Sunday, November 21, 2004

Ghosts of Departed Quantities

On Nov 21, 2004, at 4:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

re: Metric Engineering W^3

Zielinski inadvertently draws attention to the "ghosts of departed quantities" in this case the creative tension between the formal idea of "zero" and the physical idea of a property vanishing as when we say, for example:

1. The motion of the Earth through the aether is undetectable, i.e. zero fringe shift in Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment.

2. Dark matter detectors cannot click with the right stuff to explain Omega(CDM) ~ 0.23 because CDM is virtual off-mass-shell exotic vacuum with w = -1 that MIMICS w = 0.

3. The voltage drop across a resistor is zero.

4. The room is dark.

5. T + 0 = T (see below)

When a physical property is "zero" is it not there? Or is it there in potential form actuated when it is not zero?
That depends on each case, especially when the "zero" has arbitrary gauge freedom (E. Wigner).

Formally "0" is a perfectly good number.

On the other hand 1 + 0 = 1

6. When the zero point vacuum pressure is zero in ordinary vacuum it is still there in a sense because in anti-gravity dark energy exotic vacuum (from outside an exotic compact source) the pressure goes negative and in gravitating dark matter exotic vacuum the pressure goes positive. Whether the zero point vacuum pressure is zero, negative or positive depends on the local intensity of the Higgs Ocean macro-quantum coherent vacuum order parameter that we control in the metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon (W^3).

On Nov 21, 2004, at 12:24 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Nov 20, 2004, at 6:15 PM, wrote:

Jack Sarfatti wrote:


This is more "psychoceramics". (Matt Visser "Lorentzian Wormholes")

Go ahead and try to publish it. No good journal will accept it.


"Apparently Sarfatti does not understand that the pseudotensor quantity N can be represented by a zero matrix in a Cartesian CS without ceasing to exist as a component of (LC)."

Is still another false allegation.

[Z] Then what's your point?

[J] Your attempt at a re-interpretation of Einstein's GR is inconsistent. So also is Hal Puthoff's PV re-interpretation that is also experimentally wrong. You cannot make any experimental predictions.

[Z] It is inconsistent with the Einsteinian relativistic model for GR -- but it is intended to be.

[J] I am glad you admit that. You were beginning to sound like Hal Puthoff in his "PV without PV" theory promoted in Eric Davis's USAF "Teleportation" report. :-)

[Z] It is fully consistent with the GR formalism itself, as I have shown.

[J] You violate the very core of Einstein's Vision.

[Z]And what is the "core of Einstein's Vision"?

(1) Extended relativity principle based on "complete physical equivalence" of inertial and non-inertial reference frames, and therefore strict universal physical equivalence of gravitational and inertial fields;

[J] You are imposing way too strong an interpretation not in actual use today. This is a Straw Man you erect. Landau and Lifshitz introduce the equivalence principle as an "analogy". The actual use of the idea in physics today is that the centers of masses of extended test particles follow free float zero g-force (i.e. {LC} = 0) timelike geodesics and their relative coordinates display tidal stretch-squeeze tensor curvature accelerations. Curvature, in fact is optimally measured in a LIF where {LC} the Levi-Civita metric connection of 1916 plain vanilla Einstein GR = 0. You erect a bogus House of Cards on this shaky ground.

[Z] (2) Trajectories of test particles mathematically conceived as geodesics on a curved spacetime manifold;

[J] Yes.

[Z](3) Reciprocal interaction of gravitating matter and gravitational field

[J] Yes, except now we know that "matter" is at most 4% of the universe and 96% is not "matter" (on mass shell) but is "exotic vacuum" (off mass shell).

[Z] In the Newtonian model for GR, only the relativistic equivalence hypothesis (1) is eliminated, while the geometrodynamic features (2) and (3) are retained intact.

[J] Not sure what you mean. The SR O(1,3) is replaced by the Galilean group when v/c << 1 as I showed in the case of really globally flat space-time where

ds^2 = (-cdt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 = gtt(cdt)^2 + gxxdx^2 + gyydy^2 + gzzdz^2

Make the Galilean translational CONFORMAL BOOST to a uniformly-accelerating Global Non-Inertial Frame with prime coordinates:

x -> x' = x - (1/2)gt^2
t = t'
y = y'
z = z'

Note that this transformation does not obey asymptotic flatness. See Landau & Lifshitz (Moscow) Ch. 10 "Classical Theory of Fields".

Also, it is only valid for gt/c << 1.

gt't' = -[1 - (gt'/c)^2]

gt'x' = 2(gt'/c) = GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD

g^t'^t' = -[1 - (gt'/c)^2]^-1

g^t'^x' = 0

{LC}^x't't' = g/c^2 in the GNIF i.e. "g-force" actually universal g-acceleration on ALL test particles.

{LC}^xtt = 0 in the GIF

a_g' = g = c^2{LC}^x't't' gives the NON-VANISHING INERTIAL FORCE/m in the GNIF.

*Challenge to Zielinski:

Homework Problem
Paul, in terms of your theory, explicitly calculate T, N, T', N' for the concrete example below. If your theory has any meaning at all you should be able to solve this simplest of all problems, like the "hydrogen atom" in atomic physics.

{LC}' is NOT a GCT tensor T' nor can you split it into

{LC}^x't't' = T' + N'

Where ONLY in Z's theory

{LC}^xtt = 0 = T + N

T = -N =/=0

where under the conformal boost

T -> T' = XXXT

N -> N' = XXXN + XY

Note that the XXX transformation is MULT-LINEAR and ASSOCIATIVE, therefore

{LC}' = T' + N' = XXXT + XXXN + XY = XXX(T + N) + XY = XXX{LC} + XY

which obvious formal result, Paul, you deny in your inconsistent logic.

