Norman Albers

I talked with yt about slowly recharging alkaline cells. My charger trials did not yield much usefulness. However, after moving into a place with a half-dozen solar "driveway-path" lights, none of which were working, alkakine batteries this past summer leaves me with one actually working, recharging lamp. These units are supposed to have Ni-Cad or something but who wants to spend that sort of $?¿?

I know the math and am still working to let go of a "smithereens" picture. I also want to know what it means that we abandon differential covariance when we write the Robertson-Walker metric.

This is a lot of re-educating, rethinking, and rebuilding, my friend!!!

I wonder about interpreting the term pressure which is not specifically a characteristic of galactic distributions. For there to exist much energy in 'pressure' interactions, there must be kinetic entities bouncing off one another. It seems to me that masses manifest negative pressure here, by virtue of their gravitational dance. Do we need to put this into our GR equations or is this what we have dealt with in the construction where overall mass-energy density if uniform? I realize we deal with pressure in an earlier, high-density regime, but I am trying to pin it down. I suspect this means down, like to Planck regime.

Wow, good thinking scalbers. Do we think these high energy protons or alphas come from supernovae which occur everywhere?

One must build and inhabit appropriately architected structures for every different setting and climate. I have shared what I have done here because I was fearing to be eaten up with the difficulty of maintaining a large house. This is not at all the case, and it matters that this resource is renewable and not carbon being taken out of the Earth. Remember my house was built in 2003 and is excellently insulated, with Low-E windows and such.

Verrrry niiiice, thank you! Hey big314mp, I read somewhere that if you are trying to shield noise like from a neighbor banging a gong, drilling holes in your otherwise solid wall can enhance the filtering of transmissions. This is what you were snooping after...

Could we create two entangled photons and then recombine them, with the same path length, to get interference?

The point is that I have not been cold. One has to work to circulate the heat. I use one or two (9 or 12 inch) floor fans running on low. I live in SW Oregon with "moderate" temps. January had frequent lows in the low 30's, with highs in the low 40's. I cut the firewood, and used to live in a smaller home. As I said, the monthly power bill without the electric heatpump is about $45. As before I live on acreage with plenty of mixed woods to clean up and thin, and already I have half of next years wood split and in piles for drying this summer. That aspect is nice, getting to work and bank ahead on your fuel. Commonly folks around here pay perhaps $100 to heat in these cold months. Yes it is a lot of "shovelling wood", but I never carry it far. Outside I take good loads in my electric garden cart (wheelbarrow) right to the inside garage door, where I put the wood on a trundle cart (like a little old lady grocery or luggage carrier) to wheel it right next to the stove. These tools take the heavy work out of it. I am almost 60 years old, mean, lean, and good with a chainsaw. My hydraulic logsplitter arrives today and I am excited. For $1100 I get 350 pounds of steel from Rockford, Illinois, USA. I am partly retired and choose to do this, as long as I reasonably can. If I knew how to post a photo I'd show you the fire in the firebox. . . . . . . . . I looked up data on the 3-ton heatpump. The COP at 30 degrees F is 3.0. At 40 degrees it is 3.6, then at 50 degrees it is 3.9. Thus in the moderate tail ends of the heating season I will use the electric source more, as load gets light and it's hardly worth getting a good fire going, except maybe once in the morning.

After moving a lot a firewood for the cold month of January, I am gratified to see that my electric bill for 30 days is less than $45. This with only a handful of early morning (4 am) heatpump runs with the t-stat set at 65 F. Bear in mind that I have a very mid-sized woodstove, 1.6 cubic ft. firebox, in a 1900 sq. ft. house built in 2003. One and one-half bedrooms are my piano shop.

Puthoff's paper starts with essentially the same attitude I quoted in the first post, that it is "comfortable" to use this metric form. I think this is a misleading path, but happily as per the offerings in this thread, we are within reach of observing whether or not large black holes have event horizons. I don't yet know what to say of this metric: the [math]g_{00} [/math] term goes to zero at a finite [math]\rho[/math], but then it comes back to unity. Hmmm... in the Schwarzschild metric, it goes through zero at r=2m, becomes negative as you go inward, and blows up at the singular center.

