Monday, January 08, 2007

No, the following is a wrong idea:

"Like I said before, I just tried to make sense of what I saw, the math is beyond me. But it seemed obvious that these objects were able to negate or cancel mass and/or inertia in order to make the kinds of dramatic turns I saw. The lack of a sonic boom began to make sense when I imagined a propulsive field that cancelled mass and inertia and might do the same for any air molecules enterring the affected region inside the event horizon of the field. If rendered massless, then displacing them results in little or no energy transfer from the hull of the craft resulting in no super-sonic shock wave."

You never want to tweak the mass even if you can. If you do, you will explode the system in a WMD! (Martin Rees "Just Six Numbers"). The whole idea of weightless warp drive is that the mass of the ship cancels out of the problem! That's the equivalence principle. The ship free falls on the geodesic of its own making and shaping - no interior g-forces hence the sharp high-speed turns. Puthoff, Davis, Woodward NEVER make that explicit - at least not before my books and papers at the end of 2002 and later.

On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

There is also a fudge factor Z.

I assumed equal G on both sides, but G(Newton) on scale of astronomy may be smaller than G on nanoscale.

G(Newton) = ZG(nanoscale)

Z << 1

such is the case in some of the string theories from extra dimensions (e.g. Lisa Randall "Warped Passages")

ZMc^2/r^3 ~ (hc/a^4)

Z 10^28 10^21/( 10^9)^3 ~ 10^-27 3 10^10/a^4 cgs

Z10^22 ~ 10^-17/a^4

Z 10^40 ~ 1/na^4

a^4 ~ 10^-40/nZ

a ~ 10^-10/(nZ)^1/4 cm

which is, it appears, too small by at least a factor of 10^4 if Z = 1.

However we expect here Z << 1, which is good.

But this is very crude off the cuff without including the QED vacuum polarization coefficient in hc/a^4.

i.e. c -> c/n

n = index of refraction

but a resonant peak n >> 1 goes the wrong way in an AC effect.

On Jan 8, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
Do you have anything in writing from then. I suppose they would have printed transcripts?
I think it is remote viewing on your part because you are not a trained physicist - not even Puthoff was thinking in those terms back then and he still isn't! He has not published anything remotely like what you seem to have anticipated back then. Did you say anything then about Bruce Cornet's "reverse Doppler effect" from UFOs that comes from that, anything about Jacques Vallee's "Fastwalker" related to it? See my book Super Cosmos for those details explained.

Basic ZPF energy density-pressure ~ hc/L^3

L is scale of "capacitor" "quantum well" whatever

so L ~ tens to hundreds of nanometers

I don't give a damn about the quantum-electrical Casimir force F here that Hal is focused on - it's too small for realistic propulsion and it would not be warp drive anyway.

F ~ hcA/a^4

A = area of 2D plates, a = separation of plates

The direct bending of space-time by the ZPF in a Casimir situation is

R ~ (G/c^4)(hc/a^4)

R is Ricci curvature scalar

to get "lift," i.e. to change the geodesic of the ship requires

R = 1/r*^2 ~ (G/c^4)(hc/a^4) ~ (G-Superstring Tension)^-1(ZPF energy density)

Where for say Earth mass M at surface of Earth r (to fly in near-Earth environment)

1/r*^2 ~ GM/c^2r^3

Note that G cancels!

r*(Earth at surface) ~ 1 AU (Earth-Sun distance 10^8 miles).

M/c^2r^3 ~ (1/c^4)(hc/a^4)

Mc^2/r^3 ~ (hc/a^4)

Homework Problem

On Jan 7, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:

Hi Jack-- (See my responses below.)

On Jan 7, 2007, at 6:17 PM, Mark McCandlish wrote:

Hi Jack;
While I may not have the math quite right, I believe I did
mention a
"positive and negative ZPF pressure", but my perspective was based
on the
(then) recent paper in Physics Essays, by Miguel Alcubierri, whose
paper I cited described the modification of the local spacetime metric
as and "expansion" and "contraction" of the metric to produce a vector
upon which the vehicle creating the distortion would move-- all
without
violating GR.

Well that would be great if you did. Can you confirm
that with some authenticated documentation? If so, then you beat me
to it by 8 years! Precognitive remote viewing on your part? I will
cite you on this if you can send me some proof as I have been
saying this in my books and papers only since 2002 spurred by the
discovery of dark energy starting in 1999.

Yeah, I'll have to go back through my audiotapes that Coast To Coast was
nice enough to supply me after the show. There were several programs within
a couple of months of one another. I'm not sure on the dates, though. Something
like Noveber of 1994 and December or January of the following year. I'll have
to find a way to dub you a copy. My audio cassette machine with dubbing capability
quit on me about two years ago, and I never got it repaired with the new audio formats
that have developed recently.

I would not call it precognitive remote viewing, although I have had several noteable
premonitions over the years. The Challenger disaster-- (right down to the starboard
SRB failing) and the fact that there was a black astronaut on board with a "Mc--" last
name like mine, (Ron McNair), an accident that nearly killed Hal's son one weekend,
(I left a warning on his office phone message machine after he had left the lab for the
weekend; he picked it up the following week after the accident had already happened),
and several, smaller, personally significant events which I saw in advance. More on that,
if you're interested-- later.

How come Puthoff never
mentioned it?

Well, I have had many discussions with Hal about the topic, as I said;
in fact, I often wondered myself why he never delved into it more deeply after
he began to digest what I was telling him about Brad's experience and some
of the other witnesses I encountered later. My own sightings of intelligently
controlled objects probably were the greatest inspiration for conjecture on
what kind of physics it would take to accomplish what I saw. One that I
saw covering nine miles of airspace in under a second and a half
making two right-angle turns in the process and then maneuvering up through a
canyon going in the general direction of Edwards AFB at about 11:44 PM on
December 13, 1989 was probably the most dramatic. It produced no sonic
boom and at that [visual] speed was obviously moving over Mach. It also had a
pronounced ionization trail that reminded me of the image streaking seen in
Space Shuttle videos documenting various objects above Earth. The trail persisted
for several seconds afterward then faded slowly, clearly delineating the flightpath.
It was a brilliant blue-white sphere shape, nearly as bright as the tip of an arc welding
rod in operation.

But getting back to Hal's odd lack of written theorization on the
matter, I think I once asked him why he never developed any papers on this.
In fact, I think he did; there was one that was kind of a response to Alcubierri's
paper in Physics Essays, it may have been part of a presentation at an IEEE
conference of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Technology Forum. I don't
recall. Does the word AD-ASTRA ring a bell?

Like I said before, I just tried to make sense of what I saw, the math is beyond me.
But it seemed obvious that these objects were able to negate or cancel mass and/or
inertia in order to make the kinds of dramatic turns I saw. The lack of a sonic boom
began to make sense when I imagined a propulsive field that cancelled mass and inertia
and might do the same for any air molecules enterring the affected region inside the
event horizon of the field. If rendered massless, then displacing them results in little or
no energy transfer from the hull of the craft resulting in no super-sonic shock wave.
If these molecules are momentarily de-massed, perhaps resulting in reduced electron spin,
then exitting the field would cause them to reacquire their interaction with the ZPF
causing a "bounce" as they return to their ground state spin energy with the excess
energy being re-radiated as photons. Thus the ionization trail. At least this is how I
visuallized it in my mind's eye.

What did it for me is my realization that not only is
73% of the universe negative pressure dark zero point energy
virtual quanta, but that 23% is positive pressure zero point energy
virtual quanta and only 4% is on-mass-shell real quanta of leptons,
quarks and gauge bosons.

That's Great, Jack, but you're already talkin' over my head here! LOL.

I have several reliable leads on significant, recent UFO activity up here in Northern
California I'll be checking out as time permits. I'll keep you advised. It has
been frequent enough according to witnesses that you might want to drive
up here for a couple of days and check it out! One area appears to be a new
"flight test" area for the boys out of Area-51.

All My Best,
Mark

I already know they are Out There. I am simply reverse engineering.