See "Teleportation Physics Study" by Eric W. Davis, Air Force
Research Lab Special Report, Edwards Air Force Base, August
2004, distribution unlimited (1.7 MB PDF file):

http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

Eqs. (2.10)

About negative surface energy and negative surface tensions for a flat mouth stargate traversable wormhole toy model. It has a singularity so it is not a practical solution. But that is not the error. The error creeps in when Eric talks about the Casimir force i.e. ZPF. Like Hal Puthoff, who Eric says is his "mentor", Eric does not understand that w = (pressure/energy density) or in this thin shell case (surface tension/surface energy density) must = -1 for reasons of Lorentz covariance + equivalence principle (i.e. gravity-matter minimal local gauge coupling).

Kip Thorne's exotic matter source for the star gate (1986) was on-mass-shell real not off-mass-shell virtual.

In the case Eric treats rather than (1 + 3w) for 3D we have (1 + 2w) for 2D "thin shell".

That is we approximate Einstein's equation to the weak field Poisson equation

Grad^2V(exotic 2D shell throat) = (4piG/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 2w)

For Eric's solution (2.10)

This is w = +1 (on-mass-shell exotic matter)

But as soon as one talks about ZPF, then w = -1. Therefore, a negative zpf energy density has a positive pressure and this will gravitate not anti-gravitate as is needed. So what you want is a positive zero point energy density to get the anti-gravity. Eric explains this incorrectly. Also the QED Casimir force has nothing to do with this totally new kind of induced strong gravity from exotic vacuum zero point energy!

The discussion on p. 10 of this USAF report is seriously wrong. This is a common confusion in the literature BTW. Eric makes no mention of dark energy in precision cosmology so it is not surprising that he makes this conceptual error. Had he read Mike Turner's reviews on dark energy he would have realized this error, which has propagated in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" and in Aviation Week's "To The Stars" earlier this year.

Note 3 If it ain't broke don't fix it. Why Hal's PV is a waste of time and certainly should not be put forth as a plausible route to practical metric engineering of Warp, Wormhole and Weapon W^3 (UFO high strangeness).

"We see that, despite some people's worries about energy conservation, general relativity has some very remarkable observational confirmations." Penrose p. 467

3.1.1 "the gravitational waves emitted by the remarkable double-neutron-star system known as PSR 1913 + 16 ... This system, has now been observed over a period of some 25 years, and its detailed motion has been tracked to great precision (which is possible because one of the stars is a pulsar which emits very precisely timed electromagnetic 'blips' some 17 times a second). The timing of these signals is so precise and the system itself so 'clean', that comparison between observation and theoretical expectation provides a confirmation of Einstein's general relativity to about one part in 10^12, an accuracy unprecedented in the scientific comparison between the observation of a particular system and theory. This figure refers to the overall timing precision over a period of more than 20 years." p. 466 Penrose "The Road to Reality"

3.1.2 Now it should be perfectly obvious that anyone who comes along today and claims that Einstein's theory of gravity has some fundamental conceptual flaws in its battle-tested domain of intended validity is immediately marked as a crank by the top people in the field - the keynote speakers at GR 17 for example. One must admit these top people have a strong case. On Hal's PV model, that Mike Ibison, who works with Hal, says is not compatible with general coordinate covariance and the tensor method and does not give the right answer for PSR 1913 + 16.

3.1.3 "But there is another reason, apart from just organizing complication, that the tensor calculus plays such a fundamental role in Einstein's theory. This goes back to the foundational principle of equivalence which started Einstein's whole line of thinking. Gravitation is not to be regarded as a force: for to an observer who is falling freely ... there is no gravitational force to be felt. Instead, gravitation manifests in the form of space-time curvature. Now it is important, if this idea is to work, that there be no 'preferred coordinates' in the theory."

3.1.4 "Theory" here means the local Euler-Lagrange dynamical field equations from a critical point in the action functional in the space of "paths" (Feynman approach). It is well known that particular vacuum solutions can spontaneous break a continuous symmetry and this is indeed the case in the FRW cosmology that does describe our large-scale universe to the amazing current precision of 2% and that can be expected to shrink with new space experiments. Our thermodynamically adiabatically expanding (Hubble redshift) accelerating (Type 1a supernovae) universe has a Hubble flow, i.e., a preferred operational state of rest in which the cosmic black body background radiation stretched out remnant, from the decoupling of photons to electrons 380,000 years after the Big Bang, now at a temperature of ~ 2.7 deg K, is isotropic to temperature fluctuations to 10^-5 (NASA WMAP Space Probe). Absolute time and absolute velocity measurements relative to this Hubble flow are now routine and provide the basis for the reliable navigation of our coming warp drive Space Navy as we fulfill our Manifest Destiny Matrix Out There in the Never-Ending High Frontier of the Infinity of Worlds in Super Cosmos.

3.1.5 NASA Pioneer 10/11 space probe blue shift acceleration pointing back to the Sun.
In my theory Einstein's gravity in the exotic vacuum is

3.1.5.1 Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

which in the Galilean-Newtonian limit is the static Poisson equation

Grad^2Vzpf = c^2/\zpf

emerges from a macro-quantum vacuum condensate "Higgs Ocean". We only need the S-wave term in the multipole expansion of the Green's function solution for the toy models below.

3.1.5.2 The data shows a zero point energy exotic vacuum hedgehog point defect in the single-valued Higgs Ocean local order parameter pinned at the center of the Sun. The hedgehog is two concentric spheres, in this case with center at the Sun. The first one starts at ~ 20 AU at Uranus orbit. We do not yet know the radius of the outer sphere. There is no exotic /\zpg zero point dark energy density inside our solar system out to 20 AU. The hedgehog has a constant gradient flow between the two spheres. This is well known to soft-condensed matter physicists. Indeed, the dark energy density distribution between the two spheres is simply

/\zpf(Solar Hedgehog) = H(t)/cr

Where H(t) is the FRW Hubble parameter

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

t = FRW cosmic time (conveniently defined) and R(t) is the dimensionless FRW scale factor of expanding accelerating 3D space.

The exotic vacuum gravity potential energy per unit test particle mass in this weak field limit of GR is

Vzpf(Solar Hedgehog) = c^2/\zpfr^2 = cHr = c(Hubble recession speed)

The observed anomalous Pioneer acceleration back to the Sun is then

a_P ~ cH(t) ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2

3.1.5.3 Note the galactic halo with a flat stellar rotational curve has

a = v^2/r

where tangential v is constant.

Vzpf(Galactic Halo) = c^2/\zpfr^2 = ar = v^2

/\zpf(Galactic Halo) = (v/c)^2(1/r)^2

3.1.5.4 If the universe is a hologram in the sense of t-Hooft and Susskind then the entropy of the universe is simply

S(Universe) = (kB/4)R(t)^2

kB is Boltzman's constant and 1/4 comes from Hawking's formula for black hole entropy.

R(t) is the dimensionless FRW scale factor.

Note that the entropy of the post-inflationary Universe is zero at the Big Bang.

This explains WHY the Arrow of Time for the irreversibility of the Second Law of Thermodynamics points the same way as the expansion of space of the Universe.

My Father's House has Many Universes.

3.1.6 Active Diff(4) symmetry implies an infinity of parallel universes next door!
Remembering that Penrose is talking about the structure of the local partial differential equations of the c-number field theory (that's all we need for Feynman's path integral quantum field theory as well) and not certain special solutions with certain kinds of Killing vector fields: "if a limited class of coordinate systems were taken to be Nature's preferred choices, then these would define 'natural observer systems' with respect to which the notion of 'gravitational force' could be re-introduced, and the central role of the principle of equivalence would be lost. The point is, in fact, a rather delicate one ... it is essential for the spirit of Einstein's theory that this notion of coordinate independence be maintained. This is what is referred to as the principle of general covariance. It tells us not only that there are to be no preferred coordinates, but also that, if we have two different space-times, representing two physically distinct gravitational fields, then there is to be no naturally preferred pointwise identification between the two - so we cannot say which particular spacetime point of one is to be regarded as the same point as some particular spacetime point of the other!" p. 459

Here Penrose gives an excellent definition of parallel interpenetrating universes of the IT kind not the BIT worlds of Everett and Deutsch BTW. This is quite "classical" actually "macro-quantum" and has nothing to do with the Hawking-Hartle "Wave Function of The Universe".

3.1.7 I was told by someone of great stature in the field (close to Penrose) at GR 17 that Hal knows well who has read Hal's work "It's not right, don't waste your time on it." Kit Green says he got an opposite opinion from a Nobel Prize physicist. I would like to know who. This is more than abstract theory because the UFO data is of immense long-term national security importance. The recent shut down of NIDS is also most curious. The UFO "high-strangeness" discussed by Jacques Vallee and Eric Davis on the NIDS website cannot be ignored although Eric Davis, with USAF connections, trying to explain it using Hal's PV ideas is a serious blunder in my opinion and gets a certain part of the US Intelligence Community looking in the wrong direction sort of like what happened in Iraq on WMD.

Problems: 3.1.A How does Puthoff's PV theory get the two transverse oscillating stretch-squeeze tidal polarization modes for gravity waves?

3.1.B How does Puthoff's PV theory describe the gravimagnetism (Lense-Thirring frame drag) of a gyroscope - now seen experimentally?

3.2 Also a quick comment on Fontana's idea presented at Paul Murad's STAIF Pow Wow in Roswell Country:

On Oct 24, 2004, at 7:06 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


Design of a Quantum Source of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW) and Test Methodology

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0410022

Authors: Giorgio Fontana
Comments: CP699, Space Technology and Applications International Forum-STAIF 2004, proceedings published by AIP and edited by M.S. El-Genk
Subj-class: General Physics

The generation of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW) has been identified as the required breakthrough that will lead to new forms of space propulsion. Many techniques have been devised to generate HFGW, but most of them exhibit marginal efficiency, therefore the power emitted in form of gravitational waves (GW) is orders of magnitude lower than the input power. The gravitational wave counterpart of the LASER, termed Gravitational-wave LASER or "GASER" is the quantum approach to the efficient generation of gravitational waves. Electrons, protons, muons, etc, all have charge and mass, if accelerated they usually lose energy through the very fast electric and magnetic channels, this causes a negligible emission through the gravitational channel. Quantum systems can be engineered to forbid electric and magnetic transitions, therefore the gravitational spin-2 transitions can take place. A class of active materials, suitable for making a GASER based on electronic transitions in the solid state, is identified along with their relevant physical properties. Means for creating coherence and population inversion and means to increase the emission probability are described. The expected performances of the device are derived from quantum gravitational theories. Additional properties of the active materials are considered to enforce the theoretical foundation of the device. A proof-of-concept device, operating at about 1 THz, is described. Experiments are proposed as a natural starting point of the research.

This appears to be highly implausible because for "bodies ... in motion, in orbit about one another ... gravitational waves - ripples in the fabric of spacetime - will emanate and carry positive energy away ... In normal circumstances, this energy loss will be very small. For example, the largest such effect in our own solar system arises from the Jupiter-Sun system, and the rate of energy loss is only about that emitted by a 40-watt bulb." Penrose p. 465

OK, but what about Ray Chiao's superconducting gravi-magnetic/electromagnetic transducer effect. Even with that it's hard to see how HFGW could lift a 30 foot flying saucer before we even get to Super Carrier Class Star Ships.

Podkletnov and Ning Li making claims with the support of Modanese. Wait and see. Millis from NASA BPP not optimistic.

Hard to see how even a GASER could have a large enough propulsive effect. Even if it did, this would be a tidal stretch-squeeze and it is hard to see how this can translate into a zero-g force "near metric field" Alcubierre warp drive with zero time dilation and effective global faster than light capability (locally the ship is on a timelike geodesic with no causality violation). One loophole is the idea that space-time gets soft at small scales beginning in the nanometer 10^-7 cm needed for practical metric engineering. That is the "string tension" (c^4/G) must get weaker. IF Hal Puthoff's PV could be salvaged by getting rid of that exponential isotropic stumbling block, then c getting smaller would help. This does happen in a BEC of course. Hal, of course, wants c to get bigger, which is going the wrong way down a one-way street. Of course my exotic vacuum /\zpf idea is an entirely different approach to any of those above.

