ELEPHANTS in the LIVING ROOM

There are 3 reports of a big elephant in the living room. One involves dark matter, another dark energy, and the third, cosmologic inflation.

Advertisements

ICEBERGS

If we see an iceberg, I will say, yes and 9/10 of it is underwater!!! How can I say this? As a kid we filled the icecube trays and put them in the freezer, did you?? We learned to fill them not quite full, because the ice expands, and as an adult, I looked this up. when water freezes, the ice is fully 10% more volume.   Maybe things change under high pressure, but the curves say than the freezing can exert 20,000 pounds per square inch, yesssssss. We’ve all frozen metal plumbing at some point… to our dismay. Given these numbers, we don’t have a chance. DRAIN IT !!! Last November, I blew hard into the hose fitting for my 3 roof sprinklers, feeling I had cleared them. I had not, damn. This autumn, I will go up on the roof, and lift the 1/2″ copper lines making sure they are drained.  WIth icebergs if you are a ship captain, you had better know this, and use your imagination correctly, steering clear with wide berth.

I tried calculating, to see if there was a ‘magic lift’ available, driving a freezer for so many watts for so long, to freeze water in a jacket, under a great weight to lift. Offhand it seems like a bonus, but maybe the regime changes under the pressure, I don’t know!!!! Unless that load is 20,000 psi, it will be lifted !!!
LIKE WITH ICEBERGS, WE SEE ONLY 1/10 OR SO OF ALL THAT IS.

WHAT IS MASS??

Ever since 1905 and Special Relativity, we have seen how mass may be represented by its energy, mc^2. .  In an electric field, we may integrate the square of field, and get energy content. Now we know from particle pair production, that an electron has a mass/energy of 0.511 MEV.  That’s how much energy it takes to make one, and Nature produces charged particles in antiparticle pairs, given lots of energy slapping around. If electric field is simple as in the classical model, we get a clear radius where enough energy has been accounted for, and call this the CLASSICAL ENERGY RADIUS.  Roy Kerr, in 1963, gave us the solution to the EFE’s for an object’s SPIN. With massive objects, this may be important. With elementary particles, this is all that remains, like a Cheshire Cat.
In Kerr’s geometry  things are highly flattened, oblate. I have added up the energy implied in the DKS fields, published a few years after Kerr, and find it wanting, it is not right. I then created new fields, with different radial dependencies, which still HAVE ZERO DIVERGENCE.  This is the nature of what we face here. There is mathematically no one solution, but many are allowed. You really need to defend your field as per its PHYSICS. My electron near-fields add up very nicely for totals, that’s sort of how I created them. the DKS fields have too much strength right at  the ring edge, and mine have it so much better distributed, I was stunned to finally get to see, in Steve Albers’ plots, what I had wrought.
MASS WE ALSO EXPERIENCE AS INERTIA, and I followed Richard Feynman’s chapter 28 in Lectures, Vol. II., on inertial mass. If we allow an electron’s intrinsic E and B fields, and trundle it even slowly, and write out components of FIELD MOMENTUM,  we find accounting in the field, of net momentum.  CLASSICALLY THIS RESULT IS BAD, too large, and Feynman raises it as a challenge for the future !!!
My fields meet this challenge, and calculate beautifully also for intertial mass. Burinskii did not even know how to comment on this. I KNOW WHAT MASS IS.

GIFTS

Way back in 2009 when I started corresponding with Alexander Burinskii, I felt the wave of real anger rising within me. He answered with what I needed, saying this is how he handles his feelings:::
CAST NOT YOUR PEARLS BEFORE SWINE.  TEND RATHER, TO THE THINGS OF THE DIVINE.