Gravity Force Without Force and the Bohm Aharonov Effect
On Dec 10, 2004, at 8:44 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 10, 2004, at 7:25 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
I think he understands my point (strongly affirmed by Alex Poltorak) that the choice of spacetime coordinates is a purely
mathematical issue and should be physically completely arbitrary -- which is simply not the case in Einstein GR, since a mere
change of coordinates can at least locally *annihilate* a sourced gravitational field -- without affecting the sources of this
field themselves in any way.
Z.
What you write
"which is simply not the case in Einstein GR, since a mere change of coordinates can at least locally *annihilate* a sourced gravitational field -- without affecting the sources of this field themselves in any way."
is really confused. You completely MISUNDERSTAND Einstein! You are starting from an absurd premise.
I am?
You do not understand the role of "locally" in your above sentence.
I don't?
Yes, you don't. If you did you would know that your GCT tensor gravity force T = 0 always!
You only pay lip service to it without grasping it.
Really?
Really.
You do not GENERALLY annihilate the {LC} field GLOBALLY everywhere in a small neighborhood in ONE GEODESIC COORDINATE PATCH. If the spacetime is REALLY CURVED you can only do it LOCALLY at a POINT P with the given geodesic coordinate patch.
But isn't that what I said?
You said it without understanding it.
You tell me I'm "confused" and that I don't understand anything -- and then you support this by basically repeating what I just said?
You do not see you are contradicting yourself. You cannot say what you said and also say T =/= 0. That's a contradiction. This proves you do not understand what you have written. Also you are not able to compute your T explicitly in the simplest possible problem of the Schwarzschild solution for r > 2GM/c^2r in ordinary vacuum with the conformal curvature tensor field for tidal stretch-squeeze positive and negative curvature components ~ GM/c^2r^3. It should be easy for you to construct your T from them, but you cannot do it!
There is no TENSOR gravity force in GR. This is Yilmaz's mistake. You do have a {LC} connection field in curved spacetime. {LC} = 0 in any LIF at any point of the manifold. {LC} =/= 0 in any LNIF at any point of the manifold. In particular, mc^2{LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 is the Weight Inertial Force measured in the LNIF REST FRAME of m, where, in the Galilean limit of physical importance
mc^2{LC}^i00 + F^i(non-gravity) = 0
Here mc^2{LC}^i00 is the TRANSLATIONAL INERTIAL FORCE of gravity to use Newton's term.
The latter is bad to do because it mixes the two paradigms causing your confusion Paul.
Right now we neglect rotating frames. Stick only to translational case.
F^i(non-gravity) is the real non-gravity force, e.g. electrical forces creating our weight on surface of Earth where from Schwarzschild metric
mc^2{LC}^r00 = mg = mGM/r^2
We would not feel mg, the scale pointer would not move were it not for the real electrical reaction force and quantum pressure (Pauli Principle) from the rock of the Earth's crust pushing us off the geodesic of weightless free float inertial motion.
Jack, the point here is that in Einstein's model the "gravitational field" is completely "annihilated" at a spacetime point in any free-fall frame
of reference.
You do not understand what "annihilated" means. It means your T = 0 ALWAYS.
If you want to do it at another point P' you need a GCT OVERLAP FUNCTION or TRANSITION FUNCTION x^u -> x^u'to a different geodesic coordinate patch! If you can do it using only ONE coordinate patch then you are in Minkowski spacetime with a zero covariant curl of {LC) everywhere when in a finite region.
And just how is this supposed to conflict with what I said?
Because you say T =/= 0. You are saying 0 = 1.
You simply do not understand manifold theory and differential geometry. Neither does Hal Puthoff!
?
Are you denying that in the Einstein model, the gravitational field is completely annihilated at some spacetime point in any so-called "LIF"?
Red Herring. Obviously not. I am saying you do not understand what those words mean PHYSICALLY!
Otherwise I don't really see where you are actually disagreeing with anything I wrote above.
What arbitrary coordinate choices mean is that you can have a set of local detector/observers in arbitrary motion on geodesics and non-geodesics willy nilly and still get sensible data that can be compared among the observers. That is the physical meaning of the math. Physics is MORE than the math!
Which leads back to the interesting question as to why the mathematically arbitrary choice of spacetime coordinates should be linked to the motion of any particular observer, or set of detectors.
This proves my point that you do not understand general relativity because you think that trivial question is an interesting question! This means you do not at all understand the heuristic foundations of Einstein's Vision. You do not understand relativity period including special relativity! You also do not understand quantum theory.
Every choice of basis is a total experimental arrangement - a configuration of "ideal" detectors. This is true in general in both classical relativity and quantum measurement theory!