That said, let's continue.

3.3
Fig. 19.8 p. 465 is a nice example of the inherent nonlocality of the negative gravity potential energy that persists in Einstein's GR and is not only a property of its Newtonian limit as is sometimes falsely claimed.

"We see that, despite some people's worries about energy conservation, general relativity has some very remarkable observational confirmations. ... Gravitational energy is a genuinely non-local quantity. This does not imply that there is no mathematical description of gravitational energy, however ... we do not yet have a complete understanding of gravitational mass/energy, there is an important class of situations in which a very complete answer can be given. These situations are ... asymptotically flat, and they refer to gravitating systems that may be regarded as being isolated from the rest of the universe, essentially because of their very large distance from everything else." p. 467

*Paul, note as I said this is what Pauli means by a "closed system", i.e. asymptotically flat!

"The work of Hermann Bondi ... generalized by Rayner Sachs provided a clear-cut mathematical accounting for the mass-energy carried away from such a system in the form of gravitational waves, and a conservation law was achieved ... This conservation law does not have the local character of that for non-gravitational fields, as manifested in ..."

Tab(Matter)^;b = 0 REAL LOCALLY CURVED SPACE-TIME REPRESENTATION ;b = GCT covariant derivative

or

Tab(Matter)^,b + tab(Matter<->Geometry)^,b = 0 VIRTUAL GLOBALLY FLAT SPACE-TIME REPRESENTATION ,b is Minkowski space-time ordinary partial derivative.

Note that tab(Matter-Geometry) is a good tensor in the VIRTUAL POINCARE GROUP of GIF -> GIF' frame transformations of this fictitious space-time that Yilmaz and Hal Puthoff misinterpret as physically real.

tab(Matter<->Geometry) is NOT a Diff(4) GCT tensor of course.

tab(Matter<->Geometry) = 0 in the Diff(4) geodesic LIF.

tab(Matter<->Geometry) =/= 0 in the Diff(4) non-geodesic LNIF.

Do not at all confuse this with the completely separate equation from the Bianchi identities

Gab(Vacuum Geometry)^;b = 0

t*ab(Vacuum Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Vacuum Geometry)

This splits into a matter-free really vacuum conformal part and a matter-induced Ricci part.

More on that later.

On Oct 28, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


PS

Note that Tab is a 4x4 matrix.

There is a principal axis transformation that diagonalizes it. The
diagonal elements in that case are the eigenvalues.

Trace{Tab} is the sum of the eigenvalues. It is a frame invariant under
these kinds of transformations, which are not obviously GCT, but
something else? A different kind of group. What is the physical meaning
of this new group? In classical mechanics of coupled particles they are
"normal modes" of independent motions in a linear theory. What do they
mean here in classical local field theory?

Det{Tab} is the invariant product of the eigenvalues.

All of this is local in space-time.

There are also other sums of products of the eigenvalues forming the
coefficients of the secular polynomial of the matrix.

Question: can we generalize this formally to tensors and spinors of
rank > 2?

For example a third rank tensor is a lattice in a 3-space. Can we
diagonalize it?

There is a set of diagonals in these higher dimensional cases.

Similarly, a 4th rank tensor is a lattice in a 4-space and so on.


On Oct 28, 2004, at 8:29 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

1.2 Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality" (2004) 19.5 The
Energy-Momentum Tensor

1.2.1 "[What is] the energy density of a field?, this density being
the source of gravity ... such as Maxwell's ... it does so via a
tensor quantity ... This is a symmetric [02]-valence tensor which
satisfies a [local] conservation equation [COVARIANT 4-divergence of
energy-momentum tensor vanishes] ... The quantity T^ab collects
together all the different densities and fluxes of the energy and
momentum in the fields and particles ... in a standard [flat]
Minkowski coordinate system, the covector T^0b defines the density of
4-momentum, and the three co-vectors T^1b, T^2b, T^3b, provide the
flux of 4-momentum in the three independent spatial directions ...
T00 measures the energy density, and T11, T22, T33 measure the
pressure, in the three directions of the spatial coordinate axes."

[Note by Jack on micro-quantum random zero point exotic vacuum
energy-momentum tensor (AKA stress-energy density tensor true for all
quantum fields of any spin;

Trace{Tab(zpf)} = T00 + T11 + T22 + T33

For real photons with w = +1/3 this is 2T00

At the boundary w = -1/3 between ordinary and exotic matter, the trace vanishes.

P(zpf) = T11 + T22 + T33

Energy Density (zpf) = T00

w(zpf) = P(zpf)/[Energy Density (zpf)] = -1 ]

For an isotropic case, no Casimir type plates for example, I should
have written

3P(zpf) = T11 + T22 + T33

T11 = T22 = T33 = P(zpf) = -T00 from Lorentz + General Coordinate
Covariance + Equivalence Principle

Therefore

Trace{Tab} = T00 + T11 + T22 + T33 = Too + 3P = Too(1 + 3w)

This is generally true for isotropic case for both real and virtual
stuff.

For virtual off-mass-shell vacuum zpf stuff

Too(zpf) + P(zpf) = 0

i.e. w = -1

Therefore,

Trace{Tab(zpf) = -2Too

For virtual photon ZPF, Too > 0 i.e. negative pressure.

Kip Thorne's criterion for "exotic matter" (1986) for the metric
engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon is

Trace{Tab(exotic matter)} < 0

"However, something very different happens with the energy-momentum of gravity itself ... "
Roger Penrose, "The Road to Reality" (2004) p. 456

To appear in my book Super Cosmos that I am keeping from release until after the election is decided.

On Oct 26, 2004, at 5:57 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK now I recall all that.

Will get back to you tomorrow.

NOTE they are using NON-COVARIANT divergences appropriate ONLY to flat space-time where you CAN do integrals and preserve the Poincare group tensor properties after the integration, which you cannot do with Diff(4)!

This is the source of the pseudo-problem and WHY Yilmaz introduced that second flat space-time metric that Hal Puthoff loves so much.

On Oct 26, 2004, at 5:37 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

Here are scans of Pauli's "Theory of Relativity", Section 61, pp 175-178:

OK I am in my office with all the relevant books. Also have Penrose's latest.

CAPS below are mine not in the original quotes.

Note 1 of several over an extended period of time for this allegedly still not settled problem in general relativity.

1.1 Wheeler in "Geometrodynamics" (Acad Press 1962) this is 40 years after Pauli's unripe immature though genius lectures in GR's infancy.

"energy not defined for a closed universe" pp 64,66

Paul have you confused "closed system" in sense of thermodynamics with closed universe, i.e. k = + 1 in FRW metric?

As distinct from a linear theory with only linear coordinate transformations like 1905 global special relativity that is violated in general relativity i.e. reduced from the admissibility of Global Inertial Frames GIFs to only Local Inertial and Non-Inertial Frames (LIF & LNIF):

"Geometrodynamics differs in character even more decisively than previously suspected from any linearized version of field theory. Being so different, Einstein's general theory of relativity has to be discussed on its own terms, in the light of the most general principles - not in terms of the workaday tools and concepts used for a linear theory.

1.1.1 The total energy is not a defined quantity for a closed universe. The usual derivation of the law of conservation of energy considers a 3-space and in this 3-space considers a 2-surface which contains all relevant parts of the system in question. However, in a closed universe, surfaces drawn at greater and greater distances from a given point ultimately have to contract and shrink to nothingness in some antipodal region of space. The law of conservation of energy reduces to the trivial entity 0 = 0 ...

1.1.2 total energy [is] a defined quantity [only for] a linearized field [where it can be represented] as the sum ... from individual [normal] modes of excitation [Fourier analysis]. In contrast, there is not the least evidence that a geometrodynamical universe naturally admits any description in terms of normal modes of excitation. No total energy, no normal modes are two novel features of classical geometrodynamics. There is a third: There existg situations in which there are pairs of points in space-time which cannot be connected by a geodesic ... the Schwarzschild metric furnishes the best studied example ..."

1.2 Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality" (2004) 19.5 The Energy-Momentum Tensor

1.2.1 "[What is] the energy density of a field?, this density being the source of gravity ... such as Maxwell's ... it does so via a tensor quantity ... This is a symmetric [02]-valence tensor which satisfies a [local] conservation equation [COVARIANT 4-divergence of energy-momentum tensor vanishes] ... The quantity T^ab collects together all the different densities and fluxes of the energy and momentum in the fields and particles ... in a standard [flat] Minkowski coordinate system, the covector T^0b defines the density of 4-momentum, and the three co-vectors T^1b, T^2b, T^3b, provide the flux of 4-momentum in the three independent spatial directions ... T00 measures the energy density, and T11, T22, T33 measure the pressure, in the three directions of the spatial coordinate axes."

[Note by Jack on micro-quantum random zero point exotic vacuum energy-momentum tensor (AKA stress-energy density tensor true for all quantum fields of any spin;

Trace{Tab(zpf)} = T00 + T11 + T22 + T33 = 0

P(zpf) = T11 + T22 + T33

Energy Density (zpf) = T00

w(zpf) = P(zpf)/[Energy Density (zpf)] = -1 ]

1.2.2 "The energy momentum tensor of the electromagnetic field [is]

Tab(EM) = (1/8pi)(FacF^cb + *Fac*F^cb)

Fac = Aa,c - Ac,a

i.e. 4D curl of EM 4-potential

Cut to the quick with the bottom line

1.2.3 "However, something very different happens with the energy-momentum of gravity itself ... when gravity is absent space-time is flat (i.e. Minkowski space), and we can use flat (Minkowskian) coordinates. Then each of the four vectors T^a0, T^a1, T^a2, T^a3 INDIVIDUALLY satisfies exactly the same conservation equation as does the vector J^1 [4-Divergence of T^a0 = 0 etc., for T^a1, T^a2, T^a3 analogous to 4 divergence of J^a = 0]. with the implication that there is an INTEGRAL CONSERVATION LAW exactly analogous to that of charge ... for each of the four 0-components [T^a0] of energy-momentum separately. Thus total mass is conserved [i.e. 3D space integral of T^00], and so are the 3 components of total momentum [i.e. 3D space integrals of T10, T20, T30]. But recall the discussion [Ch 17] of Einstein's equivalence principle, and of why this leads us to a curved space-time. Thus, when gravity is present [e.g. in a non-geodesic LNIF where "gravity force" = "g-force" ~ "connection field" = "weight" is measured - this is not same as operational measurement of the curvature tidal force that CAN BE DONE in an LIF, do not confuse the two], we must take into account that the [LNIF covariant derivative ;u] is no longer simply [the LIF ordinary partial derivative ,u] but (14.3) there are extra [connection fields that are not homogeneously multi-linear transforming Diff(4) local tensors] that confuse the very meaning of [4-divergence of T^a0] AND WHICH CERTAINLY PREVENTS US FROM DERIVING AN INTEGRAL CONSERVATION LAW FOR ENERGY AND MOMENTUM just from our [local] conservation law [Covariant 4-divergence of the energy-momentum tensor vanishes]. The problem can be phrased as the fact that the EXTRA INDEX b in Tab PREVENTS IT FROM BEING THE DUAL OF A 3-form, AND WE CANNOT WRITE A COORDINATE-INDEPENDENT FORMULATION of a 'conservation equation'(like the vanishing exterior derivative of the 3-form *J [in flat space-time Maxwell EM field theory] in d*J = 0."

[Note from Jack - so this a relation between curvature and topology. In order to get a global conservation law, topology is a new ingredient in curved manifolds. The topology of globally flat Minkowski space-time is trivial and we were lucky. Pauli and Einstein did not know this in 1921! Cartan did not do the relevant math until later! You need a closed 3-form to make a DeRham integral conservation law on the curved manifold which is generally not topologically trivial as the exact vacuum solutions of GR show!]

"We seem to have lost these most crucial conservation laws of physics, the laws of conservation of energy and momentum."

