Star Gates are not unstable
On May 25, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, it's wrong. More anon.
On May 25, 2005, at 7:03 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
"Jack any thoughts re:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0504/0504003.pdf
Semi-classical wormholes and time machines are unstable
Roman V. Buniy∗ and Stephen D.H. Hsu†
Institute of Theoretical Science, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 94703-5203
We show that Lorentzian (traversable) wormholes and time machines with
semi-classical space-times are unstable due to their violation of the
null energy condition (NEC). Semi-classicality of the energy-momentum
tensor in a given quantum state (required for semi-classicality of the
space-time) implies localization of its wavefunction in phase space,
leading to evolution according to the classical equations of motion.
Previous results related to violation of the NEC then require that the
configuration is unstable to small perturbations."
Tuv(Matter) = 0 in practical exotic vacuum low-power star-gate/warp drive.
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
is all we need. Tuv(Matter) is ignorable.
The long-range phase rigidity of the macro-quantum Vacuum ODLRO damps out these random micro-quantum fluctuations for same reason /\ is so small! The saucers fly, don't they? ;-)
...
"Classical systems which violate the NEC are unstab
[4] in a particularly violent way — they can lower the
energy by increasing local spatial field gradients. Therefore, quantum effects are necessary for the construction
devices such as stable traversable wormholes or time m
chines. However, it is undesirable for a device to have
strongly fluctuating (non-semi-classical) spacetime. Such
a device would presumably behave unpredictably an
might transport its payload to an undesirable time
place. We have shown that semi-classicality of the spac
time is a strong enough condition to imply localizati
of the wavefunction in phase space. This means the tim
evolution of type A devices will be semi-classical and we
approximated by the classical equations of motion, whi
are unstable in any region where the NEC is violate
Wormholes and time machines cannot be both predictable
and stable.
Susskind [7] has recently argued against the existence
of wormholes connecting otherwise causally disconnected
regions."
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
How Jack did it.
On May 21, 2005, at 5:18 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 2:15 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Z: Your BEC vacuum inflation is a physical process. Aren't you confusing the two?
J: Not at all. The unstable pre-inflation vacuum is globally flat.
Z: OK, fine.
J: The post-inflation vacuum is curved.
OK, fine.
Z: So I understand that in both cases, this is the fundamental metric in your model?
J: AND of course the remnant of the globally flat pre-inflation vacuum is the local tangent space fiber.
Z: "Remnant"? Could you further explain this "remnant"?
J: When curvature = 0 globally, i.e. B field = 0, i.e. argVacuumODLRO disappears, the global metric is Minkowski - the distinction between base space and tangent fiber vanishes. This is obvious.
Z: OK. In a bimetric model, under these conditions this metric then agrees formally with the fixed reference geometry.
J: There is NO FIXED METRIC GEOMETRY except in this LIMIT where it is the unstable false vacuum.
Z: OK, in your model.
Z: It's in MTW.
Section 17.4, p 412-413. Box 17.1: "Correspondence Principles".
Particularly Section B, "Correspondence Structure of General Relativity".
J: It's not obvious MTW use the word "correspondence" the way you do. As I am in La Jolla without the book, this will have to wait. You are the ONLY ONE in the multiverse who understands it.
Z: Physicists and mathematicians do seem to have a very hard time with this -- including Yilmaz. You finally figured out what I've been telling you for three years, and then announce that this is your discovery.
J: Show me when & where you wrote down
g-force ~ c^2(LC)^i00 invariant under Cartesian -> Polar.
Z: Jack, look up "correspondence" in the index of MTW 1970
J: I am in La Jolla - no MTW here. Quote the lines.
Z: Section 17.4, p 412-413.
Box 17.1: "Correspondence Principles".
Particularly Section B, "Correspondence Structure of General Relativity",
Paragraph b, "Correspondence with special relativity", where they say
"General relativity has two distinct kinds of correspondence with special
relativity."
"It is the demand ('correspondence principle'; 'equivalence principle') that in
a local inertial frame all the laws of physics take on their special relativistic forms."
J: So what? This is obvious. It's built into my theory.
Z: Not that I agree with the details their explanation -- but they do discuss it.
I'll show you when you get back up here next week. In the meantime, just take my
word for it. It's even in MTW. They specifically characterize EEP as a
"correspondence principle".
J: So what?
but the equation
Einstein-Cartan Tetrad - Identity ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO
{P} is Lie algebra of T4 in pre-inflation vacuum & tangent fiber of curved vacuum
The B field is the local gauge potential from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4)
Z: Which so far is just an alternative formulation of GR.
J: Formally yes, physically no.
Z: Then you are saying that already, 'B' is not the 'B' of GR.
J: Huh? There is only ONE meaning of "B" in what I am saying. There you go again on some verbal tangent to never never land spewing out meaningless symbol strings.
Z: So with the equation
Einstein-Cartan Tetrad - Identity ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO
you've already crossed the correspondence bridge.
J: Why did Chicken Little cross the road?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
and B ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO.
Z: What is the physical basis for this "~"?
J: Bohm's pilot wave theory.
Same as
v (IT particle) = (h/m)gradargpsi(BIT wave)
Z: You mean that it is analogous to the corresponding situation in Bohm's theory?
J: Yes! Obviously! GR is the gauge theory of T4 -> Diff(4) that is standard text book that's "1"
Z: That is merely a reformulation of GR.
J: It's a UNIFICATION!
Z: You are still dealing at this stage with an Einsteinian *true curved metric*. Your 'B' is still *chronogeometric*.
J: Take your "correspondence" and "chronogeometric" and trash them.
As a Bohmian I was aware of
v = (h/m)gradargpsi that's "2" (in 3D)
Z: OK. This is the pilot field.
The Vacuum ODLRO is like the Pilot WAVE BIT Field yes.
The "d" is like the HIDDEN VARIABLE IT "particle"
But, then from Arcos & Peiera I realized that I was working at the WRONG level.
Best to go to the tetrad substratum!
Now "d" is replaced by B the non-trivial warp part of the tetrad.
I can always recover Kleinert's d as bilinear in B.
It dawned on me to COMBINE Vacuum ODLRO with LOCAL GAUGING of T4 -> Diff(4) to get most directly
B ~ LpP/ih argVacuum ODLRO
P is the Momentum Operator
I was aware of Hagen Kleinert's elasticity formulation of GR. That's "3"
Z: OK.
J: Then I FLASHED
d = Lp^2gradargPSI (in 4D)
d is Hagen Kleinert's world crystal distortion field
Z: So you are modeling your BEC as a discrete lattice in 4D? A "world crystal"?
So this is where Lp comes from? You quantize spacetime itself, and relate the quantum d to the presence of the post-inflation BEC PSI? And then the whole thing looks mathematically like a deformable Kleinert world crystal?
J: No need to quantize space-time in detail here. It's only the long-wave effective c-number ODLRO theory that is needed. Same in Kleinert BTW, but he has no ODLRO in his world crystal.
Z: OK, that would help to explain how you get from your BEC world crystal at the micro-level to chronogeometric g_uv at the macro-level.
J: PSI is Vacuum ODLRO
Z: OK, so you have an analogy between "psi" in
v = (h/m)gradargpsi
and PSI = Vacuum ODLRO in your BEC model?
J: That's what I wrote.
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 REPLACES h/m
Z: OK.
Z: So your BEC is like a Kleinert-type "world crystal", which is a kind of spacetime
discrete lattice based on a quantum of gravitational spacetime volume ~hG/c^3?
J: Yes.
B ~ (LpP)/ih argVaccum ODLRO = dynamical warp field = torsion potential
F = DF = dB + B/\B
DF = 0 is Bianchi identity on torsion field F
D*F = *J is a torsion field equation
Not Shipov's torsion mind you.
B is LIKE the "square root" of Kleinert's world crystal distortion field d.
Kleinert does not think of his world crystal as a ODLRO SUPER SOLID aether.
That was my original discovery in 1969 that George Chapline Jr is so keen about for "quantum gravity".
g(curved) = [I + B(warp)](Flat)[I + B(warp)]
these are tensor equations sans indices not Cartan /\ form equations.
B is a 1st rank Diff(4) tensor and it is also a 1st rank O(1,3) tensor
g(curved) = (Flat) + Strain Tensor
Is Kleinert's world crystal equation.
Therefore
Kleinert's Strain Tensor = B(Flat)I + I(Flat)B + B(Flat)B
B(Flat)I + I(Flat)B = linear elastic strain
B(Flat)B = nonlinear plastic strain allowing pure vacuum geon solutions of "Mass without mass" in wormhole topology of non-bounding 2-cycles giving quantized flux from the single-valuedness of the local Vacuum ODLRO.
Note, for the torsion field in the tetrad substratum of curved macro-quantum geometrodynamics
The local stress-energy torsion field tensor is
F/\F + *F/\*F
* is Hodge-dual
Note that (where , is ordinary partial derivative) symbolically
(LC) ~ B,(Flat)I + B,(Flat)B
The LIF is the solution of the NONLINEAR differential equations
(LC) = 0 at event P
The Riemann-tidal curvature is
R ~ B,,(Flat)I + B,,(Flat)B + B,(Flat)B, + (LC)^2
Remember B ~ GradargVacuumODLRO in the 4D sense.
Z: Which itself depends on the BEC PSI? So your curved spacetime geometry arises from a distortion of the spacetime lattice that is mediated by your positronium BEC?
J: Yes, by its Goldstone phase argVacuumODLRO.
Lp^2 = Loop Quantum of Area for QUANTUM SUPER SOLID
(my paper of 1969 that George Chapline thinks is so important)
Z: OK. So in this sense you do have a kind of gravitationally deformable discrete spacetime.
J: Discreteness plays no important role. It's all long wave "metric elasticity" (Andrei Sakharov's term).
Z: So are you saying that the quantum of gravitational spacetime volume in the "world crystal" depends not only on h but also on G?
J: and c and it' s not a quantum of volume it's a QUANTUM OF AREA!
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Switch off h and NO CLASSICAL GRAVITY!
Classical gravity is an emergent macro-quantum collective effect!
Make c infinite and NO CLASSICAL GRAVITY!
Make G zero and no gravity. This last part is trivial, but the first two are NOT TRIVIAL!
Without the quantum h there is no classical gravity.
Without a finite speed of light there is no classical gravity.
h/m = Quantum of Circulation for QUANTUM SUPERFLUID
Now that's EXACTLY how I discovered the NEW IDEA.
Z: OK.
On May 21, 2005, at 5:18 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 21, 2005, at 2:15 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Z: Your BEC vacuum inflation is a physical process. Aren't you confusing the two?
J: Not at all. The unstable pre-inflation vacuum is globally flat.
Z: OK, fine.
J: The post-inflation vacuum is curved.
OK, fine.
Z: So I understand that in both cases, this is the fundamental metric in your model?
J: AND of course the remnant of the globally flat pre-inflation vacuum is the local tangent space fiber.
Z: "Remnant"? Could you further explain this "remnant"?
J: When curvature = 0 globally, i.e. B field = 0, i.e. argVacuumODLRO disappears, the global metric is Minkowski - the distinction between base space and tangent fiber vanishes. This is obvious.
Z: OK. In a bimetric model, under these conditions this metric then agrees formally with the fixed reference geometry.
J: There is NO FIXED METRIC GEOMETRY except in this LIMIT where it is the unstable false vacuum.
Z: OK, in your model.
Z: It's in MTW.
Section 17.4, p 412-413. Box 17.1: "Correspondence Principles".
Particularly Section B, "Correspondence Structure of General Relativity".
J: It's not obvious MTW use the word "correspondence" the way you do. As I am in La Jolla without the book, this will have to wait. You are the ONLY ONE in the multiverse who understands it.
Z: Physicists and mathematicians do seem to have a very hard time with this -- including Yilmaz. You finally figured out what I've been telling you for three years, and then announce that this is your discovery.
J: Show me when & where you wrote down
g-force ~ c^2(LC)^i00 invariant under Cartesian -> Polar.
Z: Jack, look up "correspondence" in the index of MTW 1970
J: I am in La Jolla - no MTW here. Quote the lines.
Z: Section 17.4, p 412-413.
Box 17.1: "Correspondence Principles".
Particularly Section B, "Correspondence Structure of General Relativity",
Paragraph b, "Correspondence with special relativity", where they say
"General relativity has two distinct kinds of correspondence with special
relativity."
"It is the demand ('correspondence principle'; 'equivalence principle') that in
a local inertial frame all the laws of physics take on their special relativistic forms."
J: So what? This is obvious. It's built into my theory.
Z: Not that I agree with the details their explanation -- but they do discuss it.
I'll show you when you get back up here next week. In the meantime, just take my
word for it. It's even in MTW. They specifically characterize EEP as a
"correspondence principle".
J: So what?
but the equation
Einstein-Cartan Tetrad - Identity ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO
{P} is Lie algebra of T4 in pre-inflation vacuum & tangent fiber of curved vacuum
The B field is the local gauge potential from locally gauging T4 to Diff(4)
Z: Which so far is just an alternative formulation of GR.
J: Formally yes, physically no.
Z: Then you are saying that already, 'B' is not the 'B' of GR.
J: Huh? There is only ONE meaning of "B" in what I am saying. There you go again on some verbal tangent to never never land spewing out meaningless symbol strings.
Z: So with the equation
Einstein-Cartan Tetrad - Identity ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO
you've already crossed the correspondence bridge.
J: Why did Chicken Little cross the road?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
and B ~ (LpP/ih)argVacuumODLRO.
Z: What is the physical basis for this "~"?
J: Bohm's pilot wave theory.
Same as
v (IT particle) = (h/m)gradargpsi(BIT wave)
Z: You mean that it is analogous to the corresponding situation in Bohm's theory?
J: Yes! Obviously! GR is the gauge theory of T4 -> Diff(4) that is standard text book that's "1"
Z: That is merely a reformulation of GR.
J: It's a UNIFICATION!
Z: You are still dealing at this stage with an Einsteinian *true curved metric*. Your 'B' is still *chronogeometric*.
J: Take your "correspondence" and "chronogeometric" and trash them.
As a Bohmian I was aware of
v = (h/m)gradargpsi that's "2" (in 3D)
Z: OK. This is the pilot field.
The Vacuum ODLRO is like the Pilot WAVE BIT Field yes.
The "d" is like the HIDDEN VARIABLE IT "particle"
But, then from Arcos & Peiera I realized that I was working at the WRONG level.
Best to go to the tetrad substratum!
Now "d" is replaced by B the non-trivial warp part of the tetrad.
I can always recover Kleinert's d as bilinear in B.
It dawned on me to COMBINE Vacuum ODLRO with LOCAL GAUGING of T4 -> Diff(4) to get most directly
B ~ LpP/ih argVacuum ODLRO
P is the Momentum Operator
I was aware of Hagen Kleinert's elasticity formulation of GR. That's "3"
Z: OK.
J: Then I FLASHED
d = Lp^2gradargPSI (in 4D)
d is Hagen Kleinert's world crystal distortion field
Z: So you are modeling your BEC as a discrete lattice in 4D? A "world crystal"?
So this is where Lp comes from? You quantize spacetime itself, and relate the quantum d to the presence of the post-inflation BEC PSI? And then the whole thing looks mathematically like a deformable Kleinert world crystal?
J: No need to quantize space-time in detail here. It's only the long-wave effective c-number ODLRO theory that is needed. Same in Kleinert BTW, but he has no ODLRO in his world crystal.
Z: OK, that would help to explain how you get from your BEC world crystal at the micro-level to chronogeometric g_uv at the macro-level.
J: PSI is Vacuum ODLRO
Z: OK, so you have an analogy between "psi" in
v = (h/m)gradargpsi
and PSI = Vacuum ODLRO in your BEC model?
J: That's what I wrote.
Lp^2 = hG/c^3 REPLACES h/m
Z: OK.
Z: So your BEC is like a Kleinert-type "world crystal", which is a kind of spacetime
discrete lattice based on a quantum of gravitational spacetime volume ~hG/c^3?
J: Yes.
B ~ (LpP)/ih argVaccum ODLRO = dynamical warp field = torsion potential
F = DF = dB + B/\B
DF = 0 is Bianchi identity on torsion field F
D*F = *J is a torsion field equation
Not Shipov's torsion mind you.
B is LIKE the "square root" of Kleinert's world crystal distortion field d.
Kleinert does not think of his world crystal as a ODLRO SUPER SOLID aether.
That was my original discovery in 1969 that George Chapline Jr is so keen about for "quantum gravity".
g(curved) = [I + B(warp)](Flat)[I + B(warp)]
these are tensor equations sans indices not Cartan /\ form equations.
B is a 1st rank Diff(4) tensor and it is also a 1st rank O(1,3) tensor
g(curved) = (Flat) + Strain Tensor
Is Kleinert's world crystal equation.
Therefore
Kleinert's Strain Tensor = B(Flat)I + I(Flat)B + B(Flat)B
B(Flat)I + I(Flat)B = linear elastic strain
B(Flat)B = nonlinear plastic strain allowing pure vacuum geon solutions of "Mass without mass" in wormhole topology of non-bounding 2-cycles giving quantized flux from the single-valuedness of the local Vacuum ODLRO.
Note, for the torsion field in the tetrad substratum of curved macro-quantum geometrodynamics
The local stress-energy torsion field tensor is
F/\F + *F/\*F
* is Hodge-dual
Note that (where , is ordinary partial derivative) symbolically
(LC) ~ B,(Flat)I + B,(Flat)B
The LIF is the solution of the NONLINEAR differential equations
(LC) = 0 at event P
The Riemann-tidal curvature is
R ~ B,,(Flat)I + B,,(Flat)B + B,(Flat)B, + (LC)^2
Remember B ~ GradargVacuumODLRO in the 4D sense.
Z: Which itself depends on the BEC PSI? So your curved spacetime geometry arises from a distortion of the spacetime lattice that is mediated by your positronium BEC?
J: Yes, by its Goldstone phase argVacuumODLRO.
Lp^2 = Loop Quantum of Area for QUANTUM SUPER SOLID
(my paper of 1969 that George Chapline thinks is so important)
Z: OK. So in this sense you do have a kind of gravitationally deformable discrete spacetime.
J: Discreteness plays no important role. It's all long wave "metric elasticity" (Andrei Sakharov's term).
Z: So are you saying that the quantum of gravitational spacetime volume in the "world crystal" depends not only on h but also on G?
J: and c and it' s not a quantum of volume it's a QUANTUM OF AREA!
Lp^2 = hG/c^3
Switch off h and NO CLASSICAL GRAVITY!
Classical gravity is an emergent macro-quantum collective effect!
Make c infinite and NO CLASSICAL GRAVITY!
Make G zero and no gravity. This last part is trivial, but the first two are NOT TRIVIAL!
Without the quantum h there is no classical gravity.
Without a finite speed of light there is no classical gravity.
h/m = Quantum of Circulation for QUANTUM SUPERFLUID
Now that's EXACTLY how I discovered the NEW IDEA.
Z: OK.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Creation of the Universe
On May 20, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
The Cipher of Genesis Decoded
The Pre-inflationary "Fire" ("steam") unstable false vacuum Dirac Sea is globally flat without any rest masses and without any gravity. The cosmological constant is /\ ~ Lp^-2 = 10^66 cm^-2 in the RANDOM "SED" if you like Dirac Sea.
Vacuum ODLRO = 0
The Post-inflationary "Ice" metastable curved vacuum is the calmer more pacific Higgs Ocean whose
FM phase ripples is Einstein's curvature gravity i.e. B-field ~ LpP/ih operating on arg(Vacuum ODLRO) The dark energy/matter stress-energy density Diff(4) tensors are AM amplitude ripples in the
Higgs intensity |Vacuum ODLRO|^2
The B-field is from local gauging T4 -> Diff(4) in the presence of Vacuum ODLRO. It's the Vacuum ODLRO
that causes the local gauging!
Vacuum ODLRO explains:
1. Why the large-scale world is "local" and "classical" - why no giant Schrodinger Cats
2. Why the early curved universe has low thermodynamic entropy i.e., "arrow of time" parallel to expansion of space
David Deutsch's "multiverse" is wrong. You cannot use micro-quantum rules on large scale precisely because of ODLRO. This is explained in detail by P.W. Anderson in several papers in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" (World)
On May 20, 2005, at 1:28 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
If you want to see the flat spacetime metric, you just remove all gravitational sources sufficiently far away that gravitational effects are negligible.
No, Paul you have confounded asymptotic flatness of a curved metric with TWO co-existing metrics one flat the other curved.
This shows that a flat background metric has a concrete physical meaning.
Yes, as the unstable pre-inflation false vacuum without gravity and without rest masses of lepto-quarks. Think of expanding spheres of ICE floating in STEAM
Just as in Newtonian physics, the law of inertia only really applies in a vacuum -- so that you have to remove all gas-phase matter before you can "directly observe it".
Totally wrong. That's like saying that an ice cube has a co-existing interpenetrating steam ghostly doppleganger occupying the same space-time region with it.
So you are saying that any bimetric equivalent of GR is "confused"?
I see no bimetric in asymptotic flatness of the single curved metric. Yes, what you write is confused. You are not using the metaphors consistently.
I was simply responding to your assertion that since the background metric is not
directly observable, it is physically meaningless.
The whole idea of Einstein's theory is that there is no rigid absolute non-dynamical globally flat metric co-existing with the curved dynamical "background independent" metric guv. What you are trying to impose here is excess metaphysical baggage. It's like putting sugar in the gas tank of a new Ferrari.
You obviously don't understand Rosen's concept. Have you read any of his papers? Ever?
No. If Rosen proposed that. He is wrong.
I am not talking here about *Einstein's* idea; I'm talking about a *bimetric equivalent* of GR, in which there is a non-deformable background g_uv and a physical g_uv that depends on the distribution of matter.
That's an ugly idea. It's not needed. That's simply BAD physics IMHO. Most of the theory papers today are bad physics. Too many theorists with too few ideas regurgitating mostly not-even-wrong ideas with very little contact with observation and experiment.
On May 20, 2005, at 8:36 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
The Cipher of Genesis Decoded
The Pre-inflationary "Fire" ("steam") unstable false vacuum Dirac Sea is globally flat without any rest masses and without any gravity. The cosmological constant is /\ ~ Lp^-2 = 10^66 cm^-2 in the RANDOM "SED" if you like Dirac Sea.
Vacuum ODLRO = 0
The Post-inflationary "Ice" metastable curved vacuum is the calmer more pacific Higgs Ocean whose
FM phase ripples is Einstein's curvature gravity i.e. B-field ~ LpP/ih operating on arg(Vacuum ODLRO) The dark energy/matter stress-energy density Diff(4) tensors are AM amplitude ripples in the
Higgs intensity |Vacuum ODLRO|^2
The B-field is from local gauging T4 -> Diff(4) in the presence of Vacuum ODLRO. It's the Vacuum ODLRO
that causes the local gauging!
Vacuum ODLRO explains:
1. Why the large-scale world is "local" and "classical" - why no giant Schrodinger Cats
2. Why the early curved universe has low thermodynamic entropy i.e., "arrow of time" parallel to expansion of space
David Deutsch's "multiverse" is wrong. You cannot use micro-quantum rules on large scale precisely because of ODLRO. This is explained in detail by P.W. Anderson in several papers in "A Career in Theoretical Physics" (World)
On May 20, 2005, at 1:28 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
If you want to see the flat spacetime metric, you just remove all gravitational sources sufficiently far away that gravitational effects are negligible.
No, Paul you have confounded asymptotic flatness of a curved metric with TWO co-existing metrics one flat the other curved.
This shows that a flat background metric has a concrete physical meaning.
Yes, as the unstable pre-inflation false vacuum without gravity and without rest masses of lepto-quarks. Think of expanding spheres of ICE floating in STEAM
Just as in Newtonian physics, the law of inertia only really applies in a vacuum -- so that you have to remove all gas-phase matter before you can "directly observe it".
Totally wrong. That's like saying that an ice cube has a co-existing interpenetrating steam ghostly doppleganger occupying the same space-time region with it.
So you are saying that any bimetric equivalent of GR is "confused"?
I see no bimetric in asymptotic flatness of the single curved metric. Yes, what you write is confused. You are not using the metaphors consistently.
I was simply responding to your assertion that since the background metric is not
directly observable, it is physically meaningless.
The whole idea of Einstein's theory is that there is no rigid absolute non-dynamical globally flat metric co-existing with the curved dynamical "background independent" metric guv. What you are trying to impose here is excess metaphysical baggage. It's like putting sugar in the gas tank of a new Ferrari.
You obviously don't understand Rosen's concept. Have you read any of his papers? Ever?
No. If Rosen proposed that. He is wrong.
I am not talking here about *Einstein's* idea; I'm talking about a *bimetric equivalent* of GR, in which there is a non-deformable background g_uv and a physical g_uv that depends on the distribution of matter.
That's an ugly idea. It's not needed. That's simply BAD physics IMHO. Most of the theory papers today are bad physics. Too many theorists with too few ideas regurgitating mostly not-even-wrong ideas with very little contact with observation and experiment.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Hal Puthoff's error on Cold Fusion charge cluster Exotic Vacuum Objects
"Plasma induced/injected transmutation processes run include a gamut from recent achievements dating back to the Oshawa-Kushi cold plasma transmutations reported in 1964. The patented High-Density Charge Cluster (HDCC) process was first discovered by Kenneth Shoulders and added on to by Harold E. Puthoff. Later, the late Stan Gleeson discovered HDCC in properly processed solutions. Still later, Alexander Ilyanok of Belarus discovered HDCC, followed by Vasiliy Baraboskin in Russia.
The production of condensed charge clusters and various plasma glow discharge phenomena in a variety of gaseous atmospheres is again implicated as the underlying cause with what should be by now an obvious connection with the coherence of zero-point energy from the quantum or stochastic vacuum. Desk-top high energy particle accelerators have also been envisioned, based on the “piggy back” principle, in which the clusters permit acceleration of “piggy-backed” heaver +ions to extremely high energies capable of causing fusion and transmutations in target materials including those in solution and the materials of which the electrodes are composed. Brown’s gas implosion and cavitation bubble collapse reactions are also believed to be prevalent in these types of cells due to the prevalence of electrolysis.
A high-density charge cluster technology was discovered and used by Stan Gleeson to stabilize radioactive liquid wastes and has been developed further in the last 4 years by a group led by S-X Jin and Hal Fox. Best results for radioactive liquids have been demonstrated in the processing of thorium for a 30-minute period and achieving a reduction of radioactivity of about 90% from a liquid sample."
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/NuclearRemediation/Vesperman/
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=910
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-409871.html
My citing this does not mean I endorse it!
Hal and I seem to agree on the basic geometric picture of the Ken Shoulder's charge cluster EVO, i.e. electrons of effective size h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm close-packed in a spherical thin shell of radius ro as a Schwarzschild radial coordinate (strong short range effective gravity from zero point energy density.
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
Hal has a wrong picture of ZPE for virtual photons at least based on SED and also on an error in Peter Milonni's book "The Quantum Vacuum" that treats virtual photons as if they were real on mass shell E = pc with w = +1/3 rather than w = -1 and E =/= pc as is the case.
Therefore, Hal's picture is the contradictory picture that the zero point pressure is positive OUTSIDE the N electron shell containing it. That's impossible because that would mean such a large cosmological constant dark energy density ~ 10^+22 cm^-2 that would not allow our universe to even exist!
My short-scale picture based on the correct w = -1 means a uniform negative ZPF pressure "glue" on the inside of the shell of repulsive charge with ~ ZERO pressure outside consistent with Type Ia supernovae data that Einstein's cosmological constant vacuum energy on large-scale is /\ ~ 10^-56 cm^-2.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The naked singularity has
M^2 < a^2 + Q^2
Therefore, on this model, where M = Q, the electron would be a naked singularity that might explain the random indeterminate micro-quantum properties, or it might be an argument for the Chapline-Laughlin "dark energy star" model?
On the other hand, my actual model with /\zpf is essentially Newtonian and does not require the Kerr-Newmann metric fit at all.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alexander Burinski in Moscow has made detailed models of the electron as a Kerr-Newman metric http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0412065
The parameters in that metric from the electron's stabilizing dark energy core would then be
G*m^2 = e^2
m and e are the measured rest mass and charge of the electron
J = (1/2)(h/2pi)
a = (1/2)h/mc
M = G*m/c^2 = e^2/mc^2 = classical radius of the electron ~ 1 fermi
G*^1/2m = e
G*^1/2e = G*m
Q = G*^1/2e/c^2 = G*m/c^2
This Kerr-Newman model must be compared to a "charged" dark star model (e.g. Chapline & Laughlin)
“Dark Energy Stars”, G. Chapline, Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford, CA, December 12-17, (2004), preprint astro-ph/0503200 ;
“Have nucleon decays already been seen?”, J. Barbierii and G. Chapline, Phys Lett. B 590, 8, (2004);
“ Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity”, G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin, D. I. Santiago, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 3587-90 (2003), preprint gr-qc/0012094.
On May 19, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that an EVO of ~ 10^12 electrons close-packed in a spherical shell has a radius
~ 10^6 x 10^-11 cm = 10^-5 cm ~ 0.1 micron
The counter-intuitive effective attractive gravity G* from this homogeneously distributed repulsive vacuum zero point energy 3D harmonic oscillator potential of negative pressure is
G*(Nm)^2 = (Ne)^2
G*m^2 = e^2
G* = (e/m)^2
independent of N
The effective gravity constant G* induced by the dark zero point energy core of the electron is simply the square of the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
On May 19, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
"Plasma induced/injected transmutation processes run include a gamut from recent achievements dating back to the Oshawa-Kushi cold plasma transmutations reported in 1964. The patented High-Density Charge Cluster (HDCC) process was first discovered by Kenneth Shoulders and added on to by Harold E. Puthoff. Later, the late Stan Gleeson discovered HDCC in properly processed solutions. Still later, Alexander Ilyanok of Belarus discovered HDCC, followed by Vasiliy Baraboskin in Russia.
The production of condensed charge clusters and various plasma glow discharge phenomena in a variety of gaseous atmospheres is again implicated as the underlying cause with what should be by now an obvious connection with the coherence of zero-point energy from the quantum or stochastic vacuum. Desk-top high energy particle accelerators have also been envisioned, based on the “piggy back” principle, in which the clusters permit acceleration of “piggy-backed” heaver +ions to extremely high energies capable of causing fusion and transmutations in target materials including those in solution and the materials of which the electrodes are composed. Brown’s gas implosion and cavitation bubble collapse reactions are also believed to be prevalent in these types of cells due to the prevalence of electrolysis.
A high-density charge cluster technology was discovered and used by Stan Gleeson to stabilize radioactive liquid wastes and has been developed further in the last 4 years by a group led by S-X Jin and Hal Fox. Best results for radioactive liquids have been demonstrated in the processing of thorium for a 30-minute period and achieving a reduction of radioactivity of about 90% from a liquid sample."
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/NuclearRemediation/Vesperman/
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=910
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/post-409871.html
My citing this does not mean I endorse it!
Hal and I seem to agree on the basic geometric picture of the Ken Shoulder's charge cluster EVO, i.e. electrons of effective size h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm close-packed in a spherical thin shell of radius ro as a Schwarzschild radial coordinate (strong short range effective gravity from zero point energy density.
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
Hal has a wrong picture of ZPE for virtual photons at least based on SED and also on an error in Peter Milonni's book "The Quantum Vacuum" that treats virtual photons as if they were real on mass shell E = pc with w = +1/3 rather than w = -1 and E =/= pc as is the case.
Therefore, Hal's picture is the contradictory picture that the zero point pressure is positive OUTSIDE the N electron shell containing it. That's impossible because that would mean such a large cosmological constant dark energy density ~ 10^+22 cm^-2 that would not allow our universe to even exist!
My short-scale picture based on the correct w = -1 means a uniform negative ZPF pressure "glue" on the inside of the shell of repulsive charge with ~ ZERO pressure outside consistent with Type Ia supernovae data that Einstein's cosmological constant vacuum energy on large-scale is /\ ~ 10^-56 cm^-2.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The naked singularity has
M^2 < a^2 + Q^2
Therefore, on this model, where M = Q, the electron would be a naked singularity that might explain the random indeterminate micro-quantum properties, or it might be an argument for the Chapline-Laughlin "dark energy star" model?
On the other hand, my actual model with /\zpf is essentially Newtonian and does not require the Kerr-Newmann metric fit at all.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alexander Burinski in Moscow has made detailed models of the electron as a Kerr-Newman metric http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0412065
The parameters in that metric from the electron's stabilizing dark energy core would then be
G*m^2 = e^2
m and e are the measured rest mass and charge of the electron
J = (1/2)(h/2pi)
a = (1/2)h/mc
M = G*m/c^2 = e^2/mc^2 = classical radius of the electron ~ 1 fermi
G*^1/2m = e
G*^1/2e = G*m
Q = G*^1/2e/c^2 = G*m/c^2
This Kerr-Newman model must be compared to a "charged" dark star model (e.g. Chapline & Laughlin)
“Dark Energy Stars”, G. Chapline, Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford, CA, December 12-17, (2004), preprint astro-ph/0503200 ;
“Have nucleon decays already been seen?”, J. Barbierii and G. Chapline, Phys Lett. B 590, 8, (2004);
“ Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity”, G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin, D. I. Santiago, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 3587-90 (2003), preprint gr-qc/0012094.
On May 19, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that an EVO of ~ 10^12 electrons close-packed in a spherical shell has a radius
~ 10^6 x 10^-11 cm = 10^-5 cm ~ 0.1 micron
The counter-intuitive effective attractive gravity G* from this homogeneously distributed repulsive vacuum zero point energy 3D harmonic oscillator potential of negative pressure is
G*(Nm)^2 = (Ne)^2
G*m^2 = e^2
G* = (e/m)^2
independent of N
The effective gravity constant G* induced by the dark zero point energy core of the electron is simply the square of the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
On May 19, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
Naked Singularity
The naked singularity has
M^2 < a^2 + Q^2
Therefore, on this model, where M = Q, the electron would be a naked singularity that might explain the random indeterminate micro-quantum properties, or it might be an argument for the Chapline-Laughlin "dark energy star" model?
On the other hand, my actual model with /\zpf is essentially Newtonian and does not require the Kerr-Newmann metric fit at all.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alexander Burinski in Moscow has made detailed models of the electron as a Kerr-Newman metric http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0412065
The parameters in that metric from the electron's stabilizing dark energy core would then be
G*m^2 = e^2
m and e are the measured rest mass and charge of the electron
J = (1/2)(h/2pi)
a = (1/2)h/mc
M = G*m/c^2 = e^2/mc^2 = classical radius of the electron ~ 1 fermi
G*^1/2m = e
G*^1/2e = G*m
Q = G*^1/2e/c^2 = G*m/c^2
This Kerr-Newman model must be compared to a "charged" dark star model (e.g. Chapline & Laughlin)
“Dark Energy Stars”, G. Chapline, Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford, CA, December 12-17, (2004), preprint astro-ph/0503200 ;
“Have nucleon decays already been seen?”, J. Barbierii and G. Chapline, Phys Lett. B 590, 8, (2004);
“ Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity”, G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin, D. I. Santiago, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 3587-90 (2003), preprint gr-qc/0012094.
On May 19, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that an EVO of ~ 10^12 electrons close-packed in a spherical shell has a radius
~ 10^6 x 10^-11 cm = 10^-5 cm ~ 0.1 micron
The counter-intuitive effective attractive gravity G* from this homogeneously distributed repulsive vacuum zero point energy 3D harmonic oscillator potential of negative pressure is
G*(Nm)^2 = (Ne)^2
G*m^2 = e^2
G* = (e/m)^2
independent of N
The effective gravity constant G* induced by the dark zero point energy core of the electron is simply the square of the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
On May 19, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
The naked singularity has
M^2 < a^2 + Q^2
Therefore, on this model, where M = Q, the electron would be a naked singularity that might explain the random indeterminate micro-quantum properties, or it might be an argument for the Chapline-Laughlin "dark energy star" model?
On the other hand, my actual model with /\zpf is essentially Newtonian and does not require the Kerr-Newmann metric fit at all.
On May 19, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Alexander Burinski in Moscow has made detailed models of the electron as a Kerr-Newman metric http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0412065
The parameters in that metric from the electron's stabilizing dark energy core would then be
G*m^2 = e^2
m and e are the measured rest mass and charge of the electron
J = (1/2)(h/2pi)
a = (1/2)h/mc
M = G*m/c^2 = e^2/mc^2 = classical radius of the electron ~ 1 fermi
G*^1/2m = e
G*^1/2e = G*m
Q = G*^1/2e/c^2 = G*m/c^2
This Kerr-Newman model must be compared to a "charged" dark star model (e.g. Chapline & Laughlin)
“Dark Energy Stars”, G. Chapline, Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Relativistic Astrophysics, Stanford, CA, December 12-17, (2004), preprint astro-ph/0503200 ;
“Have nucleon decays already been seen?”, J. Barbierii and G. Chapline, Phys Lett. B 590, 8, (2004);
“ Quantum Phase Transitions and the Breakdown of Classical General Relativity”, G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R. B. Laughlin, D. I. Santiago, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A18 3587-90 (2003), preprint gr-qc/0012094.
On May 19, 2005, at 8:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that an EVO of ~ 10^12 electrons close-packed in a spherical shell has a radius
~ 10^6 x 10^-11 cm = 10^-5 cm ~ 0.1 micron
The counter-intuitive effective attractive gravity G* from this homogeneously distributed repulsive vacuum zero point energy 3D harmonic oscillator potential of negative pressure is
G*(Nm)^2 = (Ne)^2
G*m^2 = e^2
G* = (e/m)^2
independent of N
The effective gravity constant G* induced by the dark zero point energy core of the electron is simply the square of the charge to mass ratio of the electron.
On May 19, 2005, at 4:34 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
The electron has a dark energy core
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
On the extended space structure of a single electron
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
For a shell of N electrons
N(h/mc)^2 = 4piro^2
N^1/2(h/mc) = (4pi)^1/2ro
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/(2mc^2/\zpf)
N^3/2(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
(h/mc)^3/(4pi)^3/2 = N^1/2e^2/2mc^2/\zpf
/\zpf = (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/2mc^2)/(h/mc)^3
e^2/hc ~ (1/137) = (classical electron radius)/(Compton radius)
/\zpf ~ (4pi)^3/2N^1/2(e^2/hc)(mc/h)^2
For a SINGLE ELECTRON N = 1 (Bohm hidden variable)
This solves a 100 year old problem from Lorentz.
The electron is a shell of charge with a dark energy core.
The zero point stress energy density tensor of the dark energy core is
tuv(ZPF core) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
On May 18, 2005, at 10:02 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
ro^3 = (Ne)^2/2mc^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Ken Shoulders Charge Clusters
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
mro^3 = (Ne)^2/2c^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
PS for uniform /\zpf > 0 of negative pressure (dark energy core)
F/m = -dV/dr = -2c^2|/\zpf|ro + (Ne)^2/mro^2 = 0
mro^3 = (Ne)^2/2c^2/\zpf
stability
d^2V/dr^2 = +2c^2|/\zpf| + 2(Ne)^2/mro^3 > 0
On May 18, 2005, at 9:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note that my theory of Ken Shoulders charge clusters also has a dark energy core that stabilizes the shell of N electrons. The dark energy core potential ~ + c^2|/\zpf|r^2 holds the repulsive Coulomb barrier + (Ne)^2/mr in check!
Similarly for Pioneer 10 & 11 anomaly, galactic halo & other phenomena.
The Meaning of General Relativity
On May 18, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
On May 18, 2005, at 2:26 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
No, Jack, I'm afraid that Einstein was very serious about his "general relativity". In order to make mutually accelerating reference frames K and K' physically equivalent, he was led to posit an *identification* of gravitational and inertial fields, where one was no more or less physically real then the other -- which from my POV amounts to a conflation of *subjective appearances* with *objective physical realities*.
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
I showed you what that really means Paul. Einstein is completely correct.
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
GR is a mathematical theory.
What Einstein means Paul is in the math, i.e. in the REST LNIF of the test particle of total mass m
inertial "g-force" c^2(LC)^i00 = f^i(non-gravity force)/m
In particular when you arbitrarily choose HOVERING LIFS, then guv for that special choice in the SSS case for r > 2GM(source)/c^2 is LF invariant local Diff(4) scalar
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
= (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
The theory is completely consistent and beautiful.
Starting from there you can make Diff(4) GCT's Xu'^u LNIFu <-> LNIFu' or tetrads eu^a LNIFu <-> LIFa
This was later modified to *local intrinsic equivalence*, wherein Einstein still did not regard curvature as an essential property of the gravitational field.
Measuring the local geodesic deviation is a completely different experiment than measuring g-force. You never have to bring in curvature to discuss the gravity "field" in the sense of (LC)^i00. That's additional information about (LC)^uvw, l.
Gravity field g-force per test particle mass = c^2(LC)^i00
i = 1,2,3
The point is that you can have objective Einstein *geometrodynamics* (with objectively determined physical geodesics) without Einstein equivalence. All you really need is *weak* equivalence.
On May 18, 2005, at 2:13 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul, the key to your confusion over "reality", "objectivity" and "existence" is your misunderstanding of what "zero" means for physical quantities.
So your position is that an object can be an object without being an object?
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein, Wheeler and Sarfatti to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity's reality.
The point about a quantity that is not zero at a point, being reducible to zero at that point by a *coordinate transformation* is that it is not a *mathematical object* with respect to coordinate transformations on the space in which it is defined.
Who cares? It's physically real if it moves a pointer on a good detector - including "null measurements" of course! What you mean is that (LC)^uvw is not a local Diff(4) nonlinear tensor. It is global T4 linear "affine" tensor. Nothing physically unreal if a measured property is zero in a special frame and non-zero in another! x = 0 does not mean "x does not exist"! A physically real OBJECT does not need to be a tensor under ALL groups G. The laws of nature need to be tensor equations under all physical groups G, but their vacuum states need not be G-invariant - that's ODLRO.
You confuse "variable x having a value zero" with x not existing at all! I will find your quotes below on that.
Jack, show me a field quantity outside of Einsteinian physics that can be made zero at any given point by a coordinate transformation.
Magnetic field B from a test charge in a transformation to the rest frame of the test charge in special relativity. But that is Einsteinian physics.
In Galilean-Newtonian particle physics, "speed" of the particle is a physically real property that is zero in the rest frame of the particle.
Paul your criterion of reality is far removed from experimental physics.
A scalar is a tensor of rank zero. Therefore if a scalar quantity is not zero in one coordinate system, it is not zero in any other.
So what?
A variable that is not zero at a point in one coordinate system, but is zero at that point in another is not a scalar quantity.
Correct, relative to the group of coordinate transformations that you left unspecified so that your ill-posed remark was meaningless.
Am I really "confused"?
Yes! You said "speed" was a scalar! It's not a scalar under O(1,3) which is the relevant physical group there!
I am NOT saying that when (LC) -> 0 it is no longer *defined*; I'm saying that if it is not zero in one spacetime CS but vanishes in another, then it is not a *mathematical object* with respect to general spacetime coordinate changes.
So what? That has nothing to do with physics. (LC) is physically real. It is locally measured as g-force. Inertial frames by definition have zero g-force. Non-inertial frames by definition have non-zero g-force. To say that g-force is not physical real is a bad idea. Physically real properties are what can be measured by actual detectors in actual experiments. We infer the existence of an "object" from a collection of such measurements.
BTW with the LC field you can only make it 0 at a single event P in an LIF each time. You cannot make it zero globally when space-time is really variably curved!
True, but immaterial.
Only from your POV.
The point is that a non-trivial LC connection field can be made to vanish at any point by a spacetime coordinate transformation, so it does not represent a mathematical object in 4D spacetime.
We don't care if it's a "mathematical object". Experimental physicists are not interested in "mathematical objects". They are only interested in "physical objects".
One aspect of "objectivity" in physics is the search for spacetime *objects*. The LC connection is clearly not an object with respect to the full class of general spacetime coordinate transformations.
Of course it's not, but it's physically real!
On May 18, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
On May 18, 2005, at 2:26 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
No, Jack, I'm afraid that Einstein was very serious about his "general relativity". In order to make mutually accelerating reference frames K and K' physically equivalent, he was led to posit an *identification* of gravitational and inertial fields, where one was no more or less physically real then the other -- which from my POV amounts to a conflation of *subjective appearances* with *objective physical realities*.
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
I showed you what that really means Paul. Einstein is completely correct.
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity.
GR is a mathematical theory.
What Einstein means Paul is in the math, i.e. in the REST LNIF of the test particle of total mass m
inertial "g-force" c^2(LC)^i00 = f^i(non-gravity force)/m
In particular when you arbitrarily choose HOVERING LIFS, then guv for that special choice in the SSS case for r > 2GM(source)/c^2 is LF invariant local Diff(4) scalar
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
= (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
The theory is completely consistent and beautiful.
Starting from there you can make Diff(4) GCT's Xu'^u LNIFu <-> LNIFu' or tetrads eu^a LNIFu <-> LIFa
This was later modified to *local intrinsic equivalence*, wherein Einstein still did not regard curvature as an essential property of the gravitational field.
Measuring the local geodesic deviation is a completely different experiment than measuring g-force. You never have to bring in curvature to discuss the gravity "field" in the sense of (LC)^i00. That's additional information about (LC)^uvw, l.
Gravity field g-force per test particle mass = c^2(LC)^i00
i = 1,2,3
The point is that you can have objective Einstein *geometrodynamics* (with objectively determined physical geodesics) without Einstein equivalence. All you really need is *weak* equivalence.
On May 18, 2005, at 2:13 AM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul, the key to your confusion over "reality", "objectivity" and "existence" is your misunderstanding of what "zero" means for physical quantities.
So your position is that an object can be an object without being an object?
Zielinski bends every word of Einstein, Wheeler and Sarfatti to ludicrous extremes in a warped caricature of relativity's reality.
The point about a quantity that is not zero at a point, being reducible to zero at that point by a *coordinate transformation* is that it is not a *mathematical object* with respect to coordinate transformations on the space in which it is defined.
Who cares? It's physically real if it moves a pointer on a good detector - including "null measurements" of course! What you mean is that (LC)^uvw is not a local Diff(4) nonlinear tensor. It is global T4 linear "affine" tensor. Nothing physically unreal if a measured property is zero in a special frame and non-zero in another! x = 0 does not mean "x does not exist"! A physically real OBJECT does not need to be a tensor under ALL groups G. The laws of nature need to be tensor equations under all physical groups G, but their vacuum states need not be G-invariant - that's ODLRO.
You confuse "variable x having a value zero" with x not existing at all! I will find your quotes below on that.
Jack, show me a field quantity outside of Einsteinian physics that can be made zero at any given point by a coordinate transformation.
Magnetic field B from a test charge in a transformation to the rest frame of the test charge in special relativity. But that is Einsteinian physics.
In Galilean-Newtonian particle physics, "speed" of the particle is a physically real property that is zero in the rest frame of the particle.
Paul your criterion of reality is far removed from experimental physics.
A scalar is a tensor of rank zero. Therefore if a scalar quantity is not zero in one coordinate system, it is not zero in any other.
So what?
A variable that is not zero at a point in one coordinate system, but is zero at that point in another is not a scalar quantity.
Correct, relative to the group of coordinate transformations that you left unspecified so that your ill-posed remark was meaningless.
Am I really "confused"?
Yes! You said "speed" was a scalar! It's not a scalar under O(1,3) which is the relevant physical group there!
I am NOT saying that when (LC) -> 0 it is no longer *defined*; I'm saying that if it is not zero in one spacetime CS but vanishes in another, then it is not a *mathematical object* with respect to general spacetime coordinate changes.
So what? That has nothing to do with physics. (LC) is physically real. It is locally measured as g-force. Inertial frames by definition have zero g-force. Non-inertial frames by definition have non-zero g-force. To say that g-force is not physical real is a bad idea. Physically real properties are what can be measured by actual detectors in actual experiments. We infer the existence of an "object" from a collection of such measurements.
BTW with the LC field you can only make it 0 at a single event P in an LIF each time. You cannot make it zero globally when space-time is really variably curved!
True, but immaterial.
Only from your POV.
The point is that a non-trivial LC connection field can be made to vanish at any point by a spacetime coordinate transformation, so it does not represent a mathematical object in 4D spacetime.
We don't care if it's a "mathematical object". Experimental physicists are not interested in "mathematical objects". They are only interested in "physical objects".
One aspect of "objectivity" in physics is the search for spacetime *objects*. The LC connection is clearly not an object with respect to the full class of general spacetime coordinate transformations.
Of course it's not, but it's physically real!
Monday, May 16, 2005
"In fact, some believe MASINT will be the most important "technical INT of the future."
IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century
Staff Study
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House of Representatives
One Hundred Fourth Congress

VII. MASINT: Measurement and Signatures Intelligence
MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is
guv(Curved)
= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}
Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!
Note to NID MASINT
ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.
If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.
MASINT: MEASUREMENT AND SIGNATURES INTELLIGENCE
Study Purpose
One can argue that the requirements levied on the Intelligence
Community (IC) in the twenty-first century will not be radically
different than those levied on it today. The basic information
needs of "who, what, where, when and why" will likely not change.
However, most can easily agree that the sophistication of the
technologies employed in the future weapon systems (threats) that
the IC will be tasked against will be radically improved, and
perhaps even more radically different than those we attempt to
understand today. Increasingly, even unsophisticated countries are
gaining access to relatively inexpensive, but high technology
weapons. Weapons that can be "launched and forgotten," weapons of
mass destruction -- including nuclear, chemical and biological, or
weapons that are difficult to detect or are stealthy. The
resulting need for a more sophisticated IC collection capability is
clear. Clear also, is the need to unambiguously identify these
specific weapons or capabilities -- often before they are ever
used. The IC's ability to specifically locate, identify,
characterize, and determine the intentions of such weapons or
threats is, and will become even more, critical. Conventional
technical intelligence disciplines -- Imagery Intelligence (IMINT),
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), etc. -- have played, and will
continue to play, a vital role in the identification and location
of such targets. However, as the sophistication of these targets
increases, or as countries (or transnational players) employ
effective denial and deception techniques, we will need to employ
new capabilities to ensure we can continue to answer the consumers'
questions. One such capability is Measurement and Signature
Intelligence, or MASINT. MASINT is a very scientific and
technically-based discipline that can provide unique contributions
to the IC in terms of specific weapon identifications, chemical
compositions, material content, etc. Such unique identifications
will be a major factor in answering the future questions of "who,
what where, when and why." In fact, some believe MASINT will be
the most important "technical INT of the future."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21007.html
On May 16, 2005, at 4:11 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 15, 2005, at 4:09 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
II
On May 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul your whole approach to this problem is based on a naive bogus idea that total energy conservation is an absolute. It's not.
The "naive bogus idea" here is that physical entities should be described *objectively*, and that the existence or non-existence of such an entity
should not depend on the state of motion of any observer.
That is poppycock Paul. It's too vague.
"...the existence or non-existence of such an entity should not depend on the state of motion of any observer" is VAGUE?
That's a black-and-white categorical proposition.
Going to The Ball?
Whilst the "existence" may not depend on state of motion, or orientation of a magnet (quantum spin), the projections (eigenvalues) certainly do, i.e. the raw data.
Objectivity is relative to the GROUP of relevant frame transformations.
*May* not depend? Or *cannot* depend on it, as a matter of principle?
Obviously, "speed" of a test particle depends on the state of motion of detector. And it is zero in the rest frame of the test particle. Therefore "speed" is not a "tensor". It's zero in one frame and not in any other! However 4-velocity is a tensor relative to T4xO(1,3).
But I would not say that "speed" is "fictitious" or "not real". Inelastic collisions are quite real. Smash your BMW into a brick wall at 65 mph and you will say that is not real! Preposterous poopycock Paulito. Meta-theoretics? Bah! Humbug! Laputan.
A fictitious field of force exists or not depending on the state of motion of the observer. Such a "field" that exists for one observer may not exist for another.
Give an example. (LC) is not at all fictitious simply because it is not a Diff(4) tensor. That at any event P there exist an infinity of LIFs in which at least (LC)^i00 = 0 does not mean that the (LC) field is not real. You can mathematically make all components of (LC) vanish of course, but that is excess baggage in terms of rest LNIF dynamics of the "weight" of a test particle caused by non-gravity forces.
That is not an objective physical entity. It is merely a *useful fiction*.
So, physics is the science of useful fictions just as calculus is the study of ghosts of departed quantities?
According to my diagnosis, the root fallacy of Einsteinian physics is to treat useful fictions as real entities, and then to seamlessly combine them together into *chimeras* like Einstein's unified gravitational-inertial field, which is half fiction and half reality.
Well at least the writing is improving though not the truth of the content. ;-) Obviously Paul what is wrong here is your notion of "reality".
In this "redneck" POV, a supposed entity whose very existence is observer-dependent is to be regarded as *fictitious*.
Too strong. Do you put red hot chile peppers on your ice cream?
"Existence" is inferred from actual frame-dependent "values" in many repeated measurements on identically prepared ensembles in both quantum and classical physics.
Since quantum mechanics, as everyone knows, is NUTZ, I would prefer not even to refer to it here.
Not true. Micro-quantum theory is not nuts. It has several interpretations to be sure and its limits are not understood even by Pundits. For example macro-quantum theory breaks the signal locality rule of micro-quantum theory. It also explains why the large-scale world is local and why Schrodinger's Cat is the Chimera.
You might as well say that the real existence of a three-dimensional object is inferred from its various perspective views. This may be so, but it is not just the set views; it is also how the various perspectives relate as the object moves.
Who denies that?
In the abstract, that is why tensors represent mathematical objects. It is not just the values of the components in various coordinate frames, but the coordinate transformation rules that they obey, that matters.
Of course. Is the Pope Catholic? But requiring homogeneous multi-linear transformation is not intrinsic to physical reality. Zero is a good number. It's OK for a real thing to be zero in one frame and not in another. Indeed, tensors are peculiar in that they do not allow that. Your error is to think that x = 0 means that x no longer exists!
To say (LC) is not real BECAUSE of XY =/= 0 in
(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
is silly. That Emperor has no clothes.
One thing you cannot do is systematically confuse a real physical change (e.g. thermal expansion) of a three-dimensional object with a mere coordinate transformation or a change of the observer's perspective on the object.
Yes, but not all frame transformations are passive. Some are active as when the local frame accelerates or rotates adding inertial forces that move pointers on detectors! These inertial forces cause stresses & strains in materials because there are always non-gravity real forces causing them!
Not all frame transformations are equivalent to Cartesian <-> polar. What matters is (LC)^i00 where i = 1,2,3 spacelike
Any GCT Xu'^u that changes (LC)^i00 in a non-trivial way that has
(LC)^i'0'0' - (LC)^i00 =/= 0
is DYNAMICAL introducing inertial forces caused by stress-strain producing real non-gravity forces.
Note that e^i' = Xi^i'e^i (e.g. Cartesian <-> polar) is a trivial change, i.e. the acceleration 3-vector is invariant.
Basis vectors e^x, e^y, e^z -> e^r, e^theta, e^phi
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
is still a linear orthogonal transformation.
{c^2(LC)^i00} is invariant there.
Suppose I propose a theory of thermal contraction as "equivalent" to a rotation of the observer's perspective on a metal bar? You would rightly consider me to be certifiably insane, since this would muddle subjective appearance with physical reality.
Take the SSS metric
g00 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) = -1/grr
r > 2GM/c^2
Note to be consistent in terms of physical dimensions you really must use
gtheta,theta = (r/L)^2 with coordinate differential Ldtheta
gphi,phi = (r/L)^2sin^theta with coordinate differential Ldphi
L is an arbitrary length scale that cancels out of actual local observables.
Now this metric representation is what hovering rest LNIF observers see. Such an observer cannot exist without non-gravity forces!
The physical time differential for example is
dT = g00^1/2dt
Gravity time dilation is for those hovering LNIF guys
dT(P)/g00(P)^1/2 = dT(P')/g00(P')^1/2
Similarly gravity radial warp is
dR(P)/grr(P)^1/2 = dR(P')/grr(P')^1/2
There is NO local transverse warp UNLIKE Hal Puthoff's exponential PV SSS metric!
That is, the transverse warps are effectively zero, transverse base space is locally flat in the SSS problem for hovering LNIFs.
You ask, what is the cause of the universality?
The answer is the equivalence principle that locally the gravity force is indistinguishable from an inertial force ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL caused by a non-gravity electrical force!
Also
Ruv = 0
in ordinary vacuum with vanishing "dark" zero point energy density of either sign of pressure for hovering observers in space in rockets above surface of Earth.
But more fundamentally its the M(source) that does it where Ruv = 0 smoothly matches
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0
If its a Geon of Mass without mass then it is the multiply-connected 3-space topology permitted by the plastic nonlinearities hidden in the vacuum equation
Ruv = 0
because Ruvwl is the covariant curl of (LC). It's not only the quadratic terms (LC)(LC), but it's the nonlinear terms in B where B is the local gauge field from T4 -> Diff(4) and MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is
guv(Curved)
= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}
Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!
ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.
If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.
One thing that is actually locally measured is the tidal curvature geodesic deviation between two geodesic test particles.
Another thing you can measure is the color shift between two hovering LNIF observers.
Since this solution is asymptotically flat, as r -> infinity the hovering LNIF observer --> LIF, i.e. the non-gravity force needed to keep the detector of mass m at a fixed r with no orbital angular momentum is
f(non-gravity) = mGM/r^2 ---> 0
the geodesics approach straight lines in 3D space as r -> infinity.
IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century
Staff Study
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House of Representatives
One Hundred Fourth Congress

VII. MASINT: Measurement and Signatures Intelligence
MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is
guv(Curved)
= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}
Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!
Note to NID MASINT
ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.
If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.
MASINT: MEASUREMENT AND SIGNATURES INTELLIGENCE
Study Purpose
One can argue that the requirements levied on the Intelligence
Community (IC) in the twenty-first century will not be radically
different than those levied on it today. The basic information
needs of "who, what, where, when and why" will likely not change.
However, most can easily agree that the sophistication of the
technologies employed in the future weapon systems (threats) that
the IC will be tasked against will be radically improved, and
perhaps even more radically different than those we attempt to
understand today. Increasingly, even unsophisticated countries are
gaining access to relatively inexpensive, but high technology
weapons. Weapons that can be "launched and forgotten," weapons of
mass destruction -- including nuclear, chemical and biological, or
weapons that are difficult to detect or are stealthy. The
resulting need for a more sophisticated IC collection capability is
clear. Clear also, is the need to unambiguously identify these
specific weapons or capabilities -- often before they are ever
used. The IC's ability to specifically locate, identify,
characterize, and determine the intentions of such weapons or
threats is, and will become even more, critical. Conventional
technical intelligence disciplines -- Imagery Intelligence (IMINT),
Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), etc. -- have played, and will
continue to play, a vital role in the identification and location
of such targets. However, as the sophistication of these targets
increases, or as countries (or transnational players) employ
effective denial and deception techniques, we will need to employ
new capabilities to ensure we can continue to answer the consumers'
questions. One such capability is Measurement and Signature
Intelligence, or MASINT. MASINT is a very scientific and
technically-based discipline that can provide unique contributions
to the IC in terms of specific weapon identifications, chemical
compositions, material content, etc. Such unique identifications
will be a major factor in answering the future questions of "who,
what where, when and why." In fact, some believe MASINT will be
the most important "technical INT of the future."
http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21007.html
On May 16, 2005, at 4:11 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 15, 2005, at 4:09 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
II
On May 14, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Paul your whole approach to this problem is based on a naive bogus idea that total energy conservation is an absolute. It's not.
The "naive bogus idea" here is that physical entities should be described *objectively*, and that the existence or non-existence of such an entity
should not depend on the state of motion of any observer.
That is poppycock Paul. It's too vague.
"...the existence or non-existence of such an entity should not depend on the state of motion of any observer" is VAGUE?
That's a black-and-white categorical proposition.
Going to The Ball?
Whilst the "existence" may not depend on state of motion, or orientation of a magnet (quantum spin), the projections (eigenvalues) certainly do, i.e. the raw data.
Objectivity is relative to the GROUP of relevant frame transformations.
*May* not depend? Or *cannot* depend on it, as a matter of principle?
Obviously, "speed" of a test particle depends on the state of motion of detector. And it is zero in the rest frame of the test particle. Therefore "speed" is not a "tensor". It's zero in one frame and not in any other! However 4-velocity is a tensor relative to T4xO(1,3).
But I would not say that "speed" is "fictitious" or "not real". Inelastic collisions are quite real. Smash your BMW into a brick wall at 65 mph and you will say that is not real! Preposterous poopycock Paulito. Meta-theoretics? Bah! Humbug! Laputan.
A fictitious field of force exists or not depending on the state of motion of the observer. Such a "field" that exists for one observer may not exist for another.
Give an example. (LC) is not at all fictitious simply because it is not a Diff(4) tensor. That at any event P there exist an infinity of LIFs in which at least (LC)^i00 = 0 does not mean that the (LC) field is not real. You can mathematically make all components of (LC) vanish of course, but that is excess baggage in terms of rest LNIF dynamics of the "weight" of a test particle caused by non-gravity forces.
That is not an objective physical entity. It is merely a *useful fiction*.
So, physics is the science of useful fictions just as calculus is the study of ghosts of departed quantities?
According to my diagnosis, the root fallacy of Einsteinian physics is to treat useful fictions as real entities, and then to seamlessly combine them together into *chimeras* like Einstein's unified gravitational-inertial field, which is half fiction and half reality.
Well at least the writing is improving though not the truth of the content. ;-) Obviously Paul what is wrong here is your notion of "reality".
In this "redneck" POV, a supposed entity whose very existence is observer-dependent is to be regarded as *fictitious*.
Too strong. Do you put red hot chile peppers on your ice cream?
"Existence" is inferred from actual frame-dependent "values" in many repeated measurements on identically prepared ensembles in both quantum and classical physics.
Since quantum mechanics, as everyone knows, is NUTZ, I would prefer not even to refer to it here.
Not true. Micro-quantum theory is not nuts. It has several interpretations to be sure and its limits are not understood even by Pundits. For example macro-quantum theory breaks the signal locality rule of micro-quantum theory. It also explains why the large-scale world is local and why Schrodinger's Cat is the Chimera.
You might as well say that the real existence of a three-dimensional object is inferred from its various perspective views. This may be so, but it is not just the set views; it is also how the various perspectives relate as the object moves.
Who denies that?
In the abstract, that is why tensors represent mathematical objects. It is not just the values of the components in various coordinate frames, but the coordinate transformation rules that they obey, that matters.
Of course. Is the Pope Catholic? But requiring homogeneous multi-linear transformation is not intrinsic to physical reality. Zero is a good number. It's OK for a real thing to be zero in one frame and not in another. Indeed, tensors are peculiar in that they do not allow that. Your error is to think that x = 0 means that x no longer exists!
To say (LC) is not real BECAUSE of XY =/= 0 in
(LC)' = XXX(LC) + XY
is silly. That Emperor has no clothes.
One thing you cannot do is systematically confuse a real physical change (e.g. thermal expansion) of a three-dimensional object with a mere coordinate transformation or a change of the observer's perspective on the object.
Yes, but not all frame transformations are passive. Some are active as when the local frame accelerates or rotates adding inertial forces that move pointers on detectors! These inertial forces cause stresses & strains in materials because there are always non-gravity real forces causing them!
Not all frame transformations are equivalent to Cartesian <-> polar. What matters is (LC)^i00 where i = 1,2,3 spacelike
Any GCT Xu'^u that changes (LC)^i00 in a non-trivial way that has
(LC)^i'0'0' - (LC)^i00 =/= 0
is DYNAMICAL introducing inertial forces caused by stress-strain producing real non-gravity forces.
Note that e^i' = Xi^i'e^i (e.g. Cartesian <-> polar) is a trivial change, i.e. the acceleration 3-vector is invariant.
Basis vectors e^x, e^y, e^z -> e^r, e^theta, e^phi
dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
is still a linear orthogonal transformation.
{c^2(LC)^i00} is invariant there.
Suppose I propose a theory of thermal contraction as "equivalent" to a rotation of the observer's perspective on a metal bar? You would rightly consider me to be certifiably insane, since this would muddle subjective appearance with physical reality.
Take the SSS metric
g00 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) = -1/grr
r > 2GM/c^2
Note to be consistent in terms of physical dimensions you really must use
gtheta,theta = (r/L)^2 with coordinate differential Ldtheta
gphi,phi = (r/L)^2sin^theta with coordinate differential Ldphi
L is an arbitrary length scale that cancels out of actual local observables.
Now this metric representation is what hovering rest LNIF observers see. Such an observer cannot exist without non-gravity forces!
The physical time differential for example is
dT = g00^1/2dt
Gravity time dilation is for those hovering LNIF guys
dT(P)/g00(P)^1/2 = dT(P')/g00(P')^1/2
Similarly gravity radial warp is
dR(P)/grr(P)^1/2 = dR(P')/grr(P')^1/2
There is NO local transverse warp UNLIKE Hal Puthoff's exponential PV SSS metric!
That is, the transverse warps are effectively zero, transverse base space is locally flat in the SSS problem for hovering LNIFs.
You ask, what is the cause of the universality?
The answer is the equivalence principle that locally the gravity force is indistinguishable from an inertial force ALWAYS WITHOUT FAIL caused by a non-gravity electrical force!
