Norman Albers

Pardon me if I didn't speak to whichever specific: I figured Schw. radius as 4.4 meters for Earth, without the factor of 2. [math]m=\frac{GM}{c^2}[/math] and checking terminology I see I am speaking of the geometric mass while the Schwarzschild radius is twice this or 8.8 m.

I do have the Rev. Norm's Unification Church.

Well, I calculate part of a light-year, maybe 2/3, at 0.9 Joules/km^3.[bIGTEETH] (I will rerun the numbers.) This is interesting fun, as its tells us the scale at which expansion becomes notable. Can we not calculate a certain higher density at which a 'dust cloud' becomes critical? I shall read in my cosmology chapters. . . In mks units, G is 6.67E-11.

Some experimenters have a bad attitude toward mathematics. Some mathematicians do not relate to testable reality.

Would this country accept a Born-again-Pagan, or a Wiccan for presidential candidate? I doubt it. I do have holidays: May 1 and Halloween, and or course, solstice.

Can't distant non-moving points define common clock time? You subtract knowing the speed of light and your separation. Or you can imagine a common source clock halfway between. I don't see what you're laying out, Slinkey.

Luke, are you thinking about string theory? I have not much patience here either except that I do think most good mathematics will prove useful one way or another, sometimes not as first interpreted. Gravitation is a great example of physical theory evolving and it shows how our understanding evolves as an opening lotus. We go back and forth between mathematics and experiment, and slowly new ideas and conceptual associations bring us further inspiration. Newton psyched out the mechanics of planets and as Swansont observes offered no basis as to why. Einstein constructed General Relativity as a further 4-D mathematics of gravitation, again without explanation of the physics of spacetime, of the vacuum, which is assumed to stretch in smooth ways. There are strong clues, of course, since we build upon the Lorentz flatspace metric. Now we are poised to go deeper to relate this behavior to our quantum theoretics of the vacuum.

I think it is part of the answer that one has experienced acceleration and the other has not, because that is what distinguishes the two upon return. On the other hand, one can think in terms of the two simultaneous (Earth-Moon) clocks, just asking what the ship's clock reads as it goes by the Moon post. It should read slower, right? The simultaneity of frames is not shared.

Thanks for the explanation, Martin. I must have been reading on stationary models.

I do claim to be a born-again Pagan, though I am unsure about the implied theologies, and would appreciate advice. . . .<<I await the decisions of the court in India as to the appearance of HANUMAN in court.>>

Now figure out the Schwarzschild radius of an electron. . . . . ALSO, do you realize that at whatever density of 'a mass distribution', there is such a radius? If the density of the universe is such-and-such, then there is a size where it's a BH.

They seem to be here to digest what we need to. My last comment is pretty stupid. What I would rather say is that one learns much about liquid solutions by slowly increasing voltage between electrodes and seeing increases of current from different species.

Acknowledging death . . . is necessary to know . . . preciousness of life.

I know a straw bale house here in southern Oregon, and it has almost no heating or cooling needs.

How will it be after several decades of exposure and stress? I don't think it's strange because all this is evolving indeed. Several things including plastics are being used as inclusions in concrete and what are their lifetimes?

Whoa, Mongoose, cool!!! Now please refer to my post in QUOTABLE QUOTES, the "Albers dictum" concerning the likelihood of communication! We have, temporarily broken the FLOW OF ENTROPY. In the conical case there are two dimensions that slope. There is a [math]D^2[/math] on both sides of the equation, so again a vertical scale stick won't care. In my first 'V' case I had two vertical sides which I could mark, but in the cone either you include a center stick or consult with MrMongoose about a cosine relationship, yes.

I'm reading that the geographic poles wobble only a few meters every year. <EDIT> Doesn't this sound like earth rotation vis-a-vis the stars, or sidereal time, is fairly steady? <> Magnetic poles, on the other hand, are crazy. The North magnetic pole is moving toward Siberia at 50 kilometers per year. The South pole moves at 5 km/yr.

There will be a little recoil, but the amount of mass discharged is small, no? What do you see and hear when this pops off?

Thanks, ajb. There is plenty I can do learning to walk, yet. My text humbles me by assigning the low-field Lense-Thirring problem as an exercise, so I'm working on this for one thing.

You want natural? . . . I mix brown hide glue crystals! . . . We still boil 'em down!

I'm trying to remember (I was there) if we did honey and cayenne in our hippie days, late 70's.

Happily it has been several years since I can recall any 'bad throat' or cold, but at any sign I adopt a WARRIOR ATTITUDE. Water, salsa on light food, an attitude that says NO.

Nice attitude. I computed relativistic kinematics as part of an accelerator research team (Princeton, at Brookhaven) in 1970. Two years later I completed a Master's at Stanford, looking at plasmas. Over the intervening decades as a piano tuner and tech, I have read and contemplated. Every time we pass again through the challenging stuff, we GET IT a little deeper. I'm on pass #8 or 9 with quantum theory.

My parameter statement is that height is fixed, H, regardless of our monkeying with slant angle. Given H, the scale stick is not dependent on the angle of the 'V'. Look in side view. We are equating the rectangle of rainfall RD to the area of the measurement triangle, and expressing everything in <h,H>. Whenever I feel a faint fuzziness in understanding, I find paper.

Right on, Swansont. This is major, depending upon the ratio of the speed of light or [math]\beta[/math] at which the frames move. Similarly, in General Relativity, nearing an event horizon severly slows physics in that frame as measured from outside. We witness asymptotic approach, really, and redshift all the way to zero, except upon appeal to quantum physics.