Friday, June 25, 2004

On Jun 25, 2004, at 6:46 AM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, when I said, about your UFO energy source ideas,
"... I would like to see a demonstration
(preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
but
so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses
harnessed to hemispheres containing a vacuum) ...".
you replied
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"... This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations
that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)

1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122
powers of ten!

2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it
shrinks when hit hard in scattering.

3. What the galactic halo is.

4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.

I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click
with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction
can falsify my theory.

I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are!
How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how
confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview
of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers! ...".
---------------------------------------------------------------------


All of the things your mention, except 4,
do NOT involve any experiment done by humans to CONTROL the energy.
They only EXPLAIN PHENOMENA AS THEY EXIST IN NATURE WITHOUT
INTERACTION OR CONTROL BY HUMANS.

Yes, but they represent an important advance in basic physics IF I have not made
a stupid error or errors - always possible. Or if I simply have the wrong qualitative
conception of the deep structure of reality like I think Hal Puthoff has in both his
RANDOM ZPF origin of inertia and his PV model of gravity. Like Kerry and Bush there
is a clear difference between our physics ideas.

Now as to CONTROL. The good evidence for the reality of flying saucers is given on
the NIDS Website http://www.nidsci.org/ , so I take that as a FACT.

What you ask is not really what a theorist does. It's like asking Einstein for a detailed blueprint
of a nuclear reactor in 1905 right before he published E = mc^2. Nevertheless, I do have a general idea how THEY make the saucers fly and the math for that is in

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf

More is on the way. What is important is that my ideas for the "vacuum propeller" are part of the above grand scheme on the nature of reality and involve the explanation of the cosmological constant problem and other hitherto unsolved basic problems in physical understanding. Once others start thinking seriously about what I have wrought here - technological implementations will be rather direct. Meantime no one really has grasped what I am saying in any detail. They simply do not want to hear it as yet. It's a long upward battle to get the Pundits to pay attention -- but I am working on it. As Romulus and Remos will tell you, Rome was not built in a day! :-)

Ken Shoulders EVOs are quite close to proof of principle.


They have only the level of utility as Gamov's observation
that fusion could be the source of solar energy
has for building a hydrogen bomb,
i.e., they are a way of describing natural phenomena,
but
they are NOT YET a way of CONTROLLING the underlying energy flow.

Again I say heads up, look to the sky. There we see proof of principle and have been seeing it for 50 years.

YOU MUST SHOW A PROOF-OF-PRINCIPLE EXPERIMENT TO DEMONSTRATE
HUMAN CONTROL IN ORDER TO CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A USEFUL MODEL
OF HOW UFOs WORK. That is what I have not yet seen,
and would like to see.

Well I have been working alone on this problem. First I have had to solve the cosmological constant problem to my satisfaction. I first had to understand the real nature of dark energy and dark matter and how together they make a vacuum propeller in terms of Hermann Bondi's "negative matter propeller" with a "reverse Doppler effect" as allegedly seen by Bruce Cornet of NIDS. I only understood the dark energy/matter from vacuum coherence at beginning of 2002! So, this is good progress - a very big bang for a very small buck as these things go. I have been trying to get Hal Puthoff off his hobby horse to help me with this problem. Ken Shoulders, Hal's key experimental collaborator for many years back to NSA days in DC, has crossed over to my side on this and Ken is trying to get Hal to hop on my bandwagon - at least to shoot down my ideas as I have shot down his - quid pro quo. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf


Also,
I have no problem with you saying things that indicate
that "... string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten
and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to
pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" ..."
but
I do have a problem with your statement that you
"... have explained many observations that cannot be
explained any other way ..."
because my model
(see my web site at http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/TShome.html )
can not only do those things, it can also calculate the WMAP ratios
presently observed (which you indicated in correspondence that
your model cannot do) and can also calculate particle masses
and force strengths and K-M parameters.

Yes, maybe. I cannot understand your ideas here. I have been too busy with my own, which are mathematically much simpler and more direct. That's why I have suggested you work with Saul-Paul Sirag and Carlos Castro to make your basic ideas more understandable. My basic ideas are very mainstream and battle-tested. I simply use Einstein's text book GR, text book QM and text book ideas from soft condensed matter physics on the topological defects in macro-quantum order parameters etc. I also need Bohm's pilot wave-hidden variable theory. My math is little more than high school level, except for basic ideas of group theory and most importantly local gauge invariance and Hagen Kleinert's elastic world crystal lattice formulation of GR's tensor calculus. My BIG INSIGHT is replacing h/m quantum of vorticity in superfluids with quantum of area Lp*^2 in supersolids, which gives hologram picture and Hawking-Bekenstein bits automatically BTW.


I should note your model does have some points of similarity to mine
because some of its features are based on some of your ideas,
which I have tried to explicitly credit on my web site,
but there are some major differences, so they really are distinct
models.

I got idea of locally gauging 15 parameter conformal group basically from you. Also discussion with you clarified how w = -1 geons with positive quantum pressure simulates CDM with w ~ 0 as explanation of Omega(DM) ~ 0.23.

I should also note that, like you, I have not yet written up
a proof-of-principle experiment such as I would like to see,
so my model is no better than yours in that regard,
but as of now it is as good and is in fact "another way" to
explain 1, 2, 3 etc.

Explain cosmological constant.


As to 4 - Ken Shoulder's charge clusters,
maybe they are produced by humans, but I have not yet seen
how they are useful for energy production or proof.