Also
Ruv = 0
in ordinary vacuum with vanishing "dark" zero point energy density of either sign of pressure for hovering observers in space in rockets above surface of Earth.
But more fundamentally its the M(source) that does it where Ruv = 0 smoothly matches
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0
If its a Geon of Mass without mass then it is the multiply-connected 3-space topology permitted by the plastic nonlinearities hidden in the vacuum equation
Ruv = 0
because Ruvwl is the covariant curl of (LC). It's not only the quadratic terms (LC)(LC), but it's the nonlinear terms in B where B is the local gauge field from T4 -> Diff(4) and MORE FUNDAMENTALLY it is
guv(Curved)
= {Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}(Flat)ab{(Iu^a + Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO)}
Therefore, it is the DYNAMICAL B field from argVacuumODLRO that PHYSICALLY WARPS space-time universally!
ETTT = ET^3 = Extra Terrestrial Time Travelers with W^3 technology supplement to C^3.
If these observers are ET^3s in anyon spray-painted flying saucers, they must switch off warp drive for this. They cannot metric engineer their local space-time fabric to illustrate 1916 GR that does not include such advanced technology.
One thing that is actually locally measured is the tidal curvature geodesic deviation between two geodesic test particles.
Another thing you can measure is the color shift between two hovering LNIF observers.
Since this solution is asymptotically flat, as r -> infinity the hovering LNIF observer --> LIF, i.e. the non-gravity force needed to keep the detector of mass m at a fixed r with no orbital angular momentum is
f(non-gravity) = mGM/r^2 ---> 0
the geodesics approach straight lines in 3D space as r -> infinity.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Dark Energy tears steel to shreds?
Beautiful presentation! Dark energy instabilities ripping apart metal? Or is it simply conventional electrostatic energy? That's a question. :-)
I am putting our paper together in Super Cosmos. I brought it up to date recently. I think I sent you the pdf before I left San Francisco.
Nothing like hard evidence to show that maybe
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
/\zpf = |Vacuum ODLRO||Anyon ODLRO|cos(argVacuum ODLRO - argAnyon ODLRO)
has consequences just like
E = Mc^2
But even more powerful? You can't always understand a seemingly innocuous set of symbols by simply looking at them.
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
Beautiful presentation! Dark energy instabilities ripping apart metal? Or is it simply conventional electrostatic energy? That's a question. :-)
I am putting our paper together in Super Cosmos. I brought it up to date recently. I think I sent you the pdf before I left San Francisco.
Nothing like hard evidence to show that maybe
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
/\zpf = |Vacuum ODLRO||Anyon ODLRO|cos(argVacuum ODLRO - argAnyon ODLRO)
has consequences just like
E = Mc^2
But even more powerful? You can't always understand a seemingly innocuous set of symbols by simply looking at them.
On May 13, 2005, at 7:46 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:
A paper by Ken Shoulders entitled "EVOs And The Hutchison Effect" will be presented at the 2005 Conference on Cold Fusion to be held at MIT on May 21. A 1 MB .PDF file showing some of the graphics slides to be used in that presentation can now be downloaded from:
http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
Ken
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Consistency of physical dimensions in General Relativity
OK we hit a temporary snag solved below. In elementary physics first rule is to check your units and physical dimensions. Don't mix apples with oranges etc. Yet GR theorists do that nonchalantly and sloppily even in text books.
For example, the SSS metric is typically written as
gtt = -(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [dimensionless]
grr = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1 [dimensionless]
But hold on
gthetatheta = r^2 [area]
gphiphi = r^2sin^2theta [area]
Where we have the incommensurate basis set of Cartan 1-forms
dx^0 = cdt
dx^1 = dr
dx^2 = dtheta
dx^3 = dphi
With the Grassmann basis sort of "Clifford" algebra" of 2^4 = 16 p-forms, p = 0,1,2,3,4
*p-form = (4 - p)-form, when N = 4.
1
dx^u
dx^u/\dx^v
dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w
dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w/\dx^l
This gives an incommensurate set of Levi-Civita connection field components in the hovering LNIFs
(LC)^001 = [2(1 - 2GM/c^2r)]^-1 (1 - 2GM/c^2r),r [1/length]
(LC)^122 = -r(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [length]
(LC)^233 = -sinthetacostheta [dimensionless]
(LC)^100 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r),r(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [1/length]
(LC)^133 = -(rsin^2theta)(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [length]
(LC)^313 = (LC)^212 = 1/r [1/length]
(LC)^111 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1,r [1/length]
(LC)^323 = cottheta [dimensionless]
all other (LC) identically & globally zero in this FRAME BUNDLE of hovering LNIFs all over this toy model 4D space-time
My original suggestion gthetatheta = gphiphi = 1 will not work here because physically we have a stretch-squeeze tidal curvature that requires the theta dependence in addition to the radial dependence.
Nevertheless we MUST use commensurate infinitesimal basis sets for our local frames and the (LC) components MUST all be of the same physical dimension in order to define consistent Diff(4) covariant derivatives.
For example
Au;v = Au,v - (LC)uv^wAw
The GRAVITY-MATTER MINIMAL COUPLING SUM (LC)uv^wAw must have physically commensurate (LC) components because Au is arbitrary! For example, Au can be the Maxwell EM vector potential, and all the components of Au have same physical dimensions.
Therefore ALL the (LC) MUST obey [LC] = 1/length
So, how to we accomplish this?
Simple, use engineering dimensional analysis and introduce a scale L.
What is L? Is L = Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2 or is L = GM/c^2 or?
For now let's call it "L".
Therefore the SSS metric is now the physically commensurate dimensionless array
gtt = -(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
grr = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1
gthetatheta = (r/L)^2
gphiphi = (r/L)^2sin^2theta
Where we NOW have the commensurate set of basic 1-forms
dx^0 = cdt
dx^1 = dr
dx^2 = Ldtheta
dx^3 = Ldphi
Note that
,0 = (1/c),t
,1 = ,r
,2 = (1/L),theta
,3 = (l/L),phi
Therefore, all the (LC) are now [1/length]
LC)^001 = [2(1 - 2GM/c^2r)]^-1 (1 - 2GM/c^2r),r
(LC)^122 = -(r/L^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^233 = -(1/L)sinthetacostheta
(LC)^100 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r),r(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^133 = -(rsin^2theta/L^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^313 = (LC)^212 = 1/r
(LC)^111 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1,r
(LC)^323 = (1/L)cottheta [dimensionless]
The Riemann-Christoffel tensor is now dimensionally self-consistent, i.e. 1/Area
Note that L cancels out of the frame invariant
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
and it must cancel out of any local physical quantity.
In particular it must cancel out of the geodesic equation and the tidal geodesic deviation.
It's pretty obvious that L will be physically locally unobservable. It's a bit like the Weyl gauge parameter.
Note that the geodesic equation for a non-spinning point test particle is
D^2x^u/ds^2 = d^2x^u/ds^2 - (LC)^uvw(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) = 0
So the 1/L's in the (LC)s cancel the L's in x2 & x^3
Similarly with geodesic deviation
d(x^u - x'^u)/ds = R^uvwl(x^v - x'^v)(dx^w/ds)(dx^l/ds)
Note that (LC)^uvw and R^uvwl are NEVER MEASURED DIRECTLY in isolation. What is measured is
D^2x^u/ds^2
and
d(x^u - x'^u)/ds
OK we hit a temporary snag solved below. In elementary physics first rule is to check your units and physical dimensions. Don't mix apples with oranges etc. Yet GR theorists do that nonchalantly and sloppily even in text books.
For example, the SSS metric is typically written as
gtt = -(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [dimensionless]
grr = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1 [dimensionless]
But hold on
gthetatheta = r^2 [area]
gphiphi = r^2sin^2theta [area]
Where we have the incommensurate basis set of Cartan 1-forms
dx^0 = cdt
dx^1 = dr
dx^2 = dtheta
dx^3 = dphi
With the Grassmann basis sort of "Clifford" algebra" of 2^4 = 16 p-forms, p = 0,1,2,3,4
*p-form = (4 - p)-form, when N = 4.
1
dx^u
dx^u/\dx^v
dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w
dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w/\dx^l
This gives an incommensurate set of Levi-Civita connection field components in the hovering LNIFs
(LC)^001 = [2(1 - 2GM/c^2r)]^-1 (1 - 2GM/c^2r),r [1/length]
(LC)^122 = -r(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [length]
(LC)^233 = -sinthetacostheta [dimensionless]
(LC)^100 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r),r(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [1/length]
(LC)^133 = -(rsin^2theta)(1 - 2GM/c^2r) [length]
(LC)^313 = (LC)^212 = 1/r [1/length]
(LC)^111 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1,r [1/length]
(LC)^323 = cottheta [dimensionless]
all other (LC) identically & globally zero in this FRAME BUNDLE of hovering LNIFs all over this toy model 4D space-time
My original suggestion gthetatheta = gphiphi = 1 will not work here because physically we have a stretch-squeeze tidal curvature that requires the theta dependence in addition to the radial dependence.
Nevertheless we MUST use commensurate infinitesimal basis sets for our local frames and the (LC) components MUST all be of the same physical dimension in order to define consistent Diff(4) covariant derivatives.
For example
Au;v = Au,v - (LC)uv^wAw
The GRAVITY-MATTER MINIMAL COUPLING SUM (LC)uv^wAw must have physically commensurate (LC) components because Au is arbitrary! For example, Au can be the Maxwell EM vector potential, and all the components of Au have same physical dimensions.
Therefore ALL the (LC) MUST obey [LC] = 1/length
So, how to we accomplish this?
Simple, use engineering dimensional analysis and introduce a scale L.
What is L? Is L = Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2 or is L = GM/c^2 or?
For now let's call it "L".
Therefore the SSS metric is now the physically commensurate dimensionless array
gtt = -(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
grr = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1
gthetatheta = (r/L)^2
gphiphi = (r/L)^2sin^2theta
Where we NOW have the commensurate set of basic 1-forms
dx^0 = cdt
dx^1 = dr
dx^2 = Ldtheta
dx^3 = Ldphi
Note that
,0 = (1/c),t
,1 = ,r
,2 = (1/L),theta
,3 = (l/L),phi
Therefore, all the (LC) are now [1/length]
LC)^001 = [2(1 - 2GM/c^2r)]^-1 (1 - 2GM/c^2r),r
(LC)^122 = -(r/L^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^233 = -(1/L)sinthetacostheta
(LC)^100 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r),r(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^133 = -(rsin^2theta/L^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)^313 = (LC)^212 = 1/r
(LC)^111 = (1/2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1,r
(LC)^323 = (1/L)cottheta [dimensionless]
The Riemann-Christoffel tensor is now dimensionally self-consistent, i.e. 1/Area
Note that L cancels out of the frame invariant
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
and it must cancel out of any local physical quantity.
In particular it must cancel out of the geodesic equation and the tidal geodesic deviation.
It's pretty obvious that L will be physically locally unobservable. It's a bit like the Weyl gauge parameter.
Note that the geodesic equation for a non-spinning point test particle is
D^2x^u/ds^2 = d^2x^u/ds^2 - (LC)^uvw(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds) = 0
So the 1/L's in the (LC)s cancel the L's in x2 & x^3
Similarly with geodesic deviation
d(x^u - x'^u)/ds = R^uvwl(x^v - x'^v)(dx^w/ds)(dx^l/ds)
Note that (LC)^uvw and R^uvwl are NEVER MEASURED DIRECTLY in isolation. What is measured is
D^2x^u/ds^2
and
d(x^u - x'^u)/ds
Einstein's Muddle
Free lunch means that flying saucers may only need ONE Energizer AAA Battery to out fly the MIG 29? Perhaps I exaggerate? OK maybe TWO AAA batteries? :-)
Memorandum For The Record
Subject: How The Flying Saucers Render Conventional 21st Century Military Hardware Impotent and Obsolete.
On May 12, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note corrected eqs (adding second term on RHS) below for the covariant 4-divergence.
On May 11, 2005, at 6:35 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
J: The tuv(Matter-Gravity) pseudo-tensor is not needed for anything important. It's only there because of the arbitrary demand that
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
be replaced by
Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0
Where, by definition we have the partial differential equations
(Corrected eqs )
tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v =
-{LC(Gravity)}u^l^vTlv(Matter) - {LC(Gravity)}l^l^vTuv(Matter)
In principle this is difficult problem to solve for tuv(Matter-Gravity) explicitly.
There is no reason to do so, since it is a fictitious non-physical quantity from asking the wrong question to begin with!
The analogous eq. in flat space-time would be something like
A(x)u^,u = L(x)F(x)
Where L(x) and F(x) are independent functions.
Obviously though one needs to specify some kind of boundary condition, e.g. asymptotic flatness for the GR problem.
J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) = 0 everywhere-when.
Z: I think you are mistaken. Or at least, you are talking about another theory.
J: Just look at (61) eqs (341), (406) & (447) pp 175-176.
Z: You need an asymptotically Galilean spacetime in order to recover anything resembling an objective conserved energy-momentum for a closed system
J: Not the point about tuv requiring Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 to exist. You jumped the gun.
Z: since this means there is *no radiative leakage* out of the closed system, and it also means that the Einstein stress-energy density is *asymptotically zero*. Basically, it's a fudge.
J: You misunderstand the meaning of (447)
Ju = constant
That will include any gravity waves propagating to the asymptotic flat region.
Einstein's field equations MEAN
Sum of all local OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE Diff(4) stress-energy density tensors from all causes exactly vanish.
Einstein had a peculiar failure of nerve in his own theory on this issue.
Pauli wrote p. 176 - 177 in 61
"Lorentz and Levi-Civita made the suggestion to denote as energy components of the gravitational field, NOT THE QUANTITIES tuv(Matter-Gravity), but (c^4/8piG)Guv."
This is EXACTLY what I have done independently mind you.
Einstein's objection to this was lame and muddled. He had a peculiar failure of nerve and Pauli blindly followed! Thus,
"But Einstein QUITE RIGHTLY (actually quite wrongly IMHO) raised the objection, that with this definition of the gravitational energy, the total energy of a closed system (why "closed"? Who ordered that?) would always be zero."
That is, Einstein did not like the idea of a "free lunch"!
With the initial white hole singularity at the beginning of our local Hubble horizoned universe (Max Tegmark's "Level 1") the universe is not "closed", but even if it were, the total energy density is zero, but that does not imply the total energy is zero.
Einstein in 1921 was not aware of wormholes! Einstein would not discover wormholes until ten years later! The wormhole mouths are closed 2D surfaces that are NOT BOUNDARIES of the seemingly "enclosed" 3D space. It's like Mr Sphere passing through Flatland! One can rob the locked safe! Einstein in 1921 did not have much understanding of modern cohomology theory! When he did discover the Einstein-Rosen Bridge he did not put 2 + 2 together to make 4 by seeing how it affected the energy problem.
Wormholes are extra space dimensions without extra space dimensions!
More with less.
Mass-Energy without mass-energy.
Quantized flux without flux.
11D without 11D
11-11
Replace extra dimensions with non-trivial homotopy, homology & cohomology?
Have your cake and eat it too.
Dark energy keeps the wormholes open so that you can fly, or even walk, through the Looking Glass to the Universes Next Door.
Free lunch means that flying saucers may only need ONE Energizer AAA Battery to out fly the MIG 29? Perhaps I exaggerate? OK maybe TWO AAA batteries? :-)
Pauli continued: "that the maintenance of this [zero] value of the energy does not require the continued existence of the system in some form or other"
There was low power consumption metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon staring Einstein and Pauli in the face in 1921. The Light outside Plato's Cave was too bright even for Einstein & Pauli and so they went back into The Cave and confused everyone until this moment!
Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.
Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to "gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter) the "gravity energy".
Z: Well, I personally think the whole theory is a "muddle".
J: Your cure is worse than the disease. This is only a minor bump in the road.
I do agree however that Einstein was in a muddle about this and so was Pauli and so has been everyone else.
Z: I don't think it's quite so simple, since in GR the LC connection -- on which the definition of the covariant derivative is based -- is interpreted as representing the unified gravitational-inertial field. So the difference between ";" and "," is more than purely mathematical.
J: Of course it's both physical and mathematical. There is no logic in your comment. It has no connection with what I have shown. Another isolated insight from you leading nowhere - like the Mars Rover stuck in the sand dune.
Z: Do you really imagine that Pauli could have been confused about this?
J: Just read Pauli's text. He bought Einstein's blunders and quotes them.
"Einstein calls the tuv the energy components of the gravitional field." p. 176
That's Einstein's Blunder 1.
tuv is, in fact, a COMPOSITE of the "marble", i.e. (LC)uv^l of the gravitational field MULTIPLIED by the "wood", i.e Tuv(Matter).
When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES!
There is no tuv in pure nonexotic vacuum theory where Ruv = 0 GLOBALLY as in the Wheeler geon of "Mass without mass".
"The Question is: What is The Question?"
That is
Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0
Are you still saying that tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0 wherever T_uv = 0?
No! I am saying that the solution for tuv(Matter-Gravity) is an integral over 4D space-time with a Green's function multiplying the source, which is (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter). Therefore IF Tuv(Matter) is IDENTICALLY zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in the 4D region of interest, obviously
tuv(Matter-Gravity) = 0 EVERYWHERE-WHEN
Z: Since Einstein's t_uv is a pseudotensor, this depends on the coordinates. So what you are saying can't be true.
J: What you just said is mathematically FALSE!
You have confused tuv = 0 in an LIF at P with tuv = 0 GLOBALLY, i.e. not existing.
You are confused on a very fundamental point.
Take the (LC) field.
In say the SSS solution.
There is a real (LC) =/= 0 field even though choosing an event P and a LIF at P
(LC) = 0 in LIF(P).
For example, in the HOVERING LNIF's at fixed r, theta, phi for r > 2GM/c^2
(LC)10^0 = (GM/c^2r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1
(LC)00^1 = (GM/c^2r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)33^1 = -(1/r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)13^3 = 1/r
etc.
All of these (LC) components = 0 in any COINCIDENT LIF, but that is not to be confused with saying that (LC) = 0 globally.
It is true however, that in any NIF there is an (LC) =/= 0 even when the space-time is globally flat Minkowski.
That is, the (LC) representation is locally a property of the LNIF!
But the (LC) FIELD globally as a whole has a physical meaning, i.e. measurable, detectable, making pointers move on a scale. In Minkowski space you do not have to fire a rocket to stand still relative to some marker. In the space around the Earth you do. Therefore, the (LC) field is locally observable as "weight" or "g-force" even though it is not a Diff(4) tensor!
Note that (LC) is a Poincare group tensor. It is not a Diff(4) tensor.
(LC) is a tensor under space-time displacements and under all 4D rigid rotations (special relativity).
That (LC) = 0 in the LIF is the analytic continuation from T4 -> Diff(4) of the fact that it takes no force to stand still in empty space relative, to say, some distant star.
We have a Great Chain of Being and Becoming of Groups in a Lattice.
(LC) is objectively real, coordinate independent, for the Poincare symmetry group of 1905 Special Relativity, but not for the Diff(4) symmetry group of 1916 General Relativity.
The GROUP STRUCTURE defines the reference frame structure!
But the fact that (LC) takes a definite form in a special class of HOVERING LNIFs as the above formulae show for the HOVERING LNIF REPRESENTATION
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
r > 2GM/c^2
Note that the guv are dimensionless & (LC) have dimension 1/(length) with curvature dimension 1/Area
In the case of tuv(Matter-Gravity) - it depends on the product (LC)T(Matter).
Its non-tensor property relative to Diff(4) of vanishing in a LIF at P comes from its (LC) dependence in the source PRODUCT, but if T(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then, since T(Matter) is a Diff(4) tensor, tuv will be zero in all local frames GLOBALLY, therefore there is no possibility of tuv =/= 0 in such a case! tuv is a HYBRID of (LC) and T(Matter). That's what you do not understand!
Z: Einstein's t_uv can be made non-zero or even infinite inside a source-free region simply by going to polar coordinates.
J: Hogwash. You have confounded the purely marble (LC) non-tensor with the composite marble-wood tuv. What is true for (LC) is NOT necessarily true for tuv.
You are alluding to Pauli's "Bauer showed that by simply introducing polar coordinates into the Euclidean line element ... the [tuv] energy components are found to have values different from zero, in fact the total energy becomes infinite" p. 176
That Bauer paper is from 1918 and we really do not know if it is correct! It must assume that the Diff(4) tensor Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 somewhere-when in the problem. The issue is what happens in Bauer's model when Tuv(Matter) is globally identically zero so that the ONLY relevant field equation is Ruv = 0?
Where did you get "source free"? How can it be source free? That is nonsense, if you look at 61.
Essentially
tuv(x)(Matter-Gravity)
= |d^4x'G(x'x)[{LC(Gravity x')}u^l^vTlv(Matter x') + {LC(Gravity x')}l^l^vTuv(Matter x')]
Therefore, if the Diff(4) tensor Tuv(Matter) is globally identically zero, so must be tuv(Matter-Geometry).
This is why tuv has nothing to do with the real issue that is
tuv(gravity vacuum) = (c^4/8piG)Guv = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv =/= tuv(Matter-Gravity)
Free lunch means that flying saucers may only need ONE Energizer AAA Battery to out fly the MIG 29? Perhaps I exaggerate? OK maybe TWO AAA batteries? :-)
Memorandum For The Record
Subject: How The Flying Saucers Render Conventional 21st Century Military Hardware Impotent and Obsolete.
On May 12, 2005, at 11:24 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Note corrected eqs (adding second term on RHS) below for the covariant 4-divergence.
On May 11, 2005, at 6:35 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
J: The tuv(Matter-Gravity) pseudo-tensor is not needed for anything important. It's only there because of the arbitrary demand that
Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0
be replaced by
Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0
Where, by definition we have the partial differential equations
(Corrected eqs )
tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v =
-{LC(Gravity)}u^l^vTlv(Matter) - {LC(Gravity)}l^l^vTuv(Matter)
In principle this is difficult problem to solve for tuv(Matter-Gravity) explicitly.
There is no reason to do so, since it is a fictitious non-physical quantity from asking the wrong question to begin with!
The analogous eq. in flat space-time would be something like
A(x)u^,u = L(x)F(x)
Where L(x) and F(x) are independent functions.
Obviously though one needs to specify some kind of boundary condition, e.g. asymptotic flatness for the GR problem.
J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) = 0 everywhere-when.
Z: I think you are mistaken. Or at least, you are talking about another theory.
J: Just look at (61) eqs (341), (406) & (447) pp 175-176.
Z: You need an asymptotically Galilean spacetime in order to recover anything resembling an objective conserved energy-momentum for a closed system
J: Not the point about tuv requiring Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 to exist. You jumped the gun.
Z: since this means there is *no radiative leakage* out of the closed system, and it also means that the Einstein stress-energy density is *asymptotically zero*. Basically, it's a fudge.
J: You misunderstand the meaning of (447)
Ju = constant
That will include any gravity waves propagating to the asymptotic flat region.
Einstein's field equations MEAN
Sum of all local OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE Diff(4) stress-energy density tensors from all causes exactly vanish.
Einstein had a peculiar failure of nerve in his own theory on this issue.
Pauli wrote p. 176 - 177 in 61
"Lorentz and Levi-Civita made the suggestion to denote as energy components of the gravitational field, NOT THE QUANTITIES tuv(Matter-Gravity), but (c^4/8piG)Guv."
This is EXACTLY what I have done independently mind you.
Einstein's objection to this was lame and muddled. He had a peculiar failure of nerve and Pauli blindly followed! Thus,
"But Einstein QUITE RIGHTLY (actually quite wrongly IMHO) raised the objection, that with this definition of the gravitational energy, the total energy of a closed system (why "closed"? Who ordered that?) would always be zero."
That is, Einstein did not like the idea of a "free lunch"!
With the initial white hole singularity at the beginning of our local Hubble horizoned universe (Max Tegmark's "Level 1") the universe is not "closed", but even if it were, the total energy density is zero, but that does not imply the total energy is zero.
Einstein in 1921 was not aware of wormholes! Einstein would not discover wormholes until ten years later! The wormhole mouths are closed 2D surfaces that are NOT BOUNDARIES of the seemingly "enclosed" 3D space. It's like Mr Sphere passing through Flatland! One can rob the locked safe! Einstein in 1921 did not have much understanding of modern cohomology theory! When he did discover the Einstein-Rosen Bridge he did not put 2 + 2 together to make 4 by seeing how it affected the energy problem.
Wormholes are extra space dimensions without extra space dimensions!
More with less.
Mass-Energy without mass-energy.
Quantized flux without flux.
11D without 11D
11-11
Replace extra dimensions with non-trivial homotopy, homology & cohomology?
Have your cake and eat it too.
Dark energy keeps the wormholes open so that you can fly, or even walk, through the Looking Glass to the Universes Next Door.
Free lunch means that flying saucers may only need ONE Energizer AAA Battery to out fly the MIG 29? Perhaps I exaggerate? OK maybe TWO AAA batteries? :-)
Pauli continued: "that the maintenance of this [zero] value of the energy does not require the continued existence of the system in some form or other"
There was low power consumption metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon staring Einstein and Pauli in the face in 1921. The Light outside Plato's Cave was too bright even for Einstein & Pauli and so they went back into The Cave and confused everyone until this moment!
Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.
Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to "gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter) the "gravity energy".
Z: Well, I personally think the whole theory is a "muddle".
J: Your cure is worse than the disease. This is only a minor bump in the road.
I do agree however that Einstein was in a muddle about this and so was Pauli and so has been everyone else.
Z: I don't think it's quite so simple, since in GR the LC connection -- on which the definition of the covariant derivative is based -- is interpreted as representing the unified gravitational-inertial field. So the difference between ";" and "," is more than purely mathematical.
J: Of course it's both physical and mathematical. There is no logic in your comment. It has no connection with what I have shown. Another isolated insight from you leading nowhere - like the Mars Rover stuck in the sand dune.
Z: Do you really imagine that Pauli could have been confused about this?
J: Just read Pauli's text. He bought Einstein's blunders and quotes them.
"Einstein calls the tuv the energy components of the gravitional field." p. 176
That's Einstein's Blunder 1.
tuv is, in fact, a COMPOSITE of the "marble", i.e. (LC)uv^l of the gravitational field MULTIPLIED by the "wood", i.e Tuv(Matter).
When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES!
There is no tuv in pure nonexotic vacuum theory where Ruv = 0 GLOBALLY as in the Wheeler geon of "Mass without mass".
"The Question is: What is The Question?"
That is
Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0
Are you still saying that tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0 wherever T_uv = 0?
No! I am saying that the solution for tuv(Matter-Gravity) is an integral over 4D space-time with a Green's function multiplying the source, which is (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter). Therefore IF Tuv(Matter) is IDENTICALLY zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in the 4D region of interest, obviously
tuv(Matter-Gravity) = 0 EVERYWHERE-WHEN
Z: Since Einstein's t_uv is a pseudotensor, this depends on the coordinates. So what you are saying can't be true.
J: What you just said is mathematically FALSE!
You have confused tuv = 0 in an LIF at P with tuv = 0 GLOBALLY, i.e. not existing.
You are confused on a very fundamental point.
Take the (LC) field.
In say the SSS solution.
There is a real (LC) =/= 0 field even though choosing an event P and a LIF at P
(LC) = 0 in LIF(P).
For example, in the HOVERING LNIF's at fixed r, theta, phi for r > 2GM/c^2
(LC)10^0 = (GM/c^2r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1
(LC)00^1 = (GM/c^2r^2)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)33^1 = -(1/r)(1 - 2GM/c^2r)
(LC)13^3 = 1/r
etc.
All of these (LC) components = 0 in any COINCIDENT LIF, but that is not to be confused with saying that (LC) = 0 globally.
It is true however, that in any NIF there is an (LC) =/= 0 even when the space-time is globally flat Minkowski.
That is, the (LC) representation is locally a property of the LNIF!
But the (LC) FIELD globally as a whole has a physical meaning, i.e. measurable, detectable, making pointers move on a scale. In Minkowski space you do not have to fire a rocket to stand still relative to some marker. In the space around the Earth you do. Therefore, the (LC) field is locally observable as "weight" or "g-force" even though it is not a Diff(4) tensor!
Note that (LC) is a Poincare group tensor. It is not a Diff(4) tensor.
(LC) is a tensor under space-time displacements and under all 4D rigid rotations (special relativity).
That (LC) = 0 in the LIF is the analytic continuation from T4 -> Diff(4) of the fact that it takes no force to stand still in empty space relative, to say, some distant star.
We have a Great Chain of Being and Becoming of Groups in a Lattice.
(LC) is objectively real, coordinate independent, for the Poincare symmetry group of 1905 Special Relativity, but not for the Diff(4) symmetry group of 1916 General Relativity.
The GROUP STRUCTURE defines the reference frame structure!
But the fact that (LC) takes a definite form in a special class of HOVERING LNIFs as the above formulae show for the HOVERING LNIF REPRESENTATION
ds^2 = (1 - 2GM/c^2r)(cdt)^2 - (1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2)
r > 2GM/c^2
Note that the guv are dimensionless & (LC) have dimension 1/(length) with curvature dimension 1/Area
In the case of tuv(Matter-Gravity) - it depends on the product (LC)T(Matter).
Its non-tensor property relative to Diff(4) of vanishing in a LIF at P comes from its (LC) dependence in the source PRODUCT, but if T(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then, since T(Matter) is a Diff(4) tensor, tuv will be zero in all local frames GLOBALLY, therefore there is no possibility of tuv =/= 0 in such a case! tuv is a HYBRID of (LC) and T(Matter). That's what you do not understand!
Z: Einstein's t_uv can be made non-zero or even infinite inside a source-free region simply by going to polar coordinates.
J: Hogwash. You have confounded the purely marble (LC) non-tensor with the composite marble-wood tuv. What is true for (LC) is NOT necessarily true for tuv.
You are alluding to Pauli's "Bauer showed that by simply introducing polar coordinates into the Euclidean line element ... the [tuv] energy components are found to have values different from zero, in fact the total energy becomes infinite" p. 176
That Bauer paper is from 1918 and we really do not know if it is correct! It must assume that the Diff(4) tensor Tuv(Matter) =/= 0 somewhere-when in the problem. The issue is what happens in Bauer's model when Tuv(Matter) is globally identically zero so that the ONLY relevant field equation is Ruv = 0?
Where did you get "source free"? How can it be source free? That is nonsense, if you look at 61.
Essentially
tuv(x)(Matter-Gravity)
= |d^4x'G(x'x)[{LC(Gravity x')}u^l^vTlv(Matter x') + {LC(Gravity x')}l^l^vTuv(Matter x')]
Therefore, if the Diff(4) tensor Tuv(Matter) is globally identically zero, so must be tuv(Matter-Geometry).
This is why tuv has nothing to do with the real issue that is
tuv(gravity vacuum) = (c^4/8piG)Guv = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv =/= tuv(Matter-Gravity)
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Einstein's Muddle on Gravity Energy
On May 11, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
From Alexander Burinski in Moscow whose field is GR.
Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.
Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to "gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter) the "gravity energy". That is
Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0
tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter)
is the COUPLING of "Marble" geometry to "Wood" matter.
This is an inhomogeneous differential equation to solve for tuv(Matter-Gravity) with SOURCE (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter).
;v is Diff(4) covariant partial derivative
,v is T4 covariant partial derivative
All this pseudo-tensor nonsense of tuv is from forcing the flat space-time T4 into the domain of curved space-time Diff(4).
Diff(4) is the end product of locally gauging T4
When you look at Pauli, you see, in the end, he invokes asymptotic flatness boundary condition to get conservation of the GLOBAL T4 INTEGRAL 4-vector
Ju(Matter) = |d^3x{Tu0(Matter) + tu0(Matter-Gravity)} = constant (447) p.176
ONLY under the LIMITED ASYMPTOTIC T4 group that in the INTERIOR is Diff(4). This is exactly like the IN-OUT states in S-Matrix theory!
Z's irrelevant point of taking small regions of integration misses Pauli's point! You simply do not ask that question in this ASYMPTOTIC FLAT analysis!
"Einstein calls tuv the the 'energy components of the gravitational field' ... tuv do not form a tensor ... they can be made to vanish at an arbitrary world point by a suitable choice of [LOCAL] coordinate system [LIF] ... the tuv are certainly not symmetrical ... and the energy density t00 is not everywhere positive ...." p.176
"Einstein ... proved that the expressions 447 for the TOTAL energy and momentum"
i.e. P0 & (P1,P2,P3) "are, TO A LARGE EXTENT, INDEPENDENT OF THE COORDINATE SYSTEM"
This means using only the ASYMPTOTIC FLAT LIMIT of the T4 group!
"although the localization of the energy will be different for different [LOCAL] coordinate systems"
IN THE INTERIOR where Diff(4) holds sway.
"One cannot assign any physical meaning to the values of tuv themselves, i.e. it is impossible to carry out a localization of the energy and momentum in a gravitational field in a generally covariant and physically satisfactory way. But the integral expressions 447 have a definite physical meaning ... it allows us to calculate the CHANGE in the MATERIAL energy in a CLOSED SYSTEM in a simple fashion."
Key word is "MATERIAL".
Therefore, in fact this analysis has NOTHING to do with the issue of the GRAVITY VACUUM ENERGY i.e. the pure "marble" when all the "wood" is gone, i.e. when
Tuv(Matter) = 0 everywhere-when.
There are two different problems here that have been garbled and muddled.
Also the above tuv(Matter-Gravity) is a BOGUS quantity. Who ordered that? We do not need for anything really. One can simply work directly with ;v rather than ,v. This MUDDLE leads to the absolutely silly "bi-metric" idea you see in both Yilmaz & Puthoff's models!
Einstein himself is partly to blame - he was muddled on this point and the young Pauli in 1921 was too much in awe of him to see through the muddle.
My allusion to Wheeler's Geon "Mass without mass" is for Tuv(Matter) = 0 case.
Also my tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
is a covariant Diff(4) tensor having nothing to do with tuv(Matter-Gravity)!
Further Einstein's objection to
Tuv(Marble Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
is not sound in the context of topological conservation laws in the Vacuum ODLRO theory of the INITIAL WHITE HOLE singularity approximation to the chaotic inflation of baby universes in the multi-verse.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Burinskii A.Ya."
Date: May 11, 2005 1:27:23 AM PDT
To: "Jack Sarfatti"
Subject: RE: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
Yes, I agree absolutely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:58 PM
To: Burinskii A.Ya.
Subject: Fwd: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: May 7, 2005 10:00:48 AM PDT
To: iksnileiz@earthlink.net
Subject: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
On May 6, 2005, at 6:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The problem is now solved.
You're right -- but it looks like there are several competing
solutions to this "non-problem".
You asked me to explain Yilmaz's theory. As far as I know
non-trivial topologies are not
part of it.
Of course not. You have to start at the beginning. You jump in at the
middle. It's useless. First explain the meaning of every symbol in
guv = (nexp(phi - phi~)uv
Explain n, phi, & phi~
and how the uv work there.
Is it
nuv
phiuv
phi~uv
?
What do they mean physically?
How are they measured?
Why are they posited?
Then you must PROVE that from that form (for Tuv = 0 for simplicity)
G_uv = t_uv
with that formula for t_uv in terms of phi
Z.
On May 6, 2005, at 5:27 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, but I don't consider non-rivial spacetime topologies to be
relevant to Yilmaz's
development of his theory.
I thought we were discussing Yilmaz?
Yilmaz theory is an ugly lame attempt to explain the locality of
gravity energy. I am not interested in Yilmaz's scribbles made in the
asylum - most physics departments are de-facto asylums anyway - at
least the theorists. :-) It's the wrong question.
Gravity energy really is nonlocal! See Roger
Penrose in "The Road to Reality".
Basically Paul the integral of a zero density need not be zero in a
curved multiply-connected space. That is the lesson of Wheeler's geon
of "Mass without mass." That's why gravity energy is nonlocal!
On May 11, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
From Alexander Burinski in Moscow whose field is GR.
Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.
Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to "gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter) the "gravity energy". That is
Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0
tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter)
is the COUPLING of "Marble" geometry to "Wood" matter.
This is an inhomogeneous differential equation to solve for tuv(Matter-Gravity) with SOURCE (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter).
;v is Diff(4) covariant partial derivative
,v is T4 covariant partial derivative
All this pseudo-tensor nonsense of tuv is from forcing the flat space-time T4 into the domain of curved space-time Diff(4).
Diff(4) is the end product of locally gauging T4
When you look at Pauli, you see, in the end, he invokes asymptotic flatness boundary condition to get conservation of the GLOBAL T4 INTEGRAL 4-vector
Ju(Matter) = |d^3x{Tu0(Matter) + tu0(Matter-Gravity)} = constant (447) p.176
ONLY under the LIMITED ASYMPTOTIC T4 group that in the INTERIOR is Diff(4). This is exactly like the IN-OUT states in S-Matrix theory!
Z's irrelevant point of taking small regions of integration misses Pauli's point! You simply do not ask that question in this ASYMPTOTIC FLAT analysis!
"Einstein calls tuv the the 'energy components of the gravitational field' ... tuv do not form a tensor ... they can be made to vanish at an arbitrary world point by a suitable choice of [LOCAL] coordinate system [LIF] ... the tuv are certainly not symmetrical ... and the energy density t00 is not everywhere positive ...." p.176
"Einstein ... proved that the expressions 447 for the TOTAL energy and momentum"
i.e. P0 & (P1,P2,P3) "are, TO A LARGE EXTENT, INDEPENDENT OF THE COORDINATE SYSTEM"
This means using only the ASYMPTOTIC FLAT LIMIT of the T4 group!
"although the localization of the energy will be different for different [LOCAL] coordinate systems"
IN THE INTERIOR where Diff(4) holds sway.
"One cannot assign any physical meaning to the values of tuv themselves, i.e. it is impossible to carry out a localization of the energy and momentum in a gravitational field in a generally covariant and physically satisfactory way. But the integral expressions 447 have a definite physical meaning ... it allows us to calculate the CHANGE in the MATERIAL energy in a CLOSED SYSTEM in a simple fashion."
Key word is "MATERIAL".
Therefore, in fact this analysis has NOTHING to do with the issue of the GRAVITY VACUUM ENERGY i.e. the pure "marble" when all the "wood" is gone, i.e. when
Tuv(Matter) = 0 everywhere-when.
There are two different problems here that have been garbled and muddled.
Also the above tuv(Matter-Gravity) is a BOGUS quantity. Who ordered that? We do not need for anything really. One can simply work directly with ;v rather than ,v. This MUDDLE leads to the absolutely silly "bi-metric" idea you see in both Yilmaz & Puthoff's models!
Einstein himself is partly to blame - he was muddled on this point and the young Pauli in 1921 was too much in awe of him to see through the muddle.
My allusion to Wheeler's Geon "Mass without mass" is for Tuv(Matter) = 0 case.
Also my tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
is a covariant Diff(4) tensor having nothing to do with tuv(Matter-Gravity)!
Further Einstein's objection to
Tuv(Marble Geometry) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
is not sound in the context of topological conservation laws in the Vacuum ODLRO theory of the INITIAL WHITE HOLE singularity approximation to the chaotic inflation of baby universes in the multi-verse.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Burinskii A.Ya."
Date: May 11, 2005 1:27:23 AM PDT
To: "Jack Sarfatti"
Subject: RE: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
Yes, I agree absolutely.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 9:58 PM
To: Burinskii A.Ya.
Subject: Fwd: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: May 7, 2005 10:00:48 AM PDT
To: iksnileiz@earthlink.net
Subject: Gravity energy really is nonlocal
On May 6, 2005, at 6:29 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The problem is now solved.
You're right -- but it looks like there are several competing
solutions to this "non-problem".
You asked me to explain Yilmaz's theory. As far as I know
non-trivial topologies are not
part of it.
Of course not. You have to start at the beginning. You jump in at the
middle. It's useless. First explain the meaning of every symbol in
guv = (nexp(phi - phi~)uv
Explain n, phi, & phi~
and how the uv work there.
Is it
nuv
phiuv
phi~uv
?
What do they mean physically?
How are they measured?
Why are they posited?
Then you must PROVE that from that form (for Tuv = 0 for simplicity)
G_uv = t_uv
with that formula for t_uv in terms of phi
Z.
On May 6, 2005, at 5:27 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Sorry, but I don't consider non-rivial spacetime topologies to be
relevant to Yilmaz's
development of his theory.
I thought we were discussing Yilmaz?
Yilmaz theory is an ugly lame attempt to explain the locality of
gravity energy. I am not interested in Yilmaz's scribbles made in the
asylum - most physics departments are de-facto asylums anyway - at
least the theorists. :-) It's the wrong question.
Gravity energy really is nonlocal! See Roger
Penrose in "The Road to Reality".
Basically Paul the integral of a zero density need not be zero in a
curved multiply-connected space. That is the lesson of Wheeler's geon
of "Mass without mass." That's why gravity energy is nonlocal!
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Free Lunch
On May 9, 2005, at 9:55 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Of course Einstein, Pauli et-al were not aware of this math 75 years ago.
[Z] But I still say the problem is one of objectivity of the definition of gravitational energy, and the recovery of sensible energy-momentum transfer and conservation laws in the "Newtonian" (i.e., slow-motion weak-field) limit of GR.
[JS] You are wrong. This is a completely bogus problem. You are stuck in the primal ooze and it is solidifying - hardening of the conceptual arteries.
This was exactly the problem as it stood in 1918 -- to find a unique objective definition of gravitational energy that would account for energy exchanged between moving gravitational sources and the vacuum, with sensible local conservation laws.
No Paul you (and others) fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Let's just stick with 1916 GR no dark energy /\zpfguv term for simplicity. Everything here IS simple and sensible.
Einstein's local Diff(4)/O(1,3) covariant tensor field equation is simply, to steal from Michio Kaku,
The Universe is a Free Lunch!
Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0
This equation means
Stress-Energy Density of Pure Gravity (~ Guv) + Stress-Energy Density of all Sources of Gravity = 0
In simple terms
The total LOCAL energy density of everything vanishes!
FREE LUNCH PRINCIPLE
This even works when there are dark energy sources, i.e. /\zpf =/= 0.
Local conservation of stress-energy density currents is simply the vanishing of the total COVARIANT 4-divergence
Guv^;v + (8piG/c^4)Tuv^;v = 0
The BOGUS PROBLEM here is the (LC)ul^vTlv term. That describes the direct coupling between the curvature and the source field terms!
When there is no Shipov torsion or any other weird stuff like conformal gravity the
Bianchi identities give the INDEPENDENT CONSTRAINT
Guv^;v = 0 ----> Tuv^;v = 0 (local conservation of matter-gravity exchange currents)
but even if we violate them, as we must in practical LOW POWER metric engineering absent in Hal Puthoff's theory, it will not change the FREE LUNCH PRINCIPLE AKA
"Boundary of a boundary vanishes" (Wheeler)
In this theory the total pure gravity stress-energy current density VANISHES exactly in ordinary vacuum where
Tuv = 0
Guv = 0
For some reason Einstein was not happy with this, but he should have been. Everything is trivially locally conserved.
However, what disturbed Einstein & Co 90 years ago was essentially the geon
"Mass without mass" (though Wheeler did not formulate it that way until post Einstein's death.
That is, in multiply-connected manifolds integrating a local zero (closed non-exact Cartan form) on a closed hyperspace (without a boundary) that is ITSELF NOT A BOUNDARY is NOT ZERO!
Einstein surveyed the problem and decided in 1918 that this simply is not the case in GR, and that the energy stored in the gravitational vacuum is non-localizable.
That is correct. It comes from the macro-quantum Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality inherent the influence of global non-trivial topology on the curvature! Cohomology/homology/homotopy structure.
His reason was that there is and can be no objective (i.e. intrinsically
frame-independent) definition in GR of the gravitational vacuum stress-energy at any spacetime point.
No, Paul you have this all confused - very confused.
tuv(gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
end of story
If you try to break this up into a FLAT piece + something, that extra something is NOT a real tensor. But when you think about it this was Einstein's REAL greatest blunder - not the cosmological constant.
I think that was Einstein's definitive word on the matter.
Hogwash. First of all what you said is actually meaningless under critical examination. It is very easy to define the frame invariant tensor which is always ZERO locally in ordinary vacuum. The problem is bogus.
Yilmaz is completely irrelevant. He is asking a BOGUS QUESTION.
Since you don't yet even know what Yilmaz's theory actually is, I think you're jumping the gun here.
Not true. I know enough about it to know it is excess baggage and it is ugly and no one needs it for anything important, which is why no one important in the field does anything with it - for good reason. I did actually look at the Yilmaz papers years ago.
I think Yilmaz has made some interesting discoveries that may well be relevant to the solution of the problem.
I think you are completely off base here, but it's a Free Country.
But of course now you're already convinced that your proposed multiply-connected topology solution is The Solution and that everything else is therefore now a waste of time.
Yes. I have as much interest in Yilmaz's nonsense as in Eric Lerner's who publishes faulty arguments that "The Big Bang Never Happened" - that's all lame crank stuff! In this area the mainstream i.e. Penrose, Thorne, Misner, Schutz,Hawking, Rees, Rindler, Visser, Unruh, Will et-al are completely correct!
Hestenes also thinks he's solved the problem -- but his mathematically sophisticated solution, recently published, has nothing to do with non-trivial spacetime topology.
Good for him. If he is correct, it will be equivalent mathematically to what I have proposed.
The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Yilmaz & Co is The Blind Leading The Blind - stuck deep inside Plato's Cave.
No, I still think he may have stumbled into something.
Your track record is batting zero.
However, I personally don't agree with Yilmaz's own explanation of
what it is that he has done.
You are wasting your time IMHO.
On May 9, 2005, at 9:55 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Of course Einstein, Pauli et-al were not aware of this math 75 years ago.
[Z] But I still say the problem is one of objectivity of the definition of gravitational energy, and the recovery of sensible energy-momentum transfer and conservation laws in the "Newtonian" (i.e., slow-motion weak-field) limit of GR.
[JS] You are wrong. This is a completely bogus problem. You are stuck in the primal ooze and it is solidifying - hardening of the conceptual arteries.
This was exactly the problem as it stood in 1918 -- to find a unique objective definition of gravitational energy that would account for energy exchanged between moving gravitational sources and the vacuum, with sensible local conservation laws.
No Paul you (and others) fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Let's just stick with 1916 GR no dark energy /\zpfguv term for simplicity. Everything here IS simple and sensible.
Einstein's local Diff(4)/O(1,3) covariant tensor field equation is simply, to steal from Michio Kaku,
The Universe is a Free Lunch!
Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0
This equation means
Stress-Energy Density of Pure Gravity (~ Guv) + Stress-Energy Density of all Sources of Gravity = 0
In simple terms
The total LOCAL energy density of everything vanishes!
FREE LUNCH PRINCIPLE
This even works when there are dark energy sources, i.e. /\zpf =/= 0.
Local conservation of stress-energy density currents is simply the vanishing of the total COVARIANT 4-divergence
Guv^;v + (8piG/c^4)Tuv^;v = 0
The BOGUS PROBLEM here is the (LC)ul^vTlv term. That describes the direct coupling between the curvature and the source field terms!
When there is no Shipov torsion or any other weird stuff like conformal gravity the
Bianchi identities give the INDEPENDENT CONSTRAINT
Guv^;v = 0 ----> Tuv^;v = 0 (local conservation of matter-gravity exchange currents)
but even if we violate them, as we must in practical LOW POWER metric engineering absent in Hal Puthoff's theory, it will not change the FREE LUNCH PRINCIPLE AKA
"Boundary of a boundary vanishes" (Wheeler)
In this theory the total pure gravity stress-energy current density VANISHES exactly in ordinary vacuum where
Tuv = 0
Guv = 0
For some reason Einstein was not happy with this, but he should have been. Everything is trivially locally conserved.
However, what disturbed Einstein & Co 90 years ago was essentially the geon
"Mass without mass" (though Wheeler did not formulate it that way until post Einstein's death.
That is, in multiply-connected manifolds integrating a local zero (closed non-exact Cartan form) on a closed hyperspace (without a boundary) that is ITSELF NOT A BOUNDARY is NOT ZERO!
Einstein surveyed the problem and decided in 1918 that this simply is not the case in GR, and that the energy stored in the gravitational vacuum is non-localizable.
That is correct. It comes from the macro-quantum Bohm-Aharonov nonlocality inherent the influence of global non-trivial topology on the curvature! Cohomology/homology/homotopy structure.
His reason was that there is and can be no objective (i.e. intrinsically
frame-independent) definition in GR of the gravitational vacuum stress-energy at any spacetime point.
No, Paul you have this all confused - very confused.
tuv(gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv
end of story
If you try to break this up into a FLAT piece + something, that extra something is NOT a real tensor. But when you think about it this was Einstein's REAL greatest blunder - not the cosmological constant.
I think that was Einstein's definitive word on the matter.
Hogwash. First of all what you said is actually meaningless under critical examination. It is very easy to define the frame invariant tensor which is always ZERO locally in ordinary vacuum. The problem is bogus.
Yilmaz is completely irrelevant. He is asking a BOGUS QUESTION.
Since you don't yet even know what Yilmaz's theory actually is, I think you're jumping the gun here.
Not true. I know enough about it to know it is excess baggage and it is ugly and no one needs it for anything important, which is why no one important in the field does anything with it - for good reason. I did actually look at the Yilmaz papers years ago.
I think Yilmaz has made some interesting discoveries that may well be relevant to the solution of the problem.
I think you are completely off base here, but it's a Free Country.
But of course now you're already convinced that your proposed multiply-connected topology solution is The Solution and that everything else is therefore now a waste of time.
Yes. I have as much interest in Yilmaz's nonsense as in Eric Lerner's who publishes faulty arguments that "The Big Bang Never Happened" - that's all lame crank stuff! In this area the mainstream i.e. Penrose, Thorne, Misner, Schutz,Hawking, Rees, Rindler, Visser, Unruh, Will et-al are completely correct!
Hestenes also thinks he's solved the problem -- but his mathematically sophisticated solution, recently published, has nothing to do with non-trivial spacetime topology.
Good for him. If he is correct, it will be equivalent mathematically to what I have proposed.
The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Yilmaz & Co is The Blind Leading The Blind - stuck deep inside Plato's Cave.
No, I still think he may have stumbled into something.
Your track record is batting zero.
However, I personally don't agree with Yilmaz's own explanation of
what it is that he has done.
You are wasting your time IMHO.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Three Blind Mice
On May 7, 2005, at 1:24 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Indeed my theory takes away the whole motivation for any Yilmaz attempt!
True, if it really works. It's an alternative approach to resolution of the problem.
But the price tag is a non-trivial spacetime topology.
That's not a price that should not be paid.
Your understanding of this problem is too naive and simplistic - so is Yilmaz's. So is Puthoff's and others.
Analogous problem
The superflow in He4 is irrotational i.e. curl v = 0, nevertheless
Line integral of v.dl around a nonbounding closed loop is not zero, it is
Nh/m, N an integer.
This is curlv without curl v
i.e. global multiply-connected topology is a NON-LOCAL macro-quantum effect, quite analogous to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.
In the torsion tetrad substratum
dB is the torsion field tensor
dB = 0 i.e. B is closed but not exact.
T = dB/\*dB is the local torsion field stress-density tensor! (same as in EM)
Therefore,
T = 0 even in torsion theory, SAME as in bilinear curved geometrodynamics!
g(curved) = (I + B)(flat)(I + B)
B = substratum torsion potential from local gauge T4 -> Diff(4)
Einstein's field equation is a FREE LUNCH - the Multiverse is a Free Lunch!
i.e.
stress-energy density tensor of vacuum gravity + stress-energy density tensor of all sources = 0
Therefore in ordinary vacuum, the gravity stress-energy tensor is strictly ZERO! There is NO PROBLEM. Einstein did not like that for some irrational reason and that led to all the pseudo-tensor nonsense and to Yilmaz nonsense.
But where is the SINGULARITY? It is obviously the INFLATION vacuum phase transtion -> hot Big Bang (from release of binding energy of virtual massless fermion-antifermion pairs).
That is
|||X = ||||dX (4D space-time integral INCLUDES INITIAL SINGULARITY HOLE)
dX = 0-form ORDER PARAMETER ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
dX = 0 is the Berry Goldstone Phase INITIAL Singularity = INFLATION False -> True vacuum! Creating "baby universes" in "chaotic inflation" of the multiverse.
|||X = N(Flux Quanta) =/= 0
Cipher of Genesis Decoded
The COSMIC HOLE is the INITIAL MACRO-QUANTUM BERRY PHASE SINGULARITY
|Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in unstable false vacuum pre-inflation.
"Flux without flux"
Something from nothing.
Free Lunch.
Have your cake and eat it too.
This also goes down chain of being & becoming
||dB = N(Flux Quanta)
|B = N(Flux Quanta)
Of course Einstein, Pauli et-al were not aware of this math 75 years ago.
But I still say the problem is one of objectivity of the definition of gravitational energy, and the recovery of sensible energy-momentum transfer and conservation laws in the "Newtonian" (i.e., slow-motion weak-field) limit of GR.
You are wrong. This is a completely bogus problem. You are stuck in the primal ooze and it is solidifying - hardening of the conceptual arteries.
Yilmaz is completely irrelevant. He is asking a BOGUS QUESTION.
The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Yilmaz & Co is The Blind Leading The Blind - stuck deep inside Plato's Cave.
On May 7, 2005, at 1:24 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Indeed my theory takes away the whole motivation for any Yilmaz attempt!
True, if it really works. It's an alternative approach to resolution of the problem.
But the price tag is a non-trivial spacetime topology.
That's not a price that should not be paid.
Your understanding of this problem is too naive and simplistic - so is Yilmaz's. So is Puthoff's and others.
Analogous problem
The superflow in He4 is irrotational i.e. curl v = 0, nevertheless
Line integral of v.dl around a nonbounding closed loop is not zero, it is
Nh/m, N an integer.
This is curlv without curl v
i.e. global multiply-connected topology is a NON-LOCAL macro-quantum effect, quite analogous to the Bohm-Aharonov effect.
In the torsion tetrad substratum
dB is the torsion field tensor
dB = 0 i.e. B is closed but not exact.
T = dB/\*dB is the local torsion field stress-density tensor! (same as in EM)
Therefore,
T = 0 even in torsion theory, SAME as in bilinear curved geometrodynamics!
g(curved) = (I + B)(flat)(I + B)
B = substratum torsion potential from local gauge T4 -> Diff(4)
Einstein's field equation is a FREE LUNCH - the Multiverse is a Free Lunch!
i.e.
stress-energy density tensor of vacuum gravity + stress-energy density tensor of all sources = 0
Therefore in ordinary vacuum, the gravity stress-energy tensor is strictly ZERO! There is NO PROBLEM. Einstein did not like that for some irrational reason and that led to all the pseudo-tensor nonsense and to Yilmaz nonsense.
But where is the SINGULARITY? It is obviously the INFLATION vacuum phase transtion -> hot Big Bang (from release of binding energy of virtual massless fermion-antifermion pairs).
That is
|||X = ||||dX (4D space-time integral INCLUDES INITIAL SINGULARITY HOLE)
dX = 0-form ORDER PARAMETER ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
dX = 0 is the Berry Goldstone Phase INITIAL Singularity = INFLATION False -> True vacuum! Creating "baby universes" in "chaotic inflation" of the multiverse.
|||X = N(Flux Quanta) =/= 0
Cipher of Genesis Decoded
The COSMIC HOLE is the INITIAL MACRO-QUANTUM BERRY PHASE SINGULARITY
|Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in unstable false vacuum pre-inflation.
"Flux without flux"
Something from nothing.
Free Lunch.
Have your cake and eat it too.
This also goes down chain of being & becoming
||dB = N(Flux Quanta)
|B = N(Flux Quanta)
Of course Einstein, Pauli et-al were not aware of this math 75 years ago.
But I still say the problem is one of objectivity of the definition of gravitational energy, and the recovery of sensible energy-momentum transfer and conservation laws in the "Newtonian" (i.e., slow-motion weak-field) limit of GR.
You are wrong. This is a completely bogus problem. You are stuck in the primal ooze and it is solidifying - hardening of the conceptual arteries.
Yilmaz is completely irrelevant. He is asking a BOGUS QUESTION.
The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Yilmaz & Co is The Blind Leading The Blind - stuck deep inside Plato's Cave.
Friday, May 06, 2005
What are local frames in General Relativity
On May 6, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 6, 2005, at 12:08 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This formula was taken from H. Yilmaz, "Toward a Field Theory of Gravitation",
Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992), p 948.
It has nothing to do with Kaluza-Klein. It is an expression for a derived physical
metric in terms of a flat-background field potential.
Z.
Kay zum Felde wrote:One mail about the Yilmaz paper, I got from you had an
attachment.
That was the formula there:
guv=(eta(2(phi-2phi))uv
I thought that phi was something like the dilaton.
It's not because of the uv indices. If it were independent of the uv it would be an over-all conformal dilation, but it's not. I first thought that also. Unless Mike Ibison can explain the physical foundations, the Yilmaz theory is a monstrosity from Dr. Frankenstein.
guv(P) -> guv(P)' = z(P)guv(P)
is a dilation.
No uv on z(P)
Also, Zielinski's confusion on local coordinate charts vs local frames:
The LOCAL REFERENCE FRAME RF at INVARIANT PHYSICAL EVENT P whether timelike geodesic LIF or timelike non-geodesic LNIF is a QUOTIENT STRUCTURE F/~ relative to an EQUIVALENCE RELATION ~ i.e. a set of non-overlapping cosets defined by ~ determined by the physics.
{RF} = {Local Charts at P}/~
~ are the GCTs Xu'^u(P), i.e. overlap transition functions between the local charts in the BASE SPACE of the tangent bundle that is the setting of GR. ~ defines equivalence classes of trivial GCTs that do not have space-time rotations, jerks, snaps, pops, crackles (nonlinear terms) etc, e.g. 3D change from Cartesian to polar i.e. that leave the ARBITRARY INSTANTANEOUS RELATIVE MOTION AT P INVARIANT!
Also
{P} = {p}/~'
Where this other equivalence relation is all the ACTIVE GCTs of Diff(4) p -> p' where p & p' are distinct raw manifold points. That is, the set of distinct PHYSICAL EVENTS {P} is the Quotient Structure
{All Manifold Points}/{Active Diff(4)}
It's the idea of GAUGE FREEDOM applied to space-time rather than internal space! e.g. Faddeev on Yang-Mills theories in internal space - same archetypal idea!
If Alex is proposing GLOBAL FRAMES in GR as Zielinski claims, then that is an error.
On May 6, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 6, 2005, at 12:08 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
This formula was taken from H. Yilmaz, "Toward a Field Theory of Gravitation",
Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992), p 948.
It has nothing to do with Kaluza-Klein. It is an expression for a derived physical
metric in terms of a flat-background field potential.
Z.
Kay zum Felde wrote:One mail about the Yilmaz paper, I got from you had an
attachment.
That was the formula there:
guv=(eta(2(phi-2phi))uv
I thought that phi was something like the dilaton.
It's not because of the uv indices. If it were independent of the uv it would be an over-all conformal dilation, but it's not. I first thought that also. Unless Mike Ibison can explain the physical foundations, the Yilmaz theory is a monstrosity from Dr. Frankenstein.
guv(P) -> guv(P)' = z(P)guv(P)
is a dilation.
No uv on z(P)
Also, Zielinski's confusion on local coordinate charts vs local frames:
The LOCAL REFERENCE FRAME RF at INVARIANT PHYSICAL EVENT P whether timelike geodesic LIF or timelike non-geodesic LNIF is a QUOTIENT STRUCTURE F/~ relative to an EQUIVALENCE RELATION ~ i.e. a set of non-overlapping cosets defined by ~ determined by the physics.
{RF} = {Local Charts at P}/~
~ are the GCTs Xu'^u(P), i.e. overlap transition functions between the local charts in the BASE SPACE of the tangent bundle that is the setting of GR. ~ defines equivalence classes of trivial GCTs that do not have space-time rotations, jerks, snaps, pops, crackles (nonlinear terms) etc, e.g. 3D change from Cartesian to polar i.e. that leave the ARBITRARY INSTANTANEOUS RELATIVE MOTION AT P INVARIANT!
Also
{P} = {p}/~'
Where this other equivalence relation is all the ACTIVE GCTs of Diff(4) p -> p' where p & p' are distinct raw manifold points. That is, the set of distinct PHYSICAL EVENTS {P} is the Quotient Structure
{All Manifold Points}/{Active Diff(4)}
It's the idea of GAUGE FREEDOM applied to space-time rather than internal space! e.g. Faddeev on Yang-Mills theories in internal space - same archetypal idea!
If Alex is proposing GLOBAL FRAMES in GR as Zielinski claims, then that is an error.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Energy without energy
Eric Davis alludes to Yilmaz's paper in his USAF teleportation report as I recall?
On May 4, 2005, at 5:43 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack wrote earlier
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
[It is] the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
Sorry, I fail to see how this rules out g_uv = g_uv(phi_uv) or tensor vacuum t_uv on the RHS.
The formula is mathematically unsound as it stands without context and explanation. You cannot have double indices like that. What does it mean?
If
guv = (etae^PHI)uv
What does that mean?
e.g.
g00 = (etae^PHI)00
What does that mean?
Does it mean
logg00 = logeta00 + PHI00
Note that
logz = log|z| + iargz
to base e in complex plane
What is eta00, and what is PHI00 PHYSICALLY for example? Why even introduce this exponential notation like polar representation of complex numbers without the i? Obviously the key idea is that you get Minkowski flat space-time when PHI -> 0, but WHY PHI = phi - 2phi~ in

Paul, until you can explain this simple example, what you are doing here is completely bogus. Maybe Yilmaz's theory is bogus I don't know. It's unintelligible. His papers are unreadable for me. You cannot explain them, which means, by Feynman's test, you do not understand them. There may not be anything there to understand? Maybe Mike Ibison can make an adequate defense of Yilmaz's theory, since obviously you are not able to do so.
Yilmaz even talked about the gauge symmetries of phi in his 1958 Phys Rev paper as related to the position
displacements of the observer in the gravitational field. Sound familiar?
Useless without the details.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
But this "energy problem" is a *foundational* issue, not a purely mathematical question.
Indeed, I have outlined what I think may be the ultimate resolution of WHY gravity vacuum energy is nonlocal.
The global DeRham integrals of a local "zero" density need not vanish in a multiply connected region (non-trivial cohomology) of integration because of the "holes" that are singularities in the single-valued Vacuum ODLRO out of which the local GR field equations emerge.
*The nonlocality of the gravity energy is a strong "Cosmic Trigger" signal that Einstein's GR is an emergent c-number IR effective field theory from vacuum ODLRO! Andrei Sakharov did not have the right idea when he thought that GR emerges from RANDOM ZPF. It emerges from the COHERING of the random ZPF in the INFLATION phase transition of false flat to stable curved vacuum. This led Puthoff, Haisch & Rueda & Co off on a doomed wild goose chase for the "origin of inertia" using the wrong SED theory of Trevor Marshall.
The nonlocality of gravity energy is an undecidable Godel question that requires a larger covering theory, i.e. Vacuum ODLRO. My supersolid paper of 1969 was the beginning of this idea as noted by George Chapline Jr.
On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:18 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! You actually once did something of very great importance - and apparently you didn't realize this. This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me).
george
re: Destruction of superflow in unsaturated 4He films and the prediction of a new crystalline phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein condensation. Physics Letters, Vol 30A, no 5 3 November 1969 pp 300-1
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:46 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
For the record I strongly encourage you to send a letter to Physics Today pointing out the contributions of yourself and Chester prior to Leggett.
My 1969 He4 ground state ODLRO supersolid prediction actually observed at U Penn only in 2003 is the model of the Diff(4) covariant "world crystal" "aether" of Hagen Kleinert's disclination-dislocation model of curvature and torsion.
In other words, you get a non-zero from "integrating" a "zero".
Remember Wheeler's "Geon" i.e.
"Mass without mass"
Mass is equivalent to energy.
E = Mc^2
The mass M of the Geon is NONLOCAL since Ruv = 0 everywhere locally in the Geon extended structure. It has NO LOCAL MASS DENSITY. The Geon is an extended nonlocal structure getting NOT-ZERO from ZERO from the non-trivial cohomology!
This is what Zielinski & Co fail to understand qualitatively and why the locality of the gravity energy is a BOGUS QUESTION!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Einstein's 1916 vacuum equation (my /\zpf = 0) is simply
Ruv = 0
R = 0
Obviously then, the pure vacuum gravity stress-energy density tensor is trivially
t_uv(vac) = (c^4/8piG)Ruv = 0
Nevertheless, the global integral of the local zero energy density t_00(vac) is generally not zero. The standard method is to stick in an additional non-vanishing pseudo-tensor piece t_uv* that like (LC) vanishes at a point in a LIF.
However, the key theorem is the generalized Stoke's theorem in Cartan form language for the DeRham integrals
|C = ||dC
C is an ANTISYMMETRIC p-form.
| is the DeRham integral over a bounding p-cycle
dC is the ANTISYMMETRIC p + 1 form
|| is the p + 1 co-form with p-holes that has boundary that is the above bounding p-cycle.
Suppose, there is a p-hole. That means there are at least TWO non-bounding p-cycles that make the bounding p-cycle. There is the INNER non-bounding p-cycle that shrinks be as small as possible surrounding the hole. Its value is -Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM) where Np is a WINDING NUMBER. The p-FLUX QUANTUM is from the single-valuedness of the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter that suffers a Goldstone Phase Singularity where the Higgs |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0 defining the p-hole. See Michael Berry's papers for the general theory of these "topological defects".
Therefore, the value of on the MEASURABLE |C on the OUTER asymptotic "S-Matrix" observer non-bounding p-cycle is + Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM. You generally cannot measure the TWIN inner integral.
*This works even when dC = 0 LOCALLY i.e. C is CLOSED but NOT-EXACT!
Now, the problem is that GR is a SYMMETRIC theory not ANTI-SYMMETRIC. Therefore, the relation is indirect. The ANTISYMMETRIC A&P torsion forms are defined in the fermionic tetradic "square root" substratum of Einstein's SYMMETRIC bosonic curved tensor geometrodynamics.
The boson SYMMETRIC curved tensor Einstein geometrodynamics is a BILINEAR "BCS" non-perturbative PAIRING of the fermionic tetrad square roots Einstein-Cartan TORSION forms.
This is the Einstein Equivalence Principle EEP in its FULLNESS now seen in its full glory for the first time ever!
Behold EEP, post-INFLATION
guv(curved boson torsion-free tensor)
= eu^a(flat fermion torsion)(False Minkowski Vacuum)abev^b(flat fermion torsion)
You derive connection (LC)uvw and tidal curvature Ruvwl in the usual way from guv.
Meantime in the substratum
e = I + B
B ~ dx^uBu
B is the local compensating potential from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 to RUBBERY LOCAL Diff(4) with Xu'^u transformation functions on the local coordinate x^u & x^u' charts in open set topology of events P.
*Note that P is the QUOTIENT STRUCTURE MOD equivalence class of manifold points p connected by ACTIVE Diff(4)p _. p'.
Bu ~ Bu^a(Xa/Lp)argVacuumODLRO
Bu^a ~ Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO
In operator language using the commutator [ , ]
Bu^a = Bu^a[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)]
[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)] = 1
* That is, the Heisenberg algebra is the required consistency condition!
The A&P substratum torsion is
F = dB
dF = 0
d*F = *J
if U(1) Abelian
Or, if Yang-Mills SU(2), SU(3) ...
D = d + B/
DF = 0 Bianchi identity
D*F = *J
* = Hodge Dual
See Baez's book on Knots, Gauge & Gravity.
Eric Davis alludes to Yilmaz's paper in his USAF teleportation report as I recall?
On May 4, 2005, at 5:43 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack wrote earlier
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
[It is] the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
Sorry, I fail to see how this rules out g_uv = g_uv(phi_uv) or tensor vacuum t_uv on the RHS.
The formula is mathematically unsound as it stands without context and explanation. You cannot have double indices like that. What does it mean?
If
guv = (etae^PHI)uv
What does that mean?
e.g.
g00 = (etae^PHI)00
What does that mean?
Does it mean
logg00 = logeta00 + PHI00
Note that
logz = log|z| + iargz
to base e in complex plane
What is eta00, and what is PHI00 PHYSICALLY for example? Why even introduce this exponential notation like polar representation of complex numbers without the i? Obviously the key idea is that you get Minkowski flat space-time when PHI -> 0, but WHY PHI = phi - 2phi~ in

Paul, until you can explain this simple example, what you are doing here is completely bogus. Maybe Yilmaz's theory is bogus I don't know. It's unintelligible. His papers are unreadable for me. You cannot explain them, which means, by Feynman's test, you do not understand them. There may not be anything there to understand? Maybe Mike Ibison can make an adequate defense of Yilmaz's theory, since obviously you are not able to do so.
Yilmaz even talked about the gauge symmetries of phi in his 1958 Phys Rev paper as related to the position
displacements of the observer in the gravitational field. Sound familiar?
Useless without the details.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
But this "energy problem" is a *foundational* issue, not a purely mathematical question.
Indeed, I have outlined what I think may be the ultimate resolution of WHY gravity vacuum energy is nonlocal.
The global DeRham integrals of a local "zero" density need not vanish in a multiply connected region (non-trivial cohomology) of integration because of the "holes" that are singularities in the single-valued Vacuum ODLRO out of which the local GR field equations emerge.
*The nonlocality of the gravity energy is a strong "Cosmic Trigger" signal that Einstein's GR is an emergent c-number IR effective field theory from vacuum ODLRO! Andrei Sakharov did not have the right idea when he thought that GR emerges from RANDOM ZPF. It emerges from the COHERING of the random ZPF in the INFLATION phase transition of false flat to stable curved vacuum. This led Puthoff, Haisch & Rueda & Co off on a doomed wild goose chase for the "origin of inertia" using the wrong SED theory of Trevor Marshall.
The nonlocality of gravity energy is an undecidable Godel question that requires a larger covering theory, i.e. Vacuum ODLRO. My supersolid paper of 1969 was the beginning of this idea as noted by George Chapline Jr.
On Feb 16, 2005, at 3:18 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! You actually once did something of very great importance - and apparently you didn't realize this. This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me).
george
re: Destruction of superflow in unsaturated 4He films and the prediction of a new crystalline phase of 4He with Bose-Einstein condensation. Physics Letters, Vol 30A, no 5 3 November 1969 pp 300-1
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:46 PM, George Chapline wrote:
Jack,
For the record I strongly encourage you to send a letter to Physics Today pointing out the contributions of yourself and Chester prior to Leggett.
My 1969 He4 ground state ODLRO supersolid prediction actually observed at U Penn only in 2003 is the model of the Diff(4) covariant "world crystal" "aether" of Hagen Kleinert's disclination-dislocation model of curvature and torsion.
In other words, you get a non-zero from "integrating" a "zero".
Remember Wheeler's "Geon" i.e.
"Mass without mass"
Mass is equivalent to energy.
E = Mc^2
The mass M of the Geon is NONLOCAL since Ruv = 0 everywhere locally in the Geon extended structure. It has NO LOCAL MASS DENSITY. The Geon is an extended nonlocal structure getting NOT-ZERO from ZERO from the non-trivial cohomology!
This is what Zielinski & Co fail to understand qualitatively and why the locality of the gravity energy is a BOGUS QUESTION!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
Einstein's 1916 vacuum equation (my /\zpf = 0) is simply
Ruv = 0
R = 0
Obviously then, the pure vacuum gravity stress-energy density tensor is trivially
t_uv(vac) = (c^4/8piG)Ruv = 0
Nevertheless, the global integral of the local zero energy density t_00(vac) is generally not zero. The standard method is to stick in an additional non-vanishing pseudo-tensor piece t_uv* that like (LC) vanishes at a point in a LIF.
However, the key theorem is the generalized Stoke's theorem in Cartan form language for the DeRham integrals
|C = ||dC
C is an ANTISYMMETRIC p-form.
| is the DeRham integral over a bounding p-cycle
dC is the ANTISYMMETRIC p + 1 form
|| is the p + 1 co-form with p-holes that has boundary that is the above bounding p-cycle.
Suppose, there is a p-hole. That means there are at least TWO non-bounding p-cycles that make the bounding p-cycle. There is the INNER non-bounding p-cycle that shrinks be as small as possible surrounding the hole. Its value is -Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM) where Np is a WINDING NUMBER. The p-FLUX QUANTUM is from the single-valuedness of the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter that suffers a Goldstone Phase Singularity where the Higgs |Vacuum ODLRO| -> 0 defining the p-hole. See Michael Berry's papers for the general theory of these "topological defects".
Therefore, the value of on the MEASURABLE |C on the OUTER asymptotic "S-Matrix" observer non-bounding p-cycle is + Np(p-FLUX QUANTUM. You generally cannot measure the TWIN inner integral.
*This works even when dC = 0 LOCALLY i.e. C is CLOSED but NOT-EXACT!
Now, the problem is that GR is a SYMMETRIC theory not ANTI-SYMMETRIC. Therefore, the relation is indirect. The ANTISYMMETRIC A&P torsion forms are defined in the fermionic tetradic "square root" substratum of Einstein's SYMMETRIC bosonic curved tensor geometrodynamics.
The boson SYMMETRIC curved tensor Einstein geometrodynamics is a BILINEAR "BCS" non-perturbative PAIRING of the fermionic tetrad square roots Einstein-Cartan TORSION forms.
This is the Einstein Equivalence Principle EEP in its FULLNESS now seen in its full glory for the first time ever!
Behold EEP, post-INFLATION
guv(curved boson torsion-free tensor)
= eu^a(flat fermion torsion)(False Minkowski Vacuum)abev^b(flat fermion torsion)
You derive connection (LC)uvw and tidal curvature Ruvwl in the usual way from guv.
Meantime in the substratum
e = I + B
B ~ dx^uBu
B is the local compensating potential from locally gauging RIGID GLOBAL T4 to RUBBERY LOCAL Diff(4) with Xu'^u transformation functions on the local coordinate x^u & x^u' charts in open set topology of events P.
*Note that P is the QUOTIENT STRUCTURE MOD equivalence class of manifold points p connected by ACTIVE Diff(4)p _. p'.
Bu ~ Bu^a(Xa/Lp)argVacuumODLRO
Bu^a ~ Bu(LpP^a/ih)argVacuumODLRO
In operator language using the commutator [ , ]
Bu^a = Bu^a[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)]
[(Xa/Lp),(LpP^a/ih)] = 1
* That is, the Heisenberg algebra is the required consistency condition!
The A&P substratum torsion is
F = dB
dF = 0
d*F = *J
if U(1) Abelian
Or, if Yang-Mills SU(2), SU(3) ...
D = d + B/
DF = 0 Bianchi identity
D*F = *J
* = Hodge Dual
See Baez's book on Knots, Gauge & Gravity.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Is the integral of zero always zero?
On May 4, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
On May 3, 2005, at 10:14 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are beating a dead horse. They haven't done it because they don't know how. That is good enough. It's a solved problem in GR.
So it's a solved problem in GR but it is not yet solved in Yilmaz? Fine.
Which means that Yilmaz has a lousy theory.
It may simply mean that the problem is not yet solved in Yilmaz.
They have had since 1958 to do it, or at least since 1974. It's a dead subject. Let sleeping dogs lie.
It clearly means that and that clearly implies that orthodox GR is the superior theory - that works.
Or merely that GR is currently in a superior state of formal and computational development, which I think may be true.
"May"? "may"? Oh, you are too precious with your dainty hesitant "may". It's OBVIOUSLY true!
I don't think anyone is claiming that GR doesn't "work". I fully realize that leading theoreticians who use it to solve real problems insist that it now works really well for them, both heuristically and computationally
At the same time, there is nothing wrong with comparing orthodox GR to alternatives -- as Clifford Will, for example, did very systematically in his PhD thesis and in various published works.
Of course, there is nothing wrong when it is done well with precision as opposed to dainty dancing around the topic without actually solving anything.
The interesting thing about Yilmaz is that it is basically a conventional field theory against a flat kinematic background, in which respect it has certain similarities to spin-2 graviton models of the Gupta-Feynman type, and also to Rosen's bimetric model.
All the more reason to reject it! GR is a NON-PERTURBATIVE emergent c-number vacuum ODLRO effective field theory. So if what you say is true Yilmaz theory has no chance of being useful. It's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. It's like trying to explain superconductivity with the normal Fermi surface ground state x = 0 as the starting point for a perturbation theory.
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
Is the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
I think it also has a close relationship to the tetrad/gauge field model for standard GR, which it has been shown by B&G and Hestenes) can be interpreted as a bimetric theory.
Too vague. Does not convey useful information. Justify with an example.
The key here of course is the final resolution of the energy problem, which many outside the orthodox establishment (particularly in the Russian school) still consider to be an important internal conceptual problem of GR. BTW, can you give me a citation for an accurate *fully interactive* computational GR solution of the two-body problem *without constraints*?
I am not a librarian. Do Google.
The fact is that none of the top drawer people in that field bother with it - and for good reason.
Well, first off they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR, as if the question was finally settled by Einstein's 1918 papers on the subject.
I suspect Penrose is correct in this view.
Sorry, but, for whatever it's worth, I for one don't buy it.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
Hawking agrees with him on this. So does Martin Rees. So does Kip Thorne, John Wheeler .... What is the betting odds that these chaps are wrong and an amateur with a Masters in Chemistry has seen deeper into this question than they have? What are the odds? Of course, if you had a real argument that would be different. But you don't.
One famous attempt to paper over this "non-problem" was the specious table-pounding argument found in MTW Chapter 20, which I understand even you have now abandoned.
No, I have not abandoned it. It's on the back burner until I have the time to ponder the issue afresh. I think the nonlocality of the gravity energy is simply from the multiply connected topology of closed non-exact forms! That is, the idea of "flux without flux" in which you get a non-vanishing flux integral of dB on the outer closed surface even though technically dB = 0 between the inner and outer non-bounding cycles that only together form a boundary for Stoke's theorem
||*C over boundary = |||d*C over interior of boundary
I suspect that is the essence of the gravity nonlocal energy problem.
i.e. ||d*C in interior of non-bounding OUTER cycle for ||*C =/= 0 even though d*C = 0 in that interior
where d*C = pure local vacuum gravity energy density
i.e. 3-form?
d*C ~ (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
= 0 in ordinary non-exotic classical vacuum where /\zpf = 0, which is the case in MTW.
C = 1-form
and we ignore the inner non-bounding cycle isolating a topological defect in the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter Psi where |Psi| -> 0 at the Goldstone argPsi phase singularity (e.g. Sir Michael Berry's papers)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih) operating on argPsi = substratum non-trivial part of Einstein-Cartan DYNAMICAL tetrad
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)operating on argPsi = substratum torsion potential from locally gauging T4 -> Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u
This is not Shipov's torsion from locally gauging O(1,3) to ...?
i.e. locally gauging T4xO(1,3) to Diff(10)? or Diff(4)x?(6)
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
guv(curved space-time) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(flat space-time)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Forget about Yilmaz's field potential. Forget about the Freud identity. Just look at Yilmaz's field equations:
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv)
which differ from the Einstein-Hilbert equations only by the addition of a small tensor vacuum term t_uv to the RHS.
That's meaningless until t_uv is DEFINED.
It is DEFINED in Yilmaz's papers. He gives an explicit expression for it, based on his tensor potential and based on the exponential definition of the physical metric.
Prove it. Your words are too vague. Show the math. Remember what Ibison said last night about the inadequacy of the exponential metric.
Actually t_uv is determined by
1) the Bianchi identities;
2) the Freud identity; and
3) Newtonian correspondence (in the slow motion limit).
Prove this. Show the math.
If you cannot create it, you do not understand it. Write it down explicitly! It's a complicated expression in the derivatives of the potential phi:
What is "phi"? Who ordered that?
Where is the physical definition of phi? This formula is unintelligible as it stands out of context. There is no "phi" in 1916 GR. You are not allowed to stick it in without explanation and justification. That is not how to do theoretical physics. Also there are TWO phis here, one with indices the other without. This is completely unacceptable balderdash as it stands.
For the slow motion limit, phi --> phi_0^0 (all other terms vanish) and this becomes
Aside from the fact that we have no idea what these "phis" mean. Your math here is completely unintelligible.
What's 0 alpha & beta? Why does first term on RHS of first equation vanish. Think what you are saying here. It's total nonsense.
SLOW MOTION LIMIT in GR means u = v = 0 that's not what you wrote at all! Paul this is hardly competent. Really!
The point is that his t_uv is *unambiguously determined* in terms of phi, and vice versa,
based on the two "marble" identities and Newtonian correspondence conditions, contrary to
what you suggest.
Meaningless. Unacceptable.
"Tensor potential" of what? The words are meaningless.
It's like a classical field potential, except that it's a second-rank tensor quantity.
What is "It's like"? Meaningless. Unacceptable. This is BAD PHYSICS! At least the way you present it.
Do you have a problem with that? If so, what exactly is your problem?
Paul, having studied with Hans Bethe as my a one-on-one tutor at Cornell 1960, I would be embarrassed to bring such a goofy lame incoherent not-even-wrong argument to him, were he still alive. This is not acceptable.
In 1958 Yilmaz was talking about a *scalar potential*. Is that the latest Yilmaz paper anyone at
GR-17 knows about?
In "Towards a Field Theory of Gravitation" (Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992)), he is talking
about a tensor potential phi_u^v that reduces to 1 x phi_0^0 in the Newtonian slow-motion limit.
If you wrote down the actual math it might be obvious why g0i is not possible in that model.
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
Meaningless. Not acceptable. Why not stick in green cheese and the kitchen sink?
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
This is also meaningless under the quantities on the RHS are physically defined, explained and justified.
Rotation terms would be g0i, i = 1,2,3
logguv = lognuv + 2(phi - 2phi~)uv ?
Meaning what exactly?
There is no motivation for this goofy formal trick. This is BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Yilmaz throws in THREE UNDEFINED FUDGE-FACTORS!
I have some business to attend to.
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
gives the required form for t_uv consistent with the Bianchi and Freud identities together with
Newtonian correspondence conditions.
Why? How? Prove it.
Is the eta factor supposed to be the flat Minkowski metric?
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv is that the idea?
It requires justification
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^v
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^be^PHIuv
e^PHIuv = 1uv + Yuv
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^bYuv
{Minkowski(e^PHI - 1)}uv = Bu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b + Bu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b
So I see no advantage here. This is very clumsy, unwieldy. It's not even a conformal dilation.
*When PHIuv = 0, then Bu^a = 0. But there is NO PHYSICAL MEANING to PHIuv in contrast to Bu^a!
This exponential form of the metric as an expression in the potential phi is supposed to be exact for a
broad class of problems in the tensor version of the theory.
Meaningless.
For example, PROVE the equation
And define the several kinds of "phi" before you do. Note that this is not an SBS Landau-Ginzburg Vacuum ODLRO type expression that one might expect here.
He does not get this by direct solution of what he calls a "complicated set of non-linear differential
equations". He gets this from what he considers an analog for the matter tensor tau_uv
Meaningless.
What Top Hat did this White Rabbit pop out of? -- In what parallel universe of the multiverse?
What is the relation of the phi with indices to the phi without indices.
This is totally gobbledygook. I have no idea what it means? I see no motivation. No necessity for this obscure excess baggage, which is less with more.
... adhoc obscurities deleted
Here's an excerpt from the 1992 Nuovo Cimento paper (p 948):
Gibberish. Adding obscurity to turgidity.
What you cannot create you do not understand.
Just throwing this Laputonian scribble at me is worthless. Obviously you do not understand it. You cannot explain what it means in your own words. You cannot pass Feynman's litmus test here.
The burden of proof is on you to show the bottom line. When I looked at the Yilmaz papers some time ago they were unintelligible, obscure and badly written in contrast to MTW - a paragon of clarity.
I agree that they could be better written, and some of the arguments presented by Yilmaz definitely need to be rationalized and reformulated. Some are even confused and defective (e.g. his confused argument about free fall in Section 3.2 of the 1992 paper).
If he can't get free fall right - then the whole thing is obviously worthless.
But I still think Yilmaz's overall take on the energy problem -- referring back to the classic debates between Einstein and Lorentz, Levi-Civita, Schroedinger, Bauer, and Laue -- is essentially correct: there really is a vacuum energy conundrum in Einstein GR,
There really isn't. You are wrong. When /\zpf = 0 then tuv(vacuum) = 0 even though the total energy seen asymptotically is not zero. That is, a "zero local energy density" required by EEP integrates to a non-zero total energy integrated "Poynting Flux" through the outer NON-BOUNDING closed surface in a multiply-connected Vacuum ODLRO space, i.e. Berry's "phase singularities" where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in ordinary space like in a quantized vortex in superfluid helium.
Total vacuum gravity energy detected asymptotically with zero interior local energy density in the interior that has "holes" in it.
which I agree with Yilmaz was not satisfactorily resolved by Einstein's final definitive 1918 paper on the topic, notwithstanding all the bold dogmatic pronouncements of orthodoxy.
So you have a hopeless cause charging windmills.
Now we have a paper by Hestenes, referring back to papers by Moller, Rosen, and Babak & Grishchuk, which nowhere even mentions Yilmaz (although it does directly cite Freud's 1939 paper), which seems to support Yilmaz's position.
"Seems"? Not good enough. All this suggests is that there are a lot of confused theorists writing papers that no one will remember.
For the present purposes all that matters mathematically is that this represents a small tensor adjustment to the total stress-energy tensor on the RHS of the field equations.
Hogwash. Why SMALL? It's not always small. In my theory it's HUGE.We're not talking here about *your* theory. We are talking about Yilmaz vs. GR.
For the non-rotating SSS problem, the empirical predictions of Yilmaz's theory (with the added vacuum t_uv) hardly differ from those of the Einstein theory. This has been shown in mathematical detail in various published papers, and this as far as I know has not been refuted *or even disputed* by the likes of Misner et al.
Hogwash. When there is dark energy, you can forget Tuv (ordinary matter) completely. It is the perturbation! What you say here is completely false!
Most of precision cosmology anomalies are easily explained by the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
You are dead wrong here.
Even in the strong field regime, I understand the deviations are not that great. However, in Yilmaz's model there are *no curvature singularities* that constitute hard "event horizons", as there are in the corresponding GR solutions for strongly gravitating SSS sources -- at least certainly not in the quasi-static regime.
Nonsense.
Also I have an independent dynamics for t_uv(zpf) which Yilmaz/PV does not have!
OK.
OK? If you admit that, then you must reject Yilmaz's Ansatz as worthless.
It's as if Newton published
F = ma
without the independent law
F = GMm/r^2
Remember, I'm not insisting that Yilmaz's theory is actually correct. I'm simply questioning some of the arguments that have been been deployed to summarily throw it out of court -- which I consider to be logically defective if not entirely specious.
So far, from the evidence you have given, Yilmaz's theory is WORSE than even I expected. Maybe Mike Ibison can do a better job explaining what the physical motivation is, and what the set of phi mean? The cure is worse than the disease.
So given Yilmaz's equations,
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv),
I think the burden is on you and the GR-17 guys to show that the condition g_0i = 0 for all i ("no gravimagnetic terms") is a mathematical consequence of these equations, as applied to any rotating strongly gravitating object.
The burden is on you since you profess it.
But I don't really "profess it".
Then stop writing about it, since you cannot explain it in your own words showing that you do not understand it. I never claim to understand it.
The point is that if you are trying to claim that Yilmaz theory cannot handle rotating sources, or even that it can but it cannot consistently give you g_0i =/= 0 for such sources, then you need to show how this is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the *most current version* of his theory. It is not enough simply to point out that so far no such solutions of Yilmaz's equations seem to be available.
Nonsense. As far as I am concerned Yilmaz does not have a coherent theory that is any challenge to orthodox plain vanilla 1916 GR. It is completely worthless unless Mike Ibison can show otherwise in a more competent way than you have done thus far.
But I agree that this strongly suggests at the very least some kind of difficulty with the application of Yilmaz's theory to rotating sources, which does raise interesting questions regarding Yilmaz vs.GR.
George Chapline's theory is the only contender I know of. Yilmaz's model was trashed long ago by the top people in the field.
No one of first rank in that field cares about the Yilmaz deviation.Exactly. So no one of "first rank" is going to support any investigations of the Yilmaz deviations. They may not even have read past the 1958 scalar potential version of his theory.
Too bad you cannot understand what Yilmaz did in 1974. It seems worthless to me at this point.
So what's your point? This seems completely circular to me. Why not stack up Yilmaz 1958 against Einstein 1907?
Because, there is Einstein 1916. That's why.
I say that orthodox GR is like the Titanic -- and you want to nail your colors to its mast.
That's extreme crack pottery. You are not helping your cause.
Orthodox 1916 GR is the most beautiful theory in physics and it is battle-tested.
They obviously all have looked at it and rejected it. MTW allude to it semi-politely.
Jack, they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR. Like Penrose, they simply insist on the Einsteinian dogma that the energy-momentum of the gravitational vacuum is "non-localizable" because such energy-momentum can be produced or destroyed in any finite region by a *mere change of spacetime coordinates*.
I think I may have the beginning of the proper explanation for the nonlocality of gravity energy in terms of non-trivial cohomology/homology of the DeRahm integrals that requires Vacuum ODLRO inflation.
But even then there is a problem. Hence, for example, the sly and sneaky *ad hoc* imposition of "Galilean coordinates"(all g_uv, w = 0; the "line element of special relativity" (Pauli)) in the asymptotic region in order to fake sensible *global* conservation laws in GR!
That is simply a special case of
||C =/= 0 on outer non-bounding tetradic substratum 2-cycle even though the substratum 3-form dC ~ t_uv(vac)
The Cartan form structure must be in the antisymmetric tetradic substratum not in the symmetric geometrodynamic tensors.
Obviously, guv is bilinear in B = Budx^u = torsion potential connection in the tetradic substratum
(LC) involves first order partials of B i.e.
dB = Bu,vdx^u/\dx^v ~ (LC) geometrodynamic connection in curved space-time.
d^2B = Bu,v,w dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w is the substratum torsion 3-form that corresponds to tidal curvature Ruvwl in the geometrodynamic picture and to Ruv, R & Tuv.
So this seems to work.
d^2 = 0 of course, but we really have
D = d + B
Yang-Mills covariant substratum exterior derivative and also "curvature without curvature" from non-trivial cohomology/homology groups in the Vacuum ODLRO order parameter space of emergent 1916 GR c-number effective field theory in the low-energy IR limit.
Of course, if you insist against all logic and common physical sense that there is no problem here, then you will also believe there is no need for a solution.
I am saying you are not equipped with the mathematical machinery to even ask the right question here.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
* Your naive notion that a zero local energy density cannot give a non-zero global integral is what is mathematically wrong! That is, the integral of a local zero need not be zero in a non-trivial topology. So that's your basic error in approaching the nonlocality of gravity energy problem.
On May 4, 2005, at 10:01 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
On May 3, 2005, at 10:14 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
You are beating a dead horse. They haven't done it because they don't know how. That is good enough. It's a solved problem in GR.
So it's a solved problem in GR but it is not yet solved in Yilmaz? Fine.
Which means that Yilmaz has a lousy theory.
It may simply mean that the problem is not yet solved in Yilmaz.
They have had since 1958 to do it, or at least since 1974. It's a dead subject. Let sleeping dogs lie.
It clearly means that and that clearly implies that orthodox GR is the superior theory - that works.
Or merely that GR is currently in a superior state of formal and computational development, which I think may be true.
"May"? "may"? Oh, you are too precious with your dainty hesitant "may". It's OBVIOUSLY true!
I don't think anyone is claiming that GR doesn't "work". I fully realize that leading theoreticians who use it to solve real problems insist that it now works really well for them, both heuristically and computationally
At the same time, there is nothing wrong with comparing orthodox GR to alternatives -- as Clifford Will, for example, did very systematically in his PhD thesis and in various published works.
Of course, there is nothing wrong when it is done well with precision as opposed to dainty dancing around the topic without actually solving anything.
The interesting thing about Yilmaz is that it is basically a conventional field theory against a flat kinematic background, in which respect it has certain similarities to spin-2 graviton models of the Gupta-Feynman type, and also to Rosen's bimetric model.
All the more reason to reject it! GR is a NON-PERTURBATIVE emergent c-number vacuum ODLRO effective field theory. So if what you say is true Yilmaz theory has no chance of being useful. It's a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. It's like trying to explain superconductivity with the normal Fermi surface ground state x = 0 as the starting point for a perturbation theory.
y = e^(1/x) Stepfunction(-x) = SUM of infinity of Feynman diagrams of a certain class in the false vacuum
Is the NON-PERTURBATIVE "BCS"(Nambu-Jona Lasino) basic formula that applies generally here.
What you propose is perturbation theory around x = 0, which is obvious nonsense.
y ~ |Vacuum ODLRO|
x ~ density of states per unit energy at Fermi surface of false vacuum x interaction first order perturbation theory matrix element between the virtual fermion-antifermion pair that forms the Vacuum ODLRO condensate in the inflation phase transition
This says you cannot do what Yilmaz proposes in principle!
Lim y as x -> 0- = 0
Lim y as x -> 0+ -> +infinity
That's WHY you cannot do it!
I think it also has a close relationship to the tetrad/gauge field model for standard GR, which it has been shown by B&G and Hestenes) can be interpreted as a bimetric theory.
Too vague. Does not convey useful information. Justify with an example.
The key here of course is the final resolution of the energy problem, which many outside the orthodox establishment (particularly in the Russian school) still consider to be an important internal conceptual problem of GR. BTW, can you give me a citation for an accurate *fully interactive* computational GR solution of the two-body problem *without constraints*?
I am not a librarian. Do Google.
The fact is that none of the top drawer people in that field bother with it - and for good reason.
Well, first off they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR, as if the question was finally settled by Einstein's 1918 papers on the subject.
I suspect Penrose is correct in this view.
Sorry, but, for whatever it's worth, I for one don't buy it.
You are not Roger Penrose, so that is completely understandable. He is only, perhaps the greatest living mathematical physicist, Professor at Oxford, FRS Knighted by The Queen. Why should we care what he thinks? ;-)
Hawking agrees with him on this. So does Martin Rees. So does Kip Thorne, John Wheeler .... What is the betting odds that these chaps are wrong and an amateur with a Masters in Chemistry has seen deeper into this question than they have? What are the odds? Of course, if you had a real argument that would be different. But you don't.
One famous attempt to paper over this "non-problem" was the specious table-pounding argument found in MTW Chapter 20, which I understand even you have now abandoned.
No, I have not abandoned it. It's on the back burner until I have the time to ponder the issue afresh. I think the nonlocality of the gravity energy is simply from the multiply connected topology of closed non-exact forms! That is, the idea of "flux without flux" in which you get a non-vanishing flux integral of dB on the outer closed surface even though technically dB = 0 between the inner and outer non-bounding cycles that only together form a boundary for Stoke's theorem
||*C over boundary = |||d*C over interior of boundary
I suspect that is the essence of the gravity nonlocal energy problem.
i.e. ||d*C in interior of non-bounding OUTER cycle for ||*C =/= 0 even though d*C = 0 in that interior
where d*C = pure local vacuum gravity energy density
i.e. 3-form?
d*C ~ (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv
= 0 in ordinary non-exotic classical vacuum where /\zpf = 0, which is the case in MTW.
C = 1-form
and we ignore the inner non-bounding cycle isolating a topological defect in the local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter Psi where |Psi| -> 0 at the Goldstone argPsi phase singularity (e.g. Sir Michael Berry's papers)
Bu^a = Bu(LpP^a/ih) operating on argPsi = substratum non-trivial part of Einstein-Cartan DYNAMICAL tetrad
Bu = Bu^a(Xa/Lp)operating on argPsi = substratum torsion potential from locally gauging T4 -> Diff(4) GCT Xu'^u
This is not Shipov's torsion from locally gauging O(1,3) to ...?
i.e. locally gauging T4xO(1,3) to Diff(10)? or Diff(4)x?(6)
eu^a = Iu^a + Bu^a
guv(curved space-time) = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(flat space-time)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Forget about Yilmaz's field potential. Forget about the Freud identity. Just look at Yilmaz's field equations:
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv)
which differ from the Einstein-Hilbert equations only by the addition of a small tensor vacuum term t_uv to the RHS.
That's meaningless until t_uv is DEFINED.
It is DEFINED in Yilmaz's papers. He gives an explicit expression for it, based on his tensor potential and based on the exponential definition of the physical metric.
Prove it. Your words are too vague. Show the math. Remember what Ibison said last night about the inadequacy of the exponential metric.
Actually t_uv is determined by
1) the Bianchi identities;
2) the Freud identity; and
3) Newtonian correspondence (in the slow motion limit).
Prove this. Show the math.
If you cannot create it, you do not understand it. Write it down explicitly! It's a complicated expression in the derivatives of the potential phi:
What is "phi"? Who ordered that?
Where is the physical definition of phi? This formula is unintelligible as it stands out of context. There is no "phi" in 1916 GR. You are not allowed to stick it in without explanation and justification. That is not how to do theoretical physics. Also there are TWO phis here, one with indices the other without. This is completely unacceptable balderdash as it stands.
For the slow motion limit, phi --> phi_0^0 (all other terms vanish) and this becomes
Aside from the fact that we have no idea what these "phis" mean. Your math here is completely unintelligible.
What's 0 alpha & beta? Why does first term on RHS of first equation vanish. Think what you are saying here. It's total nonsense.
SLOW MOTION LIMIT in GR means u = v = 0 that's not what you wrote at all! Paul this is hardly competent. Really!
The point is that his t_uv is *unambiguously determined* in terms of phi, and vice versa,
based on the two "marble" identities and Newtonian correspondence conditions, contrary to
what you suggest.
Meaningless. Unacceptable.
"Tensor potential" of what? The words are meaningless.
It's like a classical field potential, except that it's a second-rank tensor quantity.
What is "It's like"? Meaningless. Unacceptable. This is BAD PHYSICS! At least the way you present it.
Do you have a problem with that? If so, what exactly is your problem?
Paul, having studied with Hans Bethe as my a one-on-one tutor at Cornell 1960, I would be embarrassed to bring such a goofy lame incoherent not-even-wrong argument to him, were he still alive. This is not acceptable.
In 1958 Yilmaz was talking about a *scalar potential*. Is that the latest Yilmaz paper anyone at
GR-17 knows about?
In "Towards a Field Theory of Gravitation" (Nuovo Cimento 107B, 941 (1992)), he is talking
about a tensor potential phi_u^v that reduces to 1 x phi_0^0 in the Newtonian slow-motion limit.
If you wrote down the actual math it might be obvious why g0i is not possible in that model.
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
Meaningless. Not acceptable. Why not stick in green cheese and the kitchen sink?
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
This is also meaningless under the quantities on the RHS are physically defined, explained and justified.
Rotation terms would be g0i, i = 1,2,3
logguv = lognuv + 2(phi - 2phi~)uv ?
Meaning what exactly?
There is no motivation for this goofy formal trick. This is BAD THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Yilmaz throws in THREE UNDEFINED FUDGE-FACTORS!
I have some business to attend to.
On May 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
It's a second rank tensor potential. It's a tensor field that describes a physical field that is closely
analogous to an electromagnetic field, and which is thus fundamentally different in Yilmaz's model
from an "inertial field" of fictitious forces.
The formal expression Yilmaz gives in 1992 for the exponential form of the metric (p 948)
gives the required form for t_uv consistent with the Bianchi and Freud identities together with
Newtonian correspondence conditions.
Why? How? Prove it.
Is the eta factor supposed to be the flat Minkowski metric?
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv is that the idea?
It requires justification
guv = eu^a(Minkowski)abev^v
(Minkowski)uv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^be^PHIuv
e^PHIuv = 1uv + Yuv
guv = (Minkowski)uv e^PHIuv = Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abIv^bYuv
{Minkowski(e^PHI - 1)}uv = Bu^a(Minkowski)abIv^b + Iu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b + Bu^a(Minkowski)abBv^b
So I see no advantage here. This is very clumsy, unwieldy. It's not even a conformal dilation.
*When PHIuv = 0, then Bu^a = 0. But there is NO PHYSICAL MEANING to PHIuv in contrast to Bu^a!
This exponential form of the metric as an expression in the potential phi is supposed to be exact for a
broad class of problems in the tensor version of the theory.
Meaningless.
For example, PROVE the equation
And define the several kinds of "phi" before you do. Note that this is not an SBS Landau-Ginzburg Vacuum ODLRO type expression that one might expect here.
He does not get this by direct solution of what he calls a "complicated set of non-linear differential
equations". He gets this from what he considers an analog for the matter tensor tau_uv
Meaningless.
What Top Hat did this White Rabbit pop out of? -- In what parallel universe of the multiverse?
What is the relation of the phi with indices to the phi without indices.
This is totally gobbledygook. I have no idea what it means? I see no motivation. No necessity for this obscure excess baggage, which is less with more.
... adhoc obscurities deleted
Here's an excerpt from the 1992 Nuovo Cimento paper (p 948):
Gibberish. Adding obscurity to turgidity.
What you cannot create you do not understand.
Just throwing this Laputonian scribble at me is worthless. Obviously you do not understand it. You cannot explain what it means in your own words. You cannot pass Feynman's litmus test here.
The burden of proof is on you to show the bottom line. When I looked at the Yilmaz papers some time ago they were unintelligible, obscure and badly written in contrast to MTW - a paragon of clarity.
I agree that they could be better written, and some of the arguments presented by Yilmaz definitely need to be rationalized and reformulated. Some are even confused and defective (e.g. his confused argument about free fall in Section 3.2 of the 1992 paper).
If he can't get free fall right - then the whole thing is obviously worthless.
But I still think Yilmaz's overall take on the energy problem -- referring back to the classic debates between Einstein and Lorentz, Levi-Civita, Schroedinger, Bauer, and Laue -- is essentially correct: there really is a vacuum energy conundrum in Einstein GR,
There really isn't. You are wrong. When /\zpf = 0 then tuv(vacuum) = 0 even though the total energy seen asymptotically is not zero. That is, a "zero local energy density" required by EEP integrates to a non-zero total energy integrated "Poynting Flux" through the outer NON-BOUNDING closed surface in a multiply-connected Vacuum ODLRO space, i.e. Berry's "phase singularities" where |Vacuum ODLRO| = 0 in ordinary space like in a quantized vortex in superfluid helium.
Total vacuum gravity energy detected asymptotically with zero interior local energy density in the interior that has "holes" in it.
which I agree with Yilmaz was not satisfactorily resolved by Einstein's final definitive 1918 paper on the topic, notwithstanding all the bold dogmatic pronouncements of orthodoxy.
So you have a hopeless cause charging windmills.
Now we have a paper by Hestenes, referring back to papers by Moller, Rosen, and Babak & Grishchuk, which nowhere even mentions Yilmaz (although it does directly cite Freud's 1939 paper), which seems to support Yilmaz's position.
"Seems"? Not good enough. All this suggests is that there are a lot of confused theorists writing papers that no one will remember.
For the present purposes all that matters mathematically is that this represents a small tensor adjustment to the total stress-energy tensor on the RHS of the field equations.
Hogwash. Why SMALL? It's not always small. In my theory it's HUGE.We're not talking here about *your* theory. We are talking about Yilmaz vs. GR.
For the non-rotating SSS problem, the empirical predictions of Yilmaz's theory (with the added vacuum t_uv) hardly differ from those of the Einstein theory. This has been shown in mathematical detail in various published papers, and this as far as I know has not been refuted *or even disputed* by the likes of Misner et al.
Hogwash. When there is dark energy, you can forget Tuv (ordinary matter) completely. It is the perturbation! What you say here is completely false!
Most of precision cosmology anomalies are easily explained by the exotic vacuum equation
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
You are dead wrong here.
Even in the strong field regime, I understand the deviations are not that great. However, in Yilmaz's model there are *no curvature singularities* that constitute hard "event horizons", as there are in the corresponding GR solutions for strongly gravitating SSS sources -- at least certainly not in the quasi-static regime.
Nonsense.
Also I have an independent dynamics for t_uv(zpf) which Yilmaz/PV does not have!
OK.
OK? If you admit that, then you must reject Yilmaz's Ansatz as worthless.
It's as if Newton published
F = ma
without the independent law
F = GMm/r^2
Remember, I'm not insisting that Yilmaz's theory is actually correct. I'm simply questioning some of the arguments that have been been deployed to summarily throw it out of court -- which I consider to be logically defective if not entirely specious.
So far, from the evidence you have given, Yilmaz's theory is WORSE than even I expected. Maybe Mike Ibison can do a better job explaining what the physical motivation is, and what the set of phi mean? The cure is worse than the disease.
So given Yilmaz's equations,
G_uv = K (T_uv + t_uv),
I think the burden is on you and the GR-17 guys to show that the condition g_0i = 0 for all i ("no gravimagnetic terms") is a mathematical consequence of these equations, as applied to any rotating strongly gravitating object.
The burden is on you since you profess it.
But I don't really "profess it".
Then stop writing about it, since you cannot explain it in your own words showing that you do not understand it. I never claim to understand it.
The point is that if you are trying to claim that Yilmaz theory cannot handle rotating sources, or even that it can but it cannot consistently give you g_0i =/= 0 for such sources, then you need to show how this is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the *most current version* of his theory. It is not enough simply to point out that so far no such solutions of Yilmaz's equations seem to be available.
Nonsense. As far as I am concerned Yilmaz does not have a coherent theory that is any challenge to orthodox plain vanilla 1916 GR. It is completely worthless unless Mike Ibison can show otherwise in a more competent way than you have done thus far.
But I agree that this strongly suggests at the very least some kind of difficulty with the application of Yilmaz's theory to rotating sources, which does raise interesting questions regarding Yilmaz vs.GR.
George Chapline's theory is the only contender I know of. Yilmaz's model was trashed long ago by the top people in the field.
No one of first rank in that field cares about the Yilmaz deviation.Exactly. So no one of "first rank" is going to support any investigations of the Yilmaz deviations. They may not even have read past the 1958 scalar potential version of his theory.
Too bad you cannot understand what Yilmaz did in 1974. It seems worthless to me at this point.
So what's your point? This seems completely circular to me. Why not stack up Yilmaz 1958 against Einstein 1907?
Because, there is Einstein 1916. That's why.
I say that orthodox GR is like the Titanic -- and you want to nail your colors to its mast.
That's extreme crack pottery. You are not helping your cause.
Orthodox 1916 GR is the most beautiful theory in physics and it is battle-tested.
They obviously all have looked at it and rejected it. MTW allude to it semi-politely.
Jack, they simply deny that there is an "energy problem" in GR. Like Penrose, they simply insist on the Einsteinian dogma that the energy-momentum of the gravitational vacuum is "non-localizable" because such energy-momentum can be produced or destroyed in any finite region by a *mere change of spacetime coordinates*.
I think I may have the beginning of the proper explanation for the nonlocality of gravity energy in terms of non-trivial cohomology/homology of the DeRahm integrals that requires Vacuum ODLRO inflation.
But even then there is a problem. Hence, for example, the sly and sneaky *ad hoc* imposition of "Galilean coordinates"(all g_uv, w = 0; the "line element of special relativity" (Pauli)) in the asymptotic region in order to fake sensible *global* conservation laws in GR!
That is simply a special case of
||C =/= 0 on outer non-bounding tetradic substratum 2-cycle even though the substratum 3-form dC ~ t_uv(vac)
The Cartan form structure must be in the antisymmetric tetradic substratum not in the symmetric geometrodynamic tensors.
Obviously, guv is bilinear in B = Budx^u = torsion potential connection in the tetradic substratum
(LC) involves first order partials of B i.e.
dB = Bu,vdx^u/\dx^v ~ (LC) geometrodynamic connection in curved space-time.
d^2B = Bu,v,w dx^u/\dx^v/\dx^w is the substratum torsion 3-form that corresponds to tidal curvature Ruvwl in the geometrodynamic picture and to Ruv, R & Tuv.
So this seems to work.
d^2 = 0 of course, but we really have
D = d + B
Yang-Mills covariant substratum exterior derivative and also "curvature without curvature" from non-trivial cohomology/homology groups in the Vacuum ODLRO order parameter space of emergent 1916 GR c-number effective field theory in the low-energy IR limit.
Of course, if you insist against all logic and common physical sense that there is no problem here, then you will also believe there is no need for a solution.
I am saying you are not equipped with the mathematical machinery to even ask the right question here.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
* Your naive notion that a zero local energy density cannot give a non-zero global integral is what is mathematically wrong! That is, the integral of a local zero need not be zero in a non-trivial topology. So that's your basic error in approaching the nonlocality of gravity energy problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