Note Paul, that so far this is general for any Tab not only tab(pure gravity vacuum).

Next time "The Fix" i.e. Killing vector fields for isometries in curved manifolds.

On Oct 26, 2004, at 12:32 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote:

Hi Jack,
You seem to be indicating from your posts that the Philadelphia Experiment really happened. Word on the street is that it was all made up.

I have good reason to think that something very strange really happened. One from a former high CIA guy who was a personal advisor to Richard Nixon another from a guy in his 80's who was probably really there at the time - but would not say much - very reliable type.

I even saw a show on cable that debunked the story and the people telling it. Did the ship really move through time and space with just some kind of field generator and no propulsion system except propellors? Do you have some definitive inside information?

Yes, but I am not saying that it moved through a dark energy wormhole time machine connected to a universe next door. Only that something strange really happened. The former chief scientist at SARA (we worked with SARA at ISSO 1999-2000) who then went to work for Senator Robert Byrd's ISR and since sort of vanished knew a lot about it. He had access to the Tesla Archive in Beograd even during the Cold War. Very curious. It's one of those anomalies that will not go away. It's like the NIDS story at the Utah Bigelow Ranch of creatures like Big Foot coming through a 3 foot wormhole hovering a few feet above the ground. This story was published by NIDS physicist Eric Davis. The point is that my work since 2002 on exotic vacuum dark energy metric engineering of the NEAR gravity field makes such high-strangeness stories more plausible.

Art

Subj: [DarkUFO] Re: Al Bielek and the Philadelphia Experiment - Bielek-debunked.com online again
Date: 10/26/04 4:11:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From: robert_a_goerman@yahoo.com
Reply-to: darkufo@yahoogroups.com
To: darkufo@yahoogroups.com

Hi -

Here is some insight into the Philadelphia Hoax--Project Gullibility.

"Alias Carlos Allende"
The following article originally appeared in the October 1980 issue
of FATE. Also included are the two Allende letters to Jessup, the
Introduction to the Varo edition of The Case for the UFO, a photo of
Carl Allen's birthplace, the Allende "Death Bed Statement" and more.
http://windmill-slayer.tripod.com/aliascarlosallende

Yours in research,
Robert A. Goerman
http://profiles.yahoo.com/robert_a_goerman

Official FATE magazine Message Board
http://fatemag.com/phpBB2/index.php

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Born March 3, 1952, Robert A. Goerman is a
native of New Kensington, Pennsylvania. You've seen him on Unsolved
Mysteries and The Unexplained on the Lifetime and A&E television
networks. The History Channel found him working on both sides of the
camera for History's Mysteries and Incredible But True? His writings
have appeared in national magazines and served as source material for
several popular books on the paranormal. One FATE magazine article
was reprinted in Extraterrestrial Life, (ISBN 0737704616) a
Contemporary Issues Companion anthology for the high school level
published by the prestigious Greenhaven Press. His latest project is
UFO WAR.

There is NO ZERO POINT ENERGY in ordinary non-exotic vacuum. It is all absorbed into the Higgs Ocean that is then completely calm without any surfy foam of breaking waves.

Exotic vacuum means foamy breaking waves in the Higgs Ocean for UFOs with warp drive to SURF on! These foamy waves are not to be confused with quantum gravity foam, which does not exist in this theory!

The exotic vacuum effective gravity potential energy per unit test particle mass induced by its zero point energy is in the spherically symmetric S wave case of the static Green's function multipole expansion of the Poisson equation weak field slow speed limit of Einstein's field equation is

Vzpf ~ c^2/\zpfr^2


Example 1: Pioneer Anomaly with local SINGLE-VALUED Higgs Ocean Order Parameter in S^2 space;

In the case of the Pioneer anomaly, the Higgs Ocean has an exotic vacuum hedgehog point topological defect at the center of the Sun.

/\zpf = 0 from r = 0 at center of the Sun out to r ~ 20AU at the orbit of Uranus.

From that point on out to some outer limit r* yet to be measured by future spinning space-probes

/\zpf = H(t)/cr

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

R(t) is the DIMENSIONLESS FRW scale factor for the currently accelerating expansion of 3D space.

Therefore, in this zero point energy exotic vacuum hedgehog region between the inner and outer spherical surfaces centered at the Sun

V(zpf) = cHr = (speed of light)(Hubble recession speed)

The observed Pioneer anomalous acceleration is

a_P = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2

This is known to a precision of ~ 10^-8 cm/sec^2 therefore all claims of a minimal acceleration of c^2/(Hubble scale) from the quantum gravity foam of geometry are falsified.


Example 2: Quantum Gravity Foam does not exist! - prediction

There is no quantum gravity foam in the Higgs Ocean! Therefore, anomalous dispersion of cosmic gamma rays from

E^2 = [(pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2]/[1 + (pc)^2/Ep^2]

With E --> Ep as pc/mc^2 >> 1

should NOT be seen. So far they haven't been seen.

Example 3: Dark Matter Galactic Halo of "Dark Matter" surrounding the central large black hole keeping the outer stars in the galaxy

There may also be a hole in the zero point energy exotic vacuum halo there as well, but it is not a hedgehog, the flat circulating tangential velocity v* rotation curves imply

/\zpf ~ 1/r^2

Therefore

V(zpf) independent of r

We can also write

V(zpf) = cv*

where v* is the constant circulating tangential speed of the stars in the dark matter Galactic Halo

----------------------------- 
Reply to Zielinski:

Paul,

We are spinning our wheels here. You ask questions that make no sense to me. You seem to think that P_k being "frame dependent" is a problem. Are you saying P_kP^-k is not frame invariant?

Second of all WHAT set of "frames" do you mean? Define them! When you do you will see they must be global frames in the asymptotically flat region outside the finite region of curvature.
Diff(4) only has LOCAL FRAMES. Therefore the frame of the integrated quantity P_k is NOT part of Diff(4) but is for the asymptotically flat approximate Poincare group! Yet you say Pauli does not mention that. That is a contradiction. Pauli probably assumed that was so obvious that he was not explicit about it.

Let's put this on hold because I would have to do a careful reread of Pauli, MTW etc. on this that will take a lot of time.

The physical reason for the use of the pseudo-tensor for stress-energy density currents is the splitting of the dynamical degrees of freedom of the full metric field into off-mass-shell nonpropagating near field background + propagating on-mass-shell far field gravity waves. Also you need to put in the EM field explicitly as part of the detectors - a point made by Rovelli BTW.

Einstein's GR Diff(4) field equations TRIVIALLY conserve stress-energy density currents LOCALLY. GR is only a local field theory. The P_k are NOT local Diff(4) objects. They only have meaning in special space-times that are asympotically flat with a DIFFERENT emergent approximate asymptotic GLOBAL Poincare group that has no Diff(4) anymore. The "global frames" for P_k are NOT Diff(4) local frames! If you confuse apples with oranges you get in trouble.

Doing global integrals in curved space-time is tricky business and involves topology - global constraints beyond the local field equations. So what you have is a new set of theories i.e.

Local GR (1915) + Global Topological Constraints

The latter introduced "nonlocality" - not same as "quantum"

Einstein's local field equations are simply

Sum of all relevant stress-energy density current tensors = 0

In the 1915 theory

tuv(geometry) + Tuv(matter) = 0

where

tuv(geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

Now in 1915 theory the Bianchi identities give the vanishing covariant divergence

tuv(geometry)^;v = 0

Therefore, the "wood" matter currents are locally CONSERVED separately without any direct exchange with geometry.

The "marble geometry" is in a separate compartment from the "wood matter".

That is

Tuv(matter)^;v = 0

ALL BY ITSELF!

Metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon is IMPOSSIBLE in this limit!

Indeed, metric engineering requires the violation of the 1915 Bianchi identities.

Furthermore in this limit in VACUUM defined by

Tuv(matter) = 0

Obviously

tuv(geometry) = 0

Therefore the total local stress-energy current density Diff(4) tensor is WELL DEFINED and is EXACTLY ZERO!

P_u is a horse of a different color - an integral of a far field pseudo-tensor piece of tuv(geometry) = 0

Now in my theory I DERIVE Einstein's GR theory of gravity as a limiting case of the variations in the Goldstone Phase Field of the post-inflationary macro-quantum coherent calm partially random highly-ordered massive Higgs Ocean that emerges from the spontaneous symmetry-breaking instability in the micro-quantum incoherent stormy completely random massless clothed Dirac Sea including w = -1 zero point virtual bosons of positive energy density and equal and opposite negative pressure as well as w = -1 zero point virtual fermion-antifermion pairs of negative energy density and equal and opposite positive pressure.

Also I throw away Tuv(matter) completely in first approximation as a small perturbation because in the FRW limit of cosmology

Omega(matter) ~ 0.04 with w = 0 and w = 1/3 components

w = pressure/(energy density)

Omega(exotic vacuum) ~ 0.96 with w = -1

Dark matter detectors will not click with The Right Stuff, i.e. dark matter is virtual exotic vacuum not real exotic particle on mass shell.

Exotic vacuum can either anomalously gravitate or ANTI-GRAVITATE depending on TWO FACTORS

1. Sign of the virtual energy density

2. Space distribution of the energy density.

The exotic vacuum field equation is

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

In general

Guv^;v =/= 0

This is necessary for metric engineering.

From: sarfatti@pacbell.net
Subject: Design for 21st Century RAF Spitfire Warp Engine 1
Date: October 24, 2004 6:47:21 PM PDT
To: ItalianPhysicsCenter@YahooGroups.com, SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, and 1 more...

No need for any of that. The equations are precise. Alcubierre has a nice picture you can get on line.
Space at front of the craft contracts and space behind the craft expands. The alien time travel saucer itself simply free floats like a surfer catching a wave. The less excess verbal baggage the better. :-)

There is really no mystery at all on the fundamental physics. The technology is another story, but once one has the right idea that usually follows.

On Oct 24, 2004, at 4:55 PM, DonEMitchell wrote:

Hi Jack,


Is Ken wanting to know what a warp craft is pushing against in this "world"?


Ken writes...

I need a commonly used word or phrase that defines the medium that the
force is being applied against.

How about "buoyancy"? Space-momentum buoyancy.

No not "space-momentum". Simply zero point pressure buoyancy in the Higgs Ocean from exotic vacuum zero point pressure differentials, but with NEGATIVE pressure playing a big role. So, yes you can think of the RAF Spitfire Warp G-Engine as similar to a submarine's buoyancy control system. Negative pressure adds a counter-intuitive wild card to the deck.

You can think of the craft surfing on a pressure differential a little buoyancy and like like airflow around a wing in lift, but you need to be careful because it's not only the sign of the quantum zero point pressure, it's also how that virtual pressure is distributed in space and time. For example you can use dark energy of negative pressure to either make an attractive "force" or a repulsive one.

In Alcubierre's model you have negative quantum pressure at the stern and positive quantum pressure at the bow. The positive pressure at the bow in the exotic vacuum boundary layer "glove" increases with distance from the fuselage driving the equal and opposite quantum energy density more and more negative so that the bow or the nose slips down this negative energy slope. At the rear in the bow or the tail, depending if you are Navy or Air Force, the negative pressure gets more negative with distance from the tail in the boundary layer so that the positive energy density increases with distance away from the tail so that the tail also slips down that potential slope in the same direction as the nose.

The universal gravitational potential energy per unit test mass induced by a zero point w = (pressure/energy density) = -1 /\zpf field, in the weak slow-speed limiting case of Newtonian static potential theory is simply formally where I{ } means integrate over relevant domain:

Vzpf(r) ~ c^2I{d^3r'|r - r'|^-1/\zpf(r')

This is Green's function i.e. |r - r'|^-1 particular solution of the linear Poisson equation.

In many cases you can approximate this crudely as an S-wave forgetting the higher multipoles (Legendre polynomials)

Vzpf(r) ~ c^2/\*zpf(r)r^2

if the field point r is inside a region of non-vanishing exotic vacuum source field /\zpf(r')

Let r = distance from the nose of the Star Fighter. r = 0 is touching the smart AI nano-engineered hull. You want something like

V*zpf(nose) ~ -c^2|/\*zpf|r^2

taking /\*zpf independent of r.

