The basic "length" operator is L ~ N^1/2Lp
Lp separates the point defects where the 3 real Higgs scalar fields O(3) symmetry have simultaneous "nodes" and they are 3D spacelike separated from each other. The 2 Goldstone phases Theta & Phi are undefined at the nodes that are Goldstone phase singularities. The vacuum manifold has same topology S2 as does the surrounding surface enclosing N point nodes. Note time is not quantized here. That gives an extra real Higgs field taking us from 9+1 spacetime to Witten's 10+1 spacetime if I am not mistaken?
Note the Higgs fields here are real not complex so that U(1) is 2 real Higgs fields, SU(2) is 4 real Higgs fields. SU(3) is 6 real Higgs fields.
I am using O(N) for N real Higgs fields with N-1 independent relative Goldstone phases.
The criterion of maximal stable topological defect means that N real Higgs scalars must be defined on a N-Dim spacelike hypersurface.
Note for 3D hypersurface
N = 1 has S0 vacuum manifold with stable 2D wall defect in space
N = 2 has S1 vacuum manifold with stable 1D vortex string in space
N = 3 has S2 vacuum manifold with stable 0D point defect in space - nodes of "world crystal".
N > 3 has no stable topological defects in 3D space.
Go to imaginary time 4D Euclidean, then the N = 4 Higgs fields have "instanton" stable defect, Wick rotate back to light cones to get Finkelstein's discrete "chronons"?
Then use correspondence with statistical mechanics. 1/T ~ imaginary time, T is temperature etc.
Coherent Glauber states of a laser coherent field have ODLRO and they are Poisson in real photon statistics
root mean square real photon number fluctuation ~ square root of average number of photons
As distinct from thermal waves that Einstein got
square number fluctuation ~ a
used in Hanbury-Brown-Twiss effect for thermal light from stars.
b -> 0 above laser threshold.
Think of N as an average number of nodes in some pre-space in analogy with "photons" above.
RMS number fluctuation ~ mean number
So for each dimension of space it's like a 50-50 random walk. The amount of space generated is like a random walk.
Weight the probabilities differently to get warping? Different Turing programs?
So there seems to be an analogy here to at least a classical Turing machine with the weights as part of a simple program or algorithm?
IT FROM BIT.
The net displacement is that of the Turing tape?
On May 7, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 7, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Bruce Cornet wrote:
Jack,
How can I help you more?
Bruce
Update me on your UFO reverse Doppler observations. - very very important IMHO since I predicted it BEFORE I knew of your observations!
"Dark energy" zero point vacuum fluctuations of negative pressure makes an anomalous anti-gravity blue shift.
"Dark matter" zero point vacuum fluctuations of positive pressure makes an anomalous gravity red shift.
this warp bubble "moves" to right showing reverse Doppler.
I am amazed that physicists find this simple idea so hard to grasp even if they don't believe they seem to have a hard time grasping what the idea is. Partly it's because when it comes to "dark matter" they keep thinking of real particles moving through space that maybe LHC will detect. They do not think dark matter can be zero point energy, i.e. all virtual quanta inside the vacuum. They seem to find it hard to grasp that w = -1 positive pressure (equal and opposite isotropic negative energy density) will be indistinguishable from w = 0 Cold Dark Matter (CDM) particles as far as any distant observers e.g. gravity lensing can tell. So I say the Galactic Halos are spheres of positive pressure zero point energy. The NASA Pioneer data seems to show a hollow shell of positive pressure zero point energy beyond Saturn's orbit concentric with center of Sun as if Sun blew it off like a smoke ring from some physics process we haven't thought of as yet? Maybe the shell is actually expanding outward like a shock from an explosion?
This is an elementary consequence of Einstein's field equation for exotic vacua. See Math Appendix below.
You know that sort of thing is also implicit in the Vallee-Torme "sci-fi" Fastwalker book with the "5000 mile per hour Doppler shift" and the alien saucer standing still clamped on the ground inside the bunker. I actually quote that scene a bit in "Super Cosmos." I wonder where Vallee got that from? I suspect he had inside info via Bigelow's USG links?
From Fastwalker to Skinwalker - eh? ;-)
Where are you these days?
If you can write something brief I can quote you on that would fit in a Power Point slide I will include it. :-)
If you have some plots, photos I can add a few slides.
Your observations may be my Michelson-Morley experiment. :-)
Math Appendix on Emergent Einstein-Cartan Gravity-Torsion from the Higgs-Goldstone Vacuum Condensate ODLRO post-Inflation Field,
Guv + /\zpfguv = 0
where the zpf stress-energy tensor is
tuv(ZPF) ~ (c^4/G)/\zpfguv = (superstring tension)(curvature of vacuum)(metric tensor)
There will be extra torsion field terms so that /\zpf is no longer a strict constant as it is in 1915 GR, but is a locally variable quintessent scalar field.
That is we locally gauge entire 10-parameter Poincare group P(10) of 1905 globally rigid special relativity to get Einstein-Cartan curvature theory.
The spin connection 1-form for parallel transport is larger than Einstein had in 1915. It is
S^a^b(P10) = - S^b^a(P10) = S^a^b(P10)udx^u = S^a^b(T4) + S^a^b(O(1,3)
Einstein's 1915 GR only uses the piece S^a^b(T4) for which
Torsion dislocation defect field 2-form T^a(T4) = de^a + S^ac(T4)/\e^c = 0
T^a = T^auvdx^u/\dx^v
e^a are the tetrad co-frames (little detectors)
with disclination defect curvature 2-form -> Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor of 4th rank
R^a^b(T4) = dS^a^b(T4) + S^ac(T4)/\S^c^b(T4) = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v
R^a^b(P10) has more terms in it allowing /\zpf,u =/= 0 and of course the torsion field T^a(P10) =/= 0 in general.
Also
e^a = I^a + @A^a
A^a ~ M^a^a (diagonal of 4x4 matrix of non-closed 1-forms from 8 Goldstone phases in the Higgs vacuum in 9+1 spacetime, the latter demanded by maximizing topologically stable defects - nontrivial homotopy -> Calabi-Yau space?
From Shipov's
to Witten's
I^a are globally flat tetrads
@ = Lp^2/\zpf dimensionless coupling - renormalizable quantum gravity with spin 2 as secondary properties along with spin 1 and spin 0 in this larger curvature-torsion theory beyond 1916 GR, but only a wee bit beyond - a natural extension that seems to include superstring theory automatically.
A^a is spin 1 as a quantum field.
no gravity if /\zpf = 0 , if h = 0 and if c -> infinity - very important
S^a^b = M^[a,b] = - S^b^a
M^a^b = dTheta^a/\Phi^b - Theta^a/\dPhi^b = M^a^budx^u
Theta^a & Phi^b are the 8 Goldstone phase 0-forms
dM^a^b = dTheta^a/\dPhi^b = dM^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v
From
Theta^2 = Theta^bThetab
Phi^2 = Phi^aPhia
Projecting down from 9+1 space-time to 3+1 space-time gives 2 independent Goldstone phases with 3 real Higgs fields i.e. O(3) symmetry gives point defects of the projected vacuum ODLRO field whose point nodes is a kind of vacuum crystal lattice with
Area enclosing N nodes ~ NLp^2 i.e. World Hologram idea.
Hologram volume image is
Volume generated from N point defects ~ N^3/2Lp^3.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: STAIF Abstract Comments & Clarifications
10-4 :-)
See corrected 2nd draft of abstract at end below.
On May 4, 2007, at 6:17 AM, Paul Murad wrote:
Jack:
�
I have sent your abstract around to all of my reviewers and generally the attitude was that they look forward to what you have to say. If I receive any really adverse comments, rest assured I will relay these to you as well. ... I also have to agree that it would be interesting to hear what you have to say on this topic.
�
We are accepting the abstract with the conditions suggested below by one of my reviewers.� I also want you to understand up front that I look forward to your paper but it should be written in clear unambigous language and not really for your peers, which I am sure there are none, but to the newly minted graduate�engineer or scientist that wants to get involved in this field and understand some of the unusual mysteries and scientific marvels that are enmeshed in this topic so that they could make a future contribution in making us a space-faring civilization.
Yes, of course. I look forward to your suggestions for clarity. We have a year. :-)
�
I have no doubt that you can rise above these minor challenges and do it all in eight pages... If you have any problems with any of this, please get back to me and we can talk further...
�
We look forward to seeing you at STAIF 2008...
Paul...
�
Changes by one reviewer are as follows:
�
"I recommend that the abstract be accepted after the author makes the following changes or addresses concerns:
1) Removal of reference to Douglas MacArthur speech as this has no place in a scientific venue.� The sentence itself is of no relevance to the rest of the author's thesis and distracts from the main thrust of the thesis.
OK no problem, although for a DOD audience, it would be inspiring, but I will not insist on this point.
2) I am not against the inclusion of UFOs in a scientific venue as long as discussion or mention of it remains rational and scientific.� However, if any of you object to including mention of UFOs, then the author must remove the reference to UFOs.
OK, however, it is my position, and I think it is also Paul Murad's?, that the subset of good UFO observations by professional military and commercial pilots, e.g. NIDS website, Bruce Maccabee's website, old book by Paul Hill - eminent aeronautical engineer for USG, that we are actually seeing advanced propellantless propulsion of material vehicles in our skies able to execute high speed turns whose g-forces would kill any of the occupants if they existed. This "fact" of experience suggests to me, that we are simply playing catch up technologically speaking. Physicist Michio Kaku has made this quite clear in his popular talks when he classifies civilizations from Type 0, Type I up to Type IV. The sharp turns of these UFOs shows "metric engineering", i.e. technology able to neutralize the external ambient gravity field (e.g. Earth's) at the craft, to override it with its own shaped in such a way that the craft literally free-falls at zero g along a local geodesic path whose direction in space is controlled on board. Alcubierre's model is an example.�
Note Bruce Cornet's "reverse Dopper effect" (mentioned in fictional "Fastwalker" Vallee & Torme) - dark energy makes anomalous blue shift, whilst dark matter makes anomalous red shift in opposite way to ordinary motional Doppler shift.
Good trick if we can do it, we can't as yet, but someone Out There can and does over our nuclear bases according to some reports. So my point is that there is here a clear and present national security issue - the elephant in the room. My purpose in this talk is to define the mission, the broad parameters of the actual physics problem(s). I have no detailed solutions of course.� However, the discovery of both anti-gravitating "dark energy" and gravitating "dark matter" as 96% of the stuff of the universe is clearly a vital clue .As John A. Wheeler said
"The Question is: "What is The Question"?
3) The author must correct or replace his statement that dark matter and dark energy are "two sides of the same zero point energy coin."� This is patently false because dark matter is non-absorbing, non-luminous, non-baryonic matter that interacts with all other forms of matter via gravity and nuclear weak force.� It has positive energy density and positive pressure, and hence is not rooted in the quantum vacuum ZPE. Dark energy has been declared last month in an article by Riess et al. (in the Astrophysical Journal) to be the vacuum energy of Einstein's cosmological constant. Therefore, it has positive energy density and negative pressure, and it is rooted in the quantum vacuum ZPE.
Whoever wrote 3) seems to be confusing "dark energy" with "dark matter" and has misunderstood my message. His or her argument is not relevant to what I actually wrote and mean.
That dark matter is "non-absorbing, non-luminous, non-baryonic matter that interacts with all other forms of matter via gravity" is true and that is an immediate consequence of my original hypothesis that "dark matter" as negative zero point energy density with positive pressure with w = -1 that cannot be distinguished from w = 0 cold dark matter (CDM) from distant measurements like gravity lensing.
There is not one iota of evidence that dark matter interacts via the "weak nuclear force". Where is the evidence?
Whoever wrote 3) does not understand my point about Einstein's GR equation that the direct bending of spacetime by energy density and pressure (in the isotropic weak field Newtonian limit) is, from the text books,
~ 4pi(G/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 3w)
where w = -1 for zero point energy
w = +1/3 for radiation
w ~ 0 for cold ordinary "on shell" matter.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/kolb1new_Page_05_jpg.htm
The writer of 3) has misunderstood me because
"Dark energy has been declared last month in an article by Riess et al. (in the Astrophysical Journal) to be the vacuum energy of Einstein's cosmological constant. Therefore, it has positive energy density and negative pressure, and it is rooted in the quantum vacuum ZPE."�
is also what I have said precisely. That sentence is cited as if I said something else. Indeed my abstract says
Both dark energy and dark matter are two sides of the same zero
point energy coin of negative and positive pressure respectively.
Hence, no disagreement there.
Let me say it again, as obviously I did not make it clear enough to the writer of 3)
I. Dark energy is positive zero point energy density with equal and opposite negative pressure in each linearly independent space direction. It antigravitates. The pressure overrides the energy density by a factor of 3. It antigravitates according to Einstein's theory.�This is ~ 73% of universe's "stuff" at spread-out large scale
II. Dark matter is negative zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive pressure etc. It gravitates according to Einstein's theory,
This is ~ 23% of universe at smaller "clumped" scales of galactic halos, voids et-al - possibly NASA Pioneer anomaly of an extra gravity pull back to Sun.
I suggest that the author replace this sentence with one that specifically elucidates his new theory of dark matter and dark energy that supports his weird statement.
My statement is not so much "weird" as "new, original, surprising" - a virtue rather than a vice.
Also, you cannot capture dark energy and use it for warp drive or wormhole FTL propulsion.�
Red Herring, where did I write one could capture dark energy?
But you can artificially make dark energy in the lab and exploit that for FTL propulsion.
Well, that does not contradict anything I said. If this author knows how to do that, then I hope he or she will tell us how.
4) The author needs to replace "Type IIa" with "Type Ia" in the second sentence.
Yes, thank you, that was a typo - I am used to Type II superconductors. :-)
5) There are two major factual errors about traversable wormholes and any connection to dark energy in the author's abstract.� You cannot technologically "capture" cosmological dark energy and use it for warp drive or wormhole FTL propulsion.�
Again, I am at a loss at what I wrote that gave this author that impression? I never used the word "capture". Has the author confounded my abstract with another?
But you can artificially make dark energy in the lab and exploit that for FTL propulsion.�
Again that last sentence is what I would like to see and if the author has ideas on how to do it, I would like to know what he or she knows.
So the author should recast his sentence to indicate this fact. However, the F-session is designed to allow for "way-outside-the-box" ideas in order to foster new thinking and open new avenues that might challenge the present paradigm.
6) The rest of the author's thesis is very interesting and of relevance to the F- session."
�
Salutation: Dr.
Author: Jack Sarfatti
Company: ISEP
Address: 470 Columbus Ave
Suite 206
City: San Francisco
State: CA
Zip: 94133
Country: USA
Phone: Fax: 415 989 0649
Email: sarfatti@pacbell.net
select: F01. Opening Session
Second Draft
PaperTitle: Harnessing dark energy for metric engineering warpdrive and
wormhole.
AuthorAffiliation: Abstract:�
Repulsive anti-gravitating "dark energy" was
discovered from the spectra of Type Ia supernovae in 1999. No one
anticipated this cosmic energy accelerating the expansion of 3D space. No
one expected that it is approximately 73% of all the "stuff" of the universe
on the large scale. Evidence for equally puzzling attracting "dark matter"
on smaller scales like the galactic halo had been accumulating for decades.
Both phenomena are easily understood in a unified way using only Einstein's
general relativity and basic quantum field theory. No dramatically new ideas
are needed. Both dark energy and dark matter are two sides of the same zero
point energy coin of negative and positive pressure respectively.
Configure the two in the proper configuration, as shown by Bondi,
Tereletsky, Forward and finally Alcubierre, and we have a geodesic warp
drive with no g-forces felt by the crew in sharp turns relative to external
observers watching the amazing maneuvers of "UFOs." This same dark energy is
what is needed for stable traversable wormhole "star gates" possibly connecting Earth�
to the recently discovered Earthlike planet only 20 light years away orbiting a red dwarf every 2 weeks.
Progress in the control of zero point energy induced (anti) gravity emergent from the
post-inflation Higgs-Goldstone fields familiar in elementary particle physics will be discussed.
Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784
10-4 :-)
See corrected 2nd draft of abstract at end below.
On May 4, 2007, at 6:17 AM, Paul Murad wrote:
> Jack:
>
> I have sent your abstract around to all of my reviewers and
> generally the attitude was that they look forward to what you have
> to say. If I receive any really adverse comments, rest assured I
> will relay these to you as well. ... I also have to agree that it
> would be interesting to hear what you have to say on this topic.
>
> We are accepting the abstract with the conditions suggested below
> by one of my reviewers. I also want you to understand up front
> that I look forward to your paper but it should be written in clear
> unambigous language and not really for your peers, which I am sure
> there are none, but to the newly minted graduate engineer or
> scientist that wants to get involved in this field and understand
> some of the unusual mysteries and scientific marvels that are
> enmeshed in this topic so that they could make a future
> contribution in making us a space-faring civilization.
Yes, of course. I look forward to your suggestions for clarity. We
have a year. :-)
>
> I have no doubt that you can rise above these minor challenges and
> do it all in eight pages... If you have any problems with any of
> this, please get back to me and we can talk further...
>
> We look forward to seeing you at STAIF 2008...
> Paul...
>
> Changes by one reviewer are as follows:
>
> "I recommend that the abstract be accepted after the author makes
> the following changes or addresses concerns:
>
> 1) Removal of reference to Douglas MacArthur speech as this has no
> place in a scientific venue. The sentence itself is of no
> relevance to the rest of the author's thesis and distracts from the
> main thrust of the thesis.
OK no problem, although for a DOD audience, it would be inspiring,
but I will not insist on this point.
>
> 2) I am not against the inclusion of UFOs in a scientific venue as
> long as discussion or mention of it remains rational and
> scientific. However, if any of you object to including mention of
> UFOs, then the author must remove the reference to UFOs.
OK, however, it is my position, and I think it is also Paul Murad's?,
that the subset of good UFO observations by professional military and
commercial pilots, e.g. NIDS website, Bruce Maccabee's website, old
book by Paul Hill - eminent aeronautical engineer for USG, that we
are actually seeing advanced propellantless propulsion of material
vehicles in our skies able to execute high speed turns whose g-forces
would kill any of the occupants if they existed. This "fact" of
experience suggests to me, that we are simply playing catch up
technologically speaking. Physicist Michio Kaku has made this quite
clear in his popular talks when he classifies civilizations from Type
0, Type I up to Type IV. The sharp turns of these UFOs shows "metric
engineering", i.e. technology able to neutralize the external ambient
gravity field (e.g. Earth's) at the craft, to override it with its
own shaped in such a way that the craft literally free-falls at zero
g along a local geodesic path whose direction in space is controlled
on board. Alcubierre's model is an example.

Note Bruce Cornet's "reverse Dopper effect" (mentioned in fictional
"Fastwalker" Vallee & Torme) - dark energy makes anomalous blue
shift, whilst dark matter makes anomalous red shift in opposite way
to ordinary motional Doppler shift.
Good trick if we can do it, we can't as yet, but someone Out There
can and does over our nuclear bases according to some reports. So my
point is that there is here a clear and present national security
issue - the elephant in the room. My purpose in this talk is to
define the mission, the broad parameters of the actual physics problem
(s). I have no detailed solutions of course. However, the discovery
of both anti-gravitating "dark energy" and gravitating "dark matter"
as 96% of the stuff of the universe is clearly a vital clue .As John
A. Wheeler said
"The Question is: "What is The Question"?
>
> 3) The author must correct or replace his statement that dark
> matter and dark energy are "two sides of the same zero point energy
> coin." This is patently false because dark matter is non-
> absorbing, non-luminous, non-baryonic matter that interacts with
> all other forms of matter via gravity and nuclear weak force. It
> has positive energy density and positive pressure, and hence is not
> rooted in the quantum vacuum ZPE. Dark energy has been declared
> last month in an article by Riess et al. (in the Astrophysical
> Journal) to be the vacuum energy of Einstein's cosmological
> constant. Therefore, it has positive energy density and negative
> pressure, and it is rooted in the quantum vacuum ZPE.
Whoever wrote 3) seems to be confusing "dark energy" with "dark
matter" and has misunderstood my message. His or her argument is not
relevant to what I actually wrote and mean.
That dark matter is "non-absorbing, non-luminous, non-baryonic matter
that interacts with all other forms of matter via gravity" is true
and that is an immediate consequence of my original hypothesis that
"dark matter" as negative zero point energy density with positive
pressure with w = -1 that cannot be distinguished from w = 0 cold
dark matter (CDM) from distant measurements like gravity lensing.
There is not one iota of evidence that dark matter interacts via the
"weak nuclear force". Where is the evidence?
Whoever wrote 3) does not understand my point about Einstein's GR
equation that the direct bending of spacetime by energy density and
pressure (in the isotropic weak field Newtonian limit) is, from the
text books,
~ 4pi(G/c^2)(energy density)(1 + 3w)
where w = -1 for zero point energy
w = +1/3 for radiation
w ~ 0 for cold ordinary "on shell" matter.
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/
kolb1new_Page_05_jpg.htm
The writer of 3) has misunderstood me because
"Dark energy has been declared last month in an article by Riess et
al. (in the Astrophysical Journal) to be the vacuum energy of
Einstein's cosmological constant. Therefore, it has positive energy
density and negative pressure, and it is rooted in the quantum vacuum
ZPE."
is also what I have said precisely. That sentence is cited as if I
said something else. Indeed my abstract says
> Both dark energy and dark matter are two sides of the same zero
> point energy coin of negative and positive pressure respectively.
Hence, no disagreement there.
Let me say it again, as obviously I did not make it clear enough to
the writer of 3)
I. Dark energy is positive zero point energy density with equal and
opposite negative pressure in each linearly independent space
direction. It antigravitates. The pressure overrides the energy
density by a factor of 3. It antigravitates according to Einstein's
theory. This is ~ 73% of universe's "stuff" at spread-out large scale
II. Dark matter is negative zero point energy density with equal and
opposite positive pressure etc. It gravitates according to Einstein's
theory,
This is ~ 23% of universe at smaller "clumped" scales of galactic
halos, voids et-al - possibly NASA Pioneer anomaly of an extra
gravity pull back to Sun.
>
> I suggest that the author replace this sentence with one that
> specifically elucidates his new theory of dark matter and dark
> energy that supports his weird statement.
My statement is not so much "weird" as "new, original, surprising" -
a virtue rather than a vice.
> Also, you cannot capture dark energy and use it for warp drive or
> wormhole FTL propulsion.
Red Herring, where did I write one could capture dark energy?
> But you can artificially make dark energy in the lab and exploit
> that for FTL propulsion.
Well, that does not contradict anything I said. If this author knows
how to do that, then I hope he or she will tell us how.
>
> 4) The author needs to replace "Type IIa" with "Type Ia" in the
> second sentence.
Yes, thank you, that was a typo - I am used to Type II
superconductors. :-)
>
> 5) There are two major factual errors about traversable wormholes
> and any connection to dark energy in the author's abstract. You
> cannot technologically "capture" cosmological dark energy and use
> it for warp drive or wormhole FTL propulsion.
Again, I am at a loss at what I wrote that gave this author that
impression? I never used the word "capture". Has the author
confounded my abstract with another?
> But you can artificially make dark energy in the lab and exploit
> that for FTL propulsion.
Again that last sentence is what I would like to see and if the
author has ideas on how to do it, I would like to know what he or she
knows.
> So the author should recast his sentence to indicate this fact.
> However, the F-session is designed to allow for "way-outside-the-
> box" ideas in order to foster new thinking and open new avenues
> that might challenge the present paradigm.
>
> 6) The rest of the author's thesis is very interesting and of
> relevance to the F- session."
>
>
>
>
> Salutation: Dr.
> Author: Jack Sarfatti
> Company: ISEP
> Address: 470 Columbus Ave
> Suite 206
> City: San Francisco
> State: CA
> Zip: 94133
> Country: USA
> Phone: Fax: 415 989 0649
> Email: sarfatti@pacbell.net
> select: F01. Opening Session
Second Draft
>
> PaperTitle: Harnessing dark energy for metric engineering warpdrive
> and
> wormhole.
>
> AuthorAffiliation: Abstract:
> Repulsive anti-gravitating "dark energy" was
> discovered from the spectra of Type Ia supernovae in 1999. No one
> anticipated this cosmic energy accelerating the expansion of 3D
> space. No
> one expected that it is approximately 73% of all the "stuff" of the
> universe
> on the large scale. Evidence for equally puzzling attracting "dark
> matter"
> on smaller scales like the galactic halo had been accumulating for
> decades.
> Both phenomena are easily understood in a unified way using only
> Einstein's
> general relativity and basic quantum field theory. No dramatically
> new ideas
> are needed. Both dark energy and dark matter are two sides of the
> same zero
> point energy coin of negative and positive pressure respectively.
>
> Configure the two in the proper configuration, as shown by Bondi,
> Tereletsky, Forward and finally Alcubierre, and we have a geodesic
> warp
> drive with no g-forces felt by the crew in sharp turns relative to
> external
> observers watching the amazing maneuvers of "UFOs." This same dark
> energy is
> what is needed for stable traversable wormhole "star gates"
> possibly connecting Earth
> to the recently discovered Earthlike planet only 20 light years
> away orbiting a red dwarf every 2 weeks.
> Progress in the control of zero point energy induced (anti) gravity
> emergent from the
> post-inflation Higgs-Goldstone fields familiar in elementary
> particle physics will be discussed.
>
Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784
No comments:
Post a Comment