Thanks Gary. This news report shows power of UFO mythos as a tool of psychological warfare. By this I do not mean to imply that UFOs are not real nuts and bolts "Unconventional Flying Objects" in the precise sense of Paul Hill's "acceleration field propulsion" and George Trimble's "G-Engine" concept from 1956 (ref. "The Hunt for Zero Point" by Janes Defence Weekly investigative journalist Nick Cook in London). I have formalized the physics of all this metric engineering of the fabric of space-time in my theory of the exotic vacuum dark zero point stress-energy tensor field addition to Einstein's battle-tested 1915 General Theory of Relativity. The new cosmology observations, in the context of my theory, show that both anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter are both exotic quantum vacuum states that account for 96% of all the large-scale stuff in the Universe. Flying saucers manipulate the exotic quantum vacuum to attain effective faster-than-light warp drive with zero g force whilst literally "standing still" on what Einstein called a "time-like geodesic" that the saucer crew is able to shape as they desire. Time travel is also very likely with this advanced zero point quantum vacuum energy metric engineering that potentially renders all conventional fighter aircraft and missiles "impotent and obsolete."

Note this report about Iran UFOs should not be confused with the PRAVDA disinformation story on Iraq WMD that mentions my name in a completely false context

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html

www.qedcorp.com/pcr/

www.ratbags.com/loon/2000/05may.htm

Remember The Prophet Mohammed was a UFO Contactee. It's in the Koran. He was not the only one of course. Same is true of Abraham, Moses, Jesus - all of them as far as I can tell.

On Apr 29, 2004, at 11:13 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1097950.htm


UFO fever grips Iran
Is Iran about to be invaded by little green men or are the Americans racing through the night sky in spaceships to spy on the Islamic Republic?

Flying saucer fever has gripped Iran after dozens of sightings in the past few days.

Fanciful cartoons of alien spacecraft have adorned the front pages of local newspapers.

State television has shown a sparkling white disc it says was filmed over Tehran on Tuesday night.

More colourful Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have been spotted beaming out green, red, blue and purple rays over the northern cities of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the Caspian Sea province of Golestan.

Newspapers and agencies reported people rushing out into the streets in eight towns on Tuesday night to watch a bright extraterrestrial light dipping in and out of the clouds.

--Reuters


http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/printer_2174.shtml

Close encounter of mullahs' kind
By Christian Oliver, Reuters
Apr 28, 2004, 21:35

Flying saucer fever grips Iran

TEHRAN - Is Iran about to be invaded by little green men or are the Americans racing through the night sky in spaceships to spy on their arch-foe the Islamic Republic?
(or may be aliens are also sick and tired of mullahs' of Iran as much as Iranians are, therefore they have come to rescue we the Iranians from these creatures called "mullahs"? - not part of original article)

Flying saucer fever has gripped Iran after dozens of sightings in the last few days. Fanciful cartoons of alien spacecraft have adorned the
front pages.

State television on Wednesday showed a sparkling white disc it said was filmed over Tehran on Tuesday night.

More colourful Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have been spotted beaming out green, red, blue and purple rays over the northern cities
of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the Caspian Sea province of Golestan, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Newspapers and agencies reported people rushing out into the streets in eight towns on Tuesday night to watch a bright extraterrestrial light
dipping in and out of the clouds.

An airforce officer in the Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the reformist Vagha-ye Etefaghiyeh daily saying Iran's Supreme National
Security Council should investigate whether these visitors from afar had hostile intent.

But Sa'dollah Nasiri-Qeydari, head of the Astronomical Society of Iran, told Reuters the stories were unfounded.

"In my opinion, flying saucers do not exist," he said, insisting his telescopes would have picked up invaders from outer space.

"The people who have seen these things are not experts - farmers, villagers and pilots," he added.


Iranian.ws

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner, The comments and submissions are property of their posters and their source.



Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com

Play this in background as you read:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rlos/parody/midi/eyesopen.mid

Note Ivanenko's reference to the Knights Templar and things French in last message. This of course connects to the 1973 events in Paris (Carlo Suares) and San Francisco in 1980 (David Padwa) described in my book "Destiny Matrix" and my own alleged ancestor Rashi de Troyes (1040 - 1105) AKA Solomon ha-Zarfati

You need to look at the Big Picture beyond what is immediately in front of your nose.

1. You must travel back in time to 1953

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html


2. You must go back then to 11th Century and my ancestor Rashi de Troyes (1040-1105)

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html

and how the First Crusade started and now we have the Islamo-fascists calling the President a Crusader. The President said he had a contact in 1979. Our policy in middle East, which I basically support BTW, is seen as a Crusade on both sides of the War on Terror, which now seems to have added the new ET Dimension of Scott Littleton's "Alien Raj."

http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html written by me in 1979.


Also relevant here is my contact with Priory Sion's Carlo Suares in 1973 that takes us to the current situation.

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rlos/parody/my_eyes_are_fully_open.htm

Meantime, careful study of my "Destiny Matrix" will connect some more of the dots.

I look forward to hearing more about this in London~ July 15, 2004?

If you are correct, it is scientific evidence that ALL our religions have an ET origin. When, as Robert Woodward says in "Plan of Attack" President Bush said he had a revelation from "God" in 1979 to be President, exactly WHO was he talking to? Of course this applies to Mohammed, to Joe Smith, to Moses, to Jesus - down the line. This is a secularization of religion by modern physics and mathematics consistent with Professor Scott Littleton's "Alien Raj" or Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" with "God" as "Gulliver" or what I.J. Good called "GOD(D)" or what has also been called "Star Maker" (Olaf Stapleton), VALIS (PK Dick), "Solid State Entities" (John Lilly), "Terminator" (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Here is one explanation
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html ;-)

See also "Star Gate Conspiracy" Picknett & Prince as well as my "Destiny Matrix" and Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger."

On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:14 AM, Grenville Croll wrote:

The only things my work has in common with WRR and MBBK are: Torah,
Cryptography and Galois fields. It is a completely different approach
involving a clearly articulated apriori hypothesis.

Regards

Grenville Croll


Finally, The Best Story always wins The Glass Bead Game.

One must connect the dots with some art and original genius of The Magister Ludi.

Signed

"Gandolph in a Beret"

PS I can go on and on with more strange coincidences that are obviously not random.

Finally the 1999 discovery of "dark energy", which is the Philosopher's Stone for Making Star Trek Real with me as Harry Potter and Walter Breen as Merlin (Walter did the research for "Mists of Avalon" for his wife Marion Zimmer Bradley).

On Apr 26, 2004, at 9:08 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ark your remark shows the conflict between Bohr and Bohm.

You and Bohr say EVERYTHING is BIT, with no IT.

The one-particle state is BIT, but in Bohm pilot theory the electron is an IT that is guided by the BIT field you are talking about.

The IT is a soliton structure in sense of Wheeler's "Mass without mass" in the guv field in "Einstein's vision" so the math you cite below is irrelevant to the problem for us Bohmians who do not believe BIT is the final reality with the miracle of "collapse" or now "environmental decoherence" to give the classical world of IT.


On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Good point. Can you elaborate?

What then is meant by "size" of the electron?

A form factor?

What is size of electron then in QED? and how does it compare to

2Gm/c^2

Is quantum size of electron h/mc from virtual cloud, but what then about deep inelastic electron scattering for the pointlike internal lepto-quarks ~ 10^-17 cm?

On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:19 PM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:


On 26 Apr 2004 at 14:06, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


According to quantum field theory lepto-quarks are point particles.

Who sez so?

According to QFT one-particle states of the fields are represented by square-integrable functions of x,y,z. Dirac delta is not square integrable. Dirac delta would describe a point particle.

OK apply that to the one-electron state. What "size" do you get? How many cm? I need to know the precise formula and number.


The statement: " According to quantum field theory lepto-quarks are point
particles. " is therefore incorrect. Of course QFT indeed has its problems with
short range interactions. But these problems are deeper than just "point
particles". Notice that the real prpblems start when QT meets Einstein's
relativity. ...Galilean relativity point particles are still tamable.

ark




from

arXiv:physics/0012025 v3 17 Dec 2000

Did 20th century physics have the means to reveal the nature of inertia and gravitation?
Vesselin Petkov Physics Department, Concordia University 1455 de Maisonneuve Boulevard West Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8 vpetkov@alcor.concordia.ca (or vpetkov@sympatico.ca)
14 December 2000


"The classical electromagnetic mass theory appears to have been gradually forgotten and now many physicists believe that physics cannot say anything about the origin of inertia, mass, or gravitation. Even scientists directly involved in the efforts to discover the Higgs boson [2] (believed to be responsible for endowing particles with mass) such as Claude Detraz, one of the two research directors at CERN , think that ”Mass is a very important property of matter, and we have nothing in our current theory that says even a word about it”. In what follows we will see whether this is really the case.

Here we shall follow the tradition established by the classical electron theory (i.e. the classical electromagnetic mass theory) and will study the inertial and gravitational properties of the simplest charged particle -the classical electron. There are two reasons why the classical electron is studied:

(i) There is no quantum mechanical model of the electron
-quantum mechanics describes only its state not the electron itself (later we will make an attempt to outline the basis of the quantum electrodynamical formulation of the electromagnetic mass theory), and

(ii) It is quite natural to complete the classical electromagnetic mass theory first before making the transition to a quantum description of the electron inertial properties. This has never been done since the classical electromagnetic mass theory was virtually abandoned when the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were formulated. To abandon a promising theory that has never been proven wrong is an unprecedented case in physics. This unforgivable neglect is truly beyond one’s comprehension because the electromagnetic mass theory is even now the only theory that addresses the origin of inertia and inertial mass in accordance with the experimental evidence of the existence of electromagnetic inertia and of the electromagnetic origin of some of the mass of charged particles. Moreover, the classical electromagnetic mass theory predicted that the (electromagnetic) mass increases with the increase of velocity (yielding the correct expression) and that the relationship between energy and mass is E = mc2 (see [3]) all this before the theory of relativity.

2 Classical electromagnetic mass theory
In 1881 Thomson [4] first realized that a charged particle was more resistant to being accelerated than an otherwise identical neutral particle and conjectured that inertia can be reduced to electromagnetism. Due mostly to the works of Heaviside [5], Searle [6], Lorentz [7], Poincar´e [8], Abraham [9], Fermi [27], Mandel [11], Wilson [12], Pryce [13], Kwal [14], and Rohrlich [15] this conjecture was developed into a theory (the classical electromagnetic mass theory of the electron) in which inertia is a local phenomenon originating from the interaction of the electron charge with itself (i.e. with its own electromagnetic field) [16].

According to the classical model of the electron its charge is uniformly distributed on a spherical shell. Such a model, however, cannot explain why the electron is stable since the negatively charged spherical shell tends to blow up due to the mutual repulsion of the different ”parts” of the charge. This difficulty, known as the stability problem of the electron, has two sides -computational and conceptual."

I claim to have solved this problem on the conceptual level with w = -1 exotic vacuum zero point fluctuations of positive pressure giving induced strong gravity core holding the hidden variable charge together in a guv field soliton as Einstein wanted in sense of Wheeler's "Mass without mass"

The effective G* is 10^40 G on scale of a fermi.

This "dark matter" on scale of 1 fermi holds a single electron IT hidden variable soliton togerher, on a large scale it holds the stars in our galaxy together i.e. the dark halo.

As Above, So Below

Ark your remark shows the conflict between Bohr and Bohm.

You and Bohr say EVERYTHING is BIT, with no IT.

The one-particle state is BIT, but in Bohm pilot theory the electron is an IT that is guided by the BIT field you are talking about.

The IT is a soliton structure in sense of Wheeler's "Mass without mass" in the guv field in "Einstein's vision" so the math you cite below is irrelevant to the problem for us Bohmians who do not believe BIT is the final reality with the miracle of "collapse" or now "environmental decoherence" to give the classical world of IT.


On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Good point. Can you elaborate?

What then is meant by "size" of the electron?

A form factor?

What is size of electron then in QED? and how does it compare to

2Gm/c^2

Is quantum size of electron h/mc from virtual cloud, but what then about deep inelastic electron scattering for the pointlike internal lepto-quarks ~ 10^-17 cm?

On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:19 PM, Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:


On 26 Apr 2004 at 14:06, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


According to quantum field theory lepto-quarks are point particles.

Who sez so?

According to QFT one-particle states of the fields are represented by square-integrable functions of x,y,z. Dirac delta is not square integrable. Dirac delta would describe a point particle.

OK apply that to the one-electron state. What "size" do you get? How many cm? I need to know the precise formula and number.


The statement: " According to quantum field theory lepto-quarks are point
particles. " is therefore incorrect. Of course QFT indeed has its problems with
short range interactions. But these problems are deeper than just "point
particles". Notice that the real prpblems start when QT meets Einstein's
relativity. Eith Galilean relativity point particles are still tamable.

ark

OK the papers of Petkov I have briefly looked at so far are interesting. They are perhaps incorrect, I am not sure, but they are testable, which is a virtue. I mean his paper "Anisotropic velocity of light in a gravitational field." and similar ones. He makes a plausible precise prediction for an experiment that can be done I would think. What may be wrong with his argument, though I am not sure is as follows.

For a static spherically symmetric metric

ds^2 = goo(cdt)^2 - grrdr^2 - r^2(spherical polar coordinate squared line element).

Let ds = 0 for a light ray.

In the radial direction only

goo(cdt)^2 - grrdr^2 = 0

In the transverse directions only

goo(cdt)^2 - r^2(spherical polar coordinate squared line element) = 0

So that the coordinate speed of light is definitely anisotropic.

However, the physical differential element of radial distance is

dR = grr^1/2dr

The physical differential element of time is

dT = goo^1/2dt

So that dR/dt = c

similarly in the transverse directions one also gets c

This argument follows from the local equivalence principle that a geodesic observer sees special relativity, and that the proper differential distances are invariant in all frames both LIF and LNIF at same point event P.

So the question is, what will Petkov's nice formula for the interference phenomena be seen or will it be null like the Michelson-Morley experiment was supposed to be, though there is recent debate on that (it is showing velocity of solar system through Hubble flow of FRW metric?)

Petkov's paper "On the nature of the force acting on a charged particle ..." has correct conclusions, but is seriously incomplete in Petkov's remark:

"The repulsion of the charge elements of an electron in uniform motion in flat spacetime cancels out exactly and there is no net force acting on the electron."

This is a Godel sentence in the sense that it is true, but it cannot be proved within the formal system Petkov uses. Indeed, proving it is an unsolved problem. I claim I have solved it with the exotic vacuum zero point energy "vortex core" of strong positive pressure whose consequent strong short range gravity ("dark matter") with G* ~ 10^40G holds the shell of charge stable. Petkov gives the references from Lorentz and Becker now 100 + years old in which the problem is stated without ever being solved.

Petkov's conclusions in that paper seem correct and pedagogically interesting.

Now in terms of the Townsend-Brown type propulsion from a charged capacitor on the fuselage of a UFO that Nick Cook write about, we must look at several of Petkov's papers:

"Electric dipole in a gravitational field ..."

and

"Propulsion through Electromagnetic Self-Sustained Acceleration"


On Apr 26, 2004, at 1:17 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

No I won't be going to Montreal.

I just downloaded V. Petkov's papers.

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/

I did not know Petkov was part of the zero point energy propellantless propulsion NASAS BPP "Flying Saucer Invisible College" ;-) A quick glance suggests that Petkov has something like Corum/Woodward stress propulsion and even something that looks like a Townsend-Brown effect? Also he defines metric engineering properly back around 1998. He does not seem yet to have connected the dots from metric engineering to
discovery of dark energy in precision cosmology?

More on Petkov's work when I get the time. :-)

According to quantum field theory lepto-quarks are point particles. Deep inelastic scattering at SLAC shows they are smaller than 10^-17 cm at high momentum transfers.

The problem is that if they are points, then they must be black holes inside their gravity radius ~ 2GM/c^2

or naked singularities using Kerr-Newman metric (excluding strong and weak charges in first approx)

That this is not so is part of motivation from generalized Heisenberg uncertainty

dx ~ h/dp + (Quantum of Area)dp/h

IR/UV duality

Also we must expect G* ~ 10^40G at least on scale of 1 fermi for self-consistency.

Note conditions:

World Hologram is

Quantum of Area in measuring distance L = Lp^4/3L^2/3

(Quantum of Area) (L)= G*(L')h/c^3

Duality of theories

LL' = Lp(c/H) ~ 10^-5 cm ~ size of large extra dimension compactification

Lp^2 = hG/c^3 ~ 10^-66 cm^2

H is asymptotic Hubble in De Sitter cosmology where the dark energy has Einstein cosmological constant (anti-gravitating with negative quantum zero point pressure)

/\ ~ (H/c)^2 ~ 10^-56 (cm)^-2

i.e., |Vacuum Coherence|^2(Volume Factor) ~ 1

So if L = c/H, L' = Lp

i.e. use

With these conditions measuring cosmological distances ~ 10^28 cm uses G but the quantum of area is 1 fermi^2.

Therefore the asymptotic entropy of the causal universe is

S/k ~ (10)^56 cm^2/(10-26 cm^2) ~ 10^82 BITS

I look forward to hearing more about this in London~ July 15, 2004?

If you are correct, it is scientific evidence that ALL our religions have an ET origin.
When, as Robert Woodward says in "Plan of Attack" President Bush said he had a revelation from "God" in 1979 to be President, exactly WHO was he talking to? Of course this applies to Mohammed, to Joe Smith, to Moses, to Jesus - down the line. This is a secularization of religion by modern physics and mathematics consistent with Professor Scott Littleton's "Alien Raj" or Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" with "God" as "Gulliver" or what I.J. Good called "GOD(D)" or what has also been called "Star Maker" (Olaf Stapleton), VALIS (PK Dick), "Solid State Entities" (John Lilly), "Terminator" (Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Here is one explanation
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/MagicBean.html ;-)

See also "Star Gate Conspiracy" Picknett & Prince as well as my "Destiny Matrix" and Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger."

On Apr 26, 2004, at 4:14 AM, Grenville Croll wrote:

The only things my work has in common with WRR and MBBK are: Torah,
Cryptography and Galois fields. It is a completely different approach
involving a clearly articulated apriori hypothesis.

Regards

Grenville Croll
Managing Director
Frontline Systems UK Limited
grenvillecroll@frontsys.com

-

This is getting closer to what I developed independently from thinking about the observations of both dark energy and dark matter in precision cosmology.

arXiv:hep-ph/0204106 v1 9 Apr 2002

"A connection between gravity and the Higgs field
M. Consoli
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania Corso Italia 57, 95129 Catania, Italy
Abstract
Several arguments suggest that an effective curved space-time structure (of the type as in General Relativity) can actually find its dynamical origin in an underlying condensed medium of spinless quanta. For this reason, we exploit the recent idea of density fluctuations in a ‘Higgs condensate’ with the conclusion that such long-wavelength effects might represent the natural dynamical agent of gravity.

1 Introduction
Following the original induced-gravity models [1], one may attempt to describe gravity as an effective force induced by the vacuum structure, in analogy with the attractive interaction among electrons that can only exist in the presence of an ion lattice. If such an underlying ‘dynamical’ mechanism is found, one will also gain a better understanding of those peculiar ‘geometrical’ properties that are the object of classical General Relativity. In fact, by demanding the space-time structure to an undefined energy-momentum tensor, no clear distinction between the two aspects is possible and this may be the reason for long-standing problems (e.g. the space-time curvature associated with the vacuum energy).
...