In this concrete example

Xt'^x' = x',t = -gt/c, X^t't = 1, X^x'x = 1 etc.

Y^x t't' = X^xt',t' = g/c^2

{LC}^x't't' = X^x'xY^xt't' = g/c^2 = N' with T' = 0.

*If a tensor vanishes in any frame, it vanishes in ALL frames.

is the only non-trivial component for the NONLINEAR GCT in this simple case. The rest are either 1 or 0.

In contrast to Z's wrong theory above, Einstein's theory simply says



N -> N' = XXXN + XY

That is there is no T ever, or, rather T = 0.

[Z] In my approach, I actually do recover Einstein's vision of the intimate physical relationship between ("unity of nature of") gravitation and inertia as the basis for a theoretic explanation of weak equivalence -- but on a deeper level and in reference to an underlying physical field. But this does recover the idea that motion of freely-moving objects in gravitational fields is natural (i.e., unforced) motion.

[J] I don't think so.

[Z] So from my POV we lose nothing of any real importance by abandoning Einstein equivalence -- except Einsteinian
"general relativity", which at this point I can only view as a purely heuristic notion.

[J] You have done nothing because no one really uses your Straw Man idea of "equivalence" (SSEP) i.e. Super Strong Equivalence Principle is what you propose.

[Z] At the same time, we solve the energy problem and the problem of general covariance.

[J] I don't think so. See Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality" on both those problems - a long story.

[Z] Also in my model I completely remove the arbitrary choice of mathematical spacetime coordinates from the physics.

[J] If it ain't broke don't fix it. In any case I see no evidence you have done any of that. Einstein already did that in 1916. Reinventing the wheel Paul? Einstein's is better to drive on than yours. ;-)

There is no advantage to it even if you could make it consistent.

[Z] It is consistent.

[J] Wishing don't make it so. I think not.

You cannot solve any real problems with it. It's all hot air.

[Z] Because you simply deny that there are any actual problems in orthodox GR, which is an eccentric position that contradicts the consensus that currently exists in the foundational literature.

[J] This is too vague. Give concrete examples. If you cannot solve the simple case above you cannot solve anything important.

[Z] The fact is that there IS an "energy problem", and there IS a "problem of general covariance", to name just
two chronic GR conundrums.

[J] Depends what you mean? Again too vague. Give concrete examples.

[Z] My model completely solves both.

[J] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Z] You have no point.

(LC) is not a "pure tensor" simply because (LC) = T + 0 in the LNIF Cartesian CS and
T considered separately is a tensor quantity.

T = 0

[Z] I don't know about your "T", but my T =/= 0 generally on a curved manifold *by definition*;
and this is based squarely on the textbook Christoffel expression for the GAMMA coefficients.

[J] This is your bait and switch. Produce your formula.

I say T = 0 in ALL cases curved or flat space-time i.e.

(LC) = T + N your formula


T = 0 in Einstein's 1916 GR.

[Z] So what "T" are you talking about?

[J] The one you originally wrote.

[J] LIF has no T part in Einstein's 1916 GR.

[Z] Nonsense. You might as well argue that 4 has no 2's until we write 2 + 2 = 4 -- but then we have a different theory!

My T is implicitly present in 1916 GR:

(LC) = (T + N)

[J] See above. I say that Einstein's 1916 GR demands that your T = 0 in ALL situations.



x -> x' = x - (1/2)gt^2

giving GNIF g-force acceleration

c^2{^x'0'0'}' = g


[Z] OK.

[J] What do you mean OK ...?

[Z] By "OK", I mean OK.

[J] This example defeats your whole program in a simple concrete example!

[Z] How do you imagine that this defeats my argument?

[J] OK ... Here we have a concrete case.

You say

(LC)' = T' + N'

[Z] Yes.

Here, by "yes" I mean yes.

[J] What is T' and what is N' when

(LC)' ~ {^x't't'}' = g/c^2 in this case in the Galilean Global Non-Inertial Frame.

Show us. If you have a general theory. How does it work in this example?

[Z] Since we have a GNIF, the manifold must be completely flat, so

T = T' = 0 everywhere.

That means, in the GIF, N = 0 also and thus

(LC) = (0 + 0)

In the GNIF, we see a pure inertial field represented by the non-vanishing coordinate component N':

T --> T' = XXX(T) = 0

0 --> XY = N'

(LC) = (0 + 0) --> (LC)' = (0 + N'),

N' = XY ~ {^x't't'}' = g/c^2

So how can you possibly imagine that this "defeats [my] whole program in a simple concrete example"?

[J] OK you squirmed out of this one, since you agree with me that, at least in this case, T = T' = 0. So we have no formal difference here.

OK Problem 2 Schwartzschild solution. What is T' there and what is N' for the local LNIF REST FRAME relative to source M at distance r > 2GM/c^2.

Solve that problem next.

[Z] The point here is that we get non-vanishing g_t't', x' in the x'-direction and this is directly related to the "inertial forces" along x' that are supposed to be observed in the GNIF:

[J] You are here using my calculation. You never calculated this yourself. I want the record clear on that.

(LC)^x'_t't' = 1/2 g^x't' {- g_t't', x'}, g_t't', x' =/= 0

No comments: