Norman Albers

It seems that expansion was slowing at first, but then reversed itself. It's sort of like space itself has some inner balloon property that becomes important, in the balance, when observable densities thin out. I'm not finished studying cosmology to where I can talk specifics, because I solved my Reissner-Nordstrom problem and am trying to understand what seem like lovely results. It is teasing me: my inhomogeneous contribution in the electron field does produce specifically a 1/r term but only in the limit at the origin. The usual Schwarzschild "mass" term of the same order is still freely available as a constant of integration. This is sort of anticlimactic, but still all quite exciting.

I have achieved the solution of this metric assuming the addition of the inhomogenous near-field I have discussed, (r^-2 + r^-1)e^-r. Just as this approach relieves the infinities at the origin of the electric field, so is the case with the metric. The "mass" term of 2m/r is produced equally well by my inhomogeneous representation.

Down the road is a dairy milking six hundred head of cows. Five or six years back they altered completely their approach and became organic. I am impressed and happy about this. Jerry is a bulldog of a man but a caring person. When the dairy was built 3-4 decades ago, the entire milking, hay feeding, and calf raising area drains and is scooped to a large central concrete pit, maybe 3x4 meters. Water is being added, and there is a large slow mixing bar so the sludge can be pumped out onto the fields, a daily process rotated around maybe 200 acres. To become organic and take in a higher price for the milk, they put out ten (or twenty?) miles of electric fence to parcel out the acreage into forty 5-acre pieces, separately accessible by the cows. Both manure projection/watering (we have dry summers) and the cows are rotated, the cows going to a different field twice each day. We see them walking down the different corridors in a calm procession. This means the fields grow untrammelled for twenty days, if I have the details right on the cycle, having been watered just after the cows leave. This has raised production, improved the fields, and Jerry was grinning. I am curious about our friend Airmid in the Nederlands and the saturation of their dairy lands.

Is there a monument to Thomas Crapper?

No shortages here, there are six hundred dairy cows two miles away, and many folks have a few horses. Recall my inspired Themonuclear Box gedanken.

Excellent, YT2095. Farmer Dave just keeps several piles always available for the people from miles around to drop their grass, leaf, and small brush up to quarter-inch sticks. I'll bet he flips them with a tractor bucket once or twice. They are two-meters tall and just out in the elements. As far as the viticulture is concerned, they may or may not like shredding, depending if it leaves bug eggs, but I will pass along this accumulating wisdom............Oops, I see, you are saying to shred and compost, cool.

This farmer uses only these compost piles made pretty much only with leaves and small branches. I will double-check whether he heats the piles with manure to get small sticks, like the canes would be, to decay faster. I think he said not. Stacks of vineyard cane cuttings would need leaves or something to thicken up the pile, I suspect. See, we had always thought nitrogenous manure was necessary for composting and gardening.

When we experience photons in cavities or waveguides, the sheath is there in the walls.

I mean to say here that homogeneous field terms do not supply enough OOMPH to constitute mass in the far gravitational sense. I suspect I might solve things differently assuming the point of DIVERGENCE is not so. This, simply , is where we swept the problem under the rug. Did you happen to notice the little low-lying cloud of dust when you walked into the room? The devil is in the divergence.

Consider the Reissner-Nordstrom GR metric solution for a charge mass-point. This is a free-space solution assuming those two characteristics are "vanishingly small" as to the region of divergence. We see the expected term in m/r; also we see the electric term in G/r^2, which we may interpret as the gravitation effect of the homogeneous (r^-2) electric field energy density. Thus people say it is not possible to understand mass! I assume a near-field inhomogeneity which is not bound to this relationship, and I am working to show an inhomogeneous solution where such a field produces the 1/r term.

Fredrik educates me as I look up "Bayes rule". I'll be damned it sounds like just what I'm talking of here, but I don't grok it yet. What I worked out is the probability of two polarized detectors at relative angle phi to flash in coincidence, given a randomly oriented pair of equal and opposite photons. This yields P= 1/2 + (1/4)cos(2phi). Is this the right starting point?

Thank you Glider. My next-door (ha) neighbor has at least ten acres of vineyard; down the road are hundred of acres. Keep those thoughts coming. I have another example staring me in the face: Halfway to town I pass an organic family farm whose vegetables in summer are magnificent, and I won't buy agribusiness tomatoes. He invites folks to pile up small branches and leaves and runs several large piles, two meters. I asked him about the huge cabbage, and how we always assumed (parse it) that manure for nitrogen, as well as fiber and minerals, was needed. He surprised me, saying those are not especially "heated" composts. I puzzle.

Is it such a perfect thing? The closest I've come in my readings, and also sitting and figuring the random angle of two polarized detectors affecting coincidence, is that rather than depending on the cosine of the relative angle, the probabilty has a linear term also, not contained in a cosine expansion. It even seems to me that we are speaking of an information loss, not gain.

How should I advise my neighbor on getting rid of prunings of grape vineyard canes? They are tough and need to be gotten out of the way. He thoughtfully said he does not like burning them but wants to. In a way it may not be so bad; see if you agree with my logic. You don't want these sticks on the ground, for the nuisance and for possible bugs. So maybe we rake them out and compost them, say, getting to broken down fiber which then continues further decomposition. Will their carbon will fairly well liberated in two or three years? My point is that once you start a repeating cycle and burn yearly, yes for the first two years, maybe, you are speeding carbon addition to the atmosphere, but after that the steady state is as it would have been composting. Shredding takes fuel and these are a tangle much worse than tree limbs; I'm not sure this is reasonable.

The same company manufacturing the electric garden cart I talk about in Engineering, makes an electric lawnmower. The Los Angeles South Coast Air Board purchased four thousand of these for people to exchange for their gasoline mowers!!! Turns out everyone having a vapor leak on the machine gastank, as well as gas containers which do not seal well, added up to a percent of hydrocarbon pollution worth doing something about. Here's hope.

I have treated the vacuum as an available superconducting plasma, but with no mass, specifically. It is accepted that a charge density in a magnetic vector potential A has momentum rho.A, usually thought of as having been caused by the ramping up of A. The Gaussian envelope shows radial dependence of the charge sheath to consist of two terms, and since charge and current densities are related as usual through continuity, we can speak of current: the first term indicates separation of charge, or current laterally, where there was none. In superconducting theory we often write:......... j=-lambda^2 A. The second term involves more the outer part of the sheath (though a linear sum is involved), and can be seen as the mechanics expected from the results of the first term interacting in the usual ways of inhomogeneous electrodynamics.

Cast your bread upon the waters, and get soggy bread. A great bumper sticker in town: Born OK the first time, thanks.

Amen, Fredrik. You shall be offered a post in the Rev. Norm's Unification Church.

Maybe at wholesale this is $1.3 mil., equal to the Nobel. I am considering a shift of focus.

You may think my electric garden cart is only cute. The South Coast (Los Angeles) Air Quality region purchased four thousand electric lawnmowers to trade gasoline ones from the public. These from the Neuton Company.At $400 a pop retail this is a cool $1.6 mil, folks. I wondered about their scale; these folks have really set up shop.

Gravitation itself is like negative pressure. Then again, a plasma has electric self-attraction. The article in SciAm focusses on galaxy evolution (observable) and says little on the math. It describes "energy" which does not decrease while density does. (I'm still reading on the eqs.)

Between you and Klaynos I'm learning important things. Sending anything through slits is changing the wave function. Absorption is localizing by an atomic receiver. Is this useful?

Either way, behold the roots of quantum mechanics. Plus some anticommutation rules, and expectation averages.

If it manifests negative pressure how can we call it positive energy?

Reading in the article (I'm not quite done with my Robertson-Walker-Friedman, de Sitter, Steady-State reading), laws of gravity are generally accepted and some form of energy pushes things apart. How does this relate to your claim that the metric necessitates the opposite? Perhaps our confusion is in the interaction of radiation and matter. For radiation itself, pressure is proportional to energy density. Source terms account for light's energy and also its momentum, in a pressure term. Then, however, don't we need a futher accounting of this pressure acting on the uniform mass distribution? We are positing a presure that does not decrease with expansion!