Norman Albers

They taste a little like oysters.

One morning at my old place, looking up the field, I saw an escaped emu. We are a countryside of small and large farms. A pickup truck pulled up and the man tried to convince this verrry long-legged bird into the back. Finally he put his arms around it and deposited it. Highly entertaining, a most unlikely pas de deux. I shall continue seeking Hereford's for those few winter morning breakfasts of corned beef and eggs. Snort.

Dang, boy, speaking of AUSTRALIA. Seriousness aside, I want to know where to support by buying. . . . .Tonight my outside temps are to be below freezing. I am grateful for most excellent food.

My brother sent me Burinskii's paper on the Dirac-- Kerr-Newman electron . Maybe it is time for me to go write music. I have the satisfaction of knowing I got to this level by my own hard work and ignorance. More seriously, only now that I have done this work can I read these papers and hope to enter the discussion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI don't yet know enough to say much, but I read things like "extended Dirac spinor field". This is the further "complexification" I was looking for. We are talking [math]\sigma[/math]'s. HERE: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507109v1 This was communicated in 2005 (and '08). Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe Newman-Kerr metric is of rotating, charged mass. Thus it has elements of circular currents . We are all playing the same game, at the different levels offered in Nature.

Also probably wishing for a slower relative velocity. It's a good precedent in case we ever bring back, like, sabre-toothed tigers.

Yowsa, I didn't even think "Canada" feds. I just emailed them (CarmenCreek) and told them they are on Candid Camera right here.

[bIGTEETH]. DH I had trouble following your narrative thread in the last paragraph. OK, further personal confessions. In recent years I have in the cold of winter ceremoniously purchased two cans of corned beef. For a while it was Hereford's, from Australia, and lately it's from Argentina. I appreciate the heads up on not supporting this. What's up in Australia? I don't want to confuse this thread with beef, but I appreciate learning. A show of hands please, how many burgers should I put on???

Cool discussion...iNow, I will research the agronomy and feeding regimens here, starting with the butcher, and also emailing Carmen Creek. Yes Phi the box says "100% pure all natural", "ranch-raised without added growth hormones of stimulants" Footnote: "Federal regulations do not permit the use of growth hormones or artificial growth stimulants in raising bison." This is interesting. The fats have much less cholesterol than beef, and I feel the difference of the fats/oils on my tongue. Beef has a stickier, heavier taste. Buffalo is sweet, red, almost like beef, but lighter in this sense. For a one-third pound serving, a total fat content of 22g, cholesterol 80mg. One of the most intelligent things I've read on diet said, eating meat makes sense if you are doing the level of physical work involved in hunting and butchering! I moved a carload of hardwood today and then did a tankful on the chainsaw. I am starting to get hungry.

So buffalo did not used to roam in the prairies, happily well-fed? You might be describing Texas but not Montana or Oregon. Reading the box, this product is Carmen Creek, Alberta Canada. If you show me they are trashing forests I won't buy it. I am not buying from other parts of the world.

I don't eat much meat. These days I do two hours outside with the chainsaw or loppering up branches. Inside I do piano shop work, and more quiet hours doing physics math. I need a little more food in general and protein; the more excited I get about physics the more of an airhead I tend to become. Let's all join in a chorus of "Home, home, on Lagrange..."

Some guy whose name escapes me at the moment, has been speaking on the evils of corn-feeding cows. Is this the issue, then, as opposed to grass-feed? I am picturing bison "on the prairies" and I shall be asking questions. We have some being grown nearby, in SW Oregon, and the coop extends into Idaho, I think.

We read of the high cost in global warming gasses from beef farming and consumption, and I almost never eat it. My local supermarket just put on sale, for $3/lb., frozen buffalo burgers. I enjoyed a luscious one last night, and I am snorting happily. Can folks help me compare buffalo farming, which is spread around the northwest US (at least), on the issues of warming? If I feel good about it I'll put a few 2 lb. boxes in my freezer!

Nice. Rock on.

Whatever, make it 1/50 or any significant, measurable fraction. I guess this will distort our perception of a 'spherical far-field'. I do want to hear your take on my questions!

You beee cool.

Still, the fizziks IS. Now help me see the far-field question. I guess that this does not magically make the "locally speeding" observer see farther than we can in terms of the early universe. They should perceive different distances, and times???

Oh, sorry, I didn't figure the relation.

They would have been better off spending their time together, no? Sorry, I do agree with you. I think it's fun to ask how about the moving Dick flying thru nearby and we can synchronize clocks. We Janes have an extended (way) system of coordinated clocks which we think express a common time in our system, as we can listen over light-speed signal to each of their time values, and know we have corrected for the time of travel, right? Also, and here is the tweak, Dick has an extended system corrected for the delays they perceive between themselves, all moving to our observations. This is like the "police cars with looong antennas, or verrrry looong trains", whatever, babe. Anyway, this is gonna be a mess because y'all at your different points of view do not agree on simultaneity at a distance.

Cool questions. I was just wondering what sort of "Hubble far-field" would be observed by a "Hubble" zipping by at a significant fraction of c. Also, it is so that the younger of the twins experienced acceleration, right? There has to be such a logical way to distinguish them, at least if they start in the same frame and end up similarly. It gets worse, though, and somewhere else I described the old "flying through and punching the time-clock" idea. You can start with identical clocks but reckonings will be screwy at distant points which are conceived differently in the two frames of reference, from the start.

It is a subtle mathematic process by which we lay out considerations of metric solutions of the Einstein field equations. The free-space constraints may be stated: [math]R_{ab}=0[/math], and in the Schwarzschild solution we apply reasonable symmetry considerations to get to a form: [math]ds^2=A(cdt)^2 - Bdr^2 -Cr^2d\Omega^2 [/math]. At this point crucial decisions are made, and they have deeply physical ramifications! <A,B,C> are functions of r alone. By a simple linear rescaling of r, we can produce: [math] ds^2=A(cdt)^2 - Bdr^2 -r^2d\Omega^2[/math]. This is the chosen form of the Schwarschild metric, where: [math]ds^2=(1-2m/r)(cdt)^2 - (1-2m/r)^{-1} dr^2 -r^2 d\Omega^2 [/math]. My textbook goes on to a very curious move. Citing a mathematic motivation to have a line element which "agrees most closely with our intuitive notion of space" they develop isotropic coordinate representation, where the same metric coefficient multiplies all three space differentials. This yields a form: [math] ds^2= \frac{(1-m/2\rho)^2} {(1+m/2\rho)^2}(cdt)^2 -(1+m/2\rho)^4 d\sigma^2 [/math] Now look at the radial transform: [math] r-m= \rho+m^2/4\rho[/math], and see there is some funny stuff going on. We may write equivalently: [math]\sqrt{r^2-2mr}\,+r-m=2\rho[/math]. The argument in the \sqrt goes through zero at r=2m, where [math]\rho/m=1/2[/math]. Then what??? If we wish to continue to smaller r we must allow negative \sqrt arguments. Put in r=m and you get [math]\rho/m = \frac 1 2 i [/math]. Go ahead and solve for r=0 and you get: [math]\rho/m=-1/2[/math]. No problem, eh??? We have just witnessed a rotation in the complex plane. [To be continued...] Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedFor six months in the start of 2007 I enjoyed exchange with H.Puthoff, who likes the term "dark gray holes". He solves for the isotropic form as described above, but simply does it with that assumption of metric form from the start. This produces singularities with no event horizons, as if that EH was contracted to zero (degenerate). For various reasons he champions this; I suspect it is erroneous. It is mistake to seek coordinates that "make us comfortable". To understand physics from one reference frame to another you must include multipication by the metric coefficients acknowledging the coordinate transforms used to get the expressions. We can see that the radial transform getting us from the first Schwarzschild form, to the isotropic form, gets us into a most curious mathematic position. If we dare to think of [math]r< 2m[/math] we must allow complex values of the radial coordinate [math]\rho[/math]. There is simply an assumption of possible mathematic form of spacetime here. Sure there is nothing "less than [math]\rho=0[/math]" but you won't even get here from there! I mean if you consider only real [math] \rho[/math] you won't even get to zero, or below 1/2. This is the naked singularity and I think it is conceived on shaky assumptions. I have the same attitude about Kruskal coordinates and BH interiors but this is for another night's fishfry. . . . . . . . . .To elaborate hopefully clearly, Puthoff et.al. use these two radial representations in what I think is a confused manner. However this stems from my disposition of having demonstrated a charge singularity as an integrable field of vacuum polarization, also. I can show that a randomly offered "percolating vacuum with little electrons and positrons popping in and out" (and I really do dislike such language, though it serves purpose) will show dynamics of overall densification, but with depletion of radially oppositely oriented pairs. This constitutes, in the small, the tensor differences in the Schwarzschild GR form, between radial and tangential changes. I am saying it is not helpful to mathematically "dial away" these things, if you seek the mathematics of physics.

Thanks. I just read the part in Joao Magueijo's book Faster Than the Speed of Light where he describes a somewhat bewildered Einstein working toward the General Theory and making an attempt with a non-constant SOL.

scalbers can you help me interpret this abstract? Here is the descriptive article you sent, which is useful: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/08/23/probing-quantum-gravity-with-gamma-ray-bursters . They state clearly that when a large amount of energy (gamma) is in such a small space it is challenging to both QM and GR. What energy range are we speaking of? I wonder if there is a threshold above the 1MEV of e-p production. The theories now deal with the 150 GEV range.

Yah sure, depending upon your vision. It seems that what tweaks me does not tweak many of you. I shall be silent. Chrissake erase this stuff.

Most of the time. How about yourself?

I share this letter to my brother: CAPTAIN, I sent solidspin the picture of my wood fire, and he said, whoa, cool how much ***** have you scored with this!!!??? You ask, 'how much ***** have I scored?' We need to get our dimensions straight in this discussion. We have previously discussed MACHINISTS' DIMENSIONS, where pubic spirals are measured around 2-8 thousanths of an inch, from blond to black. Recently you suggested we consider quantum SPIN as being indeed short, of Planck dimension. We can feel the truth at both levels here. Energy does conform to our apparatus, no? 'WAAAAAAAAA