Wednesday, June 20, 2007

On Jun 20, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

A deep topic. Please don't take it personally, but I cannot say I agree, or even that I understand, your thoughts l-4 your message.

Here are my own thoughts why rotation is so fundamental, to mainstream physics and to "fringe" physics:

1. Every object in the universe is spinning. From elementary particles to galaxy clusters and beyond. Perhaps even the entire universe. And (interestingly) if you graph mass vs. angular momentum across the universe of scales, you get an interesting result....

URL? Picture? You do not mean a Regge trajectory sort of thing

J ~ M^2

do you?

2. Rotation in fundamentally associated with the most interesting areas in each branch of physics. I.e.:
in mechanics: precession, pseudo-forces, torsion...
in fluid dynamics: vorticity and vortices...
in electromagnetism: magnetism itself, unipolar induction, gravitational magnetism,
in relativity: Mach's principle, Kerr solution (time travel), extended relativity (Shipov, Sarfatti-Klienert, etc)
in geophysics: dynamo theory, weather
in astrophysics: stellar evolution, galactic structure, jets, disks...
in quantum mechanics: spin-statistics, rotons,
in chemical physics: orbitals, paired and unpaired spins, Fermi correlation....

3. Angular momentum is one of the very few conserved quantities in physics, especially conserved quantities that laypeople have direct experience with.

4. Our identity as a tool-using technological species is to a large extent bound up with rotational machines: The wheel, the screw, the engine, the turbine, the drill, the gyroscope, the dynamo....

5. We are confronted with, and in actuality living on and made of, what are essentially "perpetuum mobiles" of the rotational sort. The earth rotates around its axis, our DNA coils itself into superhelices, and the very atoms of our bodies spin endlessly.

Tim Ventura wrote:
Hi Jack & Creon --

I'd like to ask, on a conceptual level, what your thoughts are on why we see "rotation" in so much of the mythology: Searl, Nazi-Bell, Heim, DePalma, etc...I could probably dig up several hundred examples for this, but you probably already know them so I won't waste your time.

Conceptually, I've had a couple of thoughts, for whatever their worth:

1. Rotation is a means of dynamic energy storage: perhaps like a flywheel for effects that modify time-space.


2. Rotation confines the disturbance of time/space resulting from linear motion (an electron through a wire) to a particular area & magnifies it (same as a magnetic coil).

No comprende.

3. Rotation adds a 4th-dimensional element to any system, making it a hypersystem (although that's mostly a semantic argument I guess).

No comprende.

4. Rotation converts energy to a negative-state, which I picked up from the notion that rotation in a wormhole is similar to a weak negative energy in the throat (which may be innaccurate).

Ask Burinski. I vaguely remember something about negative mass parameter in the analytic extension of vacuum Kerr solution. No time to look it up right now. I could be not even wrong on that.

These are just a couple of thoughts, though.

I understand that Einstein viewed angular momentum as being distinctly different than linear momentum - or so I've heard.

Depends what you mean by "different."

Any thoughts on his perception of rotation based on what you've read?


Indeed, I do:

Matter fields have a symmetric T4 translational stress-energy tensor Tuv = Tvu with 10 independent components. They also have an antisymmetric O(1,3) angular momentum tensor Juv = - Jvu with 6 independent components where

Juv = Luv(orbital) + Suv(spin)

sort of split.

Suv(spin) is definitely a source of the NON-PROPAGATING RICCI torsion field Cartan 2-form T^a

e^a are the tetrad 1-forms

T^a = De^a = de^a + W^ac/\e^c =/= 0

W^a^c = - W^c^a is the spin-connection

W^a^c = W^a^c(T4(x)) + W^a^c(O(1,3, x))

from locally gauging RIGID T4 and RIGID O(1,3) respectively, where

de^a + W^a^c(T4(x))/\e^c = 0


T^a = (W^ac(T4(x)) + W^ac(O(1,3, x)))/\(W^c^b(T4(x)) + W^c^b(O(1,3, x))) =/=0

W^a^b(T4(x)) gives only disclination defect rotations of rotations of vectors parallel transported round closed infinitesimal parallelogram "loops," i.e. tidal stress-squeeze conformal vacuum curvature and expansion and contraction Ricci curvature from the matter fields including dark energy zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations. W^ac(O(1,3, x)) gives the torsion gap field per se i.e. dislocation defects! Note the curvature-torsion coupling in T^a.

Roughly speaking in terms of curvature disclination connection and torsion dislocation connection

Torsion 2-form Field = (Curvature Connection)/\(Curvature Connection) + (Torsion Connection)/\ (Torsion Connection)

+ (Curvature Connection /\ Torsion Connection) coupling cross terms.

Similarly for the extended curvature 2-form field

R^a^b = DW^a^b.

So we have non-trivial couplings between 4D translational group curvature and 4D rotational group torsion!

Note, a torsion field will always give a curvature field, but not vice versa!

So the BIG ISSUE for all the exotic effects including Shipov's 4D gyro, Podkletnov's "beam" based on the Nazi Bell, maybe even Blackett effect is whether the orbital rotation of matter fields is a direct source of PROPAGATING CONFORMAL VACUUM TORSION WAVES? Note with dark energy we also have PROPAGATING RICCI TORSION WAVES in the EXOTIC VACUUM for the metric engineering of WEIGHTLESS (geodesic) WARP DRIVE and WORMHOLE star gate.

From: Jack Sarfatti []
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:45 PM
To: Creon Levit
Cc: Tim Ventura; 'Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars'; 'SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com'; 'Tony Smith'; 'Arkadiusz Jadczyk'; 'saul-paul & mary-minn sirag'; 'Carlos Castro'; 'Brian Josephson'; 'mat pit'; 'Basil Hiley';; 'Gennady Shipov'; 'Vladimir Poponin';; 'Srikanth R'; 'David M Mcmahon'; 'Waldyr Jr.'; 'Diego Lucio Rapoport'; 'Burinskii Ya.'; 'Massimo Teodorani'; 'Andrew Beckwith'; 'Mark Pesses'; 'michael ibison'; 'Hagen Kleinert'; 'nick herbert'; 'George Weissmann';; 'Russell Targ'; 'Elizabeth Rausher'; 'Hal P'; 'RAY HUDSON'; 'alan parker'; 'Paul Werbos'; 'Paul Murad'; 'GRELET CHRISTOPHE'; 'Eshel Ben-Jacob';; 'Dan Smith'; 'bruce maccabee'; 'colin bennett'; 'William Birnes'; 'Bruce Cornet'; 'Eric Davis'; 'ROBERT BECKER'; 'James Woodward'; 'Alan Holt';; 'vic xianto'
Subject: Re: STAIF: ++++-- "space-time"? Tony Smith & Ibison's & Davis's claim

Thanks Creon. Yes but there was some Munich experiment Saul-Paul mentioned at ISSO more recent than Blackett's and I think it was to test Heim's theory?

On Jun 20, 2007, at 5:40 PM, Creon Levit wrote:

The German is Heim. See:

The guy with the rotating sphere was Blackett himself, though as Saul-Paul pointed out in Nature v278 pp535-8 (1979), Blackett did not actually spin the sphere.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yeah what's the name of that German? I think he lost some limbs and an eye in an explosion? Also he may be the same guy with the rotating sphere that Saul-Paul was interested in because of the Blackett effect. Or maybe I got different things garbled?
On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:52 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Hi Jack --
For whatever it's worth, don't forget Martin Tajmar & Clovis De Matos team getting an accelerometer deviation at 1-million times the predicted relativistic magnitude from a rotating superconductor in the lab. Last I heard, the military was giving Tajmar an exemption to use an ICBM-grade accelerometer to ensure that these results are valid and not simply emerging from some as-yet unidentified experimental error. However, they have performed 300+ tests over 4 years now, so if there is something wrong with the experiment then it's probably equipment and not transient environmental anomalies...

From: Jack Sarfatti []
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars

Subject: STAIF: ++++-- "space-time"? Tony Smith & Ibison's & Davis's claim

"Where shall wisdom be found?" (Job?)

"The greatest ideas are the greatest events." Nietzsche (via Yale's Harold Bloom)

OK I cannot recall off-hand the German who AIAA gave an award to for exotic propulsion. It created a minor scandal as it seemed to be "crackpot." But perhaps it deserved a second look? As I recall he also had a ++++-- signature group theory and he claimed to compute elementary particle masses. Now is this basically the same idea Tony Smith has been talking about?

As to my epiphany on waking from the dream a few hours ago on the Ibison-Davis claims. My idea still seems good to me. Again for the record (listening to Haydn's String Quartet in D Major):

Noether's theorem 1918 post Einstein's 1916 GR is that

1a. RIGID Lie group G symmetries of the GLOBAL action S(Psi(x)) of a field Psi(x) imply conserved GLOBAL Lie algebra "charges" Q^a that are conserved in "time"

dQa/dt = 0

[Qa,Qb] = f^cabQc

f^cab = structure constants of the Lie algebra

a,b,c = 1,2, ... n = number of group parameters

RIGID means the group parameters are constant and uniform, i.e. the same independent of local coordinate charts {x} in the neighborhoods of events p that are Einstein's "local coincidences" in the sense of the "Einstein hole paradox" of 1917.

1b. Noether's theorem (not in it's most general form only for 3D+1) presupposed the absolute arena of 1905 gravity-free GLOBALLY flat Minkowski spacetime in which not only is the action S invariant under G, but is also invariant under the 10-parameter Poincare group

P10 = T4xO(1,3) = semi-direct product of 4-parameter space-time translation group T4 and 6-parameter space-time rotation Lorentz group O(1,3). I leave a lot of unimportant well-known details here for the Elmer Fuddy Duddies suffering "rigor mortis" (Feynman) who are ready to pounce as they are not important for the essential physical ideas relevant to the new point I am trying to make.

1c. Einstein's 1916 GR is a self-referential case where RIGID G = T4 and we locally gauge T4 to T4(x) whose gauge transformations are the GCTs

x^u(p) -> x^u(x^u'(p))

to get the non-trivial compensating gauge connection tetrad potential Cartan 1-forms A^a.

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms are spin 1 vector fields (if quantized)

e^a = I^a + @A^a

where @ is a dimensionless coupling constant. More on that later. @ is determined by the world hologram ansatz that that h -> 0, c -> infinity switches off warps in addition to G -> 0 plus dark energy /\zpf broken super symmetry defining the area of a future deSitter horizon for our pocket universe on the cosmic landscape of the megaverse of parallel worlds. In short @ = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3 ~ 10^-41 if /\zpf ~ (10^-3ev)^4, Lp^2 = hG/c^3.

What is I^a? It is the trivial tetrad for globally flat Minkowski spacetime with RIGID P10.

I^a = I^audx^u

In Minkowski geodesic Global Inertial Frames (GIFs) I^au = Kronecker Delta^au. However, in non-geodesic GNIFs I^au is a general curvilinear function describing observer detector g-forces without intrinsic conformal tensor curvature in the classical vacuum.

ds^2 = e^aea = guvdx^udx^v

Spin 2 level connection field = e^uae^av,w

,w is flat ordinary partial derivative.

In the zero torsion field T^a 2-form limit

T^a = De^a = de^a + S^ac/\ec = T^auvdx^u/\dx^v = 0

The spin connection 1-forms

S^a^b = - S^b^a = S^a^budx^u

are partially determined by the A^a with an 8-fold Higgs-Goldstone phase gauge freedom of the post-inflation field because there are 16 independent e^au and 24 independent S^a^bu.

The curvature 2-form field is

R^a^b = - R^b^c = R^a^buvdx^u/\dx^v = DS^a^b = dS^a^b + S^ac/\S^c^b

The Einstein-Hilbert action density 0-form integrated over a 4D region with (detguv)^1/2d^4x is

R = {abcd}R^a^b/\e^c/\e^d

{abcd} is the completely antisymmetric tensor of Minkowski spacetime.

R = 0 in classical vacuum of course without any dark energy density ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf.

However, in my theory we need /\zpf =/= 0 to get gravity in the first place.

2. The Ibison-Davis thesis
As far as I can understand their claim, they say a "propellant" is needed in any warp drive. I do not think so. They do not specify what their propellant actually is or even what it could be. However, their argument, which tentatively I classify as "not even wrong" (W. Pauli) pending their promised detailed math "paper" - so far I have only seen sketchy mostly ambiguous plain language hand-waving from Ibison so I cannot really get what he is driving at. What I do get is that he imagines a flat gravity-free absolute background Minkowski spacetime with a very tiny warp bubble with the space ship inside. That is, the thing is observed by the outside Asymptotically Flat Observers (AFOs) with EM signals whose wavelengths are much larger than the scale of the warp bubble. What their ghostly propellant is I cannot imagine. However, their fragment of a vague idea did lead me to some interesting ideas in which propellants need not apply.

OK we have a tiny "particle" geodesic warp bubble. Warp means that GR applies on the bubble shell. Note the ship itself must be in a flat interior to avoid tidal stretch-squeeze curvature. GR is T4(x) local group not RIGID T4 of SR. Therefore, the world line of the "tiny" warp bubble with USS electron inside it as a Bohm hidden variable is locally geodesic but is globally relative to the AFOs anything! It can be a tachyon and even turn around in "time" exactly like in Feynman's path integral quantum mechanics! This is because relative to RIGID T4 1905 SR the warp bubble worldline is a SINGULARITY where the SR rules break down and the GR rules take over! Therefore the WARP BUBBLE may be a way of describing the Bohm quantum potential Q in SR. It is known that the Bohm quantum potential Q for the spin 0 Klein-Gordon field causes the particle to go spacelike tachyonic and even turn around backwards in time like Feynman's positron. Not only that, but since the warp bubble is locally geodesic it has no time dilation relative to the GIF it starts out with. Assuming that it starts and returns in the same GIF - there will be no time difference between two twins one one the warp voyage round trip and the other who stays at home no matter how far in space or even to what time period past or future the voyager traveled. Note that there are TWO TIMES external global AOF and internal local Bohm hidden variable. The external Minkowski proper time of the Feynman amplitude is that calculated by the AOFs so that there is constructive interference of the amplitudes in the classical limit. However, the internal proper time of the voyager is the same as the zero warp Minkowski timelike geodesic proper time connecting the start and finish of the voyage in the same GIF, i.e. the same foliation of the flat Minkowski proper time. Issues of conservation of the COM momentum of the warp bubble are not even wrong in my opinion because RIGID T4 symmetry breaks down on the singular line (world tube) of the warp bubble therefore dP^i(COM)/dt (i = 1,2,3) seen by AOF need not be zero even though there is no propellant ejected from the warp bubble. The warp bubble's path is locally geodesic, but is globally non-geodesic.

On Jun 19, 2007, at 1:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jun 18, 2007, at 8:30 PM, saul-paul & mary-minn sirag wrote:

Hi Jack and Tony,


I'll attach a pdf of one of the latest things I've written, which is just an update of something I published in 1993 -- "Hyperspace Refelections." This update should be published next year. You can see that I'm still strongly in favor of string theory (and supersymmetry, of course).

I think I have found the physical reason, the "organizing idea" as it were for the main parts of string theory and WHY supersymmetry must be broken for the universe to exist. But I am not completely sure as yet.

Basically it's simple. It's this. Localize the rigid T4 translations, the resulting gauge connection is not the Levi-Civita connection which comes in later, it is the warped tetrad 1-forms A^a = A^audx^u where the Minkowski indices a,b .. act like Yang-Mills internal flavor/color fiber indices.

Note this is a spin 1 field not a spin 2 field. Spin 1 gauge fields are renormalizable as quantum field theories, so that's the clue! Like QED has e^2/hc dimensionless coupling, hence the T4 tetrad theory has dimensionless (Lp^2/\zpf)^p/q where Lp^2 = hG/c^3.
No gravity if h = 0, if c ---> infinity and most important if there is perfect supersymmetry! That is we need /\zpf =/= 0 where

/\zpf = 1/R^2

R = deSitter future horizon radius

dark energy density is ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf ~ (10^-3 ev)^4

p = 1 & q = 3 give the world hologram i.e. geometrodynamics is 2D "anyon"

&R = (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3R = Lp^2/3R^1/3 ~ 1 fermi i.e. 10^9ev

The Einstein-Cartan tetrad 1-forms are, therefore

e^a = I^a + (Lp^2/\zpf)^1/3A^a

You get the Levi-Civita spin 2 connections from e^uae^av,w where , is ordinary partial derivative and

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v = e^aea

note that (Lp^2/\zpf)^-1 ~ 10^120-123 Bekenstein BITS


(Lp^2/\zpf)^-1/3 ~ 10^40-41 is one of your Eddington numbers!

So what about that Saul-Paul? ;-)

On Clifford space:
I should point out that the group algebra of the octahedral double group, C[OD], has both the group basis OD and a matric basis which makes C[OD] equivalent to the direct sum of M(1) + M(2) + M(3) + M(4) + M(3) + M(2) + M(1) + M(2), where M(x) is the set of all complex x-by-x matrices. These dimensional numbers can be read off directly from the extended E7 Coxeter graph, with balance numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2. [Note that the sum of the squares of these numbers is 48, which is the order of OD.] So we can then see that M(1) + M(2) + M(3) will contain as unitary elements: U(1) x U(2) x U(3) -- which contains U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3). Also M(2) + M(2) + M(4) constitute two Clifford algebras, the complex Pauli algebra M(2) + M(2) and the complex Dirac algebra M(4). There is one piece of C[OD] still to be accounted for -- a second copy of M(3). This contains, as unitary elements, U(3) and thus SU(3), which could be used as a symmetry acting on the three fermion family structure.

All for now ;-)

On Jun 18, 2007, at 5:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Yeah I think you have a good insight here Tony.
I really don't know how Saul-Paul is? I can't find any new stuff from him on Google last I tried a few weeks ago.

On Jun 18, 2007, at 4:59 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

It is true that,as Carlos says, "... The C-space ... is more complicated
than the ordinary 4D and 6D spacetime ...",
it seems to me that the heart of the locality - nonlocality argument
does not need to use the full complication of C-space,
could equally clearly be proven by using the
fact that Spin(2,4) 6-dim spacetime conformal structure is basically
Lie Sphere Geometry of light-cone correlations among the entangled things
giving 6-dim conformal locality,
from a 4-dm spacetime point of view looks nonlinear.

In my view, the further complications of C-space are mathematically
very interesting but not necessary to build a realistic physics model.


PS - Jack, is Saul-Paul OK?

Jack Sarfatti
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
- Albert Einstein

No comments: