Norman Albers

Physical chemistry is cool. I got out the phase diagram. Going downward from zero degrees C., the phase boundary of ice I with liquid has a negative slope of about 200 atm. per degree, saying that if at -5 degrees you apply one thousand atmospheres pressure, you'll prevent freezing. This I think is a certain upper limit, but it gets rapidly out of hand. Given a roughly nine percent expansion (density of ice is 0.917 gm/cc), the datum I cannot find is a Young's modulus of compressibility for ice I. FURTHER PHASE PHUN: At about 2047 atm. and -22 deg., you get ice III phase state. Lower the temperature to -34.7 deg. and you get ice II.

Yes, Skye, the blocks are rather low mass density, but at ten feet long my friends used a forklift (tractor?) with large "claws". Speaking of rain, they chose this rather than straw because he wanted to build in winter rainy season. The styrofoam is used and shredded, which is satisfying.

Yesterday on radio I heard Chris Stills, son of Stephen, sing like an angel. He's got great, well-developed pipes.

I know I've heard of strawbale homes in Ashland, Oregon (nearby) but it turns out I was not correct about the particular house I mentioned. I just talked with that friend and he built with rastraw which is recycled polystyrene with cement. Blocks are 12" wide, and ten feet long! He said he cut off rebar with a torch blowing on a piece, and there was no smoking. His interior is sheetrock, and the outside is plaster. The walls have rebar vertical and horizontal, on ten-foot centers. The upper plate for the roof is wood 2x12", secured with J-bolts, same as to any slab.

Properly done, straw bale homes are supposedly enduring; we'll see. One uses a seedless straw, I guess after grain harvest. Of course you put an outer skin on the wall so it should not get wet. The one I know is built on a concrete slab.

How can I calculate the force with which freezing water, caught with no expansion exit, wrecks water pipes and fixtures not well designed for such temps and pressures?

Can't we say 'vacuum' means the evacuated state of whatever residual mass densities, atoms or plasma ions? This, relevant to whatever we are interested in measuring. Also present here is whatever radiation density. Definitions of temperature involve equilibrium energy distributions. The blackbody radiation density, or temperature ambience, is presumably that of the walls of an experiment regime.

Einstein said, about genius, that he thought he was a good physicist who would not stop.

On one hand, maybe it's classical, but on the other hand there is nothing classical about a fluctuation field of inhomogeneity.

If electrons are point-like, how can this yield finite energy? If you integrate the energy contained in the electric field alone, from a far distance into the classical radius, you get half an MEV. The field cannot contain a higher and higher energy density going to smaller radii, it seems to me! This is why I built a model where a near-field of polarization response balances the excess with negative energy. This leads me to the vision of electrons as singular arrangements of electric dipoles.

So I have joined the PV -theory club by showing how the dilations implied in the GR solution of a massive object may be seen as an increase in the permittivity, a "thickening" of the vacuum. If you study the E&M solution for fields in a dielectric, there's a sort of feedback in the equations so that as the increased polarizability approaches a value of 3, you get what's called "dielectric runaway" in E&M lab, where permittivity blows up. This is equivalent to the speed of light going to zero near an event horizon. I picked up on your tachyons, darkshade, because the interior solution has permittivity coming back from its blowup near the horizon, and even going down through unity inside, as I described before.

We speak of the local vacuum electric permittivity, the [math]\epsilon_0[/math] which relates electric fields and sources. You should be used to the concept of light going slower in a dielectric medium. Water, glass, plastic, all have additional polarizability which we call total permittivity or index of refraction, and is always greater than unity. Were it less, light-speed would be higher than c. What I did in this paper is to substitute the equations you can find in an E&M book for dielectric fields, into the Scwarzschild metric solution for a BH. That whole process assumes that physics is locally everywhere the same. However, the distant observer measures light and all matter "oscillations" relatively slowed approaching the event horizon. These equations of mine yield a most curious set of graphs in the interior.

If you plot out the permittivites, [math]K_{rad}, K_{trans}, [/math] in my gravitation paper, the interior portion, [math] r<m [/math] has the K's becoming less than one, and going to zero at the center. (The transverse permittivity is negative but comes to zero similarly.) This implies asymptotic speed of light!

The vacuum is not at all nothing. You are asking a very good question at the edge of our understanding, Ashish. I think here Klaynos gets us into the ballpark (yeah, right).

I found a table of the "distance an electron will travel before coming to rest" in air. One whose kinetic energy is 50KV goes 4.4 centimeters. One whose KE is 500KV goes 1.6 meters. One with 5MEV goes twenty meters. The curves of energy loss are interesting, as they are deep U-shapes, and for electrons in air the minimum for loss per centimeter is around one MEV.

What messes me up is the concept of proper time: what happens when by whose clock. I think this is glossed over, though I am not studied up on interior "collapse". One can say "the infalling observer falls through at such-and-such smooth rate" as they perceive it, but certainly near the horizon this may not be meaningful to outside observers. The interior solution I can study in my text is based on a co-moving Robertson-Walker metric. Following is an exchange from a good half-year of discussion with H.Puthoff: In a message dated 10/18/2006 6:32:38 P.M. Central Daylight Time, singularities@clab.net writes: ALBERS: As time crunches to a crawl even in your dark gray singularity we can say things are not happening at our clocking. PUTHOFF: Absolutely. ALBERS: It seems to me immense mistakes have been made here, by people talking about blithely going through a horizon, etc, not that you say this in particular. PUTHOFF: I agree. Another way of saying it. As the velocity of light seen from our frame drops to zero (approaching an event horizon) we (in our frame) we'll never see a particle go thru the event horizon, since its velocity cannot exceed the local velocity of light "down there," and that has dropped to zero. (For the exponential case, we will never see a particle reach a singularity at the origin.) So even though a rider on a particle would not note anything strange in his frame, he might notice that external clocks seem to be going so fast that eons will go by "out there" while he approaches the event horizon (or singularity for the exponential case) and therefore rightly assumes that the outsider would never see him make the progress he himself considers himself making. Pretty straightforward, in a way! Hal . . . . . . . . . [Albers], here and now: I have several comments to add to the general discussion: The GR solution for a collapsing dustball has it going to zero, although I do not yet know how to relate the interior time coordinate to the exterior. Another observation, don't be overwhelmed by "firey" scenarios. Neutron stars have no intrinsic heat source! Fire is manifest in the matter falling into these intense fields.

Yah, scalbers, I'm not up on the cosmology yet; you can see I'm just approaching, and I have worked in the small with geometric mass in the context of angular momentum and Kerr metric. I figure there's something to be learned by how much this figure differs from what is our "horizon".

You just missed it. Actually I did not yet put in the 0.85J/km^3, so one over the square root of that adds another 8%, so this is yielding 15 billion years. <Sorry, now the root's right>

Thanks, I am trying to put all these perspectives together, and one just has to mess around to learn a territory. Is my approach not also clear? . . . . Lo, it is! At least once I lay it out correctly. Getting the factors of two straight (??) I come up with [math] r_s=1.2E26 meters[/math]. Since a light-year is 8.6E15 meters, this gives 14 billion. Ah, now this is quite near 13.8.

Yes, gotcha. Lo, I'm fading and eating dinner. [bIGTEETH]. . . . Thus fortified, I can see that my problem should be stated, "with a density filling a Schwarzschild radius.." so yes, we take the cube of (2m) for the mass statement, but then also twice the result, so the answer comes out less by the factor of \sqrt(2) , or like 8-9 billion lt-yrs. Is this what you see, Martin? In detail, I'm asking what is the Schwarzschild radius of an energy density which fills that sphere. [math]r_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2} [/math] and we say the total mass [math] M=\frac4 3 \pi\rho (r_s)^3[/math]. Mass density [math]\rho[/math] is taken as energy density (in kg/m^3) divided by c^2.

I'm afraid some people just don't get the separation of church and state that most of the rest of us figured out a few hundred years ago.

I have learned much of the Kerr metric solution, described elsewhere. Right now I am working through the Lense-Thirring model of interior and exterior field. It is a linearized approach where the perturbation is assumed "relativistically small". It will share characteristics with an electron field whose mass terms are small compared with angular momentum expressions.

All matter forms are organizations of the vacuum energies.

[math]R^2=\frac3 {4\pi} \frac {c^4 }{GN}, [/math] where N is energy density in Joules per cubic meter. I used N at 0.9E-9, yah? Is my trusty sliderule serving? This is good, clean fun. Yes calculators won't make mistakes adding and subtracting magnitudes but you're gonna bury me, like Max Born, with my rule. I got exactly 1E26 m , and light-years are 8.6E15m. It comes out about 12 billion light-years I think. Sort of rings a bell, huh?

Yes, indeed, now I get about a centimeter for the Sch. rad. of Earth, and a very different answer for the geometric radius of an energy density of about one Joule per cubic kilometer. Putting that energy density over [math]c^2[/math], and figuring total mass of a uniform sphere I get ten billion light-years.