Looking for the physical origin of gravity, one should also look at ref. [4]. It contains an exhaustive set of many gravity-analogs, namely of systems that can simulate and/or reproduce the experimental properties of gravitation (moving fluids, condensed matter systems with a refractive index, Bose-Einstein condensates,..). Again the hydrodynamical analogy, when exploited in a lagrangian field-theoretical context, leads to the emergence of a curved, effective geometry as a result of linearizing a scalar field theory (in flat space-time) around some nontrivial background configuration. For this reason, one may agree with the authors of ref.[4] and conclude that General Relativity provides some kind of universal low-energy picture, just as hydrodynamics. This, concentrating on the properties of matter at scales that are much larger than the mean free path for the elementary constituents, is insensitive to the details of short-distance molecular dynamics. This point of view should not sound too surprising to the extent that is consistent with the historical origin of General Relativity before the birth of quantum mechanics.

Notice that we are not saying that one can prove a formal equivalence with Einstein’s General Relativity. In fact, a medium provides a definite physical framework whose short-distance details might have no counterpart in General Relativity. However, by restricting to long-wavelength phenomena, and to some degree of accuracy, the two descriptions may be indistinguishable. At the same time, there may be different dynamical scenarios at very small scales that, however, become equivalent to General Relativity on a larger scale. Their number can only be restricted by exploiting this type of correspondence, within the constraints of the experimental results. For instance, θ(x), rather than arising from a fundamental scalar theory, might turn out to be a collective excitation of a superfluid fermionic vacuum [3].

On the other hand, the idea of an ‘Aethereal Medium’, whose density variations could account for the gravitational force, is deeply rooted in the origin of our scientific culture and can be found, for instance, in Newton himself. In fact, although refraining from a definite hypothesis on the physical origin of gravity in the Principia (”.. I frame no hypotheses..and to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained ..”), Newton explicitely inserted some additional Queries on the Aether in the last version of Opticks. In particular, in Query 21, he was considering that ”...if the elastick force of this Medium be exceeding great, it may suffice to impel Bodies from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer, with all that power which we call Gravity”. To this end, the hypothetical aetherial particles should feel a repulsive force (”...Particles which endeavour to recede from one another..”) and be ”...exceedingly smaller than those of Air, or even than those of Light...” thus making ”...that Medium exceedingly more rare and elastick than Air..”.

This paper is worth a close read.

I spent yesterday reviewing some of the papers by

Modanese & Podkletnov

G. Volovik

also a Russian paper on Soviet torsion field research that disagrees with Western views on torsion as unimportant experimentally.

in context of thinking about the strange alleged Nazi "Bell" device that Nick Cook describes at end of
his provocative book "The Hunt for Zero Point."

Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible case, though admittedly he makes serious mistakes of estimating probabilities of different explanatory scenarios because of his limited knowledge of physics and what the term "antigravity" really means in physics today now at the forefront because of the 1999 discovery of dark energy as the dominant stuff of the universe. Even Hal Puthoff has not formulated the problem correctly in his "PV without PV" model of "metric engineering without metric" since Hal eschews covariance, the local equivalence principle, and tensors in his purely classical dielectric action principle formulation.

Basically all Hal does in PV is to write down the dynamical action (S = Integral of Lagrangian over test particle path) of a point test particle using globally flat special relativity, but with the very dubious assumption that the gamma factor is a local variable, i.e.

gamma = [1 - (Kv/c)^2]^-1/2

Using the calculus of variations Hal also gets a local partial differential field equation for the scalar dielectric vacuum response function K that in the spherically symmetric static approximation for a source mass M he claims is

K = e^2GM/c^2r

where he treats r like a radial coordinate in ordinary Euclidean high school geometry.

Hal calls "r" the isotropic radial coordinate but he does not follow the GR use of that same terms in contrast to the "curvature radial coordinate.".

Hal says no black hole event horizons in his PV SSS solution.

This already contradicts observations and the whole thrust of modern relativity including Susskind's hologram from Bekenstein's black hole thermodynamics leading to

Lp* = Lp^2/3L^1/3

For effective Planck scale in a measurement of length L

This formula also comes from Wigner's "Bohr Rosenfeld" analysis of quantum gravity metric fluctuations reviewed in a recent paper by Ng.

Hal blithely neglects all this as well as shrugging off the fact that his PV predictions disagree with experiment in the case of binary pulsars as shown by Mike Ibison. The hope is that further evolution of the model will bring it into an agreement with data that GR already has in a much easier way.

Hal is able to treat a charged test particle, but is not able to solve the problem when a source mass M rotates.

Hal also makes a false analogy that his PV model is to GR as Kirchoff's lumped parameter circuit theory is to Maxwell's field equations.
Unfortunately Hal got it backwards because in his SSS case it's the other way around, i.e. GR is only a weak field limit of his SSS PV exponential K solution that he incorrectly takes to the limit GM/c^2r >> 1 - in my opinion.

OK next to Volovik:

Volovik has many good insights that agree with my model in spirit, though there are important formal differences and what I say is much simpler and in closer contact with observations.

Volovik has a problem getting dark energy. In fact it appears he cannot. He apparently can only get an attractive /\ field not a repulsive one. This is tentative.

However, he agrees that Einstein's GR is a low energy effective field theory as is also the standard model U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) from a deeper level like spin foams although he does not use that explicitly. Even Lorentz invariance is emergent from Galilean relativity near a topological "Fermi surface" fixed point using renormalization group running coupling constant flow ideas.

I have a much simpler way of getting Volovik's result that Einstein's cosmological constant /\ = 0 in "equilibrium".

Part of Volovik's problem is that he associates "normal fluid" with the on-mass-shell quasi-particles rather than the off-mass-shell zero point fluctuations of these same quasi-particles from the deeper world crystal lattice/spin foam pre-geometry level. That's why, I suspect, he is not able to get anti-gravitating dark energy with negative quantum pressure.

In my model start with a pre-geometry spin foam with a "quantum of area", a "quantum of volume".

Also start with Poincare group quantum field theory as an emergent low energy effective field theory out of the pre-geometry pretty much as Volovik would do it.

So I now have globally flat point particle renormalizable quantum field theory of the standard model (lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons) but without gravity and only in its vacuum without on mass shell quanta - without the Higgs so all quanta are massless!

I then notice that this globally flat false vacuum with purely random zero point fluctuations is unstable. It immediately makes a Higgs inflationary phase transition to a true vacuum with macro-quantum coherence out of which Einstein's classical c-number GR emerges from the ODLRO phase of the coherence with the dark energy/matter from the intensity of the coherence.

Only then do the lepto-quarks acquire BCS mass as on-mass-shell quasi-particles as shown by Nambu.

This agrees with Wheeler's "Mass without mass" of "Einstein's Vision" ("Geometrodynamics") provided that G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.

Gravity is not renormalizable because it should not be quantized. Quantizing gravity is like quantizing temperature or elasticity in a crystal.
You do not quantize emergent ODLRO collective modes - that is redundant and leads to confusion. The micro-quantum zero point energy is still there as a residual and you of course can quantize the quasi-particles e.g. electrons that obey second-quantized Dirac eq but with rest mass m.

This also shows that the Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" from random EM ZPF friction is wrong. The origin of inertia is from the vacuum coherence of the inflation in accord with precision cosmology and Einstein's Vision. They have the wrong picture.

What about Mach's Principle as in James Woodward's theory? The stars and gas clouds are only 4% of the stuff of the universe. The rest is w = -1 exotic vacuum that anti-gravitates with Omega ~ 0.73 and that gravitates with Omega ~ 0.23. That is Omega (matter & radiation) ~ 0.04 with space flat on scales > 10^2 megaparsecs.

However Mach's principle probably can be formulated in terms of the new exotic vacuum field

/\zpf = (Spin Foam Quantum of Area)^-1[(Volume Factor)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

with Einstein's smooth c-number ODLRO metric field of curved space-time guv(x) as the elastic strain tensor of distortion field

du(x) = (Spin Foam Quantum of Area)(Partial derivative of the Macro-Quantum Goldstone Phase of the Vacuum Coherence)

Where the quantum of area is like h/m in the Bohm pilot wave theory.

Note that |Vacuum Coherence|^2 = Higgs Intensity of Inflation Field

G/c^4 is the P.W. Anderson "generalized phase rigidity" ~ (Sakharov's metric elasticity)^-1 ~ Witten's alpha'

G*h/c^3 = Quantum of Area (a variable)

G*(l) is a running coupling constant

G*(10^-13 cm) ~ 10^40G

G* on macroscale is G.

Modanese correctly intuits that metric engineering (e.g. alleged Podkletnov effects) is due to an interference of the superconductor coherence with the dark energy. But he does not understand Vacuum Coherence, hence he does not get it right, though he is close on the right track.

Modanese seems to think there is a major error in Ning Li's theory?

He also thinks (implicitly) Soviet era claims of Akimov and Shipov of strong torsion field couplings to quantum spin of electron and proton are wrong.

Now as to Nick Cook's description of the "Bell" - the Nazis would have had to have come upon a form of liquid mercury or some liquid stuff that was a high Tc superconductor that they had flowing in a ring pattern of some kind. More on this later.

The coupling to the vacuum coherence, needing a "Chiao impedance match" for near fields not far fields, if it made a strong /\zpf > 0 field would cause an anti-gravity blue shift explaining the "blue glow" and why people and plants got sick from a kind of gamma ray poisoning. This is like the "reverse Doppler effect" that NIDS scientist Bruce Cornet reports from flying saucers.

On Apr 24, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Memorandum for the Record
Technological Surprise in The Age of Terror (both human and alien ET)

re: Department of Defense
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc

Todd
Andrew Palfreyman claims to understand your idea.
Write it up in proper math and clear diagrams and I will look at it after Andrew explains to me what his understanding
of your idea is.

One must be clear that "anti-gravity" AKA "AG" has a precise meaning in physics today and must obey both Einstein's local equivalence principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

references

"Cosmological Physics" John Peacock Ch 1 esp pp 25-26

Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

AG demands internal stress-strain zero g-forces on the fuselage and occupants of the saucer all are in weightless free float timelike geodesic paths even though that self-controlled path looks like a hairpin turn at a jillion g to the outside observer. This is the Alcubierre warp drive Paul Hill "acceleration field" criterion for a true AG warp drive like we allegedly see real nuts and bolts saucers doing.

Anything else is "conventional" or "impulse drive" with internal stress-strain g-forces and is simply not good enough.

AG also allows wormhole travel and most likely time travel to past under certain special conditions.

Wormholes or "star gates" connecting different places and times inside our universe and also to parallel universes in the sense of Max Tegmark's May 2003 "Scientific American" article.

You do not understand what AG means to mainstream physicists like at GR 17 in Dublin this July.
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today defines the term.

In Einstein's GR in Newtonian limit, Poisson's eq. is

Laplacian of gravity potential ~ G(mass density)(1 + 3w)

w = pressure/energy density

the 3w term is a GR correction not found in Newtons

w = 1/3 for radiation giving the gravity lensing bending of light

w = -1 for any zero point energy ZPE from any quantum field.

w = 0 for ordinary NR matter

A positive ZPE density anti-gravitates that's what "AG" means to the top physicists today.

Dark energy 73% of universe anti-gravitates accelerating the expansion of the universe.

Manipulating dark energy on a small scale is how saucers fly.

Metric engineering is the manipulation of exotic vacuum dark energy density.

Kip Thorne called "dark energy" "exotic matter" in 1986 before he knew that it was 73% of our universe.
That discovery came in 1999 in the Type 1a Supernova data now supplemented by WMAP data.

Message: 12
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:20:11 -0000
From: "trixcleverspacealien"

on July 30,1979 which ironically was the same day that Jenny
[Esalen] Channeled "The 9" at Henry Dakin's at Lab. 3118 Washington
Ave. San Francisco, then 11 days later on 08-10 and again on 08-11-
1979 I attended a paranormal seminar at the Howard Johnson's Hotel 11-
1979 Madison Wisc. featuring Professor John Hasted. [recall Jack
Sarfatti John Hasted Uri Geller, Birkbeck UK.]

I met Professor John Hasted and spoke with him while attending a
seminar on Uri Geller and two Japanese metal Bending metal boys who
also could project images on camera film called thought photography.
I first met Hasted on 08-10-1979 at the Humanities building Madison
Wisc. and again on 08-11-1979 at the Howard Johnson Hotel.

Professor Hasted and company then went to Henry Dakin's to
further test the boys AFTER 08-11-1979, or was it BEFORE 08-10-
1979, I have yet been able to determine this sequence.

RECALL: I, t.c.s.a. met Saul Paul Sirag on 12-17-1977 [10 years
before my so-called "From Outer Space" telephone call on 12-17-1987]
at his apt. on 3116 Washington street, just two numbers from 3118
Washington ave.

While at Sirag's I dicussed my Golden Section Method, and he
related a Geller, spoon bending story with Sirag and "friend" taking
some Cutlery spoons and / or forks? to a Hotel to have Geller try and
bend them, Geller did in fact bend them.

QUESTION : "Were the two Japanese boys tested at Henry Dakin's lab.
before or after they were in Madison Wisc? Who knows the answer to
that question?

Jack: "Who cares? Why is that important?"

08-10-1979

While at the conference, seminar, I asked John Hasted if "he had
encountered any findings in regards Spoon and / or metal bending that
pointed to the Golden Section, he said "No" he simply said it was a
number "associated to aesthetics."

Carl Jung:

John Hasted also discussed Jung's Synchronicity,

"Well John here's a Golden Section worldline "synchronicity" it just
took "YEARS" for it to come into relative completion."

THE COSMIC TRIGGER ;-)

I was "Cosmic Triggered" to write this post after I saw a .jpeg
picture of Jack Sarfatti holding a spoon bent by Uri Geller while
attending London of March 2004 this year.

When I read Jack's SSS post see below :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/message/5242

When I read the line "http://qedcorp.com/APS/ice9.wav" I recalled I'd
sent Jack that file, [ice9.wav] in addition when I read the
words "This was same period as the Uri Geller tests at Birkbeck I
helped to set up described by Martin Gardner in his book "Science:
Good, Bad and Bogus." See also Martin Rees on "Ice 9" in "Our Final
Hour."

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 6:54 pm
Subject: Nick Cook: Flying Saucers as Weapons Systems
http://qedcorp.com/APS/ice9.wav
Hmm I was there at ICTP Trieste 1973 working on possibility of small
artificial black holes in lab using Abdus Salam's strong short-range f
gravity.

This was same period as the Uri Geller tests at Birkbeck I helped to
set up described by Martin Gardner in his book "Science: Good, Bad and
Bogus." See also Martin Rees on "Ice 9" in "Our Final Hour."

Again continuing, when I, t.c.s.a. read the words "Birkbeck London",
that triggered my memory to activate and recall that Prof. Hasted
had a position at Birkbeck in the Physics dept. and that I, t.c.s.a.
met Hasted in Madison Wisconsin, sometime In?
I didn't know at the time of reading Sarfattti's post, that began my
going back thru my notes to discover when that was.]

FOOTNOTE 60 IN THE THICK OF IT :

JULY 30, 1979 :
[60]excerpts from "The Nine, channelled by Jenny O'Conner" at Henry
Dakin's laboratory 3118 Washington St. San Francisco on Monday July
30, 1979. Jim Hickman, Saul Paul Sirag, Roger Macdonald, Steve
Donovan, Trever Alston, Russell Rae and others participating:
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/si03.html

In view of the present-day Esalen-Erhard-Yeltsin-Gorbachev
connections [59], the 1979 Esalen-UFO connection is significant. Even
though I had split with Werner Erhard by late 1977, EST's Raz
Ingrasci phoned me and asked me to meet with Jenny O Conner. Raz said
that Jenny had been sent to Werner by Sir John Whitmore who had
funded Andrija Puharich's collaborations with Uri Geller back in
1973. Jenny claimed to be channeling messages from "The Nine" - the
same extra-terrestrials that Puharich wrote about. In view of my own
contact in 1952 I should have been more diplomatic with Jenny when
she came to my apartment at 2 Whiting Place - the apartment that
Michael Murphy had given me. Jenny impressed me as total fraud and I
practically kicked her out. I was verbally very rude. Jenny and The
Nine [60] was promptly installed at Esalen for quite some time
overlapping with visits by physicist the late Heinz Pagels,
Congressman Charlie Rose, Ira Einhorn, and high ranking Russians from
Georgy Arbatov's Moscow Institute of US and Canada which was
influential during Gorbachev's watch.

[60]excerpts from "The Nine, channelled by Jenny O'Conner" at Henry
Dakin's laboratory 3118 Washington St. San Francisco on Monday July
30, 1979. Jim Hickman, Saul Paul Sirag, Roger Macdonald, Steve
Donovan, Trever Alston, Russell Rae and others participating:

Saul-Paul asks Jenny "Have you ever interacted with Jacques Vallee?"
Jenny says, "We were supposed to. We met Hal Puthoff ... I met your
friend." Dakin's transcript reads "discussion of Jack Sarfatti, and
Jenny's meeting with him" The Nine then intervene speaking through
Jenny "Main facilities Houston, Texas." [transcript incomplete here]
Someone asks, "Any other facilities?". The Nine respond: "A total of
85." Roger Macdonald asks, "Any other extremely large, not as large
as the facilities in Houston?" Michael Murphy's partner, Jim Hickman
says: "There is NASA, but NASA isn't supposed to be with the
military." The Nine says, "Wilmington ... Byrom, Little Hampshire, [
piece of transcript missing] The Mars Project, 1944, 1945, 1948."
Roger Macdonald asks "What Agency or department of the United States
is the Mars Project?" The Nine, "NSS" Saul-Paul says "It could be
some Navy thing." The Nine, "You called it National Security Service.
They called it just the SS." Saul Paul says, "Secret Service?" Jim
Hickman says, "I can believe that." Hickman asks, "You talked about
Project Henry ..." The Nine, "All CIA involved." Hickman, "All?", The
Nine, "Yes". later on in transcript Hickman says "...
Solvitschg'otsk, which is north east of Moscow, where a great deal of
secret military research is being done. The Nine, "This facility is
highly armed and Soviet's most important work goes on there. Room
B12." Jenny, like Barbarella, takes over her own mind and says, "Can
I ask you about .... and hooking up with the brainwave machine?"

WALTER UPHOFF JOHN HASTED URI GELLER AND HENRY DAKIN'S:

SEE:http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/momu.htm

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/momak.htm

Masuaki and his friend Hiroto Yamashita to come to the U.S. during
their school vacation in July and August 1979 to participate in
further investigation of their exceptional psychic abilities.
Scientists and investigators from various parts of the country
participated in workshops in Madison, San Francisco and at our home
where the two teenagers bent and twisted metal by PK and produced
paranormal effects on film.

Prof. John B. Hasted, a British physicist who has worked extensively
with a number of young metal benders, interrupted his vacation plans
to come to lead discussions and participate in experiments at our
workshops on "Psychokinesis and its Effects on Metal and Film" - a
major contribution to this project.

Henry S. Dakin, Jeffrey Mishlove and Jean Millay at the Washington
Research Center, San Francisco who provided hospitality to all of us
while the experiments were conducted at the Research Center, and
together with Brendan O'Regan from the Institute of Noetic Sciences,
arranged a public program for the community and for interested
persons from the Parapsychological Association convention who stayed
over an extra day;

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/mind-over-matter/mom04.htm

IV. Tests With Twisted Spoons

Next I took some of the twisted spoons to Prof. David J. Mack in the
Department of Metallurgical and Mineral Engineering at the University
of Wisconsin in Madison. He examined some of the spoons with a
magnifying glass, was intrigued with what he saw, and agreed to run
some tests at a later date.

TD: We've also shown several times in our work that negative energy
density does
exist in EM.

Jack: I don't believe that you did a correct calculation. Where is it?

TD:
http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/Docs/Exotic%20Mater%20and%20Propulsion.pdf

See Section 3.

main_engineering

Your paper is fundamentally wrong. You do not have the correct understanding.

