Norman Albers

I wonder if there is regeneration of at least a nerve stem as the chrysalis does its thing. What do they do?

I just heard an interesting report on radio that a woman trained caterpillars by exposing them to a chemical odor and then giving them a mild electric shock. They learned to avoid the odor source. What was a cool experiment was allowing them to become butterflies, or whatever moths. These moths also avoided the chemical!

In any frame of reference, defined as multiple observers at an unchanging distance from each other, we define simultaneity by comparing "clocks" after subtracting for the propagation time. A different set of observers may be passing through the same locale, say three spaceships, and they are free to define their own simultaneity also. Whichever set of observers has their clocks "going off" with a light or alarm at the same time, the other set will not think they are at all at the same time. I find it helpful and necessary to hang with and work the actual transform equations: [math]x' = \gamma(x-vt)[/math] and [math]t' = \gamma(t-vx/c^2) [/math]. A good exercise is to multiply both sides of the second statement by c, then square both equations, then subtract them to get a statement for: [math](x')^2 - (ct')^2. [/math] What do you get?

I like the "long-spaced antlers on the police car", or spaceships travelling in tandem. Two or three ships at millions of kilometers' distance but travelling together to maintain constant separation, define a coordinate system where simultaneous clocks can be agreed upon. However, the "stationary" observers being passed by these three ships have their own agreed-upon simultaneity. HEREIN LIES GREAT ?!?!?!

H. Puthoff wrote a paper describing how a presumed quantum fluctuation background of E&M radiation going as [math]\omega^3[/math] will be reflected by electrons and by quarks so that the whole system hangs together and dances as per the zitterbewegung of the electron. I am still puzzling over the significance of his revelations. He admits that the response does not depend upon the power relationship,and this is important to me.

I have finally reproduced the tensor machinery of the Lense-Thirring solution of a nonrelativistic mass (like a large star) spinning at significant but nonrelativistic angular momentum. This is more complicated than I knew and I don't recommend this to the hobbyist! Like a Kentucky man said about tuning pianos, you don't want to feel like you are chasing snakes. As soon as you introduce any new metric term, in this case the [math]g_{03}[/math], there are repercussions throughout the Einstein differential system of equations which must be satisfied. One has new Chritoffel symbols of the first kind, and I did not at first realize that to construct those of the second kind, one must sum over four possibilities. Thus some of the familiar terms from the diagonal metric (Schwarzschild) solution now have additions. After much stirring of the pot I finally came out with an inverse radial dependence for the [math]d\phi cdt[/math] term. I suspect I would have come sooner to the answer had I solved it as per the linearized field equations presented two chapters earlier. Whatever, my goal is to understand the process.

Our physics seems to melt down around the Planck length, no? This, even though the scale is roughly 10-34 meters, while the Schwarzschild radius of an electron is about 10-57 m. (Nice 'sup's', Klaynos)

This reading of the equations of the Schwarzschild description says radially propagating light waves are allowed but that perpendicular to that, namely transverse movements in "lattitude and longitude" are not supported by the normal vacuum situation of c-squared being positive. It is negative and this signifies absorption in these directions, so these modes are not happening. Nearer to the center this changes, but toward the event horizon (we are talking interiors) it is arbitrarily strong.

Duh. HELLO? I'm talking radial spaghetti sticks. (of energy)

Hey babe, I am tooling along happily at 3mph in HIGH with my electric garden cart from Neuton Co.I just read in the Stanford Alumni Quarterly mag that EE types are kicking butt with 200-mile range electrics with 4-second zero to sixty. Snap-back torque in the low end. Production in 2010, and they are happy to be negotiating with the large producers to license their efficiency platforms.

I described a possible vacuum physics state where light and matter waves do not travel "sideways" . In the interior, nearer to the event horizon of a black hole, the construction of transverse (sideways on a sphere) waves is strongly absorbing, not propagating. This is like curled-up dimensions, no?

http://www.poemhunter.com/song/all-along-the-watchtower/ Dylan and Hendricks!!!

Elas, I have been reading your offerings with a fairly open mind, and I respect the fact that you see a useful calculus. I might see further if you could patiently elucidate the fundamentals of your construction.

Yes, here at SCIENCEFORUMS, the therapy is FREE!