In quantum theory the basis (choice of coordinates) is in qubit "Hilbert space".
In relativity the basis (choice of coordinates) is in spacetime.
When spacetime is flat you can use global coordinates. When its curved you need local coordinate patches or charts weaved into an Atlas with overlap transition functions that cover the manifold. The overlaps are the GCTs. Puthoff does not understand this either. Matt Visser agreed with me on that at GR 17. Visser says Puthoff's K = e^2GM/c^2r is nonsense for this same reason I gave in my book Space-Time and Beyond II in 2002. Visser actually read Hal's paper and says its mathematical hogwash!
Given a locally flat metric
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dx^2
= (cdt)^2 - dr^2 - r^2(dtheta^2 + sin^2thetadphi^2) (1)
Make any GCT x^u -> x^u'(x^u) with Jacobian matrix X to
That is compute
dx^u = X^uu'dx^u'
and substitute into (1) to get
ds^2 = gu'v'dx^u'dx^v' (2)
This is THE LOCAL EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE in reverse.
Problem, is (2) a curved spacetime or not?
Solution.
Step 1. Compute the non-tensor connection {LC} from the metric guv.
Step 2. Compute the covariant curl of {LC}
If the covariant curl of {LC} is not identically zero in a finite region of the manifold, then that finite region is CURVED, i.e. with a real gravitational field in the general sense.
This property of the curl is INVARIANT under any further GCTs.
This is the complete solution to the problem you raised.
There is a simple EM analogy here. Think of {LC} like vector potential A.
Curvature is like magnetic field B = CurlA.
The difference is GR is like Yang-Mills, i.e. non-Abelian where the field carries charge. Here charge = mass. GCT in GR is like a gauge transformation in EM.
There is an analog to Bohm-Aharonov effect because the LOCAL MACRO-QUANTUM VACUUM COHERENCE of the micro-quantum false flat vacuum zero point fluctuations forming Einstein's gravity with residual zero point dark energy is a GIANT QUANTUM VACUUM WAVE FUNCTION that must be single-valued.
The flux through a closed loop is a quantum phase shift. In EM we have a magnetic flux quantum. In GR we have a conformal curvature flux quantum (in ordinary vacuum).
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Thursday, December 09, 2004
In the style of Nietzsche & Wittgenstein.
On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Sarfatti’s musings and notes while reading Matt Visser
Time Travel
Chronology protection
“It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and makes the universe safe for historians.” Hawking
Traversable wormholes lead to time travel to the past.
Dark energy allows traversable wormholes, AKA stargates
Chronology protection is built into special relativity and flat spacetime quantum field theory as a postulate. Quantum nonlocality has a creative tension with it provided that signal locality is preserved. Antony Valentini shows how to escape that loophole. Unitarity is the Sacred Cow for kosher slaughter. Hawking was right the first time and wrong at GR 17 when he caved in to Lenny Susskind on retrievability of information down the blackhole.
Not only can you not have the paranormal without the precognition that signal nonlocality provides, you cannot even have ordinary consciousness.
Einstein’s 1916 GR is locally causal, but not globally so.
The local stress-energy current densities determine the 10 parameters of the Ricci part of the stretch-squeeze tidal curvature tensor field whilst the remaining 10 parameters of the conformal curvature tensor field propagate into the non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0.
If there are Planck scale Wheeler wormholes in quantum foam, despite current measurements of high energy gammas that seem to rule it out, then there will be causality violation in the quantum foam. Topology change implies naked singularities and/or causality violation.
We have a lot of dark energy to make star gate time machines with. The UFO phenomena show evidence of time travel to the past. Skeptics like Dr. Robert Park of UMD via Sandia who controls the policy of the American Physical Society says UFOs are pure fiction Cargo Cult pseudo-physics like Atlantis and The Masters of Shambalah in “The Morning of The Magicians”.
Alcubierre’s weightless warp drive allows time travel to the past. Dark energy allows weightless warp drive.
There are no real time travel paradoxes. That is a Red Herring.
Grandfather paradoxes solved by Igor Novikov’s globally consistent closed timelike histories.
Bootstrap paradoxes are a joke because that is how all creative ideas come in ordinary consciousness. Even Plato knew that in his theory of forms and the demiurge in which we “remember the future”. This is where Dick Bierman’s presponse as the signal nonlocality of ordinary consciousness comes in. Our mind fields are macro-quantum nonunitary with signal nonlocality automatic.
Non-Hausdorff manifolds allow splitting timelines of the multiverse, both past and future driving historians into an Orwellian nightmare. However P. K. Dick in “Man in the High Castle” and P. Roth in “The Conspiracy Against America” have explored all that.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/936eumjm.asp
Hawking proposes that micro-quantum theory prevents the actual time travel we see in UFO evidence. Therefore, if the UFO evidence is right, Hawking is wrong.
Hawking speculates an infinite blue shift, but the UFO evidence is that there is technology that inverts it to a harmless infinite redshift.
On Dec 9, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Sarfatti’s musings and notes while reading Matt Visser
Time Travel
Chronology protection
“It seems that there is a Chronology Protection Agency which prevents the appearance of closed timelike curves and makes the universe safe for historians.” Hawking
Traversable wormholes lead to time travel to the past.
Dark energy allows traversable wormholes, AKA stargates
Chronology protection is built into special relativity and flat spacetime quantum field theory as a postulate. Quantum nonlocality has a creative tension with it provided that signal locality is preserved. Antony Valentini shows how to escape that loophole. Unitarity is the Sacred Cow for kosher slaughter. Hawking was right the first time and wrong at GR 17 when he caved in to Lenny Susskind on retrievability of information down the blackhole.
Not only can you not have the paranormal without the precognition that signal nonlocality provides, you cannot even have ordinary consciousness.
Einstein’s 1916 GR is locally causal, but not globally so.
The local stress-energy current densities determine the 10 parameters of the Ricci part of the stretch-squeeze tidal curvature tensor field whilst the remaining 10 parameters of the conformal curvature tensor field propagate into the non-exotic vacuum where /\zpf = 0.
If there are Planck scale Wheeler wormholes in quantum foam, despite current measurements of high energy gammas that seem to rule it out, then there will be causality violation in the quantum foam. Topology change implies naked singularities and/or causality violation.
We have a lot of dark energy to make star gate time machines with. The UFO phenomena show evidence of time travel to the past. Skeptics like Dr. Robert Park of UMD via Sandia who controls the policy of the American Physical Society says UFOs are pure fiction Cargo Cult pseudo-physics like Atlantis and The Masters of Shambalah in “The Morning of The Magicians”.
Alcubierre’s weightless warp drive allows time travel to the past. Dark energy allows weightless warp drive.
There are no real time travel paradoxes. That is a Red Herring.
Grandfather paradoxes solved by Igor Novikov’s globally consistent closed timelike histories.
Bootstrap paradoxes are a joke because that is how all creative ideas come in ordinary consciousness. Even Plato knew that in his theory of forms and the demiurge in which we “remember the future”. This is where Dick Bierman’s presponse as the signal nonlocality of ordinary consciousness comes in. Our mind fields are macro-quantum nonunitary with signal nonlocality automatic.
Non-Hausdorff manifolds allow splitting timelines of the multiverse, both past and future driving historians into an Orwellian nightmare. However P. K. Dick in “Man in the High Castle” and P. Roth in “The Conspiracy Against America” have explored all that.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/936eumjm.asp
Hawking proposes that micro-quantum theory prevents the actual time travel we see in UFO evidence. Therefore, if the UFO evidence is right, Hawking is wrong.
Hawking speculates an infinite blue shift, but the UFO evidence is that there is technology that inverts it to a harmless infinite redshift.
Russian claims of torsion propulsion of flying saucers
3. I just did a quick read through of the paper by Gubarev the student of Gennady Shipov at the International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics in Moscow. Gennady was my guest in San Francisco twice during ISSO 1999-2000. Gubarev's paper is a pedagogical step forward in making the Russian torsion school's ideas accessible to the English reader. Jim Corum had a piece of it, but Corum's theory was not as well developed as Shipov's. Corum and Shipov are both concerned with weightless warp drive propulsion and Shipov's colleague in Moscow alleges actual torsion wave technology including weapons. Those claims are highly controversial, but we can certainly not ignore Shipov's extension of Einstein's 1916 GR to the kind of unified field theory that Einstein sought - especially in this new version by Gubarev.
Shipov uses the well known tetrad method. These are local Cartan frames of reference eu^a. eu^a is a GCT world tensor under the locally gauged translation group T4 whose compensating field is the {LC} connection. The 4D GCT covariant curl of the non-tensor {LC} connection is Einstein's stretch-squeeze tidal curvature tensor field. That is, let X be a GCT Jacobian matrix of xu -> xu' at local event P
eu'^a = Xu'^ueu^a
There is also the special relativity Lorentz group SO(1,3) with Lorentz transformations /\a^a' such that
eu^a' = /\a^a'eu^a
The {LC} connection compensating field from locally gauging T4 can be computed from the tetrads that are also the "oriented points" in Shipov's terminology.
