder ZSB-Lager und der entsprechende Außenring als Lagerschale bezeichnet wird.


Background.

After the conquest of the South Pole by Roald Amundsen in December 1911 Shackleton, who had sought this achievement himself, was forced to rethink his polar ambitions. He believed that there remained "one great main objective of Antarctic journeyings—the crossing of the South Polar continent from sea to sea." Basing his strategy on plans developed earlier by the Scottish explorer William Spiers Bruce, Shackleton planned to land with his main party as far south as possible, on the Weddell Sea coast. His transcontinental team would then march southward to the Pole, before continuing across the polar plateau and descending via the Beardmore Glacier (which Shackleton had discovered in 1909) to the Great Ice Barrier. The final stretch would take them across the Barrier to McMurdo Sound on the Ross Sea coast.  Shackleton estimated that the crossing would cover approximately, a distance too great for his party to carry all its supplies. In support of the main journey, therefore, a separate Ross Sea party would land in McMurdo Sound and would lay a series of supply depots across the width of the Barrier, to assist the crossing group home. It would also carry out scientific investigations. Shackleton described the depot-laying as vital to the success of the whole undertaking, but believed it would not present any great difficulties in execution. He would later provide the leader of his Ross Sea support party with conflicting instructions on the task; stating on one hand it was of "supreme importance" to have the depots laid, but on the other that he would be carrying what he described as "sufficient provisions and equipment" to cross Antarctica to McMurdo Sound. In a letter of 18 September 1914 Shackleton stated that he did not want his support party to "have the anxiety of feeling" that he was absolutely dependent on the depots – "in case some very serious accident" incapacitated the depot-laying. The Ross Sea party's vessel would be SY "Aurora", a ship recently used by Douglas Mawson and the Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

Personnel.

To lead the Ross Sea party Shackleton chose Aeneas Mackintosh, having first attempted to persuade the Admiralty to provide him with a naval crew. Mackintosh, like Shackleton, was a former Merchant Navy officer, who had been on the Nimrod expedition until his participation was cut short by an accident that resulted in the loss of his right eye. Another "Nimrod" veteran, Ernest Joyce, whose Antarctic experiences had begun with Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, was appointed to take charge of sledging and dogs. Joyce was described by Shackleton's biographer, Roland Huntford, as "a strange mixture of fraud, flamboyance and ability", but his depot-laying work during the Nimrod expedition had impressed Shackleton. On Nimrod, Joyce led the team that laid vital supplies for Shackleton's returning southern party, and Shackleton said "Joyce knows his work well". Ernest Wild, a Royal Naval petty officer, was added to the party possibly through the persuasion of his brother, Frank Wild, who was travelling as Shackleton's second-in-command on "Endurance".  Some of the appointments to the party were made rather hurriedly, reflecting the limited time frame that Shackleton had allowed for preliminary organisation. Joseph Stenhouse, a young officer from the British India Steam Navigation Company, was appointed as the "Aurora"'s First Officer after travelling from Australia to London to seek an interview with Shackleton. The Reverend Arnold Spencer-Smith, a Scottish Episcopal Church priest and former schoolmaster, joined as a replacement for one of the original members of the expedition who had left for active service in the First World War. Victor Hayward, a London finance clerk with a taste for adventure was recruited on the basis of his having worked on a ranch in Canada.  Although the Ross Sea party's main role was to lay supply depots, Shackleton added a small scientific team to carry out biological, meteorological and magnetic research in the region. The chief scientist in this group was Alexander Stevens, a Scots geologist and former theology student. John Cope, a 21-year-old Cambridge graduate, was the team's biologist; a would-be medical student, he later became ship's surgeon. Two other scientists were appointed in Australia, the physicist Dick Richards (who signed up for a nominal wage of £1 per week) and industrial chemist Keith Jack. An Australian cousin of Spencer-Smith's, Irvine Gaze, was taken on as a general assistant.

Problems in Australia.

Mackintosh and the nucleus of the party arrived in Sydney, late in October 1914. They found that "Aurora" was in no condition for an Antarctic voyage, and required an extensive overhaul. The registration of the ship in Shackleton's name had not been properly completed, and Shackleton had evidently misunderstood the terms under which he had acquired the vessel from Mawson. Mawson had reclaimed much of the equipment and stores that had been aboard, all of which needed replacing. To compound the problem, Shackleton had reduced the funds available to Mackintosh from £2,000 to £1,000, expecting him to bridge the difference by soliciting for supplies as free gifts and by mortgaging the ship. There was no cash available to cover the wages and living expenses for the party.  Shackleton was now beyond reach, aboard "Endurance" en route for Antarctica. Supporters of the expedition in Australia, notably Edgeworth David who had served as chief scientist on the Nimrod expedition, were concerned at the plight in which Mackintosh's party had been placed. They helped to raise sufficient funds to keep the expedition alive, but several members of the party resigned or abandoned the venture. Some of the last-minute replacements were raw recruits; Adrian Donnelly, a locomotive engineer with no sea experience, signed as second engineer, while wireless operator Lionel Hooke was an 18-year-old electrical apprentice.  Despite all these difficulties, "Aurora" set out from Sydney on 15 December 1914, bound for Hobart, where she arrived on 20 December to take on final stores and fuel. On 24 December, three weeks later than the original target sailing date, the "Aurora" finally sailed for the Antarctic, arriving off Ross Island on 16 January 1915. Mackintosh decided to establish a shore base at Cape Evans, Captain Scott's headquarters during the 1910–13 Terra Nova Expedition, and to find a safe winter mooring nearby for "Aurora". Joyce called this decision of Mackintosh to winter the ship – which would have serious ramifications later on – as "the silliest damn rot that could have possibly occurred". It was the first of a number of decisions by Mackintosh that Joyce disagreed with.

First season, 1914–15.

Depot-laying, January–March 1915.

