Norman Albers

I was raised in suburban New York City, in the middle of Long Island. West Side Story said much about situation.

We can L-transform any differential current source (locally in space) to have only an electric field representation. I went back and forth with Puthoff on this, and he agreed here but I have not yet shown that this means the vacuum needs no rotational or spin characteristics to transmit "magnetic" fields. I suspect it does not need these characteristics, and this is on my "list of things to do today".

L.Lederman's book The God Particle left me wanting to punch his lights out for his stupid attitude toward theoretics, except for the humanity I can appreciate where he says, the Nobel is cool because now people laugh at my jokes!!!

I am not up on the Kerr rotating solution but that's the basis of discussion here. Remember that in the formation of these objects there was much mass ejected and transfer of angular momentum.

A Ph.D. candidate named here solidspin has taken my "silly ideas" into the realm of constructing a photon position operator, riffing on the idea of superconducting response such as I identify in the photon field. Furthermore his construction employs nonlocal coordinates, though at the moment I am neither capable or free to say more. I am probably about to travel to Brookhaven to meet with him; we need to work together.

Multiply the circumference by that frequency and you're looking at about one-tenth of the speed of light, still a low-gamma state but a good boogey. For some reference, figure the Schwarzschild radius of a solar mass: [math]GM/c^2[/math]. I get roughly 1.5 kilometers.

I asked this some months back and got the answer, "asymptotically cooling" until you consider possible shell structure, and of course influx, so ???

The electron in the small limit is as a degenerate event horizon, although we reach the Planck length long before the Schwarzschild radius. Thus we should seek to understand particles as fundamentally electromagnetic resonances...

We are all, in different ways, geniuses and idiots. For me this hits a weak spot in vizualization.

Ah, a cultural advantage.

If you did not peek, YT, I think you're smart!

Sayonara is hot on it but I find your terms confusing, when you speak of opposite corners and a remaining side. Are the two "strong" corners, in your terminology, topologically identical?

Folded twice to a quarter-square. Can you describe the lay of the folds?

Here is my intelligence test: describe the four corners of a square napkin folded twice. Are any two the same? (I failed.)

What's the LED lamp efficiency, and how do they supply the low DC?

My kitchen has four 15 watters, one in the hood over the stove which is the most-used, making bright an otherwise dark center. Then a ceiling fixture I took out the old stuff because it's nice brass, and just mounted two simple screw sockets to hold to compacts. Then, over the sink I run one in a marvelous older deco-style lighthouse Frennel glass I got at a flea market.

I am reading a beautiful book called "Faster Than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo. It is all here in your face. Page 7: "Most of modern science is done in collaboration." [Colleagues] "would shake their heads, and at best say, "Shut up and don't be stupid..." and on page 9, "I want people to understand the scientific process for what it really is - rigorous, competitive, emotional, and argumentative. It is people endlessly debating each other, often shouting their disagreements." Also, however, there are the Perelmans, and the Diracs. Dirac was somewhat reclusive, keeping to his local scene in France and not attending meetings. Perelman so stunningly said simply, "You do not represent me." Count me in this latter group. ALBERSAWA

Not such a tall order. Over ten thousand hours, the cost of one flourescent equals the six to ten incandescent bulbs, and the power cost is 30% or so. It is a little money up front, but a no-brainer. I called the county Planning Office to ask about restaurants burning many kilowatts in their ceiling lighting, recessed canisters often. I figured flourescents might be too hazardous here. To my surprise, they answered that there is no reason not to substitute. My, my, such a savings and people have not yet done it! Here is a good place to put our political energy, locally. Write the newspaper and talk with managers.

After many months of work I have written the Minkowski tensor in spherical basis representation, for my electron model fields. The radial electric field is as originally worked out in the Reissner-Nordstrom solution. Though I do not use them here, if I am correct the top row of the tensor reads: [math]0, -E_r, -rE_\theta, -rsin\theta E_{\phi } [/math]. Finally also I have the magnetic terms spawned by my assumption of current [math]A_\phi[/math]. Those conversant in tensor manipulation may have wondered why I struggled to transform the Cartesian form of the [math]F_{ab}[/math]. The reason is that there is much differential geometry to master when one starts with the vector potential. You have to go through the curl operation and also the machinery of spherical coordinates. The vector A by itself is a pseudotensor: there is a natural way to see it as contravariant but you cannot transform it by the necessary differential form to covariance. Importantly, when you take the curl you get a true tensor in the Minkowski form, and you get the correct representation in spheric coods. by following coordinate transform multiplication rules for each index. Thus I have constructed the stress-energy tensor for the RHS of the gravitation equations including the magnetic dipole self-field described in the model. I shall be examining the R-N solutions altered by these terms as I have already partly described for the electric components.

Gravitation is expressed in the seeming vacuum, as indeed are electric and magnetic fields. It behooves us to get down to vacuum theory.

Farsight, I'll contact you about reading your presentation. I have gone through the numbers of the Reissner-Nordstrom fields, over in the QM section, and it seems to me that the gravitational energy of all measured "particles", even in the GEV range, is insignificant compared to electric energies and thus they must be explained as electromagnetic resonances. I see charge as a nearfield of divergence which is always quantized outside of nuclear states.

I define greatness as the ability to think creatively, and then to be willing to move forth questioning the worth of your creation. General relativity is a differential mathematics in search of physics. Farsight, here's a knuckleball. I think I can show why electrons are the size they are, energetically, given the inhomogeneous electromagnetic dance describing them as singularity. Consider light energy of frozen phase, such as I detail completely with mathematics in my electron paper, circulating in a near field. It may be described by energy density and also by angular momentum density. Having done these ang. mom. integrals, I can say that they depend strongly on the radius at which a field momentum contributes. The clincher is that field density of energy equals that of ang. mom. multiplied by the frequency. We are used to dealing with this in the quantum relation [math]E=h\nu[/math], but it isn't hard to show that given the orthgonal field relations we understand, this works out. Consider a perturbation on the electron field to where it is more spread out, diffuse. Locally the decrease of energy density is not matched by the angular momentum since it goes also as radius. Therefore the field cannot do this consistently. The singularity may exist, in my analysis, given vacuum dipole availability and the fundamental constants (to some point!) determining its magnitude, along with this geomtetric physics. I have not yet spent time developing this formally so I join you here in the kitchen. I have developed mathematically electrons, photons, and gravitation as states of the vacuum polarizability.

I have finally found how to represent the magnetic vector potential in spheric coordinates. The Minkowski tensor cannot be simply constructed in terms of [math] A_{r,\theta,\phi}[/math]. It is an expression of the curl operation which is defined only on covariant vectors, and the arbitrary A-vector does not qualify. One must construct a multiple of the usual A-vector with the local metric scale, which in spheric coordinates is a 3x3 matrix whose diagonal is [math]<1,r,rsin\theta>[/math].

When I do electrodynamic accounting I consider the energy densities of both source and field terms. In a closed system they will be equal, but not distributed equally, in their totals. It turns out it is not necessary to deal with this upon entering the Einstein field equations as I have with my electron nearfield, and this is an important fundamental statement. I am dealing with the alleviation of "point sources"; in the inhomogeneous E&M representations I use I may alternately consider densities as the square of electric or magnetic fields, or else as source terms like [math]\rho U[/math]. However, the gravitational field equations are written as functions of the "stress-energy tensor", fundamentally as the fields rather than sources. This is important in the general understanding of what we are structuring into which theories, as well as telling me that I don't need to process a charge/potential term through the R-N metric. Thus the observations offered by my electric field substitution cancelling the gravitationally repulsive nature of the metric field may stand.

Dirac makes it clear that he is clueless as to why there are such entities. It seems to me that quantization of angular momentum, spin, is the easier phenomenon to understand because it comes out of spherical harmonic analysis. Dirac expressed his pleasure that the mechanics of spin-1/2 came out of his fermion wave mechanics: "This was a great surprise to me. I thought that simplest particle would naturally have a zero spin, and that a spin of a half would have to be brought in later as a complication..." He goes on to describe the Klein-Gordon equation developed by Pauli and Weisskopf as one dealing with several particles which are bosons.