Therefore the "gravity acceleration" is

a_ufo = -dVzpf/dr

a_ufo(nose) = +2c^2|/\*zpf|r pointing away from the nose!

That is the nose of the Star Fighter Spitfire free falls forward! It does so weightlessly! NO g-force just like Paul Hill's "acceleration field" and George Trimble's "G-Engine" concept. Similarly at the tail, you want something like

Vzpf(tail) = +c^2|/\*zpf|r^2

so now

a_ufo(tail) = -2c^2|/\*zpf|r pointing into the tail!

Well that's the first very rough idea.

If you reverse the relative senses you will tear the ship apart with a strong tidal curvature stretch -> RIP! Goldstone phase-locking stability in the induced exotic vacuum zero point energy field's Josephson "weak link" coupling for metric engineering the fabric of space-time geometry

/\zpf = (Mc/h)^2(Overlap Volume)(Higgs Ocean Density)^1/2(Control Condensate Density)^1/2 cos(Goldstone phase difference)

Note that the NASA Pioneer anomaly is simply an exotic vacuum hedgehog topological defect from the center of the Sun that starts at 20 AU with

Vzpf = c^2|/\*zpf(r)|r^2

where

|/\*zpf(r)|Sun = (H/rc) for r > 20 AU

Therefore

Vzpf(Sun) = cHr = cv'

v' = Hubble cosmological effective speed of recession

Observed anomaly is then

a_p = - dVzpf(Sun)/dr = cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2

Similarly for the galactic halo surrounding the big black hole at center of the galaxy.

Here also maybe a "hole" in the halo, but now since the tangential speed of stars is flat with increasing r

|/\*zpf|galaxy halo ~ 1/r^2

So it's not a hedgehog exotic vacuum defect, but another kind.


Ships sink in sea water that is a foamy froth made when sediments releasing
enough methane. Foam is less dense than water.

A large underwater bubble raising up one side of a buoyant submersed buoy
would cause the buoy to lurch toward the bubble.

Perhaps a region of space on one side of a craft may be rotated or swollen
(per concept) into a higher dimensional dynamic,

FORGET HIGHER DIMENSIONS - don't need hyperspace for this - at least not yet.

leaving a rarification of
"space-fabric" in this dimensionality. This is an airplane lift effect, but
in 4D. In 4D the lift is caused by tweaking the space-fabric that affords
inertia, which redefines "stationary", where inertia is conserved in the
higher dynamical system of "warped space".

No you have flown off to fantasy land. One must stick to the geodesic path of the math! This is not Beat Poetry with Anything Goes. ;-)

This makes me wonder if there is an axis of conservation for time?

That's word salad - has no meaning. :-)


Cheers,
Don


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:23 AM
Subject: Ken Shoulders question on how to explain charge clusters as EVOs

On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:27 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:

Jack

I need a readily understood word to define a component of a passive,
gravity resisting system.

It's not resisting gravity at all. It's shaping gravity into an anti-gravity
field if needed by controlling both the sign of the residual micro-quantum
random zero point pressure and how it is distributed in space. Do not use
word "resistance" as it give wrong impression of irreversibility like
thermal electrical resistance.

You have made it clear that an EVO is capable of warping space to
produce a thrusting or traction producing effect that could be used
against gravity.

Also never use "thrust" because that also gives the wrong idea of
conventional impulse drive in which g-forces are felt locally by an observer
on the EVO or the flying saucer etc. This is a true weightless warp drive!
Think of it like a champion surfer riding a huge Tsunami wave in the Higgs
Ocean that is the origin of the fabric of curved space-time. In true metric
engineering, not Hal's wrong PV version, we control the Higgs Ocean to shape
or tailor the Higgs Ocean to achieve the mission objective.


I need a commonly used word or phrase that defines the medium that the
force is being applied against.

You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong way. Forget force.
Einstein's Vision replaced gravity force with pure geometry. You cannot use
classical ideas of Newton's force to really understand what is happening.
Just think of a ball rolling on a landscape and we are changing the shape of
the landscape of hills, valleys and mountain passes in the neighborhood of
the ball to pilot it the way we want it to go. In the case of EVOs of course
this is happening spontaneously without intelligent control.


In effect, the resistor afforded by space.

No, that is exactly the wrong picture. Do not think in terms of electrical
resistance analogies.

I find the suggestion of dark anything to be repelled by most
ordinary users, including straight physicists, and am looking for a
substitute.

They are wrong. All the top physicists today use "dark energy". I don't know
who you are talking to, but they do not know what they are talking about if
they told you that. Tell them to talk to me and I will set them straight.
Remember this is totally new physics and no one you have talked to
understands it. What they thought they knew or even knew is not adequate for
this new physics.

I would appreciate your input.

Ken

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: October 24, 2004 10:22:35 AM PDT
Subject: Ken Shoulders question on how to explain charge clusters as EVOs


On Oct 24, 2004, at 6:27 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:

Jack

I need a readily understood word to define a component of a passive, gravity resisting system.

It's not resisting gravity at all. It's shaping gravity into an anti-gravity field if needed by controlling both the sign of the residual micro-quantum random zero point pressure and how it is distributed in space. Do not use word "resistance" as it gives the wrong impression of irreversibility like thermal electrical resistance.

You have made it clear that an EVO is capable of warping space to produce a thrusting or traction producing effect that could be used against gravity.

Also never use "thrust" because that also gives the wrong idea of conventional impulse drive in which g-forces are felt locally by an observer on the EVO or the flying saucer etc. This is a true weightless warp drive! Think of it like a champion surfer riding a huge Tsunami wave in the Higgs Ocean that is the origin of the fabric of curved space-time. In true metric engineering, not Hal's wrong PV version, we control the Higgs Ocean to shape or tailor the Higgs Ocean to achieve the mission objective.


I need a commonly used word or phrase that defines the medium that the force is being applied against.

You are thinking about this in entirely the wrong way. Forget force. Einstein's Vision replaced gravity force with pure geometry. You cannot use classical ideas of Newton's force to really understand what is happening. Just think of a ball rolling on a landscape and we are changing the shape of the landscape of hills, valleys and mountain passes in the neighborhood of the ball to pilot it the way we want it to go. In the case of EVOs of course this is happening spontaneously without intelligent control.


In effect, the resistor afforded by space.

No, that is exactly the wrong picture. Do not think in terms of electrical resistance analogies.

I find the suggestion of dark anything to be repelled by most ordinary users, including straight physicists, and am looking for a substitute.

They are wrong. All the top physicists today use "dark energy". I don't know who you are talking to, but they do not know what they are talking about if they told you that. Tell them to talk to me and I will set them straight. Remember this is totally new physics and no one you have talked to understands it. What they thought they knew or even knew is not adequate for this new physics.

I would appreciate your input.

Ken

On Oct 23, 2004, at 3:18 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:

CONTINUED

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


[PZ] But the point here is that in Einstein's theory *even the global quantities are frame-dependent*.


AS THEY SHOULD BE!


But the problem -- as stated by Pauli, no less -- is precisely that they *are*.


I think you have misread Pauli.

It's in all black and white. This is from Pauli's account of the the problem as it stood before 1918 (as raised by Bauer and Schrodinger) to which Einstein's 1918 paper -- in which he first introduced the idea of "non-localized field energy" -- was a response:

"....Einstein calls the t_ik the energy components of the gravitational field and J_i the total momentum and energy of the closed system."

This is too vague. How is t_ik defined?

is J_i = I{(-g)^1/2t_ike^kjlmdx^jdx^ldx^m ?

Remember this is a spacelike integral so that J_i is no longer a Diff(4) LOCAL tensor even if t_ik is one.


"On closer inspection, however, great difficulties become apparent, which oppose this point of view at first sight. In the final analysis, they are due to the fact that the t_ik do not form a tensor... we can conclude immediately that that they can be made to vanish at an arbitrarily prescribed world point for a suitable choice of coordinate system..."

That's what I told you Paul. t_ik = T*ik(far field) in my notation!

"Bauer [Phys. Z. 19 (1918), 4] showed that by simply introducing polar coordinates in the Euclidean line element of special relativity the energy components are found to have values different from zero, in fact the total energy becomes infinite!"

I need to see what this means. What does special relativity have to do with it? This is out of context and without seeing exactly what was done in 1918 you cannot draw any general conclusion.

"In spite of these difficulties it would, on physical grounds, be hard to abandon the requirement that an analogue to the energy- and momentum-integrals of Newtonian theory should exist."


"A final clarification was eventually brought about in Einstein's paper [S.B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss (1918), 448] ... In this he proved that the expressions.. for the total energy and momentum of a closed system are, *to a large extent*, independent of the coordinate system, although the localization of the energy will in general be completely different for different coordinate systems."

It's not clear what this means without seeing the math. I think he means the J_i as a 4-vector relative to the approximate asymptotic flat translation group? "Independent of the coordinate system" must mean covariant under the action of some group. In this case J_k as a first rank tensor relative to that APPROXIMATE asymptotic flat group of translations which can also carry and approximate O(1,3) GLOBAL group in that asymptotic region of the special space-time under consideration.

"The proof was later completed by Klein [p 54, ibid.] According to this, one cannot assign any physical meaning to the t_ik themselves, i.e., it is impossible to carry out a localization of energy and momentum in a gravitational field in a generally covariant and physically satisfactory way."

YES! And I showed you exactly why!

-- W. Paul, "Theory of Relativity", Pergamon Press (1958), Section 61, pp 175-177.

This is straight out of Pauli 1921, re-editied 1956-58. You obviously have not properly studied this issue.

With all due respect, Jack, maybe you should stop pounding the table on this until you have.

On the contrary, I have explained it to you. You do not understand the physical issues here. You do not understand what a tensor is! A tensor does not hang there without context relative to a group! That's your basic error here.

t_ik = t*_ik(background) + t*_ik(gravity waves)

The t*_ik on RHS are the pseudotensors under local Diff(4). t_ik is a real Diff(4) local tensor.

J_i is NOT a Diff(4) tensor at all! It's a new beast! I think I understand this and you do not.

The point here is that there is a clash between the canonical definition of the stress-energy density, and general covariance, on the one hand, and the requirement of exact energy conservation for closed systems and precise correspondence with Newtonian theory, on the other.

That's baloney soaked in hogwash. It is not true!

t_ik = (c^4/8piG)G_ik = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpfg_ik

t_ik^;k = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpf^,kg_ik

THIS IS EXACT LOCAL DIFF(4) STRESS-ENERGY CURRENT DENSITY CONSERVATION!

No problem at all!

What are you handwaving about here? We don't know because you cannot write equations for what you mean. That means what you say has no real meaning.

Note also

t*_ik^;k(background) + t*_ik^;k(gravity waves) = -(c^4/8piG)/\zpf^,kg_ik

Now

P_i(gravity waves) = I{(-g)^1/2t*_ik(gravity waves)e^kjlmdx^jdx^ldx^m

Is a horse of a different color entirely!

You don't seem to have understood this.

It is you who does not understand. You cannot even state what you think you understand in mathematical language.

BTW, this is all cited quite accurately by Yilmaz in his papers.

Nonsense. Yilmaz is as confused as you except he can use the math.

Paul, you have yet to properly pose the problem. What you cite above is not adequate. You must at least attack my math above. Show me where you think there is an error. Otherwise you are not doing physics. You are doing Cargo Cult rituals chanting numbo jumbo.


Now, here is what Eddington had to say about this in 1923:

"The quantity t_uv represents the potential energy of classical mechanics, but we do not ourselves
recognise it as an energy of any kind. It is not a tensor-density, and can be made to vanish at any
point by suitably choosing the coordinates; we do not associate it with any absolute feature of the
world-structure."

First of all, the above has NO MEANING until you write the formula for t_uv the way Eddington meant it. I have Eddington's book. What page and equation number?