Believing that Shackleton might attempt a crossing during the first season, Mackintosh decided that the first two depots had to be laid without delay, one at 79°S near Minna Bluff, a prominent Barrier landmark, and another further south at the 80° mark. These were, in his view, the minimum that would enable Shackleton's party to survive a crossing of the Barrier. The delayed arrival of "Aurora" in the Antarctic had given little time for acclimatisation for the dogs and for the untrained men, and this led to differences of view about how to proceed. Ernest Joyce, by far the most experienced Antarctic traveller in the party, favoured a cautious approach and wanted to delay the start by at least a week. Joyce claimed that Shackleton had given him independent control over sledging activities, a view rejected by Mackintosh and later demonstrated as without foundation.  Mackintosh's view having prevailed, on 24 January 1915 the first of three parties set out for the Barrier journey, the others following on the next day. Further dissension soon arose between Joyce and Mackintosh about how far south the dogs should be taken. Joyce wanted them to go no further than the Bluff, but Mackintosh's sense of urgency meant that they were taken on to 80°S. A further setback was the failure of the attempts to move stores by motor tractor. Although, ultimately, the depots were laid at Minna Bluff and at 80°S, the overall operation was beset by problems. Not all the stores had reached the depots, and, as well as the motor tractor failure, all ten dogs taken on the journey perished during the return. By the time that all parties were reunited at Hut Point (Scott's old "Discovery" base at the edge of the Barrier) on 25 March, the men themselves were exhausted and frostbitten, and there was a significant loss of confidence in Mackintosh. The condition of the sea ice in McMurdo Sound made the journey back to Cape Evans impossible, so the party was stranded until 1 June, in spartan conditions and relying on seals for fresh meat and blubber fuel.  It was later revealed that this first depot-laying season, and its attendant hardships, had been unnecessary. Shackleton had stated, in a letter sent from South Georgia on 5 December 1914 (the date that "Endurance" left South Georgia for the Weddell Sea) to Ernest Perris of the Daily Chronicle, that he had "no chance of crossing that season". Mackintosh was to have been informed of this, but "the cable was never sent".

Loss of the "Aurora".

When Mackintosh departed on 25 January 1915 to lead the depot-laying parties he left the "Aurora" under the command of First Officer Joseph Stenhouse. The priority task for Stenhouse was to find a winter anchorage in accordance with Shackleton's instructions not to attempt to anchor south of the Glacier Tongue, an icy protrusion midway between Cape Evans and Hut Point. This search proved a long and hazardous process. Stenhouse manoeuvred in the Sound for several weeks before eventually deciding to winter close to the Cape Evans shore headquarters. After a final visit to Hut Point on 11 March to pick up four early returners from the depot-laying parties, he brought the ship to Cape Evans and made it fast with anchors and hawsers, thereafter allowing it to become frozen into the shore ice.  On the night of 7 May a severe gale erupted, tearing the "Aurora" from its moorings and carrying it out to sea attached to a large ice floe. Attempts to contact the shore party by wireless failed. Held fast, and with its engines out of commission, the "Aurora" began a long drift northward away from Cape Evans, out of McMurdo Sound, into the Ross Sea and eventually into the Southern Ocean. Ten men were left stranded ashore at Cape Evans. "Aurora" finally broke free from the ice on 12 February 1916 and managed to reach New Zealand on 2 April.

Improvisation.

Because Mackintosh had intended to use "Aurora" as the party's main living quarters, most of the shore party's personal gear, food, equipment and fuel was still aboard when the ship departed. Although the sledging rations intended for Shackleton's depots had been landed, the ten stranded men were left with "only the clothes on their backs". Mackintosh summarised their situation: "We have to face the possibility that we may have to stay here, unsupported, for two years. We cannot expect rescue before then, and so we must conserve and economize on what we have, and we must seek and apply what substitutes we can gather". Their first recourse was to the food and materials from supplies left behind by Scott's and Shackleton's earlier expeditions. These supplies provided a harvest of material, which enabled clothing, footwear and equipment to be improvised, while the party used seal meat and blubber as extra sources of food and fuel. "Joyce's Famous Tailoring Shop" fashioned clothes from a large canvas tent abandoned by Scott's expedition. Even a brand of tobacco—"Hut Point Mixture"—was concocted by Ernest Wild from sawdust, tea, coffee and a few dried herbs. By these means the party equipped itself for the sledging journeys that lay ahead in the second season. On the last day of August Mackintosh recorded in his diary the work that had been completed during the winter, and ended: "Tomorrow we start for Hut Point".

Second depot-laying season 1915–16.

Journey to Mount Hope.

The second season's work was planned in three stages. First, all depot stores— in total—were to be transferred from Cape Evans to Hut Point. These stores would then be transported from Hut Point to a base depot at Minna Bluff. Finally, a journey south would be made, to reinforce the 80° depot and lay new ones at 81°, 82°, 83°, and lastly at Mount Hope, near the foot of the Beardmore Glacier, at 83°30'.  Nine men in teams of three would undertake the sledging work. The first stage, hauling over the sea ice to Hut Point, started on 1 September 1915, and was completed without mishap by the end of the month. The second stage, hauling back and forth between Hut Point and the Bluff, proved more problematic, with unfavourable weather, a difficult Barrier surface, and more dissension between Mackintosh and Joyce over methods. This time, Mackintosh favoured man-hauling while Joyce wanted to use the four fit dogs—of the six dogs that had survived the winter, two were pregnant and could not work. Mackintosh allowed Joyce to proceed in his own way, leading a party of six with the dogs, while Mackintosh continued to man-haul with Wild and Spencer-Smith. Joyce's methods proved the more effective in terms of loads carried and the fitness of the men. The base depot at Minna Bluff was completed by 28 December.  Shortly after the main march to Mount Hope began, on 1 January 1916, the failure of a Primus stove led to three men (Cope, Jack and Gaze) returning to Cape Evans, where they joined Stevens. The scientist had remained at the base to take weather measurements and watch for the ship. The remaining six sledged south, with Spencer-Smith failing rapidly and Mackintosh complaining of a painful knee. They battled on, laying the depots, using only minimum provisions themselves although, at Joyce's insistence, keeping the dogs well-fed: "The dogs are our only hope; our lives depend on them." As they neared Mount Hope, Spencer-Smith collapsed, unable to proceed. The others left him alone in a small tent and travelled the remaining few miles to lay the final depot at Mount Hope on 26 January 1916. Ernest Wild left a letter for his brother Frank who he assumed was by then travelling across from the Weddell Sea with Shackleton.

Return.

The party turned for home on 27 January, picking up Spencer-Smith on 29th. He was by now physically helpless and had to be loaded on to the sledge. Mackintosh was soon unable to pull, and could only stagger along beside the sledge; by this time the "de facto" leadership of the group had passed to Joyce and Richards. Joyce described the group's plight: "I have never known such shocking conditions. This is one of the hardest pulls since we have trekked...all we can do is to slog on with the greatest possible speed."  In spite of their difficulties the party made good progress until, on 17 February about short of the Bluff depot, they were halted by a blizzard. They remained tent-bound for five days, by which time their supplies had run out. In desperation the party left the tent the next day, but it soon proved impossible for Mackintosh and Spencer-Smith to travel further. Joyce, Richards and Hayward then sledged through the blizzard to the Bluff, leaving the invalids in a tent under the care of Wild. This round trip of about took them a week to complete. They returned with food and fuel to sustain their comrades, and the march resumed. Within a short time Mackintosh joined Spencer-Smith on the sledge, and before long, Hayward too collapsed. The three men still on their feet were by now too weak to haul three invalids, so on 8 March Mackintosh volunteered to stay in the tent while the others attempted to take Spencer-Smith and Hayward to Hut Point. A day later Spencer-Smith died, utterly worn out by exhaustion and scurvy, and was buried in the ice. Joyce and Wild reached Hut Point with Hayward on 11 March and went back for Mackintosh. By 16 March the whole surviving party had reached the hut.  From the start of the hauling of loads from Cape Evans on 1 September 1915 to the arrival of the survivors back at Hut Point, a total of 198 days had passed, the longest sledging journey in terms of elapsed time undertaken on any expedition up to that time.

Deaths of Mackintosh and Hayward.

The five survivors slowly recovered their strength with a diet of seal meat. The ice was too thin for them to risk the final trip to Cape Evans, and the monotony of their diet and surroundings became wearisome. On 8 May Mackintosh announced that he and Hayward intended to risk the ice and walk to Cape Evans. Against the strenuous objections of their companions they departed, and within the hour disappeared into a blizzard. The others went to look for them after the storm and found only tracks leading to the edge of the broken ice. Mackintosh and Hayward were never seen again. They had either fallen through the thin ice or had been carried out to sea on an ice floe. Richards, Joyce and Wild waited until 15 July to make the trip to Cape Evans, where they were at last reunited with Stevens, Cope, Jack and Gaze.

Rescue.

After "Aurora's" arrival in New Zealand in April 1916, Stenhouse began the task of raising funds for the ship's repair and refit, prior to its return to Antarctica to rescue the marooned men. This proved difficult: nothing had been heard from Shackleton since "Endurance" had left South Georgia in December 1914, and it seemed likely that relief expeditions were necessary for both strands of the expedition. However, the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition was completely out of funds, and there was no obvious alternative source of finance. Given the chaotic financial circumstances in which Aurora had departed from Australia, private subscribers were hard to find. Finally, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain agreed jointly to fund the refit of "Aurora", but insisted on their joint committee having full control of the relief expedition.  On 20 May, Shackleton arrived in South Georgia with the story of his escape after the loss of "Endurance" in the Weddell Sea. His first priority was to effect the rescue of the rest of the Weddell Sea party, stranded on Elephant Island, and it was early December before he arrived in New Zealand. He was too late to influence the organisation of the Ross Sea party's relief; the joint committee had appointed John King Davis to lead the expedition and had dismissed Stenhouse and "Aurora's" other officers. Davis was a veteran of Mawson's recent Australasian expedition, and had turned down Shackleton's offers in 1914 of the command of either "Endurance" or "Aurora". As a gesture, Shackleton was permitted to sail as a supernumerary officer when the ship left on 20 December. On 10 January 1917, when "Aurora" reached Cape Evans, the survivors were astonished to see Shackleton approaching them; they then learned for the first time the futility of their labours. After a further week spent in a vain search for the bodies of Mackintosh and Hayward, "Aurora" headed north for New Zealand, carrying the seven survivors of the original shore party.

Aftermath.

The Hut Point and Cape Evans huts remain, protected by the Antarctic Heritage Trust and the New Zealand government. Within the Cape Evans hut an inscription by Richards on the wall near his bunk, listing the names of those lost, can still be read, but the generally deteriorating condition of the huts has caused concern.  The "Aurora" survived for less than a year after her final return from the Ross Sea. Shackleton had sold her for £10,000, and her new role was as a coal-carrier between Australia and South America. After leaving Newcastle, New South Wales on 20 June 1917, "Aurora" disappeared in the Pacific Ocean. On 2 January 1918 she was listed as missing by Lloyds of London and presumed lost, having either foundered in a storm or been sunk by an enemy raider. Aboard her was James Paton of the Ross Sea ship's party, who was still serving as her boatswain. Ernest Wild was also a victim of the First World War. He died of typhoid in Malta, on 10 March 1918, while serving with the Royal Navy in the Mediterranean.  On 4 July 1923, Joyce and Richards were awarded Albert Medals by George V for their bravery and life-saving efforts during the second depot-laying journey. Wild and Victor Hayward received the same award, posthumously. Many of the survivors enjoyed long and successful careers. The young wireless operator, Lionel Hooke, joined Amalgamated Wireless Australasia Ltd and was responsible for many technological innovations. He became the company's managing director in 1945 and its chairman in 1962, having been knighted for services to industry in 1957. Of the four dogs who survived the trek, Con was killed by the other dogs in a fight before the rescue. The others, Oscar, Gunner and Towser, returned in the ship to New Zealand and were placed in Wellington Zoo, where Oscar lived, allegedly, to the age of 25. Near the end of his life Dick Richards, the last survivor of the party, was without regrets and did not regard the struggle as futile. Rather, he believed, it was something that the human spirit had accomplished, and that no undertaking carried through to conclusion was for nothing.

The Ross Sea party was a component of Sir Ernest Shackleton's Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition 1914–17. Its task was to lay a series of supply depots across the Great Ice Barrier from the Ross Sea to the Beardmore Glacier, along the polar route established by earlier Antarctic expeditions. The expedition's main party, under Shackleton, was to land near Vahsel Bay on the opposite coast of Antarctica, and to march across the continent via the South Pole to the Ross Sea. As the main party would be unable to carry sufficient fuel and supplies for the whole distance, their survival depended on the Ross Sea party setting up supply depots, which would cover the final quarter of their journey.

Die Ross Sea Party war ein Teil von Ernest Shackletons "Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition" von 1914 bis 1917. Shackletons Plan war es, den antarktischen Kontinent zu durchqueren. Da es ihnen nicht möglich sein würde, ausreichende Vorräte mitzuführen, sollte ein zweites Schiff eine unterstützende Gruppe zum McMurdo-Sund transportieren, die Ross Sea Party. Deren Aufgabe war es, eine Reihe von Depots über das Ross-Schelfeis entlang der bereits früher etablierten Südpolarroute über den Beardmore-Gletscher anzulegen, was trotz einiger Unglücksfälle und Spannungen zwischen Expeditionsteilnehmern auch erreicht wurde. Dieser Erfolg erwies sich letztlich als überflüssig, da Shackletons Hauptexpedition nicht landen konnte und die Endurance im Eis der Weddell-See zerdrückt wurde – der transkontinentale Marsch fand niemals statt. Verglichen mit der öffentlichen Aufmerksamkeit, die Shackletons als heroisch aufgefasstem Fehlschlag entgegengebracht wurde, fand die Ross Sea Party in der Geschichtsschreibung kaum Beachtung, was ihr den Spitznamen „Shackleton’s Forgotten Men“ („Shackletons vergessene Männer“) einbrachte.


Early years.

Sofer was born in Frankfurt am Main, on September 24, 1762, during the Seven Years' War. ("8 Tishrei 5523" on the Hebrew calendar). His father's name was Shmuel (Samuel) (d. 1779, "15 Sivan 5539") and his mother's name was Reizel, the daughter of Elchanan. (d. 1822, "17 Adar 5582"). Shmuel's mother, Reizchen (d. 5 May 1731 in Frankfurt am Main), was a daughter of the "Gaon" of Frankfurt, Rabbi Shmuel Schotten, known as the "Marsheishoch" (d. 1719, "14 Tamuz 5479" in Frankfurt am Main), his namesake.

Education.

At the age of nine, Sofer entered the yeshiva of Rabbi Nathan Adler (1741–1800, d. "27 Elul 5560") at Frankfurt, a kabbalist known for his strict and unusual ritual practices. At the age of thirteen, Sofer began to deliver public lectures. His knowledge was so extraordinary that Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz of Frankfurt asked him to become his pupil. He agreed, but remained under Rabbi Horowitz for only one year, and left in 1776 for the yeshiva of Rabbi David Tebele Scheuer (1712–1782, d. "Shemini Atzeret 5543") in the neighboring city of Mainz. There he studied under its Rosh yeshiva Rabbi Mechel Scheuer (1739-1810, d. "27 Shevat 5570"), son of Rabbi Tebele, during the years 1776 and 1777 until he yielded to the entreaties of his former teachers in Frankfurt and returned to his native city. In Mainz many prominent residents took an interest in his welfare and facilitated the progress of his studies.

First positions and marriage.

In 1782 Rabbi Nathan Adler was called to the rabbinate of Boskovice, Moravia and Sofer followed him. He went, at Rabbi Adler's advice, to Prostějov, Moravia.  There on 6 May 1787 Sofer married Sarah, the daughter of Rabbi Moses Jerwitz (d. 1785), the late rabbi of Prostějov. Following their engagement, Rabbi Sofer's family learned that Sarah was a widow who did not bear children to her first husband and pressed him to break the engagement. Rabbi Sofer wrote to his teacher Rabbi Adler for advice but no response was received prior to the wedding date. Rabbi Sofer took this as a heavenly sign that the wedding should take place and married Sarah over his family's objections. Sofer became a member of the Chevra kadisha (Shu"t Chatam Sofer, Y"D:327) and eventually became head of the yeshiva in Prostějov.  In 1794, Sofer accepted his first official position, becoming Rabbi of Strážnice, after he had procured the sanction of the government to settle in that town. In 1797 he was appointed Rabbi of Mattersdorf (currently Mattersburg, Austria); one of the seven communities (known as the Siebengemeinden or "Sheva kehillot") of Burgenland. There he established a yeshiva, and pupils flocked to him. His prime pupil in Mattersdorf was the future Gaon Rabbi Meir Ash "(Maharam Ash)" (1780–1852), Rabbi of Uzhhorod.

Pressburg (Bratislava).

Sofer declined many offers for the rabbinate, but in 1806 accepted a call to Pressburg ("Pozsony" in Hungarian, today Bratislava, capital of Slovakia). There he established a yeshiva, which was attended by as many as 500 pupils. Hundreds of these pupils became the rabbis of Hungarian Jewry. Among them were: For a short period of time during the Napoleonic War in Pressburg in 1809, Moses Schreiber retreated to a small vineyard town Svätý Jur where he organised a charity for his fellow citizens affected by the war.

Second marriage and children.

Sofer's first wife Sarah died childless on 22 July 1812.  In 1812 "(23 Cheshvan 5573)," he married for the second time to Sarel (Sarah) (1790–1832, d. "18 Adar II 5592"), the widowed daughter of Rabbi Akiva Eger, Rav of Poznań. She was the widow of Rabbi Avraham Moshe Kalischer (1788–1812), Rabbi of Piła, the son of Rabbi Yehuda Kalischer, author of "Hayod Hachazoka."  With his second wife, Sofer had three sons and seven daughters. All three of his sons became rabbis: Avrohom Shmuel Binyamin Sofer (known as the "Ktav Sofer" or "Ksav Sofer"); Shimon Sofer (known as the "Michtav Sofer"), who became the Rav of Kraków; and Yozef Yozpa Sofer.  Sofer's descendants named their works after the Hebrew translation of "Schreiber" (scribe), Sofer's civil surname, along the lines of Sofer's work "Chasam Sofer"; as, for instance, "Michtav Sofer" (son), "Ktav Sofer" (son), the "Shevet Sofer" (grandson), the Chasan Sofer (grandson), the "Yad Sofer" (great-grandson), the "Daas Sofer" (great-grandson), the "Cheshev Sofer" and "Imrei Sofer" (2xgreat-grandson).  Sofer and his family lived at the end of Zamocka Street, where the Hotel Ibis is now located.