Thank you, Atheist, this is the realm of important confusion. It is clear that one cannot bail out a boat already underwater.

This is not clear!!! Your term ZPE is not useful to my thinking. Are you asking about the average kinetic energy of an equilibrium ensemble? This would be a fair question of Boltzmann statistics. . . . . . . .OK, I see you are ahead of me into the quantum mode description of ground-state energy. Vis-a-vis what, as others note.

It would be cool if some of the ideas from string theory could help mature our theory of the vacuum represented in four dimensions. A. Lisi's "Incredibly Simple Theory of Everything" is couched in 4-space. My colleague 'solidspin' is constructing quantum field theory outside the light cone. I am struck by how we have to make assumptions to interpret physics inside black holes. I thus offer the idea for consideration that physics is not equivalent there, and that the expression of energy in three spatial dimensions which we enjoy is not so except near the singular center. Then again, if Puthoff is right, interiors are a figment! What I share with him is a feeling of complete unification of gravitation and electromagnetism basically from dialing everything up from the "zero-point fields". The electric permittivity of "free space" is a locally experienced thing, and we allow ourselves to step back and say, ah, gravitation is the intensifying of this field, like a lens to light. I have not dealt yet with the strong force and helicity still scares me (though this will be coming out in the efforts I mentioned above), but I have some faith that ideas comprising a few constants and a few geometries will move us further.

Powerful discussions! Once sitting in the yard I watched as a neighbor's dog caught and gave a bad time to a mouse. He was a smart dingo dog whose character I liked (as a visitor), but what followed was ?!?!? He crunched a few times on the mouse, who was then not further moving. Then he just kind of played with it, batting it around on the grass. Then, grasping the tail in his teeth, he flung it into the sky two feet up. This was repeated for a while. I'm sitting there watching this poor tortured or dead, I hope, mouse, cartwheeling against the sky, and saying to myself not much!!!!!!!!!!

I think doG's point is what drives the urge to "watch the news", though it is a ridiculous compendium of bummers. We could start a newspaper and call it THE DAILY BUMMER.

Directions are completely relative, but what is essential is orthogonality. We are free to choose any locally orthogonal basis in which to express physics. We can move in x independently of y,z, say, and forces and energy are analyzed well in an appropriately chosen coordinate system.

Presumably you put it in there because you allowed for the possibiity of its usefulness.

Elas, that is an interesting statement you made. Once I started having an exchange with a well-versed physicist over the nature of the vacuum fluctuation fields. I found it annoying that he simply refused to respect the discussion ultimately. I said, the ground state of 1/2 in the E&M fluctuations demand this average expectation value. It is not clear to me that the quantum assumption, that there are virtual quantum states only, is the only useful interpretation. What theory describes as quanta "popping in and out of existence" I am approaching as a non-quantized stochastic background, because I can and it might be useful. He said, we cannot tell the difference so the discussion is moot. Arghhh.

I forget the high-scoring name, as I heard it on public radio. This should be in print somewhere. Maybe I should save up for the forty thousand pound steel armor package.

My brother, Steve Albers, is a meteorologist at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, programming models to predict Midwest twisters. He told me two years ago what I was missing in presenting papers for journal review. I appreciated his advice, but had to answer the point about finding an experimental path by saying, "I believe there are very capable people who know experimental ropes and one of them will see what to do with my ideas if any of them are useful." By being able to present my material on another forum which I subsequently cursed when its leading figure got stupid and insulting, I was answered by 'solidspin' who stepped right into my dream. He is designing a modified NMR experiment currently. Check out his response on Lisi's 'Incredibly Simple Theory of Everything'; last I checked it has not been answered, though it is highly knowledgeable. To the principals in this discussion thread I express appreciation for the patience that is manifest. We must work hard to keep our attittudes open, and I am tired of the confrontational attitude which does appear most of the time. I got it in the face when I first posted material here, a year and a half ago. If no one is willing to help develop anyone else's ideas, I think much is lost. On the other hand, any theoretic offerings must be put on the table of development and trial.

We must grapple with political realities. It is important to find a level viewpoint, and you will not hear it on even Public Radio News. What is called News is a compendium of bummers and conflicts, basically. There are zillions of stories of happiness and harmony, so there is something fundamentally stupid about news media.