"In fact finite values of t_uv can be produced in an empty world containing no gravitating matter
merely by a choice of coordinates."

Obviously. So what?

In other words, Eddington is admitting that there is no correspondence analog to the Newtonian
gravitational energy and its conservation principles for closed systems in Einstein GR -- a very
serious conundrum.

Hogwash! I told you EXACTLY UNAMBIGUOUSLY what that is! You obviously do not understand what I have been professing since 2002. You are just mindlessly citing The Dead now turning over in their graves. Also back then not even Einstein, Eddington and Pauli really understood what they were doing fully! It's always like that. This is NOT Constitutional Law of the Founding Fathers!

Indeed, in the Newtonian limit we have the Poisson equation for the exotic vacuum

Grad^2V(vacuum) = 4pic^2/\zpf(P)

where V(vacuum) is the local gravity potential energy per unit test mass of the vacuum itself at a point event P.

This explains the Pioneer Anomaly and the Galactic Halo for example!

Note that

(c^4/8piG)/\zpfgoo is the exotic vacuum micro-quantum zero point energy density!

goo may be some static function of r the Schwarzschild radial coordinate for example. Or even non-static.

When /\zpf = 0 in a region, V(vacuum) = 0 and the pure local gravity energy density is ZERO!

Also notice that there is absolutely no specific mention of "asymptotically flat far-field regions" in any
of this. This is an entirely general feature of Einstein's theory.

Like hell it is. You have made a completely unwarrented inference from some vague words without any math to back it up. I have told you what it means. You have been nothing but vague on this.


So how do you conclude that according to Pauli's account they "should be"?

I showed you, but you have no eyes to see. Or, at least attack my math. You just ignore it. It is under your radar. You have no argument. You are still hand waving with rhetoric. A few vague quotes from the Great Dead does not pass muster.


That's your misreading of Pauli, who BTW was writing in 1921 and did not have it all that clearly back then either. No one did. Not even Einstein. Here is where Derrida's deconstruction into the creative tensions and complementarity paradoxes their texts might be helpful.

Pauli argues from energy conservation principles, general covariance, and frame-dependence of the local density, all of which are canonical.

Nonsense. I showed you the precise mathematical line of argument. Where do you object to what I wrote. Where is the math Pauli writes to oppose what I wrote? I have been concrete and specific and you have simply ranted with obscure pretty polemics.

Seems like a contradiction.


"A paradox, a paradox, a most unusual paradox!"

"A nice dilemma, we have here, that calls for all our wit ..."

"In a contemplative fashion, and a tranquil frame of mind.
Free from every kind of passion, some solution we must find ...
Quest calm deliberation disentangles every knot."

Personally, I find all these paradoxes to be quite delicious.

Tea for the Tillerman.

Jack, this is all in Pauli 1923 in black and white.

Also Ruvwl need not vanish in LIF for EEP to be correct!


Of course not. But "EEP" is not the same as Einstein equivalence! It is MUCH weaker.


EEP the way I mean it formally is ALL you need to contact observation. The rest is excess verbal baggage even if Einstein used it as he developed the theory in the early days.


NO. This is the core of Einstein's actual theory.


Show me.


He said so himself. I gave you all the quotes previously.

Historically speaking, there is simply no question about this, Jack.

Give it up!

No, there is every question about this because what Einstein may have said ABOUT what he did early in his game may not be important to what he actually did in the math and the comparison of the math to observation. Nothing you cited makes me feel different. What you cited from Einstein previously you have misread pulled the text out of context like Bush on Saddam and WMD in Iraq. You twist Einstein's text to fit your apriori agenda.

You are quite wrong about this, Jack.

Show me.

I already did, several times.

No you never did. You made some garbled statements and never wrote even one equation in rebuttal of my many equations.

Power-down reset? :-)

More polemics. Reading too much Puthoff? ;-)

Just read Einstein! Any Einstein!

Let Einstein be Einstein!

Try "Meaning of Relativity".

And that's precisely why there is an energy problem in GR.

There is no problem. Whatever problem was thought to be there was not a real problem.

There is no energy problem. That there appears to be an energy problem shows that one is looking at the problem in the not even wrong way.

Here, ironically, I actually completely agree with you, word for word. :-)

BTW what make you think energy is fundamental?

What made Bauer, Schrodinger, Einstein, and now Penrose and many others think this was and is so important?

I showed you HOW the gravity energy is NONLOCAL in the sense that asymptotic P_i(gravity waves) is an integral over a Diff(4) pseudo-tensor density and P_i IS NOT A DIFF(4) tensor. You have to separate background modes from gravity wave modes to be able to detect the gravity waves.

Are they all really that clueless?

YES!

This is where you still seem to be confused about the actual nature of my critical arguments.

I see no math, hence I see no real critical arguments.


EEP simply means use covariant derivatives in the LNIF and use ordinary partial derivatives in the LIF coincident with it. That's all!


But I think I can now show that this is all barking up the wrong tree.


Meaningless statement unless you can predict something new with it.


Well, you could say the same about Einstein vs. Lorentz. From my POV there is a very close and instructive
analogy here.

I see no significant difference in either. A significant difference would mean some observational anomaly that one explained or predicted that the other did not. Also that's only for special relativity not general relativity.


You have turned my point upside down.

No need. It *is* upside down. :-)

This is a direct logical consequence of what you are arguing here -- there is no material difference
between Einstein's and Lorentz's theories (of restricted relativity). The only difference between the
two theories is "excess verbal baggage" expressed in "informal language".

You do seem to have painted yourself into a corner here.

Like hell I have. You are simply using polemics again. What is the real difference in your view? Show me.

I never suspected that you were an Einstein-basher. :-) You are finally unmasked! :-)

More twisting of my position to the opposite.

No one uses Lorentz POV today. It is not needed for any phenomenon - at least so far that have been replicated by independent reputable labs. You have, for example, claims of the Galilean electrodynamicists none of which seem to be reliable so far.

But according to you it is immaterial as to which model we use here, since the predictions come out exactly the same in either case.

NO! You obviously have not read their stuff. They reject Lorentz POV ALSO! They are not Lorentzians. They are crackpots who think

x' = x - vt

t' = t

is all you EVER need!



So according to your metatheoretic "argument", Einstein's theory did not really supercede Lorentz's.
Interesting...

Not in any real sense. Of course, some observation may happen that will exclude one and not the other. I don't know of any do you? I think BTW Kip Thorne & Hawking hold my view as well on this?

May I point out that Einstein's 1905 theory, as reinterpreted in 1907 by Minkowski, as matter of historical
fact led to the development of "general relativity".

It was more than just a verbal reinterpretation. Minkowski knew group theory and tensors and probably Einstein did not in 1905. I don't know the history that well nor do I really care that much at this moment.

Do you really think that Lorentz's "excess verbal baggage" would have led Lorentz down the same path?

I think not.

I do not understand your point.

However, once we face up to the fact that in the context of modern gravitational physics the Einsteinian
"excess verbal baggage" of "general relativity" really is "excess verbal baggage", we may be finding ourselves
reverting to an updated version of Lorentz's "excess verbal baggage".

The delicious irony of it all.

Poppycock. Show us.

Interestingly, Einstein 1905 himself saw no conflict between a "theory of principle" such as his (1905) and a
"constructive theory" such as Lorentz's.

That's what I just told you.

He was simply trying to show how you could do electrodynamics
without getting into the details of various ether models (particularly Maxwell's mechanical models). And he
never actually said in his 1905 paper that there is no ether; he simply says that reference to an ether seems
to be "superfluous ... from the point of view here to be developed". (John Bell is good on this in "Speakable
and Unspeakable")

Of course. So what else is new?

By 1920 Einstein had publicly repudiated Mach as a "deplorable philosopher" and announced that there
is, after all, an ether (Leiden address).

I told you this years ago!

Now, is this where you got this idea about "excess verbal baggage" from? If so, it's all myth.

I got the phrase from Wheeler and all the Laputan theory nonsense on arXiv. Some of it is nice math of course, but I don't see much physics, i.e. predictions and explanations of observational anomalies.

Einstein later admitted that ignoring the internal constitution of clocks and measuring rods was the "original
sin" of special relativity, and even announced to Heisenberg in 1926 that he considered most of what he
had argued in his 1905 paper to be "rubbish". He told Heisenberg that "it is the *theory* that tells you
what can and cannot be measured".

Sure.

With age comes true wisdom.

Not for all. Take Hal for instance. He has not changed his tune for 20 years! :-) Actually I like Hal personally. This is not personal. It's business. :-)

I agree with Einstein. The conclusions in his 1905 paper do not actually follow from his premises --
which defeats the whole point of the paper. You still need a constructive model to justify the choice
of light propagation for the "operational definition of time" (which I maintain is itself an epistemologically
defective concept, and I believe that Einstein 1926 would agree on this).

What is important about SR are the full meaning of the Lorentz transformation with

E = mc^2 and time dilation and later with Minkowski and Hilbert of the idea of covariance of laws of Nature under different groups of frame transformations.


Will the real Albert Einstein please stand up? Obviously a rapidly moving target.

AS IT SHOULD BE AND ALWAYS IS. This is a virtue you make into a vice and that is why you are a Sophist!

Einstein at one point even expressed regret that his 1905 paper was called the "theory of relativity", saying
that it really represented a search for invariants (his mentor Planck was the first to call it such).

Also obvious. I said this myself many times.

However, Einstein never seems to have understood the critical distinction between his "general relativity", a
physical postulate, and general covariance, a trivial formal requirement for *all* fully satisfactory physical
theories (see the 1993 review article by J.D. Norton).

Do you have it digital? Send it.

Maybe. The equivalence principle is what anchors covariance to physics. Also you use covariance like you use tensors out of context - it's all relevant to some choice of operationally defined symmetry group that maybe you can extend to categories, functors and morphisms especially for linguistics and social and computer sciences, but I am not sure.

How do you like them apples?

Rotten.


The transition LNIF --> LIF has nothing directly to do with
general coordinate transformations, or with the actual (mathematically defined) Levi-Civta connection field, but with an *analog* of this
field that by definition carries physical meaning -- which the mathematically defined transformations do not.


I think you are wrong. Show me the math.

LNIF <-> LIF is the Tetrad.

LNIF <-> LNIF' is GCT

LIF <-> LIF' is O(1,3)

So we have a "triangle" of mappings.


You are not addressing the point.

In order to go LNIF --> LIF, for any observer, we have to *physically change the observer's worldline*.

Obviously! Why is that a problem for you?

Yes, I agree that this should be obvious. That means that it's true, right?

And of course this in itself is *not* a problem for me. Same in Newtonian physics.

"Same as it ever was... where does that freeway go?".

How does the (arbitrary) choice of the system of mathematical coordinates in spacetime physically change
*any* observer's worldline? What's the connection?

As I said, that is the wrong question!

By which I assume you mean you don't have an answer to my question, so you want to change the question. :-)

No, your question has a simple answer: "it doesn't"! The Map is not The Territory. To think it is is Magickal Thinking barring the possibility of a strange loop like a 1-sided Mobius strip. Locally it looks 2-sides like Map on one side, Territory on the other. Globally they merge - Oroborous.

Why don't you just admit that you don't have an answer to this perfectly well-posed question, and that you cannot
find one in the standard references?

I gave you the answer and it is ill-posed.

Whether or not world lines are geodesic or non-geodesic is physical independent of the arbitrary choice of local coordinates.

True.

Whether or not an extended object is rotating about its center of mass that may be on a geodesic, e.g. Pioneer 10 and 11 with all rocket motors off, is also purely physical. If you are in a LIF then you are weightless. This is physical and you do not need any coordinates at all.

Yes, but this is exactly the same as in Newtonian physics. Einstein's theory is supposed to be fundamentally
different in its explanation of this phenomenon.

Only that you can do away with idea of "force".

As I said, we no longer seem to be talking about Einstein's actual original theory.

Depends what you mean by "theory".

When I say Einstein's theory I basically mean

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

with GCT of course.