You need POSITIVE ZPE density with NEGATIVE pressure to get strong anti-gravity propulsion from the exotic vacuum Einstein field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0


Your classical calculation asks the wrong question.

At best what you are talking about has /\zpf = 0 and the Einstein equation is

Guv ~ (G/c^4)Tuv(EM)

All your irrelevant "negative energy" is in the Tuv(EM) term, which is completely irrelevant to practical metric engineering. Hal Puthoff's classical "PV without PV" model suffers from the same fatal conceptual flaw.

Also all your stuff on Casimir effect is a false lead.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John Archibald Wheeler

No one at all connected with NASA BPP group, with possible exceptions of

Ning Li, E. Podkletnov, G.Modanese and R. Chiao are even close to asking the "Right Question."

And none of them, either have connected the dots in any of their publications for NASA BPP and related

alleged Black USG programs between the mission objective of BPP, UFOS and the 1999 discovery of

"dark energy."

I connected those dots for the first time I think in my two books from 2002

Destiny Matrix

Space-Time and Beyond II

both available on Amazon.

I basically rushed those books into the market warts and all in order to establish my copyrighted intellectual property priority claim connecting the dots of:

1. Dark energy observations of precision cosmology

2. UFO flying saucer data as in the NIDS database on the WEB

3. Metric engineering as in Nick Cook's description of the Trimble "G-Engine" concept and Paul Hill's
"accleration field" in the books

"The Hunt for Zero Point"

"Unconventional Flying Objects"

Memorandum for the Record
Technological Surprise in The Age of Terror (both human and alien ET)

re: Department of Defense
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc

Todd
Andrew Palfreyman claims to understand your idea.
Write it up in proper math and clear diagrams and I will look at it after Andrew explains to me what his understanding
of your idea is.

One must be clear that "anti-gravity" AKA "AG" has a precise meaning in physics today and must obey both Einstein's local equivalence principle and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

references

"Cosmological Physics" John Peacock Ch 1 esp pp 25-26

Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

AG demands internal stress-strain zero g-forces on the fuselage and occupants of the saucer all are in weightless free float timelike geodesic paths even though that self-controlled path looks like a hairpin turn at a jillion g to the outside observer. This is the Alcubierre warp drive Paul Hill "acceleration field" criterion for a true AG warp drive like we allegedly see real nuts and bolts saucers doing.

Anything else is "conventional" or "impulse drive" with internal stress-strain g-forces and is simply not good enough.

AG also allows wormhole travel and most likely time travel to past under certain special conditions.

Wormholes or "star gates" connecting different places and times inside our universe and also to parallel universes in the sense of Max Tegmark's May 2003 "Scientific American" article.

You do not understand what AG means to mainstream physicists like at GR 17 in Dublin this July.
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today defines the term.

In Einstein's GR in Newtonian limit, Poisson's eq. is

Laplacian of gravity potential ~ G(mass density)(1 + 3w)

w = pressure/energy density

the 3w term is a GR correction not found in Newtons

w = 1/3 for radiation giving the gravity lensing bending of light

w = -1 for any zero point energy ZPE from any quantum field.

w = 0 for ordinary NR matter

A positive ZPE density anti-gravitates that's what "AG" means to the top physicists today.

Dark energy 73% of universe anti-gravitates accelerating the expansion of the universe.

Manipulating dark energy on a small scale is how saucers fly.

Metric engineering is the manipulation of exotic vacuum dark energy density.

Kip Thorne called "dark energy" "exotic matter" in 1986 before he knew that it was 73% of our universe.
That discovery came in 1999 in the Type 1a Supernova data now supplemented by WMAP data.

On Apr 24, 2004, at 12:11 PM, main_engineering wrote:

Jack: I do not understand this without seeing equations and diagrams. How
does "frame dragging" make a motion of the center of mass of the ship?
What is the size of the alleged effect?

...OK you have some kind of charged sheets and magnetic fields I suppose.
Until I see nice pictures I do not understand really what you are
talking about.

TD: OK, I'll draw you a picture of the "Enterprise D"....

I cannot follow you below. Even if you could get something to fly, which I strongly doubt, it's not the right stuff because you have no coupling to the fabric of space-time. What you have below is not "metric engineering" and is fundamentally not interesting to me. Classical electrodynamics by itself without Einstein's general theory of relativity and quantum theory will lead nowhere. As a matter of principle I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Like Hal Puthoff's PV, which is closer to the mark than what you have below, your model is simpler than is possible to get the job done. We may be running out of time.


+++++++++++
|
iiiiiiiiii
i <--I_s i
i i ------> Applied Force
i I_s--> i
iiiiiiiiii
|
-----------

Imagine there's a saucer section in front and this represents the Nacelles
in the rear. I'm just drawing the main_engineering part of the ship. :0)

We'll start out by calling it an "Accelerometer".

Say you have an ideal perfectly conducting loop of wire, this is pictured as
the "i's" making a closed loop, single turn coil or superconducting ring,
whatever.

Say you have two electrically charged objects "Nacelles" of length L and
charge Q, q=Q/L, one on either side of the loop, attached to the loop
securely, but insulated from the conductor so that charge does not leak out.

Manually apply a force "F" on the assembly in the direction shown by
whatever means necessary to put the assembly in a NIF with acceleration "a".

In an accelerated NIF, the lines of electric field are curved. Therefore, an
EMF will develop around the loop to oppose the change in B flux through the
loop.

dB/dt = - Curl(E)

In any Inertial frame, dB/dt = 0, but in a NIF, dB/dt =/= 0 and there is an
EMF around the loop that drives a current "I_s" through this loop.

I_p = q*v

dB/dt = (coupling factor)dI_p/dt = (coupling factor)*q*a

dI_s/dt = (coupling factor)*q*a

If you break the loop or add a coil of loops and a resistor in series, you
can measure the Voltage from the EMF and you have an Accelerometer. A
voltage will develop that is proportional to the acceleration "a".

I claim that the opposite is also true. If you excite the current dI_s/dt it
will induce forward acceleration to expel the B flux from the loop. The
accelerated frame becomes the minimum energy frame of the loop.

Note the similarity to the Meissner effect in expelling flux from a region.

Now in your single particle example, we have the Lagrangian,

L(x,v,t) = (1/2)m*v^2 - Q*Phi + Q*A*v

p = m*v + Q*A

for dp/dt = 0, meaning no applied force,

m*a = Q*E - A*I

In the picture above, the one component of the force Q*E is unidirectional
because of the location of the charges, tangent to the circle in opposing E
fields. So the force is,

F1 = -2*Q*(dA/dt) to the right

The force F2 = A*I exerts a torque on the current flow, it is basically a
torsion field and does not fully oppose the direction of F1, so then m*a >
0.

The forces F1 and F2 are equal in magnitude, but not in direction. The
geometric configuration of the assembly couples the torsion field to a
linear force. When A*I is at a maximum, the force is evenly distributed
around the loop, but when Q*E is at a maximum, the force is unidirectional
to the right. So we take the energy from the circulating momentum and dump
it into forward motion.

The size of the "alleged effect" is enormous when you have an enormous
amount of charge and a very large dB/dt.

If you see an error, please feel free to comment.


main_engineering

Bjorken endorses Volovik's approach. My model appears to be a simplified version of Volovik's. It is clear from Volovik why Hal's PV simply does not start from a fundamental enough place to be The Right Stuff to metric engineer Super Cosmos. Indeed, even in my model, I start from globally flat quantum field theory to get classical Einstein gravity with zero point exotic vacuum unified dark energy/matter emergent. But from the deeper world crystal lattice-spin foam "pre-geometry" POV globally flat quantum field theory is also an emergent low energy effective field theory. However, the observations of precision cosmology and also the metric engineering problem do not seem to require us to go to the spin-foam pre-geometric level to get many useful results and insights.

http://arXiv:gr-qc/0005091 v3 3 Oct 2000

"Superfluid analogies of cosmological phenomena
G.E. Volovik Low Temperature Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology Box 2200, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland and
L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 117334 Moscow, Russia

In a modern viewpoint the relativistic quantum field theory is the emergent phenomenon arising in the low energy corner of the physical fermionic vacuum – the medium, whose nature remains unknown.

The same phenomenon occurs in the condensed matter systems: In the extreme limit of low energy the condensed matter system of special universality class acquires all the symmetries, which we know today in high energy physics: Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance, general covariance, collective modes of the system. The inhomogeneous states of the condensed matter ground state – vacuum – induce nontrivial effective metrics of the space, where the free quasiparticles move along geodesics and simulate many phenomena in high energy physics and cosmology, including axial anomaly, baryon production and magnetogenesis, event horizon and Hawking radiation, cosmological constant and rotating vacuum, etc., probing these phenomena in ultra-low-temperature superfluid helium, atomic Bose condensates and superconductors. Some
The chiral fermions as well as gauge bosons and gravity field arise as fermionic and bosonic collective modes ...

I. INTRODUCTION. PHYSICAL VACUUM AS CONDENSED MATTER.
The traditional Grand Unification view is that the low-energy symmetry of our world is the remnant of a larger symmetry, which exists at high energy and is broken, when the energy is reduced. According to this philosophy the higher the energy the higher is the symmetry: U(1) • SU(3) ≈ U(1) • SU(2) • SU(3) ≈ SO(10) ≈supersymmetry, etc. The less traditional view is quite opposite: it is argued that starting from some energy scale one probably finds that the higher the energy the poorer are the symmetries of the physical laws, and finally even the Lorentz invariance and gauge invariance will be smoothly violated [1,2]. From this point of view the relativistic quantum field theory is an effective theory [3,4]. It is an emergent phenomenon arising as a fixed point in the low energy corner of the physical vacuum. In the vicinity of the fixed point the system acquires new symmetries which it did not have at higher energy. And it is quite possible that even such symmetries as Lorentz symmetry and gauge invariance are not fundamental, but gradually appear when the fixed point is approached.