The next step beyond Einstein's plain vanilla 1916 GR is to locally gauge SO(1,3). Einstein did not do that in 1916. He played with the idea later on, but not with the modern understanding of local gauge theory, which came after he died. Yang and Mills did do the basics in 1954 but Einstein was too old by then and sick. Shipov's torsion field is the compensating field from locally gauging the Lorentz group. It can also be computed from the tetrads easily. See Hagen Kleinert's home page where those details are also done independently. Gubarev has a nice derivation of the inertial centrifugal and Coriolis fields for a noninertial reference frame rotating with f around z-axis in the Galilean limit fr/c << 1 in terms of the compensating torsion field. The controversial part of Shipov's theory is his introduction of 6 anholonomic coordinates beyond Einstein's 4 translational ones. Note that some versions of string theory also use a real 10-dimensional manifold with the 6 anholonomic angular coordinates as the Calabi-Yau space. On the other hand plain vanilla 1916 GR without torsion has gravimagnetism "frame drag" now measured, and seems perfectly able to explain gyroscopes without the additional torsion field from locally gauging the Lorentz group? So the issue is how to compare Einstein's gravimagnetism and Shipov's torsion field pictures to see exactly where we are forced to locally gauge the Lorentz group. I will be studying this problem. There are also more elements to the Lie algebra of the conformal group to locally gauge like the 4 conformal translational boosts to uniformly accelerated proper motion of the centers of mass of the tetrads as well as the dilation. Note that adding the dilation without the 4 conformal boosts is an 11 dimensional manifold like M-theory? The idea here being that there is an equivalence relation between strings with 10 & 11 boson dimensions and the oriented Cartan tetrads eu^a?
On Dec 9, 2004, at 12:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
2.
Quick note to clear up a possible ambiguity.
Zielinski wrote:
Suppose you have no gravitational field and a test particle travelling in straight line SR inertial motion. If you go to an accelerating frame,
all such objects will appear from the moving observer's POV to accelerate, and we can model this apparent acceleration resulting in
apparently curved trajectories as due to the existence of an inertial field of "force". Of course there is no actual "force" here, just an *accelerating
observational frame*.
That is simply the geodesic equation for test particle of mass m relative to a detector of mass M with which it is momentarily approximately COINCIDENT i.e. in a small neighborhood of the event where the detector "clicks" in sense of a coordinate patch in differential geometry.
"Physics is simple, when it is local." (John A. Wheeler)
d^2x^u/ds^2 = 0 in local inertial frame (LIF).
d^2x^u'/ds^2 + {LC}^u'v'w'(dx^u'/ds)(dx^w'/ds) = 0
In the local non-inertial frame (LNIF)!
The inertial forces are always in plain vanilla GR 1916 no torsion field limit
{LC}^u'v'w'(dx^u'/ds)(dx^w'/ds)
{LC} =/ = 0 in any local non-inertial frame looking at the geodesic test particle. This works even in Minkowski spacetime.
But those inertial forces obey
Mc^2{LC}^i'0'0' = F^i'(non-gravity)
at the position of M (not to be confused with m that is "coincident" with it) on the DETECTOR of mass M that is the LNIF observing the geodesic test particle motion.
3. I just did a quick read through of the paper by Gubarev the student of Gennady Shipov at the International Institute of Theoretical and Applied Physics in Moscow. Gennady was my guest in San Francisco twice during ISSO 1999-2000. Gubarev's paper is a pedagogical step forward in making the Russian torsion school's ideas accessible to the English reader. Jim Corum had a piece of it, but Corum's theory was not as well developed as Shipov's. Corum and Shipov are both concerned with weightless warp drive propulsion and Shipov's colleague in Moscow alleges actual torsion wave technology including weapons. Those claims are highly controversial, but we can certainly not ignore Shipov's extension of Einstein's 1916 GR to the kind of unified field theory that Einstein sought - especially in this new version by Gubarev.
Shipov uses the well known tetrad method. These are local Cartan frames of reference eu^a. eu^a is a GCT world tensor under the locally gauged translation group T4 whose compensating field is the {LC} connection. The 4D GCT covariant curl of the non-tensor {LC} connection is Einstein's stretch-squeeze tidal curvature tensor field. That is, let X be a GCT Jacobian matrix of xu -> xu' at local event P
eu'^a = Xu'^ueu^a
There is also the special relativity Lorentz group SO(1,3) with Lorentz transformations /\a^a' such that
eu^a' = /\a^a'eu^a
The {LC} connection compensating field from locally gauging T4 can be computed from the tetrads that are also the "oriented points" in Shipov's terminology.
The next step beyond Einstein's plain vanilla 1916 GR is to locally gauge SO(1,3). Einstein did not do that in 1916. He played with the idea later on, but not with the modern understanding of local gauge theory, which came after he died. Yang and Mills did do the basics in 1954 but Einstein was too old by then and sick. Shipov's torsion field is the compensating field from locally gauging the Lorentz group. It can also be computed from the tetrads easily. See Hagen Kleinert's home page where those details are also done independently. Gubarev has a nice derivation of the inertial centrifugal and Coriolis fields for a noninertial reference frame rotating with f around z-axis in the Galilean limit fr/c << 1 in terms of the compensating torsion field. The controversial part of Shipov's theory is his introduction of 6 anholonomic coordinates beyond Einstein's 4 translational ones. Note that some versions of string theory also use a real 10-dimensional manifold with the 6 anholonomic angular coordinates as the Calabi-Yau space. On the other hand plain vanilla 1916 GR without torsion has gravimagnetism "frame drag" now measured, and seems perfectly able to explain gyroscopes without the additional torsion field from locally gauging the Lorentz group? So the issue is how to compare Einstein's gravimagnetism and Shipov's torsion field pictures to see exactly where we are forced to locally gauge the Lorentz group. I will be studying this problem. There are also more elements to the Lie algebra of the conformal group to locally gauge like the 4 conformal translational boosts to uniformly accelerated proper motion of the centers of mass of the tetrads as well as the dilation. Note that adding the dilation without the 4 conformal boosts is an 11 dimensional manifold like M-theory? The idea here being that there is an equivalence relation between strings with 10 & 11 boson dimensions and the oriented Cartan tetrads eu^a?
On Dec 9, 2004, at 12:00 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
2.
Quick note to clear up a possible ambiguity.
Zielinski wrote:
Suppose you have no gravitational field and a test particle travelling in straight line SR inertial motion. If you go to an accelerating frame,
all such objects will appear from the moving observer's POV to accelerate, and we can model this apparent acceleration resulting in
apparently curved trajectories as due to the existence of an inertial field of "force". Of course there is no actual "force" here, just an *accelerating
observational frame*.
That is simply the geodesic equation for test particle of mass m relative to a detector of mass M with which it is momentarily approximately COINCIDENT i.e. in a small neighborhood of the event where the detector "clicks" in sense of a coordinate patch in differential geometry.
"Physics is simple, when it is local." (John A. Wheeler)
d^2x^u/ds^2 = 0 in local inertial frame (LIF).
d^2x^u'/ds^2 + {LC}^u'v'w'(dx^u'/ds)(dx^w'/ds) = 0
In the local non-inertial frame (LNIF)!
The inertial forces are always in plain vanilla GR 1916 no torsion field limit
{LC}^u'v'w'(dx^u'/ds)(dx^w'/ds)
{LC} =/ = 0 in any local non-inertial frame looking at the geodesic test particle. This works even in Minkowski spacetime.
But those inertial forces obey
Mc^2{LC}^i'0'0' = F^i'(non-gravity)
at the position of M (not to be confused with m that is "coincident" with it) on the DETECTOR of mass M that is the LNIF observing the geodesic test particle motion.
Hal Puthoff ruins Nick Cook's & Eric Davis's credibility of UFO Investigations with his wrong PV/ZPE physics
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 9, 2004 10:15:04 AM PST
To: "Colin Bennett"
Cc: Victor Martinez
Subject: Puthoff ruins Nick Cook's & Eric Davis's credibility of UFO Investigations with his wrong PV/ZPE physics
Hal's job may be to discredit UFO studies by associating it with his bad gravity and zero point physics (with Haisch) that I found to be rejected as "crackpot" by several top relativity theorists at the GR 17 meeting with Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. On the other hand, it is probably Hal's ego that won't let him get off his no-starter go-nowhere wrong physics ideas! The top people at GR 17 derailed NASA BPP's funding because they associated Hal's bad physics with it. See what Dr. David Park, a past president of the American Physical Society, wrote about Hal's theories. Hal managed to delude Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly that his rejected theories are "mainstream" and esteemed by the top physicists in the field. The opposite is true despite Kit Green's statements to the contrary. It's hard enough to sell UFOs as legitimate but when you back it up with obviously bad physics - that's the Kiss of Death for UFOs in the physics community! Hal Puthoff & Co are harming serious UFO research by pushing their bad physics as the explanation of the phenomenon. That's The Truth! Hal's physics theories violate Einstein's Golden Rule: "Physics should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than IS possible." From my recent discussions on Puthoff's and Haisch's PV and ZPE theories with several top physicists at GR 17, the consensus of a significant sample of the Top Guns was that Hal's PV theory stressed in Eric Davis's USAF contract report on "Teleportation" violates the local equivalence principle and the coordinate independence of the laws of nature in general and in particular Hal's use of the exponential metric in the SSS case is mathematical nonsense confusing the isotropic radial coordinate with the Schwartzschild radial coordinate and ignoring elementary differential geometry and manifold theory. In short, Hal's approach to "metric engineering the fabric of space-time" is not considered a contender by the top people in the field.
See David Park's review "What's New" of Nick Cook's book
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002september/september2002.htm
On Dec 8, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:
Hello all savants,
I really cannot understand what the fuss and bother is about this article by Maccabee, Haisch and Puthoff. Did it really take three admittedly fine brains to write this anodyne resume of what we have all known for years? The last two-thirds of it consists of an simple-minded historical overview available in hundreds of books published over the years. Anne Druffel has written an excellent and definitive book on Condon, for example but these scientists do not mention her name. As for the first third, it consist of arguments published by Jack Sarfatti and Eric Davies long ago, and their names are not mentioned, either. The only excuse for writing this limp, bland, dog-legged piece of dead prose is that they intended a popular article for a popular magazine. It is the same old story - none of these three scientists have had a UFO experience. As such they approach the problem as an exercise in applied systems-engineering, with no human element involved in the brief arguments. This is dry old station-master Ufology, reminiscent of Stalinists Dick Hall and Jan Aldrich, being list compilers and date-base expanders who would not be out of place at a late Victorian Seminar. As a piece of committed expression on the most exciting subject in the world, this article is depressing - sufficient to make warthogs roll over and die, cross-eyed with grief. The next time these people want to present something, they should get in touch with me, and free of charge, I will edit and present their material in a manner that will prevent possible suicides.
If people want a lively Postmodern view of a model of alien contact, then they should read my latest article in Phenomena Magazine (Area 51 section). It bring bring them up to date. They should also read my previous article on Chemtrails, look up in the sky, and get a new idea of what is meant by "high strangeness."
Colin Bennett
HQ Combat Diaries
Portobello Road
Notting Hill
London
-------Original Message-------
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: 12/08/04 21:22:59
To: Victor Martinez
OK
For the record I agree with everything in that Puthoff article except
for the pitch for PV. Hal needs to get off that dead horse which
damages the message on the UFO evidence with mainstream physicists in
relativity. They really shudder at the mention of Hal's PV theory.
There is nothing NEW in Hal's latest paper that is not already in my 2
books from 2002.
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Victor Martinez wrote:
> Calm down, Doc! You know you love engaging Dr Puthoff in online
> catfights! I received your lengthy response and I'll stream it either
> very late tonight or very early tomorrow morning before I go to school.
> I want everyone to read, review and digest Dr Puthoff's piece first
> before reading your rebuttal.
>
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti
> Date: December 8, 2004 8:28:24 AM PST
> To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 10:16 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:
>
>> www.earthtech.org
>>
>> then go to "What's New" for a copy of the attached report in pdf
>> format.
>> ---------------------------------------
>> IN A BOMBSHELL, IN-DEPTH, DETAILED SCIENTIFIC PAPER, DRs HAROLD E
>> PUTHOFF, JAMES DEARDORFF, BRUCE MACCABEE AND B HAISCH ADDRESS FERMI's
>> PARADOX AND WHY EARTH HAS NOT BEEN VISITED OPENLY BY
>> EXTRATERRESTRIALS,... OR HAS IT?! ˆ
>> Published in The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Volume
>> #58, Jan/Feb 2005, pp. 43-50
>>
>> FERMI's PARADOX: Physicist Enrico Fermi asked, "If there are
>> extraterrestrials, where are they?" The fact that no convincing
>> evidence had been found of extraterrestrial activity in or near the
>> solar system suggested to him that there were no intelligent
>> extraterrestrial societies in the Galaxy.
>
>>
>> "If they existed," he said, "they would be here." The same point,
>> also
>> known as the Space Travel Argument, was subsequently raised more
>> forcefully and visibly in 1966 by Freeman Dyson, in 1975 in two
>> articles by Michael Hart in the U.S., and David Viewing in Great
>> Britain, as well as by others.
>>
>> FLASH: S.F. North Beach Bohemian Ivy League-educated theoretical
>> physicist Dr Jack "Rabbi" Sarfatti said to be in "shock & awe" at Dr
>> Puthoff's, et al, latest peer-reviewed, ground-breaking scientific
>> paper.
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: December 9, 2004 10:15:04 AM PST
To: "Colin Bennett"
Cc: Victor Martinez
Subject: Puthoff ruins Nick Cook's & Eric Davis's credibility of UFO Investigations with his wrong PV/ZPE physics
Hal's job may be to discredit UFO studies by associating it with his bad gravity and zero point physics (with Haisch) that I found to be rejected as "crackpot" by several top relativity theorists at the GR 17 meeting with Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. On the other hand, it is probably Hal's ego that won't let him get off his no-starter go-nowhere wrong physics ideas! The top people at GR 17 derailed NASA BPP's funding because they associated Hal's bad physics with it. See what Dr. David Park, a past president of the American Physical Society, wrote about Hal's theories. Hal managed to delude Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly that his rejected theories are "mainstream" and esteemed by the top physicists in the field. The opposite is true despite Kit Green's statements to the contrary. It's hard enough to sell UFOs as legitimate but when you back it up with obviously bad physics - that's the Kiss of Death for UFOs in the physics community! Hal Puthoff & Co are harming serious UFO research by pushing their bad physics as the explanation of the phenomenon. That's The Truth! Hal's physics theories violate Einstein's Golden Rule: "Physics should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than IS possible." From my recent discussions on Puthoff's and Haisch's PV and ZPE theories with several top physicists at GR 17, the consensus of a significant sample of the Top Guns was that Hal's PV theory stressed in Eric Davis's USAF contract report on "Teleportation" violates the local equivalence principle and the coordinate independence of the laws of nature in general and in particular Hal's use of the exponential metric in the SSS case is mathematical nonsense confusing the isotropic radial coordinate with the Schwartzschild radial coordinate and ignoring elementary differential geometry and manifold theory. In short, Hal's approach to "metric engineering the fabric of space-time" is not considered a contender by the top people in the field.
See David Park's review "What's New" of Nick Cook's book
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2002/2002september/september2002.htm
On Dec 8, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:
Hello all savants,
I really cannot understand what the fuss and bother is about this article by Maccabee, Haisch and Puthoff. Did it really take three admittedly fine brains to write this anodyne resume of what we have all known for years? The last two-thirds of it consists of an simple-minded historical overview available in hundreds of books published over the years. Anne Druffel has written an excellent and definitive book on Condon, for example but these scientists do not mention her name. As for the first third, it consist of arguments published by Jack Sarfatti and Eric Davies long ago, and their names are not mentioned, either. The only excuse for writing this limp, bland, dog-legged piece of dead prose is that they intended a popular article for a popular magazine. It is the same old story - none of these three scientists have had a UFO experience. As such they approach the problem as an exercise in applied systems-engineering, with no human element involved in the brief arguments. This is dry old station-master Ufology, reminiscent of Stalinists Dick Hall and Jan Aldrich, being list compilers and date-base expanders who would not be out of place at a late Victorian Seminar. As a piece of committed expression on the most exciting subject in the world, this article is depressing - sufficient to make warthogs roll over and die, cross-eyed with grief. The next time these people want to present something, they should get in touch with me, and free of charge, I will edit and present their material in a manner that will prevent possible suicides.
If people want a lively Postmodern view of a model of alien contact, then they should read my latest article in Phenomena Magazine (Area 51 section). It bring bring them up to date. They should also read my previous article on Chemtrails, look up in the sky, and get a new idea of what is meant by "high strangeness."
Colin Bennett
HQ Combat Diaries
Portobello Road
Notting Hill
London
-------Original Message-------
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: 12/08/04 21:22:59
To: Victor Martinez
OK
For the record I agree with everything in that Puthoff article except
for the pitch for PV. Hal needs to get off that dead horse which
damages the message on the UFO evidence with mainstream physicists in
relativity. They really shudder at the mention of Hal's PV theory.
There is nothing NEW in Hal's latest paper that is not already in my 2
books from 2002.
On Dec 8, 2004, at 11:34 AM, Victor Martinez wrote:
> Calm down, Doc! You know you love engaging Dr Puthoff in online
> catfights! I received your lengthy response and I'll stream it either
> very late tonight or very early tomorrow morning before I go to school.
> I want everyone to read, review and digest Dr Puthoff's piece first
> before reading your rebuttal.
>
>
> From: Jack Sarfatti
> Date: December 8, 2004 8:28:24 AM PST
> To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
>
>
>
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 10:16 PM, Victor Martinez wrote:
>
>> www.earthtech.org
>>
>> then go to "What's New" for a copy of the attached report in pdf
>> format.