Influence against changes in Judaism.

Sofer led the community of Pressburg for 33 years until his death in 1839. It was his influence and determination that kept the Reform movement out of the city. From the late 18th century onwards, movements which eventually developed into Reform Judaism began to develop. Synagogues subscribing to these new views began to appear in centres such as Berlin and Hamburg. Sofer was profoundly opposed to the reformers and attacked them in his speeches and writings. For example, in a "responsum" of 1816, he forbade the congregation in Vienna to allow a performance in the synagogue of a cantata they had commissioned from the composer Ignaz Moscheles because it would involve a mixed choir. In the same spirit, he contested the founders of the "Reformschule" (Reform synagogue) in Pozsony, which was established in the year 1827.  For Sofer, Judaism as previously practiced was the only form of Judaism acceptable. In his view, the rules and tenets of Judaism had never changed — and cannot ever change. This became the defining idea for the opponents to Reform, and in some form, it has continued to influence the Orthodox response to innovation in Jewish doctrine and practice.  Sofer applied a pun to the Talmudic term chadash asur min haTorah, ""'new' is forbidden by the Torah"" (referring literally to eating "chadash", "new grain", before the Omer offering is given) as a slogan heralding his opposition to any philosophical, social or practical change to customary Orthodox practice. He did not allow the addition of any secular studies to the curriculum of his Pressburg Yeshiva.

Universal Israelite Congress.

The Universal Israelite Congress of 1868-69 in Pest was influential in affecting the direction of Judaism in Europe. To try to unify all streams of Judaism under one constitution, the Orthodox offered the "Shulchan Aruch" and surrounding codes as the ruling code of law and observance. The reformists dismissed this notation and in response, many Orthodox rabbis resigned from the Congress to form their own social and political groups. Hungarian Jewry split into two major institutionally sectarian groups, Orthodox and Neolog. Some communities refused to join either of the groups and called themselves Status Quo.

Actions of students and descendants.

Sofer's most notable student Rabbi Moshe Schick, together with Sofer's sons, the rabbis Shmuel Binyamin and Shimon, took an active role in arguing against the Reform movement. They showed relative tolerance for heterogeneity within the Orthodox camp. Others, such as the more zealous Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein, supported a more stringent position in orthodoxy.  Rabbi Moshe Schick demonstrated support in 1877 for the separatist policies of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in Germany. His son studied at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary, which taught secular studies and was headed by Azriel Hildesheimer. Hirsch, however, did not reciprocate. He was surprised at what he described as Schick's halakhic contortions in condemning even those status quo communities that clearly adhered to halakhah. Hillel Lichtenstein opposed Hildesheimer and his son Hirsh in their speaking German to give sermons and their tending toward Modern Zionism.  In 1871, Shimon Sofer, Chief Rabbi of Kraków, founded the Machzikei Hadas organisation with the Chassidic Rabbi Yehoshua Rokeach of Belz. This was the first effort of Haredi Jews in Europe to create a political party; it was part of the developing identification of the traditional Orthodoxy as a self-defined group. Rabbi Shimon was nominated as a candidate to the Polish Regional Parliament under the Austrian emperor Franz Joseph. He was elected to the "Polish Club," in which he took an active part until his death.  Another notable group is Satmar, which was founded by rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel), who was a chassid who paid homage to the Chasam Sofer and had similar views to that of rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein. His descendant rabbi Joel Teitelbaum headed the Edah HaChareidis for many years, living in Israel and later in the United States, where he influenced Orthodox Jewry.  Starting in 1830, about twenty disciples of Sofer settled in Palestine, almost all of them in Jerusalem. They joined the Old Yishuv, which comprised the Musta'arabim, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. They also settled in Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Together with the Perushim and Hassidim, they formed an approach to Judaism reflecting those of their European counterparts.  Notable disciples of the Pressburg Yeshiva who had major influence on mainstream orthodoxy in Palestine were Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (student of Ktav Sofer) and Rabbi Yitzchok Yerucham Diskin (son of Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin, from Brisk, Lithuania), who together in 1919 founded the Edah HaChareidis in then-Mandate Palestine.  In 1932 Sonnenfeld was succeeded by Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky, a disciple of the Shevet Sofer, one of Sofer's grandchildren. Dushinsky founded the Dushinsky Hasidic dynasty in Israel based on Sofer's teachings.

Death and burial place.

Sofer died in Pressburg on 3 October 1839 ("25 Tishrei 5600").  Today, a modern Jewish memorial, containing Sofer's grave and those of many of his associates and family, is located in Bratislava. It is situated underground below Bratislava Castle on the left bank of the Danube). The nearby tram and bus stop is named after him.  The preservation of these graves has a curious history. The Jewish cemetery in Bratislava was confiscated during the regime in 1943 to build a roadway. Negotiations with the regime enabled the community to preserve the section of the cemetery including Sofer's grave, enclosed in concrete, below the surface of the new road. The regime complied, possibly as a consequence of a large bribe (according to one story), foreign pressure (according to another story), or for fear of a curse if the graves were destroyed (according to yet another story).  Following the declaration of independence by Slovakia in 1992, new negotiations were undertaken to restore public access to the preserved graves. In the mid-1990s, the International Committee for Preservation of Gravesites of Geonai Pressburg was formed to support and oversee relocation of tram tracks and building of a mausoleum. Construction of the mausoleum was completed after overcoming numerous technical and religious issues and opened on 8 July 2002. Access to the mausoleum can be arranged through the local Jewish community organisation.

Legacy.

Many synagogues and yeshivas worldwide bear the name and follow the legacy of the Chatam Sofer.

Erlau yeshiva and community.

The most notable recent living descendant and heir to the Sofer legacy was rabbi Yochanan Sofer. Yochanan was a direct descendant and fifth generation to the Chatam Sofer. He was the leader of the Erlau movement whose progenitor was his grandfather Rabbi Shimon Sofer of Erlau, a grandson of the Chatam Sofer, and son of the Ktav Sofer.  Yochanan's father, rabbi Moshe Sofer (II) (Dayan of Erlau) and grandfather rabbi Shimon (Av Beth Din of Erlau) perished in the Holocaust together with most of their families. After the Holocaust, Rabbi Yochanan refounded the Chasam Sofer Yeshiva in Pest together with rabbi Moshe Stern (the Debretziner Rav) and his brother Avraham Shmuel Binyamin (II). He then returned to Eger (Erlau) to re-establish his grandfather's Yeshiva.  In 1950 he immigrated to Israel together with his students and for a short while merged his yeshiva with the Pressburg Yeshiva of rabbi Akiva Sofer ("Daas Sofer"). In 1953 he founded his own Yeshiva in Katamon, Jerusalem, as well as the "Institute for Research of the Teachings of the Chasam Sofer". The Institute researches and deciphers handwritten documents penned by the Chasam Sofer, his pupils and descendants and has printed hundreds of sefarim.  Over the years, Rabbi Yochanan founded many synagogues, chederim and kollelim, which he named after his ancestors. The Ezrat Torah Campus in Jerusalem is named "Beth Chasam Sofer", as is the Erlau Synagogue in Haifa. The chederim are named "Talmud Torah Ksav Sofer" after the Chasam Sofer's son; the kollelim and synagogues are named "Yad Sofer" after rabbi Yochanan's father and the main yeshiva campus in Katamon is named "Ohel Shimon MiErlau" after his grandfather. He has authored numerous Torah commentary works, naming them "Imrei Sofer".  The Erlau community is considered Hassidic style, though strictly follows Ashkenaz customs as did the Chasam Sofer. It has branches in Jerusalem, Bnei Brak, Beitar Illit, El'ad, Haifa, Ashdod and Boro Park (New York).

The Pressburg Yeshiva of Jerusalem.

The Pressburg Yeshiva of Jerusalem () is a leading yeshiva located in the Givat Shaul neighborhood of Jerusalem, Israel. It was founded in 1950 by rabbi Akiva Sofer (known as the "Daas Sofer"), a great-grandson of rabbi Moses Sofer (the "Chasam Sofer"), who established the original Pressburg Yeshiva in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1807., the rosh yeshiva is rabbi Simcha Bunim Sofer.  The yeshiva building includes a Yeshiva Ketana, Yeshiva Gedolah, and kollel.  The main beis medrash doubles as a synagogue where some neighborhood residents also pray on Shabbat. The complex also includes a general neighborhood synagogue which functions as Givat Shaul's main nusach Ashkenaz synagogue.

Chasan Sofer Yeshiva, New York.

The Chassan Sofer Yeshiva in New York is considered the American yeshiva of the Chasam Sofer legacy. It was founded by rabbi Shmuel Ehrenfeld who was born and raised in Mattersdorf, Austria. His father Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld, the rabbi of Mattersdorf, whose father, rabbi Shmuel Ehrenfeld (the Chasan Sofer), was a grandson of the Chasam Sofer.  Rabbi Shmuel was rabbi of Mattersdorf from 1926 until 1938 when the congregation was dispersed by the Nazis. He escaped to America and immediately reestablished the Chasan Sofer Yeshiva in the Lower East Side, from where it was later relocated to Boro Park. After his death he was succeeded by his son, rabbi Simcha Bunim Ehrenfeld.  The yeshiva currently enrolls over 400 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade and operates a Head Start Program and rabbinical seminary.

Chug Chasam Sofer, Bnei Brak.

During the 1950s and 1960s many synagogues in Israel were built by Hungarian Jewry and named Chug Chasam Sofer. This network of synagogues were founded in Tel Aviv, Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, Petach Tikva, Haifa and Netanya. These synagogues still operate but have been integrated into the larger community with no distinct character of their own. Besides for that of Bnei Brak founded by rabbi Yitzchak Shlomo Ungar and that of Petach Tikva founded by Rabbi Shmaryahu Deutch.  Rabbi Ungar, a descendant of the Chasam Sofer, founded a Yeshiva named Machneh Avraham and a kashrut organization named Chug Chasam Sofer which are both very active and well known. After Rabbi Ungar's passing in 1994 the yeshiva appointed Rabbi Altman as rabbi and rosh yeshiva, with Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Stern remaining the head of the kashrut organisation.

Pressburg Institutions of London.

The Pressburg institutions in London, England are headed by a descendant of the Chasam Sofer, Rabbi Shmuel Ludmir (who has published some of his work).

Dushinsky, Jerusalem.

The Dushinsky Community considers itself a continuation of the Chasam Sofer dynasty, not by genealogy, but rather by school of thought.  The founder of the Dushinsky dynasty was rabbi Yosef Tzvi Dushinsky (1865–1948) who was a disciple of rabbi Simcha Bunim Sofer (the "Shevet Sofer"), the son of the Ksav Sofer at the Pressburg Yeshiva. The Dushinsky dynasty has been more integrated into the Chassidic community with many of their customs derived from Nusach Sefard, but still remains true to the teachings of the Chasam Sofer. This is mainly due to rabbi Yosef Tzvi's appointment as Chief Rabbi of the Edah HaChareidis and the Dushinsky alignment with the teachings of rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of Satmar.

Moses Schreiber (1762–1839), known to his own community and Jewish posterity in the Hebrew translation as Moshe Sofer, also known by his main work Chatam Sofer, Chasam Sofer or Hatam Sofer, (trans. "Seal of the Scribe" and acronym for Chiddushei Toiras Moishe Sofer), was one of the leading Orthodox rabbis of European Jewry in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Moses Sofer, deutscher Name: "Moses Schreiber" oder "Mosche Schreiber", bekannt als "Chatam Sofer" (geboren im September 1762 in Frankfurt am Main; gestorben am 3. Oktober 1839 in Pressburg/Bratislava), war ein führender orthodoxer Rabbiner des 19. Jahrhunderts.


Website contents.

There were more than ten million entries on AboutUs.com as of March 2008, and new pages are added at a rate of about 25,000 a day. Most entries were created by a web robot (bot); web searches by users direct the bot to create a page for a web domain. In many cases the content is simply a republication of the contents of the "About us", "About me", or similar page on the website. Such pages typically describe the entity that owns the site, and may include self-promotional information, which AboutUs.com does not restrict. In many other cases the content of an entry consists of the whois data for the website. As of February 2014, there were more than 20 million entries.

Data use.

Some websites that analyze domains and traffic link to AboutUs.com as a point of additional reference. Notably, the "Whois" site DomainTools now references the Aboutus.com listing along with standard server information, domain ownership and history, and additional data. AboutUs has also referenced whois data content from the registrars Network Solutions and Register.com.

Malware domains.

To prevent users from visiting malware domains, editors work with McAfee SiteAdvisor and PHSDL to identify such domains. Once a malware domain is identified, an AboutUs MalwareSite template is placed to warn users.

Popularity.

AboutUs.com is an open directory, and does not restrict website owners from writing in their own comments, or referencing commercial information that is not necessarily notable; webmasters are permitted to engage in self-promotion in terms of highlighting their website's features.  AboutUs.com fills the gap for webmasters by encouraging the posting of information about all websites regardless of notability or commercial interest.  Because of the open editing policy, and inclusion of commercial sites, it has grown rapidly in its content. It is also popular among webmasters or website owners seeking to include their "about us" information on AboutUs.com, as a central point of summary information on the web.

Funding.

In November 2006, AboutUs closed its initial financing round for one million dollars. In January 2009, AboutUs secured a $5 million funding round from Voyager Capital.

AboutUs.com is a wiki Internet domain directory. It listed websites along with information about their content. As a wiki, AboutUs allows Internet users to add entries or modify information. AboutUs.com has since become a wiki for more than just websites. The site now allows pages to be created for people, places, and almost anything else.

AboutUs.org ist ein im Jahre 2005 gegründetes, wiki-basiertes kommerzielles englischsprachiges Internetverzeichnis von Ray King aus Portland, USA. Es führt Webseiten auf mit Informationen über ihren Inhalt und Whois-Informationen. Jeder Besucher kann Einträge hinzufügen oder verändern, als Software kommt MediaWiki zum Einsatz.


Origins.

The story of the origin of the phrase "Lavender Menace" is that it was first used in 1969 by Betty Friedan, president of NOW, to describe the threat that she believed associations with lesbianism posed to NOW and the emerging women's movement. Friedan, and some other heterosexual feminists, worried that the association would hamstring feminists' ability to achieve serious political change, and that stereotypes of "mannish" and "man-hating" lesbians would provide an easy way to dismiss the movement. Under her direction, NOW attempted to distance itself from lesbian causes – including omitting the New York chapter of the Daughters of Bilitis from the list of sponsors of the First Congress to Unite Women in November 1969. Friedan's remarks and the decision to drop DOB from the sponsor list led lesbian feminist Rita Mae Brown to angrily resign her administrative job at NOW in February 1970 (Jay 137-138, Brownmiller 82). On March 15, 1970, straight radical feminist Susan Brownmiller quoted Friedan's remarks about the "lavender menace" and dismissed her worries as "A lavender "herring", perhaps, but no clear and present danger" in a "New York Times Magazine" article. While the term "Lavender Menace" originated as a negative term for lesbianism, it was later reclaimed as a positive term by lesbian feminists.  Brownmiller later said that when she wrote the article, she had intended to use a humorous quip to distance herself from Friedan's homophobia (Jay 140, Brownmiller 82), but some lesbian feminists (especially Michela Griffo) took her remarks as "a scathing put-down" (Brownmiller 82) and "evidence of Susan's homophobia or closet homosexuality--that is, that she was trying to distance herself from lesbians by insulting us" (Jay 140)—because they felt that the quip dismissed lesbians as an insignificant part of the movement, or lesbian issues as unnecessary distractions from the important issues.

Second Congress to Unite Women.

Rita Mae Brown suggested to her consciousness-raising group that lesbian radical feminists organize an action in response to Brownmiller's comments, and the public airing of Friedan's complaints. The group decided to target the Second Congress to Unite Women in New York City on May 1, 1970, which they noticed featured not a single open lesbian on the program (Jay 140). They planned a zap for the opening session of the Congress, which would use humor and nonviolent confrontation to raise awareness of lesbians and lesbian issues as vital parts to the emerging women's movement. They prepared a ten-paragraph manifesto entitled "The Woman-Identified Woman" and made T-shirts, dyed lavender and silkscreened with the words "Lavender Menace" for the entire group (Jay 140-142). They also created rose colored signs with slogans like "Women's Liberation "IS" A Lesbian Plot" and "You're Going To Love The Lavender Menace" written on them, which were then placed throughout the auditorium.  Karla Jay, one of the organizers and participants in the zap, describes what happened:  After the initial stunt, the "Menaces" passed out mimeographed copies of "The Woman-Identified Woman" and took the stage, where they explained how angry they were about the exclusion of lesbians from the conference and the women's movement as a whole. A few members of the planning committee tried to take back the stage and return to the original program, but gave up in the face of the resolute Menaces and the audience, who used applause and boos to show their support. The group and the audience then used the microphone for a spontaneous speak-out on lesbianism in the feminist movement, and several of the participants in the "zap" were invited to run workshops the next day on lesbian rights and homophobia (Jay 144). Straight and gay women from the congress joined an all-women's dance (a frequent organizing and social tool used by Gay Liberation Front men and women) (Brownmiller 98).

Effects.

The "Lavender Menace" zap, and the publication of "The Woman-Identified Woman," are widely remembered as a turning-point in the second-wave feminist movement, and as a founding moment for lesbian feminism. After the zap, many of the organizers continued to meet, and decided to create a lasting organization to continue their activism, which they eventually decided to call the "Radicalesbians." At the next national conference of NOW, in September 1971, the delegates adopted a resolution recognizing lesbianism and lesbian rights as "a legitimate concern for feminism".  In 1999, Susan Brownmiller described the impact by writing that "Lesbians would be silent no longer in the women's movement" (98). Karla Jay described it in her memoirs as "the single most important action organized by lesbians who wanted the women's movement to acknowledge our presence and needs," and said that it "completely reshaped the relationship of lesbians to feminism for years to come" (137). "We felt as well," Jay wrote, "that the zap was only the first of many actions to come and that lesbian liberation was suddenly and unstoppably on the rise" (145).

The Lavender Menace or revolution was an informal group of lesbian radical feminists formed to protest the exclusion of lesbians and lesbian issues from the feminist movement at the Second Congress to Unite Women in New York City on May 1, 1970. Members included Karla Jay, Martha Shelley, Rita Mae Brown, Lois Hart, Barbara Love, Ellen Shumsky, Artemis March, Cynthia Funk, Linda Rhodes, Arlene Kushner, Ellen Broidy, and Michela Griffo, and were mostly members of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) and the National Organization for Women (NOW).

Die Lavender Menace (etwa: Die lila Bedrohung) war eine informelle Gruppierung lesbischer radikaler Feministinnen, die aus Protest gegen den Ausschluss von Lesben und lesbischer Thematik von der restlichen feministischen Bewegung am 1. Mai 1970 beim Second Congress to Unite Women in New York City erstmals eine öffentliche Aktion durchführte. Mitglieder waren u. A. Karla Jay, Rita Mae Brown, Lois Hart, Barbara Love, Ellen Shumsky und Michaela Griffo, diese waren zumeist außerdem Mitglieder in der "Gay Liberation Front" (GLF) und der "National Organization for Women" (NOW).


Plot synopsis.

"The Merry Gentleman" is the story of Kate, a young woman who flees her abusive policeman husband, moving to Chicago. In her new life, she befriends a co-worker but otherwise generally keeps to herself, due to her embarrassment over a black eye left over from her husband's latest attack. Most everyone she encounters is of low character, which reinforces her feelings of loneliness and reclusion.  One night, she is seen in an office window through the rifle scope of professional hit man Frank Logan, who is on the roof of the opposite building, as he prepares to shoot the occupant on another floor. Afterwards, rather than leaving, he removes his hat and steps out on to the ledge as he apparently prepares to jump. As Kate steps out onto the sidewalk, she looks up at the falling snow and sees Frank on the ledge. She cries out, startling him into safely falling backward onto the roof.  She decides to bring a small bit of joy to her life by buying a Christmas tree. Later that night, she encounters Frank at her apartment building. She doesn't recognize him as the man on the roof, and he helps her carry the big Christmas tree to her apartment. He later returns to meet with her, but collapses from pneumonia before he can reveal why he's there. Kate rushes him to the hospital, and despite the awkwardness of their conversation there, they develop a friendship that has hints of romance. Some time after his release, she mentions the old hat that he wears and wonders about "the things it has seen," unknowingly referring to the many men that Frank has murdered. Meanwhile, Kate also becomes the romantic interest of Murcheson, the detective investigating Frank's latest murder. Murcheson asks Kate out to dinner, but she mistakes the date for a meeting about the investigation, and cuts the date short when she realizes Murcheson's romantic interest.  Initially, the police remain oblivious to the fact that Frank is a professional killer, due to his framing the murder on another man, who he then killed in a manner to make the police suspect suicide. However, complications arrive when Kate's husband, Det. Michael Elkhart, tracks her down and breaks into her apartment. Michael swears he has become a safe and spiritual man, but the encounter leaves Kate badly shaken. She turns to Murcheson for help, but before he can intervene, Frank fatally shoots Michael in his motel room and makes it look like a suicide. The police begin to suspect that Frank may be behind all three deaths.  Murcheson asks Kate out on a second date, which she reluctantly accepts. The date turns horribly awkward, however, when he reveals that he suspects Frank to be a killer. Feeling guilty about her dead husband and disturbed by Murcheson's suspicions, she visits a church. Frank finds her there, but she is not comforted by his promise never to hurt her. Frank leaves the church and quietly walks out of her life, choosing not to subject her to the fear of knowing a professional killer.  The exact details of Frank's departure remain ambiguous. Apparently considering suicide, he drives to a high bridge over a forest and tosses his hat into the river far below. Then another car arrives and a man comes out. We later see Frank retrieve his hat from the water. Unsatisfied with his dreary day job as a tailor, having left behind the only pleasant aspect of his life, and placing the familiar symbol of his sinister side back on his head, he walks off into the woods.

Production notes.

Ron Lazzeretti had planned on directing the projected film, and was in discussion with Michael Keaton regarding Keaton's playing one of the lead roles. A few days before production was scheduled to begin, Lazzeretti suffered a ruptured appendix and underwent extensive treatment. As it became evident that the project would either wither or be completely canceled, Keaton suggested that he would direct it if the producers desired (he had been looking for a project with which to make his directorial debut). It was agreed, and Keaton brought much-valued energy and a unique vision to the planning table.  The movie was filmed in Chicago, Illinois, in 26 days from early March thru mid-April 2007. Many of the producers, principals, supporting actors and tradespeople involved with the film were residents of Chicago.  Other parts of the movie were also filmed in Bourbonnais, Illinois and at the Kankakee River State Park.

Critical reception.

The film was presented at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival, and released to theatres on May 1, 2009, to positive reviews., the film holds a 65% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 77 reviews with an average rating of 5.91/10. The website's critics consensus reads: "Michael Keaton's directorial debut, "The Merry Gentleman", is a slow character study aided greatly by the performances of Keaton and Kelly MacDonald." Lisa Schwarzbaum of "Entertainment Weekly" wrote of the film, "This Debbie Downer of a drama is a bitter slug".

The Merry Gentleman is a 2008 drama film directed by Michael Keaton (in his directorial debut), and starring Keaton and Kelly Macdonald. It is about a woman who leaves an abusive relationship to start a new life in Chicago, where she forms a friendship with a hitman who is undergoing his own emotional crisis.

The Merry Gentleman ist ein US-amerikanisches Filmdrama aus dem Jahr 2008. Regie führte Michael Keaton, das Drehbuch schrieb Ron Lazzeretti.