Michael
Your point eludes me. You keep retreating to Asymptopia in the land of the ineffable. I at first understood you to mean that you found a proof that warp drive is impossible. Now you seem to have changed your stance. There is no conventional propellant in warp drive period. HFGW are a conventional propellant in this sense easy to prove and I did. What is your ghostly propellant? Does it walk the parapets of Elsinore?
Meantime write the paper with Eric Davis and be sure to mention my name and let me see it for comment. Meantime I will write up my thoughts in conventional math notation.
My NOT understanding your thoughts have led me to new ones even more interesting.
See Harold Bloom on CREATIVE MISREADING in literature  applies also to theoretical physics. More on this anon. OK let me find it now on Bloom's "anxiety of influence." pp 78 'The Western Canon":
"I have tried to confront greatness directly ... what makes the author and the works canonical? The answer, more often than not, has turned out to be strangeness, a mode of originality that either cannot be assimilated, or that so assimilates us that we cease to see it as strange. ... Fresh metaphor, or inventive troping, always involves a departure from previous metaphor, and that departure depends upon at least a partial turning away from or rejection of prior figuration ... Shylock is a strong misreading or creative misinterpretation of Barabas ."
My new ideas stimulated by yours that I creatively misread.
1. Alcubierre warp bubbles can take any kind of world line, timelike, spacelike and reverse in time relative to AFO's because warp bubbles obey the local T4(x) group of 1916 GR whilst AFOs obey the RIGID T4 group of 1905 SR. Hence warp bubbles are SR singular paths  the SR rules you invoke do not work  no propellant need apply!
2. Bohm's SR KleinGordon quantum potential has precisely that effect on its "particles".
3. Therefore a deep connection between your tiny warp bubbles and Bohm's RIGID T4 Quantum Potential.
4. Feynman's path integral QM requires such behavior in QED, e.g. electronpositron annihilation and creation and virtual spacelike photons outside light cone etc.
On Jun 19, 2007, at 11:06 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Jacks
Surely this is proof that you comment on things you have only half read. On
realizing the omission, IMMEDIATELY following the email in question of last
week I sent a corrected version  60 seconds or so after the first  with
the subject title 'erratum corrected'. It is attached here.
You cannot be serious that you think this is point of debate??? Surely you
are not stooping that low?
 Michael
"She stoops to conquer." ;)
"What Michael relates below is completely correct. It couldn't
be better articulated."
Eric Davis
From: "michael ibison"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:39:14 0500
snip
... "I have said no such thing. Are you being intentionally
obstreperous?
No.
Let me repeat what you are saying back to you so you cannot keep
misrepresenting
me:
Zero 4D covariant 4acceleration means onboard gforce.
No, the correct statement is
Zero 4D covariant 4acceleration means NO onboard gforce.
Such 'motion' does not require propellant. Indeed, there must be no
propellant in order for such motion to take place.
I will assume that you are with me so far, and move on:
The above statement are assumed valid for the craft and it's
passengers.
They
are valid because of the assumed metric bubble enveloping the craft.
At some point the metric bubble flattens out to flat space (I am
working in coordinates such that g_00=1, g_0i=0.) Put a box
around that
metricbubblepluscraft. Call that box a 'particle'.
IF that particle has mass, that is: if the ADM adjusted mass of the
ship is nonzero, then that particle must conserve momentum IN FLAT
SPACE; it cannot accelerate as measured against that flat
space without
propellant

again as defined by the flat space observer.
Please think about this before replying. It is entirely possible that
the motion of the craft is geodesic and there is no
propellant as seen
from on board the craft. Whilst, AT THE SAME TIME, the flat space
observer for whom craftplusmetricbubble = particle, there must be
propellant if that box has ordinary acceleration. Yes: ORDINARY
ACCELERATION! Why? Because they can only see flat space coordinates
plus a 'particle', the interior details of which do not concern them.
They are only interested in the fact that the 'particle'
(as a
unit) has a nonzero mass as referred (unambiguously) to their
coordinate system. To their level of acuity, Covariant
Acceleration of
'particle' = Ordinary Acceleration of 'particle'.
Please observe the fact that I am referring to the
craftplusmetricbubble as a unit = 'particle'. That unit requires
propellant to accelerate. You, by contrast, keep referring to the
craft. The craft DOES NOT NEED PROPELLANT to accelerate (if, as
assumed, it moves on a geodesic). Please take time to understand this
distinction before replying!
This is pretty trivial stuff Jack. You seem to be so beguiled
by metric
bubbles and warp drives that you cannot hear what I am
saying. Once you
see what I am saying rather than what you THINK I am saying, no doubt
you will say that it is obvious and not worthy of debate. It is
obvious! It isn't worthy of debate! But since you are having
difficulty, Eric and & have decided to write it up as a short paper 
just in case there are others out there who cannot see the
wood for the
trees. We'll see you in court!
 Michael
No comments:
Post a Comment