You need to talk to Ken. He has lots of evidence.

You described the clusters in this way:
------------------
"... A typical EVO has r ~ 10^-4 cm, N = 10^11.
Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1 with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to the EVO self-electrical force 10^22x10^8 = 10^30
in these relative dimensionless units.
That is,
the self-electrical force at the surface of the typical EVO assumed
to be in a spherical thin shell is ~ 10^14 stronger than
the electrical force on the atomic electron in the ground state
of the hydrogen atom.
Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e at the
classical electron radius 10^-13cm. The relative self-electric
force is then 10^+26.
Therefore,
the electrical force of the typical mid-range EVO is only
about 10^4 larger than that on a single electron.
The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40G.
That is the effective Planck length Lp* in the interior of a
single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm. The effective Planck length
in the interior of a typical EVO is therefore ~ 10^-11 cm ~ h/mc
(a curious coincidence) since G* ~ Lp^*2. That is the ├ČEddington
numberî G*/G ~ 10^44 to stabilize the typical EVO. Note in this
thin shell model the uniform zero point energy density core actually
has negative pressure to give a springy positive potential self-energy
that scales as r^5 whose force slope is opposite to the positive
Coulomb potential self-energy that scales as 1/r. ...".

I have a new calculation on that, which will be in the GR17 paper. I think they are both consistent with
each other, but I am still working on it.


-------------------------
and, after reading that, about a month ago,
I wrote to you asking how your analysis of the clusters might or
might not apply to ball lightning,
but I have not received a reply. In case you trashed my message,
I am attaching a copy of it below my signature.

I am too busy with other things. However, ball lightning is probably a good association.

electrons -> charge clusters -> ball lightning as we ascend the great chain of being and becoming ... a kind of scale invariance perhaps.


Basically, it is a question about how your model behaves
if you scale up the Ken Shoulders charge clusters,
and I think that it is something that should be evaluated
if clusters are to be used in your model for UFOs or star gates.

Tony

Absolutely - this all takes time.

--------------------------------------------------------
Copy of earlier message from me to Jack:


Status: U
X-Sender: f130smith@pop.mindspring.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 23:46:44 -0400
To: sarfatti@well.com
From: Tony Smith
Subject: Ball Lightning etc
Cc: f130smith@mindspring.com
X-ELNK-AV: 0

Jack,
your recent message about EVO with r = 10^-4 cm, and N = 10^11
started me thinking about Ball Lightning,
so I tried to rewrite your message with the idea
that N is proportional to area r^2.

If you have a chance to look at the stuff,
please let me know what you think.


------------------------------------------------------

A typical Ball Lightning has r ~ 10 cm, N = 10^21.

Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
the Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^42 x 10^-2 = 10^40
in these relative dimensionless units.

That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of the Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^24 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.

Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.

Therefore,
the electrical force of the Ball Lightning is
about 10^14 larger than that on a single electron.

The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.

That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.

The effective Planck length in the interior of the Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-6 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.

---------------------------------------------------


A big (football field) Ball Lightning has r ~ 10^4 cm, N = 10^27.

Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison
where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1
with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16
compared to
big Ball Lightning self-electrical force 10^54 x 10^-8 = 10^46
in these relative dimensionless units.

That is,
the self-electrical force at the
surface of big Ball Lightning assumed to be in a spherical thin shell
is ~ 10^30 stronger than the electrical force on
the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom.

Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e
at the classical electron radius 10^-13 cm.
The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26.

Therefore,
the electrical force of big Ball Lightning is
about 10^20 larger than that on a single electron.

The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed
to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40 G.

That is
the effective Planck length Lp* in
the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm.

The effective Planck length in the interior of big Ball Lightning
is therefore ~ 10^-3 cm since G* ~ Lp^*2.

---------------------------------------------------

Tony

On Jun 25, 2004, at 4:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

BTW latest version - paper still under construction
See also http://qedcorp.com/destiny/GR17.pdf

On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:44 PM, Gary G. Ford wrote:


Tony Smith wrote:

> Whether you are entertained or repelled by Jack's theatrics,
> his physics should be evaluated as physics, and in my opinion his
> physics is interesting. My main complaint is that I would like to
> see a demonstration (preferably theatrical a la Otto von Guericke)
> but
> so far Jack has pleaded "I am not an engineer" whenever I have asked
> for him to design a proof-of-principle experiment (like horses harnessed
> to hemispheres containing a vacuum).

This is not really accurate. I have explained many observations that cannot be explained any other way such as (not a complete list)

1. Why the cosmological constant is so small. The discrepancy is 122 powers of ten!

2. Why the electron does not explode under its self-charge and why it shrinks when hit hard in scattering.

3. What the galactic halo is.

4. What Ken Shoulders' charge clusters are.

I have correctly predicted that dark matter detectors will not click with the right stuff to explain the 0.23 observations. This prediction can falsify my theory.

I have also explained what gravity, dark energy and dark matter are! How Einstein's GR actually emerges from the substratum! To see how confused The Pundits are on all this simply watch Alan Alda's interview of Mike Turner on PBS Scientific American Frontiers!

Ask the string theorists like Lenny Susskind and Ed Witten and the loop quantum gravity people like Ashtekar and Baez to pass a similar test of not being "not even wrong" (W. Pauli).

As for proof of concept - VERY SIMPLE! The Flying Saucers! Heads up! The Truth is Out There.

No comments: