The Illusion of "Gravity Force"
Paul, your fundamental confusion is as follows:
You have confused a contingent relation with a necessary relation.
This comes from garbling Newton's theory of gravity with Einstein's.
Also high energy physicists and science journalists talk about the 4-forces including gravity. Of course in special relativistic quantum field theory on a flat Minkowski background you can do that, but it misses the full nonlinearity of strong field gravity and the issue of "background independence."
Both have the same weak field limit that adds to the confusion.
Possibly Hal Puthoff shares this confusion with you? I don't know.
The meaning of the geodesic equation is that the invariant proper acceleration of a geodesic test particle is zero. This is true no matter what the curvature.
Curvature is geodesic deviation.
Consequently, only test particles on non-geodesics have non-vanishing proper acceleration and this is always caused by non-gravity forces, in effect the quantum electrodynamic force in macroscopic situations. Now this is true even in special relativity and Newtonian particle mechanics with the Galilean group of absolute simultaneity. Only the idea of "geodesic" as extremum path in the calculus of variations changes.
Therefore, in accord with Einstein's original version of the equivalence principle, all "gravity forces," i.e. "pulling g's" are 100% inertial forces on non-geodesics caused by non-gravity forces acting on the test particle. It's only when you ask for a stationary non-gedesic shell frame maintained by non-gravity forces do you get a contingent relationship to the local curvature. For example in SSS toy model
g(non-inertial Shell Frame) ~ GM/r^2 = c^2(GM/c^2r^3)r = c^2(SSS Curvature)r
You misinterpret this as "intrinsic". That's wrong. It's still an inertial force, in the particular non-inertial frame that keeps a fixed reduced circumference radial coordinate r. You can only do this outside the event horizon of the black hole.
For example, if the test particle is a rocket ship in space, the impulse engine is switched on and the ejected propellant pushes the rocket off its free-float geodesic path in the external local curved spacetime. In contrast, if the high Tc anyonic superconductor phase in the thin nano-engineered fuselage is locked to Goldstone phases of the residual vacuum coherent "inflation field" with large-scale mean dark energy ~ 10^-8 ergs/cm^3, to get weightless zero g geodesic warp drive
then no g-forces are felt even when the "saucer" makes hairpin turns in a dogfight with our jet fighters because the ship is able to control its own local geodesic with its propellantless propulsion "warp bubble." The Josephson phase lock bypasses the need for the huge energy densities needed in the brute force Tuv method using
Guv(Geometry) + kTuv(Applied Non-Gravity Field Energy) = 0
Rather we use
Guv(Geometry) + /\(Phase Lock)guv ~ 0
Additional torsion fields beyond Einstein's 1916 approximation of locally gauging only the 4-parameter translation group transform /\(Dark Energy/Matter) from a constant into a local scalar field that is controllable. That's my "conjecture" based on the UFO data.
On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:09 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hey Zielinski, I was with Creon Levit tonite from NASA AMES and we looked for you at Specs. Creon said that Hal Puthoff thought you were on the "right track." Maybe Hal can explain you since you can't and Creon said he is not able to understand what your point is either!
Z: I think I've now explained it very precisely and in concrete detail with reference to the Vilenkin solution. It's essentially the same kind of thing that Alex Poltorak has been talking and writing about, going back to his 1980 paper, where he showed that the physical gravitational field can be represented by the non-metricity tensor contained in the L-C connection, the decomposition being induced by an arbitrary generalized affine
connection. The general idea goes all the way back to de Sitter and Mie.
J: Irrelevant because non-metricity = 0 in Einstein's theory. This is a Red Herring. There is no such thing in the 1916 theory. That's Alex's error of conception IMHO. Of course if you want to make a unified field theory in Einstein's original classical sense - that is a different story.
Z: I'm developing a concrete geometric model for Alex's abstract decomposition in terms of tangent spaces so that it's easier for people like you and Creon to understand.
J: Chasing a mirage of endless delusion.
Z: It was Puthoff who thought my ideas were original and worth pursuing. That was all before I had ever heard of Alex Poltorak. The reason Hal Puthoff understands it is because he's an ether man.
J: Anesthetized? :-)
Yes, Hal's PV theory
1) violates the local equivalence principle
2) violates GCT tensor covariance
3) disagrees with observation except in the trivial weak field case where it's rigged to agree.
Z: It mystifies me that Einstein's 1918-1920 reversion to an ether interpretation of the 1916 theory has been ignored in this field. It also mystifies me that "general relativity" lives on as myth, even while Mach's principle went into the trash basket along with the rest of Mach's original program ~ 1916-1918.
J: Depends what you mean by "ether". Einstein never reverted to the Galilean group "ether" of the 19th century. Creon has some great data mining software he did at NASA "Viewpoints" that may confirm or falsify my theory on dark matter and dark energy "filamentary foam" with the latest NASA data coming in. CIA et-al like it also. It has all sorts of applications to all sorts of things including Homeland Security data mining.
Z: OK, too bad I missed you. Another time perhaps.