Norman Albers

There is certain range of stable masses for neutron stars. I am not sure of latest exact numbers, but the Chandrasekar limit describes the maximum mass of a white dwarf, something like 1.3 solar masses. Similarly, neutron stars may exist up to just under 2 masses; so depending on how much mass is thrown off in the collision, two n-stars could become a BH. I HAVE A QUESTION: Do neutron stars have to be hot except for accretion (which could be matter and radiation)? Are they not devoid of nuclear fusion and thus internal heat production? A parallel question asks if we can speak of temperature in a nucleus. An "ideal gas" can be arbitrarily compressed and thermal energy taken out. It's not clear to me that this concept can be extended.

GCOL: I have the barrow accomplished but what you have clued me to is stepper motor systems for my player piano clients, who need all of one watt of mechanical power to run the perf'ed roll. The motors are "cheap" but the cheapest answer to DRIVER and CONTROLLER are a U-DO-IT for $40, nice. Is this where it's at? Regime of low power and RPM of 120 max. , torque of just under 1 N-m if I have my conversions, argh.

Dun,... dan,...dahn....DA DAH, dun don dun don dun don...

Quantum mechanics says there is a ground state of 1/2 to a "quantum oscillator", the definition of which I say has been overused. I agree that what this does mean is that there is an average value of fluctuation energy measured. What I speak of in my papers (photons...http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na) is the self-bunching nature of wave packets of even fractional sizes and that this combination of homogeneous and inhomogenous fields, in the language of electrodynamics, is what characterizes the vacuum. H. Puthoff is here before me in that he answered the fluctuations are sourced. So if there are disturbances of less than a unit of angular momentum, they cannot change a quantized atomic electron state. They must scatter elastically or be transmitted.

Thanks, babe, let's talk shop. (Neuton) WEEEEEE, I find it to be a new class of tool. For me, this is a HOMO SAPIENSIS MOMENT. Somebody please toss the big bone. <Thus Spake Zarathustra>.

You are dangerously smart. Don't tell anyone I said this, but what if the minus sign means that inside matter is falling asymptotically toward the event horizon? The horizon is sort of a matter-energy dipole.

The difficult case to vizualize is of a charge approaching a current line or wire. We understand that there should "be a B-field around the current" and that the charge must "cyclotron" about these lines, or at least be deflected. This means a sideways force; how can we pull this out of the hat? I did lay awake for a few spells over this. We may transform to the frame of the approaching charge and see the wire coming at us. The trick is to accurately consider differential current elements in the source. What was moving along the wire now has a perpendicular component added, so that the differential vector velocity is seen as a set of vectors at the resultant angle but laying on that line. Those on the approaching side of center are as an electron coming at you, with a reduced longitudinal field. Those on the other side show you the broadside gamma-squared increase of electric field. Thus there is a net electric side force. Sally, where are you? This could get funny.

The energy capacity does not sound awesome: running time on a charge is just over one hour. However, my task is a few hundred feet, and even at twice that, I could count on 8-10 runs, carrying 4-5times what I cared to in my barrow, with compromised mid-low spinal discs. That is twice what I need to do in any day, and will move a cord and a half of cured hardwood in one week. . . . . . . . GCOL, I have a lower power need to drive the paper rolls on player pianos at all of a half-watt of mechanical power. I look at small stepper motors at only $20 or less but quotes on the controllers are not clear. I need speed and reversing control. What is avaliable is DC (or AC) supply and I can arrange that.

I have a problem with your words: "...imagine now the electron moving at the photon." Because of the relativistic nature of both, especially the photon, there is no frame of reference in which it is stationary. Indeed this is what distinguishes mass.

From Ye Olde News: "The biochemist was convicted and sentenced to his own cell".

I can agree with von Hippel because a "good" scientist explores hypotheses which should be explored. Regarding string theoretics, I do have faith that all excellent mathematics will be useful, just maybe not as the first proponents hoped! Like I said about collapsed dimensions of the interior Schwarzschild solution... THOUGHTS TO CHEW GRANOLA BY: I have great appreciation for strings cut and strung. Their job is to coherently and thus strongly vibrate the larger soundboard of wood. This is a transducing problem characterized by impedance and energy transfer. By itself the string moves little air and has no "acoustic reality".

I no longer use the word "stuck". As Pete von Hippel said, "A good scientist is never wrong. He or she is only incomplete. There are just dimensions to the problem that you don't know about."

Fredrik, I enjoy your mindset, and feel that theorists need to spend more time literally on a mountain (as I have) or wherever they find productive sabbatical. I have undertaken several field studies with the attitude of seeing what necessary mathematic statements may be made, given clear ideas put in. Moving into a new house, we may or may not choose to hang all our old pictures on the new hooks.

Whatever the essential nature of the manifesting space, we are slowly circling and posing necessary questions like symmetry and helicity in the small. In general relativity, I elucidate the Schwarzschild solution in terms of a dielectric medium distinct in radial and transverse density. H.Puthoff interprets the isotropic possibility of "dark gray holes", where the geometric assumption of isotropy yields a more condensed result. The important focus here is, that the matured theory of the vacuum will choose the more correct answer, or declare the synthesis of future understanding. Going "out there", I told another correspondent that I don't care if he gives me a fractal theory of superluminal nature, just so it yields a vacuum response of dipole availability and a glass of good red wine.

Perhaps we could play footsie with a Van der Waals Street average.

When you collide things to smithereens (where's that word from?) the total spinning, yeah angular momentum of the pieces must equal what went in. So must total energy and momentum, and several other things. This works in accelerator collision kinematics as well as demolition derby.

The metamaterial rings put around a metal ring (partly) cancelled both reflections and forward shadow.

I knew I felt confused and then couldn't get back on this morning. We should not mix gravity and electromagnetism so freely! Equivalence speaks of inertial and gravitational acceleration being indistinguishable locally. The acceleration of this electron in not much and it gets less(going as r) toward the center. It will radiate from this, a bit. No one said anything about E&M being equivalent. I had mentioned infalling matter in stellar situations but I confused things. Yes, charges falling in will acceleratively radiate but the high flux of x-rays is from friction scattering all massive particles. ABSKEBABS, careful about who is accelerating. There is only one of the two twins in the paradox who goes away and then changes direction.

We say radiation occurs when a charge is accelererating in some frame. We can also say the accelerations here are small, and that the metric of the space is changing. We don't need a borehole, just an understanding of the free-falling charged particle. I was trying to say that in the chaos of matter falling into dense stellar objects there is thermal dynamics which kicks energy outward, but this is not the same as gravitational energy per se.

I suspect the body has several levels of signals, I mean realize we're talking stomach absorption, and kidney/bladder state already partly realized. I know breathing works on several levels, short-term and long-term.

We do see huge radiative output as matter falls into a strong source, but is this thermal? The usual radiative dipole we define is accelerating rapidly, locally, z-double-dot. Yes I am bailng out. It is not clear to me that this charge is radiating.

I am currently visualizing magnetic permeability of the vacuum as being proportional to electric permittivity in low energy regimes. If we can engineer the necessary phases for negative results, could we figure how to create a slightly lower value, compared with the vacuum? This would be handy.

I have offered the idea that the Schwarzschild metric precludes transverse modes of oscillation inside a black hole. This is not eleven-dimensional anything, but what if only radial spaghetti is allowed? Most agree this is the characteristic in toward the singularity, but how about copping to this? With some well-arranged media spin we could re-employ some really smart people and get something done. For those who enjoy a bowl of hot neutron/quark soup, is the collapse beyond 10^16 gm/cc a three-D change of phase, or perhaps a collapse of two dimensions?

Picture roughly the same area looking down at it, as a normal barrow. The two front drive wheels are just outboard so wheeltrack base is 25 inches. This, along with the battery slung between in a steel jacket, makes clearance only about 4-5 inches, so we're not talking all-terrain vehicle. The rear castoring wheel leaves the tub lower in the back than the usual wheel barrow tilt, so the whole bucket sits a few inches lower than a barrow. A broad U-shaped (two bends) handle with the controls comes up to waist height. Two forward speeds and reverse. Who knows, maybe when I get old, like next year, I'll attach a rudder stick and a bench and tool up to the mailbox at 2mph. WEEEEEEE. That is an interesting design point. I had figured that a fast hiker walks 3mph. This is nicely set at 2mph on high speed. PS The name rhymes with a hadron.

We must keep commercial references out of posts. If I recall seeing the one you mentioned it is large like an oversized barrow. Mine is a little lower than the common barrow with an inverted U handle with controls; three wheels. Reading wiki on stepper motors, they seem to favor small, controlled motions. Would they serve efficiently in this relatively high-torque (if you don't reduce gearing so much) running?