Both scenaria are supported by the condensed matter systems. In particular, superfluid 3He-A provides an instructive example of both ways of the behavior of the symmetry. At high temperature the 3He gas and at lower temperature the 3He liquid have all the symmetries, which the ordinary condensed matter can have: translational invariance, global U(1) group and global SO(3) symmetries of spin and orbital rotations. When the temperature decreases further the liquid 3He reaches the superfluid transition temperature Tc, below which it spontaneously looses all its symmetries except for the translational one – it is still liquid. This breaking of symmetry at low temperature and thus at low energy reproduces the Grand Unification scheme, where the symmetry breaking is the most important component.

However, this is not the whole story. When the temperature is reduced further the opposite “anti-grand-unification” scheme starts to work: in the limit T ≈ 0 the superfluid 3He-A gradually acquires from nothing almost all the symmetries, which we know today in high energy physics: (analog of) Lorentz invariance, local gauge invariance, elements of general covariance, etc. It appears that such an enhancement of symmetry in the limit of low energy happens because 3He-A belongs to a special universality class of Fermi systems [5]. For the condensed matter of such class the chiral fermions as well as gauge bosons and gravity field arise as fermionic and bosonic collective modes together with the chirality itself and with corresponding symmetries. The inhomogeneous deformations of the condensed matter ground state – quantum vacuum – induce nontrivial effective metrics of the space, where the free quasiparticles move along geodesics. This conceptual similarity between condensed matter and quantum vacuum gives some hint on the origin of symmetries and also allows us to simulate many phenomena in high energy physics and cosmology.

The quantum field theory, which we have now, is incomplete due to ultraviolet diveregences at small scales. The crucial example is provided by the quantum theory of gravity, which after 70 years of research is still far from realization in spite of numerous beautiful achievements [6]. This is a strong indication that the gravity, both classical and quantum, is not fundamental: It is effective field theory which is not applicable at small scales, where the “microscopic” physics of vacuum becomes important and according to the “anti-grandunification” scenario some or all of the known symmetries in Nature are violated. The analogy between quantum vacuum and condensed matter could give an insight into this transPlanckian physics since it provides examples of the physically imposed deviations from Lorentz and other invariances at higher energy. This is important in many different areas of high energy physics and cosmology, including possible CPT violation and black holes, where the infinite red shift at the horizon opens the route to the transPlanckian physics.

The condensed matter teaches us that the low-energy properties of different condensed matter vacua (magnets, superfluids, crystals, superconductors, etc.) are robust, i.e. they do not depend much on the details of microscopic (atomic) structure of these substances. The main role is played by symmetry and topology of condensed matter: they determine the soft (low-energy) hydrodynamic variables, the effective Lagrangian describing the low-energy dynamics, topological defects and quantization of physical parameters. The microscopic details provide us only with the “fundamental constants”, which enter the effective phenomenological Lagrangian, such as speed of “light” (say, the speed of sound), superfluid density, modulus of elasticity, magnetic susceptibility, etc. Apart from these “fundamental constants”, which can be rescaled, the systems behave similarly in the infrared limit if they belong to the same universality and symmetry classes, irrespective of their microscopic origin.

The detailed information on the system is lost in such acoustic or hydrodynamic limit [7]. From the properties of the low energy collective modes of the system – acoustic waves in case of crystals – one cannot reconstruct the atomic structure of the crystal since all the crystals have similar acoustic waves described by the same equations of the same effective theory, in crystals it is the classical theory of elasticity. The classical fields of collective modes can be quantized to obtain quanta of acoustic waves – the phonons. This quantum field remains the effective field which is applicable only in the long-wave-length limit, and does not give a detailed information on the real quantum structure of the underlying crystal (exept for its symmetry class). In other words one cannot construct the full quantum theory of real crystal using the quantum theory of elasticity. Such theory would always contain divergencies on atomic scale, which cannot be regularized.

The same occurs in other effective theories of condensed matter. In particular the naive approach to calculate the ground state (vacuum) energy of superfluid liquid 4 using the zero point energy of phonons gives even the wrong sign of the vacuum energy, as we shall see in Sec. II G.
It is quite probable that in the same way the quantization of classical gravity, which is one of the infrared collective modes of quantum vacuum, will not add more to our understanding of the “microscopic” structure of the vacuum [8,9,7]. Indeed, according to this “anti-grandunification” analogy, such properties of our world, as gravitation, gauge fields, elementary chiral fermions, etc., all arise in the low energy corner as a low-energy soft modes of the underlying “condensed matter”. At high energy (of the Planck scale) these modes merge with the continuum of the all high-energy degrees of freedom of the “Planck condensed matter” and thus cannot be separated anymore from each other. Since the gravity is not fundamental, but appears as an effective field in the infrared limit, the only output of its quantization would be the quanta of the low-energy gravitational waves – gravitons. The more deep quantization of gravity makes no sense in this philosophy. In particular, the effective theory cannot give any prediction for the vacuum energy and thus for the cosmological constant.

The main advantage of the condensed matter analogy is that in principle we know the condensed matter structure at any relevant scale, including the interatomic distance, which plays the part of one of the Planck length scales in the hierarchy of scales. Thus the condensed matter can suggest possible routes from our present low-energy corner of “phenomenology” to the “microscopic” physics at Planckian and trans-Planckian energies. It can also show the limitation of the effective theories: what quantities can be calculated within the effective field theory using, say, renormalization group approach, and what quantities depend essentially on the details of the transPlanckian physics."

G. Modanese's theory is compatible with mine, but does not go as deep as mine.

Modanese shows that ||^2 contributes to /\, but he does not understand that there is in addition a |Vacuum Coherence| term that causes /\ even when /\ = 0. In other words the solution to the cosmological constant problem is that there is a large optimal Vacuum Coherence that makes /\ very small away from its incoherent value of (Quantum of Area)^-1. Therefore, following Modanese's argument with the new idea of Vacuum Coherence immediately gives the Josephson "weak link" interference term for metric engineering the fabric of spacetime i.e.
|Vacuum Coherence + Superconductor Coherence|^2. It's really very elementary macro-quantum physics, quite obvious in hindsight.

BTW the rotation of the superconducting disks, that Hal Puthoff has not been able to solve in PV as far as he has let me know, is essentially a Berry phase effect in the weak link interference term analogous to Berry's explanation of the Foucault Pendulum. I will work this out in detail later. Similarly with electrostatic "Levi-Civita" effects (though that is dynamical phase not Berry topological phase).

Basically what you get is the Josephson weak link equation (e.g. Feynman Vol III Lectures on Physics, "Superconductivity.")

/\(induced) ~ C|Vacuum Coherence||Superconductor Coherence|Cosine[(2pi Sum of (Enclosed Phase Fluxes/Quanta of Phase Flux)]

including all relevant phases both dynamical and Berry topological.

Where C = |Chiao Impedance Match of Vacuum to Superconductor|(Quantum of Area)^-1(Volume Factor)

Where both macro-quantum coherence order parameters are normalized to (Volume)^1/2 like single-particle micro-quantum wave packets, multiplied by the square roots of the condensate occupation numbers.

The metric engineering of star gates and weightless warp drives is simple in concept if you have the right idea. Time to catch up with ET. :-)

On Apr 22, 2004, at 8:04 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc usual suspects

OK thanks.

On Apr 22, 2004, at 6:48 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Ask yourself how Nazi scientists would have proceeded if ordered NOT to use
the Jewish relativity theory.

Any mention of vacuum energy in the Nazi files? Does Nick Cook mention it? I will not get to my car till morning where I left it in garage.

I mean at least in SSS Hal's PV theory is the Uber theory covering Einstein's false "event horizon" correct?


What home grown theory would they have applied to explain the available
data?

Google search for all papers referencing Ning Li at arxiv.org:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0010399

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9505094

http://arxiv.org/html/cond-mat/9812070

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9705043

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0108005

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9612022

http://arxiv.org/pdf/chao-dyn/9604013

http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0209051



Press story re: Ning Li and Modanese in 1997:

http://www.businessweek.com/1997/07/b3514118.htm

Thanks Gary

On Apr 23, 2004, at 10:15 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

 
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/Weekly_Updates.html
 
NASA BPP Review of Progress:  re: ISR & Corum
 
 
Week Ending 03/01/2002

On Friday, February 22, 2002, Marc Millis and other Glenn participants of the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project met with representatives of the West Virginia Institute for Software Research (ISR) and the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) to discuss experiment options to complete the ISR Congressional earmarked research task.  This task explores old theories of Heaviside and Slepian, regarding electromagnetic momentum and the possibility that such electromagnetic momentum might be useable for propulsion.  ISR estimates completing their work by May, 2002.  The USAFA estimates completing their independent test of the ISR effects by June, 2002.

This is the kind of work we at ISSO gave SARA one million dollars for 1999 - 2000 that did not work. I do not know if it is exactly the same kind of experiment. Hal Puthoff, James Woodward and "Hawkins Kirk" (alias) independently came to the same conclusion that Corum's theory was in error. I never saw enough information to make my own independent judgment.

Checking on the status of the University of Washington research task sponsored by the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, Marc Millis visited Dr. John Cramer at the University on February 26, 2002.  This task, an independent test of the transient inertia effect claimed by Jim Woodward, is nearing completion.  Data has been taken for two of the three planned experiments.  Even though the data is still being analyzed, preliminary assessments have not observed evidence of inertial changes.  Completion is now expected by June.

Whatever came of that?