I just finished reading "Faster Than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo. In the last chapter he really rocks. He mentions that 'cosmic ray' alpha particles coming to us at huge energies, magnitudes larger than E15 ev, say, see in their Lorentz-shifted frame, the photons we know as the CMB. The ones coming at them are shifted up in energy to where they start tearing away at the alpha's particle constituents. Thus there should not be such energies as we do observe. Do others see this as a challenge to relativity, or maybe better to say an avenue to understanding the vacuum and quantum gravitation?

Nowadays we call it the quantum virtual field. It does not have actual, stable mass and it is Lorentz invariant.

What about Lisi's E8 paper? Has there been discussion on this since last spring?

That's a bit strong, though I am still looking for a Phlogiston Society. It is consistent that we distinguish between a space vacuum which is the same regardless of Lorentz frame, or motion, and the CMB. The latter was tied to the mass field and that, on a fairly large scale, has both uniformity and locally definable "rest frames". On a mathematical level I am seeking to understand what is means that, when we establish the Robertson-Walker metric, which is the "expanding universe" GR form, we have abandoned covariance.

Martin, usually at least in special relativity we use the fundamental construction that regardless of relatively speeding frames of motion, physics is experienced the same in any frame. This is a curious turn where we find the CMB is a blackbody radiation field, which actually refers to equilibrium it once had with the average distribution of masses. Does this present a challenge to relativity?

Yes, awesome to see the high Chilean radio array, thanks scalbers. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Yes, the article moves through many scenarios rather quickly, so you are not alone in feeling "your mind wander".

I shall be trying to understand and explain the difference between a dark gray hole and a singularity without horizon. I need Puthoff's paper which I think I have, to be sure I am expressing his formulation of the GR metric.

Yes, this is part of the excitement of physics these days. I know an undergrad who spoke to the Astronomical Society (her Dad told me) about neutron stars being fermions. This is news to me. Lately I've been tooling along putting GR into the regime of the small, where we understand that quantum spin is the rule. When we deal with the astronomic, we have significant terms for both geometric mass, or Schwarzschild radius, and geometric angular momentum, the length-dimension term proportional to AM of the system.

No. This is rock and roll. Dig it.

Yes that's one of the first statements. Go on to read of the possible variations and confusions. I am not so concerned about quantum foam somewhere making this my last 24 hours of existence. Yes, moth, we are in over our heads and that's good. I have just started really investigating the spin AM field in the "low mass" case, and the astronomic realm is not the same. Joshi does describe some of his scenarios as time-dependent, unstable. I am trying to understand the AM singularity (angular momentum) for the general relativity solution outside of "something spinning intensely" but with more attitude than mass. We are perhaps seeing a connecting range here from Joshi. . . . . . . . . . . Here is my brother's observation to me on what we all can observe: "On the topic of radio telescopes and black holes, the present limit of measurement can actually now start to provide some interferometric measures of the diameter of the event horizon for the black hole at the center of the Milky Way, as mentioned in a recent issue of Physics Today magazine. VLBI imaging is now about a factor of three away from showing us pictures of this black hole. The planned ALMA array (the other major new radiotelescope array contemplated besides the SKA), may in around 5 years actually provide images of the black hole silhouette and such."

Why do you think we would be destroyed by them?

What is rotating in the complex plane is the value of [math]\rho[/math]. This is another way of saying that we admitted at the start of this process that there is an imaginary term added to z, so the expression for what was simply r now has a real and an imaginary component. There is still the imaginary part, and only that, when r=m. The larger point here is that you must acknowledge the nature of the coordinate system you are using. We go through these math transforms to get a metric form we can sort of understand, but it must be interpreted with care.

I'm in way over my head too, babe!!! No I am not in the realm of quantum here, this is great globs of mass-energy, think JERRY LEE LEWIS.

Don't be sorry, this is a cool discussion. Perhaps the oblate spheroid we usually picture of a rotating mass, can collapse in this fashion?