I don't much care about Tuv(matter) since

Omega(matter) ~ 0.04

Where Omega = 1

I am The Alpha (e^2/hc ~ 1/137) and The Omega is The One!

What is first shall be last means the Destiny Matrix where The Future Bootstraps Itself into Being and Becoming.

Becoming comes from the collapse of phase space volume of the Dirac Sea into the Higgs Ocean.


Strain gauges will stay at their null points. Obviously there are convenient choices of local coordinates. Although the choice is arbitrary, bad choices require more computational effort! This is usually left out of the interpretations BTW. You want to minimize algorithmic complexity & depth etc. in the choice of local coordinates. You always want to find local tensor quantities for all PHYSICAL OBSERVABLES. Now since quantum gravity is an illusion I am not worried about the nonlocal observables needed for orthodox quantum gravity that is a pseudo-problem - well maybe. I might be wrong. That is my position for today.

General covariance *per se* is not an issue here. It applies trivially to all reasonable physical theories for purely mathematical reasons. My problem is that Einstein erroneously attached direct physical meaning to this purely mathematical requirement.

This is all well known. Do you really imagine that I am the only one saying these things?

You are wrong and they are wrong. The physics is in the choice of this or that group defined in principle by operational procedures in the sense of P.W. Bridgeman and also of Eugene Wigner!

See Norton.

Send it to me.

Does going to, say, *polar coordinates* in a spatial 2-plane change any observer's worldline?

NO! That's why some people like exterior Cartan forms! You can do GR that way coordinate-free Holmes! It's even in MTW. See Flanders "Differential Forms".

You are asking a bogus question. You have it upside down.

It is a perfectly well-posed question. I suspect the real problem here is that you don't have a answer to hand.
Perhaps because there *is* no answer to this question in the canonical references.

Even Pauli cited Bauer on the effect of going to polar coordinates on the local field energy momentum
content.

See above.

The above is meaningless until I see the actual detailed math.

Why should choosing polar coordinates in a space-time plane result in the appearance of inertial forces, as
it does in canonical GR?

Because, every such coordinate change in principle can be achieved by an observer firing rocket engines in space to produce those inertial forces on NON-GEODESICS. So that answers your question. It's like hopping on a Merry Go Round or stepping on the gas and turning the wheel, or flying in an aeroplane.

I don't think you -- or anyone else, for that matter -- can answer this basic question, which is now commonly
posed in foundational discussions of GR as part of a standard critique of Einstein's classic definition of the
"gravitational field".

I just answered it.


If not, why not?

And if not, what's the difference?

You do not need tetrads to deal with this question.. Let's keep it simple, transparent, and intuitive.


This is polemics.

What, keeping it simple, transparent, and intuitive?

Is that what you call "polemics"?

No, your previous questions. And yes what you just did is polemics using a loaded question based on a false description of what I said.

When we go to polar coordinates in a space-space plane, we get a non-zero "connection field" by mathematical
definition. Why isn't this "connection field" associated with forces, when the non-zero mathematical connection field that we get when we choose polar *space-time* coordinates is associated with gravitational forces in orthodox GR?

It is! You can always fire rocket engines such that

d^2X^u/ds^2 + |~^uvw(dX^v/ds)(dX^w/ds) = F^u(rocket)/m

Where m is the rest mass of the observer.

Obviously in the NON-INERTIAL rest frame of the observer i.e. the rest LNIF

d^2X^u/ds^2 = 0, but the connection field |~^uvw is NOT zero! It is the inertial force.

This is always the case when you feel weight.

Indeed on surface of Earth we have F^u(electric).

Also dX^v/ds is a first rank tensor

Note that dX^1/ds = dX^2/ds = dX^3/ds = 0 in the rest LNIF of the observer BUT

dX^0/ds = cdt/ds =/= 0

The "weight" is then

W^u = |~^u00(dX^0/ds)^2 =/= 0

Wu - F^u = 0 is D'Alembert's Principle of Virtual Work in Statics!

It's beautiful, it's elegant, it agrees with experiment and it works! You do not have a leg to stand on here.

There's your compensating force! You never wrote down the equations so of course you have misunderstood the problem using only vague words of ordinary language - NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!

What exactly is the difference here?

Read my math not my lips!


You are not saying anything scientific here.

No, it's too logical.

It's too fluffy. Too vague. Like gravity energy you are neither here nor there.


The tetrads are the compensating gauge force fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group. The non-trivial part of them, that is not the Kronecker delta Iu^a is like the distortion field away from a perfect crystal lattice. You might say that the tetrads are the non-inertial forces you are looking for. Actually they are "strains" away from global flatness.

This is simply an over-elaborate mathematical reformulation that adds no new content and simply serves to obfuscate.

You are dead wrong! You obviously have not understood my math or my ideas enough to properly refute them even if they were wrong, which I doubt. Since you really do not understand Einstein's Vision I suppose you cannot understand mine because I stand on his shoulders.


Poltorak looked at this in one of his papers and argued -- correctly, I think -- that much of the mathematical
apparatus of tetrad transformations is irrelevant to the fundamental issues.

Well then Alex is also wrong. Nice people and smart people are often wrong.

I am asking a simple, direct, well-posed question. Why can't I get a simple and direct answer?

Answer: because there isn't one.

No, I answered ALL your bad questions better than you posed them.

eu(LNIF) = ea(LIF)Iu^a + (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

Note when there is no macro-quantum rigid Goldstone phase, i.e. when ODLRO vanishes, there is no trace of curvature/gravity

ea(LIF) = Ea^ueu(LNIF)

Ea^u are the 16 tetrad components

When the Goldstone phase vanishes

Ea^u ---> Ia^u i.e. unit matrix

Eu^a = Iu^a + &Eu^a

&eu = &Eu^aea = (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

guv(LNIF) = nuv(Globally Flat) + (1/2)(h/Mc)^2[(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean){,u,v}] = Eu^anabEv^b

{ } is the symmetric anti-commutator

,u is ordinary partial derivative

The non-integrable path-dependent anholonomy to be expected is

(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean)[,u,v] =/=0

[ ] is the anti-symmetric commutator

U(N) local phase tranformations, in case Higgs Ocean has N complex scalar components lead to Diff(4) GCT.

For N = 1 this is almost obvious. For the U(1) arbitrary phase function @, the GCT Jacobian matrix is obviously

Xu^u' = @,u',u

where locally

x^u' = xu'(x^u)

For U(N) there will be the Lie algebra matrix generators to trace over. It can be done. A hedgehog topological exotic defect apparently seen in the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly. The hedgehog has constant gradient vector field between the two concentric spheres!

a_P = cH back to Sun

where

V(zpf) = cHr = c^2/\zpfr^2

OK, then can you explain exactly where "inertial forces" arise in your model, and exactly how they relate to physical (i.e., matter-induced) gravitational fields? And exactly how you recover weak (Eotvos) equivalence in your BEC model of the physical vacuum?

I did that above. Also it is an inappropriate TWIGGY question to ask among these GIANT SEQUOIA TREES!


That is the root Einsteinian confusion that I believe I have identified as the source of all these problems (non-localizable field energy density, "problem of general covariance", etc.).

Not at all and I showed why above.

I think you are not even wrong here. I cannot really tell until I see your math for this.

I told you that based on an isomorphism the math looks exactly the same on paper -- but it refers to a completely different set of transformations.

So you seem to be going around in circles here.


No, you are not showing what you have.

You're right. When it's written up I'll let you and Poltorak have a look at it.

Well that is not good science. You must show what you have. You are acting like Bush and the Neocons. Putup or shut up. Talk is cheap. Your claim is not credible if you cannot show these alleged "transformations". You have not even said anything here. You are not only beating round The Bush 43 times you are spiraling in so that where Bush begins and where Paul ends cannot be seen in the quantum fog of the Smokey Dragon. One of you is the Dragon's mouth and the other is the Dragon's ... Which is which? ;-)

You are hand waving. Without the math what you say is meaningless.

Yes, of course I have to "do the math". And I will.

Promises, promises. You said this 3 years ago. You are like Puthoff saying he can do rotating bodied in PV. Huffing and puffing with no movement.

But the logic of my argument is inescapable. And I know my alternative model works.

I think you are deluding yourself. Prove me wrong.

Everything snaps into place.

You just got caught in a false attractor!

In any case, I will explain all this in painful detail in due course (as of course I must).

Methinks thou doth profess too much. I am reminded of a comic character in Henry IV and Henry V.


"Nonlocalizable" is ONLY for GLOBAL Pu from a PIECE of total LOCAL tensor


Huh?

As far as I know, the stress-energy density of the gravitational field in Einstein's theory is frame-dependent, and thus cannot be integrated to give an objective frame dependent physical energy-momentum content for typical finite spacetime regions.

This is the problem as stated by Pauli in 1921.

I explained all this above.


As far as I can see, the "global Pu" is simply a fudge.

No it is not. It's trying to catch the gravity waves directly with LIGO and LISA.


tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

This nonlocalizable issue is only important for gravity wave detection!


Not according to Pauli 1921, as re-edited in 1956. It is a fundamental problem.

Also for Penrose 1991.

You have certainly misread Penrose I wager. Get thee On The Road to Reality lest ye breed more confusions! Hit The Road Paul!


Incidentally, the 1990s review article I mentioned on the "problem of general covariance" is by J. D. Norton: "General covariance and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute", Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993), 791-858. Worth a read IMO.


I am sure it is. When I have world enough and time. Do you have it digital? Please send it.


I have a copy. If I make you another copy, will you read it?


Yes - eventually. Right now I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this.

OK.

And it is beautiful! It's alive Igor! It's alive!


This is a 67-page review article, without any new mathematics, by an acknowledged expert in the field, endorsed by Rovelli, which goes over the entire history of this long-running controversy, and does not offer any definitive resolution to the problem.

So if talk on this subject is cheap, there is plenty of "cheap talk" around in the established journals.



Yes, but my point here Paul is that almost all the pure theory papers today on arXiv that are not trying to understand real observations are a bad bet to waste time on.


You may be right. In fact my impression is that most of the foundational discussions on GR are indeed a waste of time since they are barking up the wrong trees.

And your bark is among the loudest! Take the mote out of thine own eye.


Yes, particularly the attempts to explain :general relativity in terms of "active and passive" invariance under
"diffeomorphisms" (e.g. Rovelli).

You may have a point there. So far the only point I can relate to.

If I'm right, Rovelli doesn't even know exactly which tranformations he's talking about.

Let He who is without Sin cast the first stone! Or should I say, it takes one to know one?


That doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions.

The reason I have this attitude closely echoes Feynman in his "Lectures on Gravitation".

Remember, Feynman didn't buy Einstein equivalence either.

Show me. I think you are misreading there.

Come on Jack. Feynman's code word for "heretic" (S. Weinberg) is "Venutian".

Some time we must deconstruct that text, but now is not that time.

Feynman explicitly stated that he thought EInstein equivalence was based on a mathematical
coincidence that actually had to do with gauge symmetries of some underlying quantum field.

That's what I have been showing you!

Just read his lectures. It's all there. Feynman, unlike Einstein, clearly understood the distinction
between mathematical covariance and physical relativity.

He compares gravitationally distorted rods and clocks with metal bars on a hotplate.

So what?

Don't you get it? He was a "PV" kind of guy, and not an Einsteinian relativist (although in
many important respects neither was the actual Einstein, at least > 1920).

NO! He never would accept Hal's exponential metric and would have gotten up on a table hissing like a snake to Hal about his PV Tables I & II. And he would have asked Hal - describe the field of a rotating source. Like with Lorentz and Einstein, actually Fitzgerald and Einstein you can think of gravitational distortion like metal bars on hot plates IN FACT I DO! Except the analogy is to a strained crystal lattice with cracks that are curvature and hedgehogs etc. Gravity is emergent like in soft condensed matter physics. But the geometrodynamics is fine as an effective c-number ODLRO gauge theory!

It's what Bohm called fragmented thinking. They have no real physical ideas and are Cargo Cultists hoping that this or that pretty arcane pure mathematical idea will bear physical fruit. Max Tegmark has elevated this to Level IV Super Platonism.

Bohm was a conservative realist. He picked up the torch from the older, wiser, and
much more conservative Einstein.

I am also a conservative surrealist in case you haven't noticed.

For Bohm the underlying model was not simply "excess verbal baggage" -- far from it.

Not all interpretive heuristics is excess verbal baggage - only bad heuristics is!

In fact, I am arguing against the kind of Platonistic conceit that you allude to.

What do you think the naive faith in the literal reality of the Minkowski model -- and later in
"curved spacetime" -- is?

Z.

Actually, I don't disagree. I'm trying to stay as close as possible to the nitty-gritty.

I predict that 99% of the pure theory papers on arXiv will be forgotten 20 years from now assuming there is anyone left on Earth then if Lone Cheney's Halliburton Gangsters continue to rape and pillage the environment like a Plague of Locusts.

I don't doubt it.

It's exotic vacuum hedgehog topological defects! That's the Pioneer anomaly!

"The energy of the hedgehog is proportional to the radius ..." David Thouless p.95

"in the space between the inner and outer spherical surface the [gradient flow keeps] constant magnitude." p. 7
"Topological Quantum Numbers in Nonrelativistic Physics"

A hollow hedgehog is a point topological defect in the Higgs Ocean, whose order parameter space must then be a sphere S^2 = SO(3)/SO(2) like a ferromagnet not the circle U(1).

We have one centered at the Sun measured by Pioneer 10 - 11.

The Galactic Halo is also probably a hedgehog.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/sethna/OrderParameters/TopologicalDefects.html

I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this. I am indebted to Tony Smith for pointing out that the exotic vacuum halo had to have a hole in it. He did not see however that it was a dark energy point defect in the Higgs Ocean that tells us something important about the topology of the macro-quantum vacuum coherence.

In the beginning was THE WORD.

THE WORD MADE FLESH.

WORD = BIT

FLESH = IT

"All things that mooue betweene the quiet poles
Shalbe at my commaund, Emperours and Kings,
Are but obeyd in their seuerall prouinces:
Nor can they raise the winde, or rend the cloudes:
But his dominion that exceedes in this,
Stretcheth as farre as doth the minde of man.
A sound Magician is a mighty god:
Heere Faustus trie thy braines to gaine a deitie."
Christopher Marlowe Dr. Faustus in the original Elizabethan English as actually performed in Shakespeare's Day

On Oct 21, 2004, at 7:50 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:


On Oct 21, 2004, at 2:15 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:



Jack, this is supposed to be a two-man Catskill Vaudeville routine, with me as the
sraight man.

Don't drop the shtick.

I think it's entertaining and educational.

OK.

You have to make clear. I think you are only proposing a change in the informal language with no mathematical changes at all. Yes? No?

See my last public message. According to this, view, there would be no significant difference between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories of electrodynamics (Lorentz vs. Einstein ca. 1905).

This is globally flat special relativity not locally curved general relativity. So what is your point here?


Actually, in my model the math is only "the same" up to an isomorphism between two very differently defined sets of transformations.

This is too vague.

Of course *this* is vague. I'll explain the details in my paper.

Are you talking globally flat special relativity or what? Are you saying the Poincare group is no good? You are being too obscure here.

You'll have to wait.

If there were world enough and time: meanwhile Einstein's theory passes every test - today gravi-magnetism frame drag and Yilmaz-type theories fail every test beyond the 3 trivial ones that are no test at all contrary to Hal's claim about PV. I mean passing them is no great triumph at all since GR already did it.

All that matters in the new cosmology is

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

only if you change that will there be anything important practically speaking.

Right now philosophical discussions of what informal picture to use are a waste of valuable time for me at least.

But a deeper model of the vacuum like yours is precisely the kind of thing that lends physical meaning to "/\".

Yes, but what has that to do with Yilmaz? Nothing. From nothing comes nothing?

Without such interpretation, including such a cosmological term in the field equations is just a mathematical
possibility that may or may not agree with the data. If it agrees, we have no idea why it agrees -- unless we
attach a concrete "constructive" interpretation to the symbol, or justify it by deducing it from intuitively compelling "principles".

I have already solved this problem. Wake up out of your dogmatic slumbers. Again my argument in a nutshell.

1. Pre-inflationary globally-flat conformal group massless charges unstable choppy turbulent random foamy Dirac Sea micro-quantum vacuum needing large phase space volume from Pauli exclusion principle SANS GRAVITY & INERTIA COLLAPSES to the post-inflationary locally curved Diff(4 )x O(3,1)x Conformal Boosts x Dilation metastable pacific calm non-random un-foamy Higgs Ocean macro-quantum vacuum with a much smaller phase space volume and massive charged quasi-particles in agreement with Einstein's EEP on the equivalence of gravity and inertia. Only translation group in 4D i.e. T4 is locally gauged to Diff(4) in this MINIMAL MODEL that can be generalized only if there is factual evidence demanding it. Torsion, conformal boost and dilation compensating gauge force fields must wait in the wings and sit on the back benches.

2. Direction of irreversible flow of time synchronized with expansion of universe explained by the collapse of phase space in the initial pre-post inflation vacuum phase transition in 1.

3. Einstein's field equation for exotic vacuum

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

pops right out of the coherent rigid Goldstone phase of the Higgs Ocean LOCAL ODLRO order parameter.

The LOCALITY of macro-physics is automatically explained as an emergent property of micro-quantum nonlocality of the Pauli exclusion principle.

4. Dark energy and dark matter as the Two Faces of Janus - the same exotic vacuum residual zero point energy density pops right out of the intensity of the Higgs Ocean order parameter. The "two fluid model" shows

/\zpf = (Mc/h)^2[(h/Mc)^2|Higgs Ocean|^2 - 1]

M is the regulator mass of the effective c-number ODLRO macro-quantum field theory that contains Einstein's classical general relativity.

h/Mc is the short wave UV cutoff.

The emergence of Einstein's gravity is a kind of critical fixed point in a wavelet multi-resolution scale-dependent "renormalization group flow" where GCT is an emergent "More is different" space-time local symmetry replacing the globally flat translation symmetry generated by total Pu - the same one you look for below BTW.
All this is rough and I will say it more precisely as time goes by. This is a bit of precognitive remote viewing of the future idea creating itself in a globally self-consistent loop in time. As they say, ideas take on a life of their own - quite literally not only figuratively! That's what intuition is - ideas creating themselves BACK FROM THEIR OWN FUTURE Oroborus style. This is one of Matt Visser's time travel paradoxes deconstructed - see "Lorentzian Wormholes."

Ordinary vacuum means /\zpf = 0 with no gravity properties.

"Dark Energy" is /\zpf > 0 with negative micro-quantum pressure.

"Dark Matter" is /\zpf < 0 with positive micro-quantum pressure.

All is w = pressure/energy density = -1 as required from Lorentz covariance and EEP for ZPF.

5. Gravity or anti-gravity for warp, wormhole and weapon?

The detailed spatial distribution of the static potential limit matter. Recall:

5.1 positive potential energy with negative exponent power law in the separation of source and test particle is repulsive

5.2 positive potential energy with positive exponent power law in the separation of source and test particle is attractive

examples

5.2.a Ken Shoulders EVO "charge clusters" allegedly showing "cold fusion"?

5.2.b Pioneer 10/11 acceleration anomaly outside 20 AU orbit of Uranus

a_P ~ cH(now) ~ c^2/LpR(now) ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 ~ 10^-10g(surface of Earth) directed back to Sun

This a_P is a centripetal acceleration from a rotating hollow halo of dark energy vacuum normal fluid of negative quantum pressure. This may be a hedgehog topological defect in the single-valued Higgs ocean local order parameter?

Centripetal acceleration = vtangent^2/r = f^2r

f is rotational frequency in Hz

f^2 = cH/r = c^2/\zpf

/\zpf = (H/cr)

The effective UNIVERSAL gravity potential energy per unit test particle mass of the exotic vacuum hollow halo is

V(/\zpf) = +cHr = c^2/\zpfr^2 this is a modulated quasi-3D harmonic oscillator potential

Note that Hr is the cosmological Hubble recessional velocity.

V(/\zpf) = c(recessional Hubble speed) is a neat looking conjecture I must say!

The universal acceleration is then

a_P = -dV(/\zpf)/dr = cH(t)

H(t) = R(t)^-1dR(t)/dt

R(t) = FRW Scale Factor

This does look pretty.


It opens a clear path to the existence some underlying physical field which is not itself fundamentally :"chronogemetric" in character.

This is what I call a "neo-Lorentzian" model.


It's the HIGGS OCEAN! It's been in front of your nose since 2002. AKA "VACUUM COHERENCE".

I know that's your theory, Jack.

I'm not saying it's wrong.

It's looking better and better as each new fact comes in - including like white boys, dark matter detectors can't jump! I mean they can't click with The Right Stuff!


Also, I think my point is correct.

The total stress-energy tensor field of pure geometry is trivial. It's zero in ordinary vacuum. In general

Total tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

Now when you split this into 2 pieces to get gravity waves and ask for their Pu global quantity - THEN AND ONLY THEN do you need that Pauli identity, pseudo-tensors etc. Yilmaz was confused about this.


I think you have this ass-backwards.


Show me. Why?


See below.


You ask for a global Pu quantity because it is *approximately frame-independent*, precisely since in Einstein GR no local frame-independent density is available.


You are confusing LOCAL with GLOBAL.

?

This Pu is only defined in an asymptotically 4D flat region. Then you can talk about an approximate global inertial frame like in SR 1905. Pu will be a 4-vector in this global frame in an approximate sense.

Pu comes from integrating a non-tensor that is only a far field piece of Guv. Pu is the stuff from gravity waves measured against the other near field piece of Guv integrand.

Guv(tensor) = Guv(near background non-tensor) + Guv(far field radiation non-tensor)

Pu = Integral of (-g)^1/2Guv(far field radiation non-tensor)e(^v,w,l,k)dx^wdx^ldx^k

e is the fully anti-symmetric 4D symbol

OBVIOUSLY only Guv(far field radiation non-tensor) PROPAGATES OUT TO THE GLOBALLY FLAT ASYMPTOTIC 4D space-time. It's all consistent. Yilmaz & Co have missed the beauty here in Einstein's Vision. You are worshipping The Golden Calf here Paul! This Yilmaz - Puthoff deviation from Einstein's Glorius Vision is Fool's Gold, a Chimera from the Sirens of Circe to seduce The Argonauts of Zar in Search of The Golden Fleece or The Grail to Doom! That is not how to part The Red Sea, i.e. how to make the Star Gate to Virgin Earths and escape The Lone Cheny and The Demented In-Bred Boy King's Corporate Fascism! I promise thee 73 Virgin Earths in the parallel universes next door in the hyperspace of Super Cosmos! If the Mythic Archetypes fit. Use them! ;-)

Then Pauli is also "confused" in the 1950s edition of his "Theory of Relativity".

No, I think Pauli would agree with me. Let's call Victoria Keen to a seance and get from the Horse's ...

You go to the GLOBAL quantity because it is *roughly* frame-independent, whereas the LOCAL quantity is
sensitively frame-dependent due to the inertial contribution to the field energy density.

Pu is a 4-vector. It's frame-dependent in the approximate Poincare group of asymptotic flat inertial frames. Pu is not a scalar.

How is this confused? Of course I am distinguishing between local and global quantities. But the local density can of course be integrated over a region to give a total energy-momentum supposedly contained in that region.

Yes, but it's not a Diff(4) tensor as I explained. That is the point.


The problem is, in Einstein GR, the energy-momentum content of a "small" region is extremely sensitive to the
choice of frame.

So what?

So with gravitational waves, we have what would appear to be a physical propagation process, which carries
energy-momentum through the vacuum, but to which we cannot attribute objective values of energy momentum
content for finite regions -- even for a gravitational pulse.

As you should know, Penrose published a whole essay on this bizarre feature of Einstein's theory in "Philosophy
of Vacuum" (1991).

Do you have a copy? I mean is that a book? I will get it.


Einstein's field equations are LOCAL. Pu is GLOBAL. tuv is LOCAL. There are ONLY LOCAL FRAMES.

I don't understand this. Of course there are global frames. Frames of reference are by their nature global. It is
the concept of a "local frame of reference" that is artificial -- it simply represents a voluntary restriction on the range of experiments that we *decide* to pay attention to, in order to get some kind of weak correspondence
relationship with SR.

No, you are wrong. Global frames only exist in special relativity. They do not exist in general relativity. Global frames require zero curvature over finite regions of space-time and then they can only be defined in those regions. There is an exception for the Hubble flow of the FRW metric that has a high symmetry on the coarse-grained large-scale of isotropy and homogeneity allowing timelike Killing vector fields of isometries that permit the preferred spacelike foliation where the big bang remnant black body radiation is maximally isotropic. This defines a global state of absolute rest if you like. We also have an absolute global time t as in R(t) measured by the temperature of this cosmic black body radiation. This is spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry of the Diff(4) covariant

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

vacuum field equation. This is like a ferromagnet with a spontaneous direction of magnetization breaking 3D rotational symmetry in a domain even though the basic action is rotationally invariant. Each ferromagnetic domain is like a Hubble universe on a single post-inflationary bubble.


What frame do you mean above? Define it carefully.

OBviously the local gravitational energy-momentum contained in a spacetime region depends on the frame of
reference in which it is computed, since in Einstein's theory the inertial forces make a contribution to this physical quantity -- and of course in Einstein's theory you can always find a frame in which these inertial forces *disappear*.

Only for a LIF at a point not large enough for Pu not globally. Therefore, what you write here is not even wrong. It's like explaining sleep as the dormitive power. You have not defined "frame of reference" here. No good. Without the math you are deluding yourself like Don Quixote.

This was all explicitly commented upon by Eddington as early as 1923!

Show me.

Now, do you really think that the gravitational energy contribution due to inertial forces locally self-gravitates?

Meaningless without the math.

I told you that the TOTAL local pure gravity stress-energy density tensor is

tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv

For ordinary vacuum /\zpf = 0 which is the only case discussed in MTW.


And if there is no localized gravitational stress-energy density, how does the energy of the gravitational
field act as it own source at every point, physically and objectively speaking?

You are babbling with the wrong questions.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler

There is so much wrong with this that I hardly know where to begin.

I agree. You are totally confused asking meaningless questions with no physical consequences at all. Prove me wrong with a definite counter-example mathematically precise enough. English alone ain't good enough!

But the point here is that in Einstein's theory *even the global quantities are frame-dependent*.

AS THEY SHOULD BE!

But the problem -- as stated by Pauli, no less -- is precisely that they *are*.

I think you have misread Pauli.

So how do you conclude that according to Pauli's account they "should be"?

That's your misreading of Pauli, who BTW was writing in 1921 and did not have it all that clearly back then either. No one did. Not even Einstein. Here is where Derrida's deconstruction into the creative tensions and complementarity paradoxes their texts might be helpful.

Seems like a contradiction.

"A paradox, a paradox, a most unusual paradox!"

"A nice dilemma, we have here, that calls for all our wit ..."

"In a contemplative fashion, and a tranquil frame of mind.
Free from every kind of passion, some solution we must find ...
Quest calm deliberation disentangles every knot."

Jack, this is all in Pauli 1923 in black and white.

Also Ruvwl need not vanish in LIF for EEP to be correct!

Of course not. But "EEP" is not the same as Einstein equivalence! It is MUCH weaker.

EEP the way I mean it formally is ALL you need to contact observation. The rest is excess verbal baggage even if Einstein used it as he developed the theory in the early days.

NO. This is the core of Einstein's actual theory.

Show me.

You are quite wrong about this, Jack.

Show me.

And that's precisely why there is an energy problem in GR.

There is no energy problem. That there appears to be an energy problem shows that one is looking at the problem in the not even wrong way. BTW what make you think energy is fundamental?

This is where you still seem to be confused about the actual nature of my critical arguments.

EEP simply means use covariant derivatives in the LNIF and use ordinary partial derivatives in the LIF coincident with it. That's all!

But I think I can now show that this is all barking up the wrong tree.

Meaningless statement unless you can predict something new with it.

Well, you could say the same about Einstein vs. Lorentz. From my POV there is a very close and instructive
analogy here.

You have turned my point upside down. No one uses Lorentz POV today. It is not needed for any phenomenon - at least so far that have been replicated by independent reputable labs. You have, for example, claims of the Galilean electrodynamicists none of which seem to be reliable so far.

The transition LNIF --> LIF has nothing directly to do with
general coordinate transformations, or with the actual (mathematically defined) Levi-Civta connection field, but with an *analog* of this
field that by definition carries physical meaning -- which the mathematically defined transformations do not.

I think you are wrong. Show me the math.

LNIF <-> LIF is the Tetrad.

LNIF <-> LNIF' is GCT

LIF <-> LIF' is O(1,3)

So we have a "triangle" of mappings.

You are not addressing the point.

In order to go LNIF --> LIF, for any observer, we have to *physically change the observer's worldline*.

Obviously! Why is that a problem for you?

How does the (arbitrary) choice of the system of mathematical coordinates in spacetime physically change
*any* observer's worldline? What's the connection?

As I said, that is the wrong question!

Whether or not world lines are geodesic or non-geodesic is physical independent of the arbitrary choice of local coordinates. Whether or not an extended object is rotating about its center of mass that may be on a geodesic, e.g. Pioneer 10 and 11 with all rocket motors off, is also purely physical. If you are in a LIF then you are weightless. This is physical and you do not need any coordinates at all. Strain gauges will stay at their null points. Obviously there are convenient choices of local coordinates. Although the choice is arbitrary, bad choices require more computational effort! This is usually left out of the interpretations BTW. You want to minimize algorithmic complexity & depth etc. in the choice of local coordinates. You always want to find local tensor quantities for all PHYSICAL OBSERVABLES. Now since quantum gravity is an illusion I am not worried about the nonlocal observables needed for orthodox quantum gravity that is a pseudo-problem - well maybe. I might be wrong. That is my position for today.

Does going to, say, *polar coordinates* in a spatial 2-plane change any observer's worldline?

You are asking a bogus question. You have it upside down.

If not, why not?

And if not, what's the difference?

You do not need tetrads to deal with this question.. Let's keep it simple, transparent, and intuitive.

This is polemics. You are not saying anything scientific here. The tetrads are the compensating gauge force fields from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation group. The non-trivial part of them, that is not the Kronecker delta Iu^a is like the distortion field away from a perfect crystal lattice. You might say that the tetrads are the non-inertial forces you are looking for. Actually they are "strains" away from global flatness.

eu(LNIF) = ea(LIF)Iu^a + (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

Note when there is no macro-quantum rigid Goldstone phase, i.e. when ODLRO vanishes, there is no trace of curvature/gravity

ea(LIF) = Ea^ueu(LNIF)

Ea^u are the 16 tetrad components

When the Goldstone phase vanishes

Ea^u ---> Ia^u i.e. unit matrix

Eu^a = Iu^a + &Eu^a

&eu = &Eu^aea = (h/Mc)^2(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean),u

guv(LNIF) = nuv(Globally Flat) + (1/2)(h/Mc)^2[(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean){,u,v}] = Eu^anabEv^b

{ } is the symmetric anti-commutator

,u is ordinary partial derivative

The non-integrable path-dependent anholonomy to be expected is

(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Ocean)[,u,v] =/=0

[ ] is the anti-symmetric commutator

U(N) local phase tranformations, in case Higgs Ocean has N complex scalar components lead to Diff(4) GCT.

For N = 1 this is almost obvious. For the U(1) arbitrary phase function @, the GCT Jacobian matrix is obviously

Xu^u' = @,u',u

where locally

x^u' = xu'(x^u)

For U(N) there will be the Lie algebra matrix generators to trace over. It can be done. A hedgehog topological exotic defect apparently seen in the Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly. The hedgehog has constant gradient vector field between the two concentric spheres!

a_P = cH back to Sun

where

V(zpf) = cHr = c^2/\zpfr^2


That is the root Einsteinian confusion that I believe I have identified as the source of all these problems (non-localizable field energy density, "problem of general covariance", etc.).


I think you are not even wrong here. I cannot really tell until I see your math for this.

I told you that based on an isomorphism the math looks exactly the same on paper -- but it refers to a completely
different set of transformations.

So you seem to be going around in circles here.

No, you are not showing what you have. You are hand waving. Without the math what you say is meaningless.

In any case, I will explain all this in painful detail in due course (as of course I must).

"Nonlocalizable" is ONLY for GLOBAL Pu from a PIECE of total LOCAL tensor

Huh?

As far as I know, the stress-energy density of the gravitational field in Einstein's theory is frame-dependent, and thus
cannot be integrated to give an objective frame-indepedennt physical energy-momentum content for typical finite
spacetime regions.

This is the problem as stated by Pauli in 1921.

As far as I can see, the "global Pu" is simply a fudge.

tuv(Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

This nonlocalizable issue is only important for gravity wave detection!

Not according to Pauli 1921, as re-edited in1956. It is a fundamental problem.

Also for Penrose 1991.


Incidentally, the 1990s review article I mentioned on the "problem of general covariance" is by J. D. Norton: "General covariance
and the foundations of general relativity: eight decades of dispute", Rep. Prog. Phys. 56 (1993), 791-858. Worth a read IMO.


I am sure it is. When I have world enough and time. Do you have it digital? Please send it.

I have a copy. If I make you another copy, will you read it?

Yes - eventually. Right now I am excited that Pioneer anomaly is an exotic vacuum hedgehog exotic vacuum defect. I am the first to understand this.

This is a 67-page review article, without any new mathematics, by an acknowledged expert in the field, endorsed by Rovelli, which
goes over the entire history of this long-running controversy, and does not offer any definitive resolution to the problem.

So if talk on this subject is cheap, there is plenty of "cheap talk" around in the established journals.


Yes, but my point here Paul is that almost all the pure theory papers today on arXiv that are not trying to understand real observations are a bad bet to waste time on.

You may be right. In fact my impression is that most of the foundational discussions on GR are indeed a waste of time
since they are barking up the wrong trees.

That doesn't mean that there can't be exceptions.

The reason I have this attitude closely echoes Feynman in his "Lectures on Gravitation".

Remember, Feynman didn't buy Einstein equivalence either.

Show me. I think you are misreading there.

It's what Bohm called fragmented thinking. They have no real physical ideas and are Cargo Cultists hoping that this or that pretty arcane pure mathematical idea will bear physical fruit. Max Tegmark has elevated this to Level IV Super Platonism.

Actually, I don't disagree. I'm trying to stay as close as possible to the nitty-gritty.

I predict that 99% of the pure theory papers on arXiv will be forgotten 20 years from now assuming there is anyone left on Earth then if Lone Cheney's Halliburton Gangsters continue to rape and pillage the environment like a Plague of Locusts.

I don't doubt it.

PS did you see from one of the Boy King's Harvard Professors:

> One of Tsurumi's standout students was Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., now
> the
> seventh-ranking member of the House Republican leadership. "I typed him
> as a conservative Republican with a conscience," Tsurumi said. "He
> never
> confused his own ideology with economics, and he didn't try to hide his
> ignorance of a subject in mumbo jumbo. He was what I call a principled
> conservative." (Though clearly a partisan one. On Wednesday, Cox called
> for a congressional investigation of the validity of documents that CBS
> News obtained for a story questioning Bush's attendance at Guard duty
> in
> Alabama.)
>
> Bush, by contrast, "was totally the opposite of Chris Cox," Tsurumi
> said. "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when
> challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying
> something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students
> jumped on him; I challenged him." When asked to explain a particular
> comment, said Tsurumi, Bush would respond, "Oh, I never said that." A
> White House spokeswoman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

We know about pathological lawyers.

Indeed we do.

But Bush isn't even a lawyer. :-)

Z.