Week Ending 05/10/2002

Marc Millis visited the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) on May 2-3, 2002, to view progress on a Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) task, to give presentations about the NASA BPP Project, and to discuss future Academy collaboration.  A Cadet and a member of the faculty are conducting analytic and experimental tests of claims from the West Virginia Institute for Software Research (ISR).  The ISR work, initiated via an FY00-01 Congressional earmark, explores old theories of electromagnetic momentum that might be usable for breakthrough propulsion.  Although not completed, Cadet analytical assessment indicates the ISR perspectives will not lead to breakthrough propulsion, but did identify an experimental test of related issues of the coupling of electromagnetism and space.  The experiments explore the effects on the vacuum from specific combinations of electrostatic fields and oscillating currents.  While there, Millis participated in the experiments along with Martin Tajmar (of Austria's Seibersdorf Research), a consultant on this project.  Further instrumentation refinements are needed to eliminate cross-coupling.  To inform the Academy about the NASA BPP Project, Millis was invited to give presentations to the faculty and four Cadet classes.  Discussions between Millis and USAFA Faculty are continuing on the possibility of using such Cadet educational projects as venue for other low-cost, independent assessments of BPP

July 17, 2002

On July 11-12, 2002, Marc Millis and Paul Raitano visited West Virginia's Institute for Scientific Research (ISR) Inc. (formerly named the Institute for Software Research), to check on the progress of the Congressionally earmarked tasks on Breakthrough Propulsion Physics.  This also included a visit to the physics department of West Virginia University (WVU) to check on a subtask to the ISR work.  The work has progressed to where experiments are underway to test for a Heaviside force, but the rectification of this oscillating force into a net thrust can no longer be attempted.  The WVU work involves a replication of a 1980 experiment for torsional evidence of Heaviside forces.  Both ISR and WVU requested an extension till the end of the calendar year to complete their experiments.  Also, while there, Millis briefed ISR on the sensitivities and unresolved technical issues of the "Asymmetrical Capacitor Thruster" tests being conducted under the MSFC-managed earmark to ISR.  Due to the longstanding, unresolved issues underlying this effect and its variants, it is crucial that these tests be as complete and impartial as possible.

Again none of these approaches, with the possible exception of Woodward's (I do not know for sure at this point), would be zero g-force warp drive in the sense of Alcubierre for example. The Corum approach, if it could be gotten to work, would be a new form of conventional propulsion, i.e. with g-forces.
 

September 24, 2002


On Sept 13, representatives of West Virginia’s Institute for Scientific Research (ISR) visited NASA GRC to discuss the two tasks underway for the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project.  As reported on July 19, 2002, ISR will not be able to complete the originally proposed, Congressionally earmarked task to investigate the propulsive implications of the Heaviside force.  This meeting was to confirm the redirection of effort into these two efforts: (1) Completing the subcontracted WVU replication of the torsional experiment of Heaviside forces, and (2) expanding their tests of MSFC’s patented "Asymmetrical Capacitor Thruster (ACT)" to cover the other related claims of “electrostatic antigravity.”   IRS requested, and Millis granted, an extension until March 2003 to finish these tasks.   The MSFC ACT tests have been designed and a test facility is being sought.  After completion of the ACT tests, the other variants of the half-century old “Biefeld-Brown” effect will then be tested.  These include the “Antigravity Lifter” claims similar to that of Tim Ventura, a classic Biefeld-Brown configuration, and at least one other variant.

The word "antigravity" should not be used here. That is bad physics. The only proper use of "antigravity" is in the sense of "dark energy" in the new "precision cosmology," i.e. zero point energy density with negative pressure in the context of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Air Force Academy & BPP:  Following up on the May 2002 discussions with the US Air Force Academy (USAFA) about using Cadet “educational projects” as venue for low-cost, independent assessments of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) claims, a GRC summer student submitted project suggestions and sample homework problems to a faculty member of the USAFA.  Cadets are already working on a variety of experiments related to advanced propulsion.


Progress on “Gravity Shielding” hardware:  By invitation of the MSFC manager of this task, Marc Millis and Paul Raitano of GRC visited the Columbus, Ohio firm, Superconductor Components, Inc. (SCI) on September 4, 2002, to view SCI’s progress toward replicating the hardware of the heavily-publicized Podkletnov’s “Gravity Shielding” claims.  This work is sponsored by a Phase-II SBIR through MSFC.  The specially configured large (12-inch) superconductor disks have now been successfully manufactured, and much of the supporting test hardware has been built.  During the Sept 4 tests, the disk successfully levitated and could be mechanically rotated at slow speeds.

This may be true anti-gravity in the sense I just defined consistent with my equations. Note that Hal Puthoff's PV model for "metric engineering" is not able to compute the rotation of the superconducting disks. In contrast, Einstein's general theory of relativity is able to do so.

What still remains, is to replicate the means to rotate the disk at high RPM (10,000) and to pump in Radio Frequency (RF) energy into the disk.  A major unresolved issue is that there is no further support to complete the hardware and conduct the tests to finally verify or dismiss the anomalous force claims of Podkletnov.  MSFC is pursuing other funding options and also asked if GRC would be able to receive the hardware and complete the tests.  One further note, during a August 15 briefing by Millis to the NASA Chief Scientist, Dr. Shannon Lucid, Dr. Lucid stated that it would be disappointing if these provocative claims were never reliably resolved, and wished to be informed of the results.

This last approach is the most promising in my opinion.
 

Thanks - this general approach is roughly compatible with my own theoretical ideas - more on details later.

On Apr 22, 2004, at 9:03 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc


Agreement Number: DAAH01-01-9-R001

Type of Agreement: Other Transaction for Prototype

Title: Gravito – Electro Magnetic Superconductivity Experiment

Awarding Office: US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), AMSAM-AC-RD-BA

Awardee: AC Gravity, LLD

Effective Date: 25 Apr 2001

Completion Date: 25 Sep 2002

U.S. Government Dollars: $448,970

Non-Government Dollars: $ 0

Dollars Returned to Government Account: $ 0

Technical objective of this effort including the technology areas in which the project was conducted:
Approximately 10 years ago Dr. Ning Li, then a research physicist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, began working on a theoretical model of forces generated by type-II superconductors and the possibility of generating and controlling significant gravitational forces via this new theory. The basic idea of Dr Li’s is that a superconducting disk will produce a significant gravitational field if a certain type of magnetic field is externally applied. This Other Transaction will represent the first attempt to experimentally confirm some of the theoretical predictions of this theory. It is hoped that providing experimental confirmation of the theory to the scientific community will validate the theory and allow the securing of further funding to develop a practical application of this technology.

Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has contributed to a broadening of the Technology and industrial base available for meeting Department of Defense needs:
This Other Transaction will allow the principal researcher (Dr. Li) to attempt experimental confirmation of a theoretical model of forces generated by type II semiconductors and the possibility of generating and controlling significant gravitational forces via this new theory. If successful, the payoffs would be enormous. i.e., the ability to generate gravitational forces artificially would allow for new forms of propulsion, new ways of controlling missiles and gun-launched munitions, the lowering of weight of heavy vehicles (i.e., making a 70 ton tank appear to weight much less), and the potential of deflecting or countering the guidance systems of missiles which rely on inertial guidance (like theater or intercontinental ballistic missiles). If unsuccessful, this avenue can be eliminated from future efforts, and would put to rest the controversy surrounding these theories.

Extent to which the cooperative agreement or other transaction has fostered within the technology and industrial base new relationships and practices that support the national security of the USA:
The company AC Gravity Inc., owned by Dr. Li, is considered to be a non-traditional contractor in that this company has not previously had any Government contracts or assistance instruments, such as grants or cooperative agreements. The potential of the cutting edge technology that is hoped to result from the confirmation of the experiment being conducted under this effort is of primary interest to the Government. The use of an OT is viewed as an appropriate means of attracting this company in its initial endeavor to do business with the Government because it eases much of the “red tape” that AC Gravity and other contractors associate with doing Government business. The success of this experiment would be of enormous value to DOD weapons and weapon systems.

END

bcc
On Apr 20, 2004, at 7:13 PM, ANDREW PALFREYMAN wrote:

Sorry, can't help out with the Lusty papers. I suspect the original
(and I do read German fairly well) describes not a laser beam,
but a directed e/m beam.

What do you mean? You mean some near EM induction field device like
something Tesla might come up with?

Do you have any details of a math kind?

The Germans had no word for "laser" back then (neither did Charles Townes for that matter). Therefore, in the Lusty document they
must have used one of those efficacious German compound nouns, which, if I read Cook correctly, signified an "anti-aircraft beam".
How does that become "laser"? I am implying that they were proposing using something like radar - a pulsed and beamed RF signal of
high intensity. That was quite do-able at the time.

Aha! Nick may not read German as well as not know enough physics. He writes "antiaircraft lasers" on p. 162.
Too bad he did not have you and me as his advisors on that book! He should write a corrected second edition.
I have been going through it making physics corrections. The historical research except for these glaring flaws to physicists
is quite interesting. The best part of the book in terms of the physics is the zero g-force "G-Engine" of George Trimble in 1956 - that's exactly what I am heading towards.

The Townsend-Brown stuff is a false lead in terms of real anti-gravity. It may have had some application to stealth I don't know. Also no way the Nazis could have stumbled into real zero point energy anti-gravity UNLESS they had high Tc superconductors - they did not. Is there any evidence they had a cryogenics program like in alleged Podkletnov effect? That's where Nick should have looked - low temperature research. But they would need a flying superconductor. Also they would need nanotechnology. No way Nazis could have had any of that!

bcc (Hal's original list + a few more)

On Apr 19, 2004, at 4:46 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

HP: Jack, with regard to my statements that you misunderstand/misrepresent the PV program, concerning which you've asked for clarification, I'm going to spell out here just what I mean in detail.

JS: Good, finally. Do you want me to put this in "Super Cosmos"? I have been delaying because I do not want to misrepresent your physics ideas. It was never my intention to be unfair. I have no motive for that. If I thought PV could work I would use it.

HP: My reason is this.  I know that if you truly understood what the PV effort is designed to do, you would laud it rather than disparage it, appreciate it for what it is designed to do, rather than condemn it.  Since I give you credit for being bright, I'm choosing to go on the assumption that you simply misunderstand what the PV effort is designed to do.

JS: That is an accurate assumption.

JP: My best approach is to use an EM analogy, for it's precise.  We have Maxwell's equations which represent how charges and currents generate fields, and how fields affect charge motions via the Lorentz force equation.  Straightforward. 

JS: OK, agreed.

HP: Under certain conditions, however, when dealing with the design and analysis of simple circuits, we take an approximate approach and use Kirchoff's equations to solve for currents, voltages, etc., given circuit parameters like resistance, inductance and capacitance.  Agreed this is an approximation (though a very useful one) because it simplifies our effort, e.g., we do not have to calculate radiation from the interconnecting wires at bends and junctions, etc.

JS: OK, agreed.

HP: Now would it be appropriate at this point to say "Maxwell's equations ain't broke, so who needs Kirchoff's equations to fix it?!" 

JS: No, of course not.

HP: "Kirchoff's equations "are not even wrong!"

JS: Let me make it clear. PV is better than Cargo Cult pseudo-science. PV is real physics because it is testable. It's better than "not even wrong." It's simply "wrong", which is fine. A lot of initially plausible theories have been proved wrong. There may even be some flaw in my theory, which will make it wrong.

HP: "Kirchoff's equations are CRAP!"  (Sound Familiar?  :-)  )

JS: Now wait a minute. The big difference is that Kirchoff's model, as currently formulated, agrees with all experiments in its proper domain. In contrast your own assistant Michael Ibison has published a very excellent paper showing that your PV does not agree with now well established facts of precison cosmology as well as the binary pulsar gravity radiation data whose agreement with Einstein's GR got a Nobel prize for the people who did the analysis. The fact is that problems easy to solve in GR are hard in PV such as the rotating source problem with the Kerr solution in GR. You have had ample time to solve that problem and good evidence for gravi-magnetism frame drag already exists even without Gravity B space probe. Now this is quite apart from philosophical issues in the informal language of your PV model such as your Tables I & II which to me suggest you are violating the locality of the equivalence principle and also your use of the isotropic radial coordinate and your lack of clarity on the role of general coordinate symmetry

e.g. gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P)

For two LNIF observers Alice and Bob almost colliding with each other at collision point P each on different nearly intersecting time-like non-geodesics. It is interesting to point out that without electrical forces and the Pauli exclusion principle, timelike non-geodesics would not be possible. You could not detect light rays either. You could not have test particles! In fact without electromagnetism and quantum theory you could not have gravity in Einstein's sense at all! I mean from the operational point of view. So obviously, gravity is NOT a fundamental force but is emergent out of electromagnetism like non-renormalizable Fermi theory of beta decay is emergent out of U(1)SU(2) renormalizable gauge theory with Higgs vacuum coherence. You could not even detect timelike geodesic deviation for local tidal curvature if e -> 0 and h -> 0. That is, you need e, h, c before you can get G. That much is obvious.

HP: No, not unless someone were saying that Maxwell's equations were wrong, or incomplete, or some such, which is not the case here.

JS: There is a mathematical limiting case Maxwell's EM -> Kirchoff's circuit laws. Where is the mathematics

GR -> PV

In the simplest SSS case?

HP: Similarly, the PV "approach to GR" or "representation of GR" is a program put forward in the vein of Kirchoff's engineering equations as a (useful) approximation to Einstein's GR. 

JS: You have not proved that. GR uses tensors, you do not seem to. What parameters of GR go to some limit, presumably, zero so that PV emerges with, in the SSS case

K = e^2GM/c^2r ?

Simply demonstrate that with the mathematics.

HP: Its purpose is to calculate certain simple cases without the full tensor math, just as Kirchoff's equations for electric circuits permit facile calculation without the full Maxwellian vector math. 

JS: My point still stands. The analogy GR -> PV with Maxwell -> Kirchoff does not stand until you can prove it mathematically. You must show in the SSS case that

goo(Einstein) = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) -> goo = e^-2GM/c^2r

r > 2GM/c^2

You cannot do that. Indeed, you do just the opposite! You have

goo(Einstein) = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) <- goo = e^-2GM/c^2r

i.e. you have GR is an approximation to PV! So your logic is wrong. You have contradicted yourself. It's not that PV is a representation of GR, but, rather GR is a representation of PV! At least that's the way I learned philosophy of physics under Max Black at Cornell in late 1950's. I wish Zielinski and other theoretical physicists would chime in on this.

HP: As with Kirchoff's equations, certain issues become clear that can otherwise be obscured in a full-fledged Maxwellian analysis. 

JS: Indeed, but again you have it backwards. The simple fact is that problems easy in GR are hard in PV, e.g. rotating source problem. Note Schwarzschild, Kerr & Kerr-Newman are all vacuum solutions to

Ruv = 0 nonexotic vacuum

In the case of Schwarzschild, the exterior solution for r > 2GM/c^2 is fitted to an interior solution where, excluding black holes with event horizons, absent in PV

Guv = Tuv/(String tension) = (Metric Elasticity)Tuv

Metric elasticity = 8piG/c^4 ~ 10^-33 cm per 10^19 Gev

i.e. very stiff, very inelastic - unless ...

HP: Similarly with regard to PV vis a vis GR.  Does PV "replace" GR?  No, nor was it meant to. 

JS: I have shown a very obvious confusion in your logic, in your meta-analysis of your theory.

You have in SSS case PV -> GR when GM/c^2r -> 0

So your analogy above with Maxwell -> Kirchoff is wrong. The real analogy, in the sense of category theory, functors and morphisms and all that fancy stuff, would be

Kirchoff -> Maxwell

which is obviously wrong.

HP: Should we trash PV because it does not (in its present form) handle rotating systems, any more than we should trash Kirchoff's equation because it does not handle radiation?  No, of course not. 

JS: Yes, for reasons I gave above. Also, you will probably never solve the rotating system problem. You have had plenty of time to solve it. You have not been able to. Ibison is a good mathematician and he cannot solve it. Also flying saucers rotate some of the time, or parts of them do, so you cannot have a good metric engineering model with PV for that reason alone!

HP: Should we ridicule PV because its few lines of scalar calculation for GR radiation give only 2/3 the more complex GR tensor-derived value, any more than we should ridicule Kirchoff's equations because its circuit-equivalent analysis of microwave circuits gives only approximate answers compared to a full-fledged Maxwellian analysis?  No, not at all.

JS: We need not ridicule it, but we should certainly reject it, which is why the top people in the field pay no attention to it really. GR works well where it is supposed to work well. PV does not. PV is falsified by the facts that GR agrees with.
 
HP: The PV approach is simply a handy guide to certain 'metric engineering' calculations, no more, no less.  PV is not being promoted as a replacement for Einstein's equations (any more than Kirchoff's equations are meant to replace Maxwell's equations).

JS: "Handy"? How is it handy? Until you can solve the Kuv field from a spinning top you cannot say it is "handy." "Shady" would be more accurate! :-) Also, you cannot claim it is "metric engineering" until you can show that saucers work according to PV given that we both accept the saucer evidence as given by Eric Davis in the NIDS sanctioned MUFON 2001 paper. You must get plausible numbers and you do not get it from Levi-Civita effect using Newton's G. GR has that same effect of course with same problem unless G* >> G on small scale and you never mention that in writing. I do of course.

HP: In addition, there seems to be a misunderstanding in your characterization of PV to the effect that it cannot handle vacuum energy;  Ibison's PV analysis of cosmological issues shows that vacuum energy is incorporated into PV analysis in essentially the same way as in standard GR.

JS: Perhaps. Can you point out the exact pages and equations in his latest paper where that is done? In Einstein's GR there is a /\ term in the action that yields

Guv + /\guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv

where are the analogous equations in PV? Even if you can do that my objection above still applies. Furthermore, you cannot explain WHY /\ and under what conditions? I can and do. Second, you cannot derive guv from QED. I can and do. Third, there is no PV in your PV. I mean I see no connection to QED or to the ZPE aspect of QED in your actual PV math.

HP: Finally, to address another issue, application of the PV approach to determining whether, e.g., strong electric or magnetic fields can be used to significantly affect the spacetime metric (Levi-Civita Effect) was soundly ridiculed by you as being a wasted effort, because the fields are too weak to generate a useful effect.  From the perspective of the PV enterprise, however, (1) it is useful to demo the fact that the PV metric engineering approach permits one to generate in a few lines what to engineers is more difficult to produce by standard GR tensor techniques, (2) and it is important to generate a catalog of all effects, regardless of their strength/significance, so that further effort is not spent on dead-end avenues, while promising avenues are taken up for further evaluation.

JS: It is important that you point out the effect you get is too weak. Something crucial is missing. The fact that the saucers are out there doing what they do shows you are barking up the wrong tree. You are evading what you believe are the UFO facts. You have no plausible model here for metric engineering that I can see. You act as if we have a lot of time. We do not. The Right Stuff is needed now. Also, I see no mathematical model from you showing how even if you get ZPE over-unity how that changes K in your PV. I can show you how to get it in PV with my theory very easy BTW. You have

K ~ 1 + (String Tension)(Electric Energy Density)(Area)

In my theory that is simply, if I replace GR with PV

K ~ 1 + /\zpf(Area)

where for your Levi-Civita effect

/\zpf ~ (Chiao Impedance Match)|Vacuum Coherence||Superconductor Coherence|(Volume Factor)cosine(2pi(Electric Flux)/(Quantum of Electric Flux)|

/\zpf > 0 is zero point induced strong short-range anti-gravity field (dark energy w = -1 exotic vacuum)

/\zpf < 0 is zero point induced strong short-range gravity field (dark matter w = -1 exotic vacuum)

And you configure the /\zpf field like TraceK* in Alcubierre's weightless warp drive "acceleration field" zero g-force, zero time dilation globally faster-than-light "G-Engine" warp drive solution. K* is not your K of course.

HP: In summary, the scalar PV 'metric engineering' approach is to the full-fledged tensor GR approach to spacetime metric calculations what Kirchoff's circuit engineering approach is to the full-fledged vector Maxwellian approach to EM calculations, and, analogously, just as useful when appropriately applied in an engineering setting.

JS: No that is wrong. You made an error there as I showed above.