>> ---------------------------------------
>> IN A BOMBSHELL, IN-DEPTH, DETAILED SCIENTIFIC PAPER, DRs HAROLD E
>> PUTHOFF, JAMES DEARDORFF, BRUCE MACCABEE AND B HAISCH ADDRESS FERMI's
>> PARADOX AND WHY EARTH HAS NOT BEEN VISITED OPENLY BY
>> EXTRATERRESTRIALS,... OR HAS IT?! ˆ
>> Published in The Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Volume
>> #58, Jan/Feb 2005, pp. 43-50
>>
>> FERMI's PARADOX: Physicist Enrico Fermi asked, "If there are
>> extraterrestrials, where are they?" The fact that no convincing
>> evidence had been found of extraterrestrial activity in or near the
>> solar system suggested to him that there were no intelligent
>> extraterrestrial societies in the Galaxy.
>
>>
>> "If they existed," he said, "they would be here." The same point,
>> also
>> known as the Space Travel Argument, was subsequently raised more
>> forcefully and visibly in 1966 by Freeman Dyson, in 1975 in two
>> articles by Michael Hart in the U.S., and David Viewing in Great
>> Britain, as well as by others.
>>
>> FLASH: S.F. North Beach Bohemian Ivy League-educated theoretical
>> physicist Dr Jack "Rabbi" Sarfatti said to be in "shock & awe" at Dr
>> Puthoff's, et al, latest peer-reviewed, ground-breaking scientific
>> paper.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Gennady Shipov's torsion physics from Moscow
Quick comment on Gubarev's paper that I have only read the first few pages of so far. On the translational equivalence principle - there are several ways to state it.
1. Global Galilean-Newtonian picture: Inside of the Newtonian paradigm where gravity is an external force field that in the Galilean inertial frame can be approximated by the Lagrangian for a NON-ORIENTED point test particle, i.e. the internal relative coordinates are neglected here. They are not neglected in Shipov's torsion theory extension of Einstein's 1916 "translational" GR that only strictly applies to idealized "point" test particles. Einstein's theory only locally gauges the 4 parameter translation group. Einstein, of course, did not think in those modern terms back then. Shipov's theory locally gauges the additional 3 space-space rotations generated by angular momentum and the 3-space-time Lorentz constant velocity boosts. A still further generalization beyond Shipov's extension of 1916 GR would be to locally gauge the 4 conformal boosts of constant proper acceleration to what is called hyperbolic motion in special relativity, and the dilation. This would give dynamical compensating fields to the complete Lie algebra "charges" of the conformal "twistor" group of 4D space-time. Einstein's 1916 plain vanilla GR only locally gauges the four "momenergy" generators of flat spacetime translations whose compensating field is that of the GCT tensor curvature with the non-tensor connection field {LC} as the "potential". The curvature is the 4-D covariant curl of the {LC} connection exactly like the EM tensor Fuv field is the 4D curl of the EM potential Au. The EM potential Au is also a connection field for parallel transport in the internal space beyond 4D spacetime. The {LC} connection is for parallel transport of geometrodynamic fields inside curved spacetime. Getting back now to Newton's simple picture:
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z is height above surface of the Earth APPROXIMATED as a Galilean inertial frame (neglecting Earth's rotation about its polar axis etc)
One can also consider a uniformly accelerated frame out in deep space far from any sources so that the conformal curvature tensor Cuvwl = 0.
There is an APPROXIMATE equivalence between these to cases so long as one confines one's measurements to the CENTER OF MASS of the test particle of mass m. Obviously Cuvwl =/= 0 near surface of the Earth, which is actually a non-inertial frame in Einstein's paradigm.
Note also that this is a GLOBAL comparison of two physical situations very far apart from each other! Hal Puthoff's PV theory's Table's I & II only have the equivalence principle in this global Galilean - Newtonian sense.
Therefore, in this common way of stating the equivalence principle one is only asserting an approximate correspondence between two situations both really described in terms of Galilean relativity without the complications of special relativity's time dilation, which, in fact, introduces enormous counter-intuitive complications.
2. Within Einstein's paradigm of LOCAL GEOMETRODYNAMICS: "translational" gravity force is abolished. That is the POINT CENTER OF MASS of an extended elastic test particle follows a timelike geodesic in the curved spacetime. Translational inertial forces are zero in this free float weightless "inertial motion".
The motion of a bullet is non-inertial in Newton's paradigm, but is inertial in Einstein's. The surface of the Earth is not even approximately an inertial frame in Einstein's paradigm.
The local laws of nature must be GCT TENSOR transformations, i.e. no preferred coordinates in the LOCAL field equations from the action principle. The CLASSICAL action is an extremal critical point in the bundle of alternative histories of the motion of the system. This corresponds to constructive interference of the micro-quantum Feynman quantum amplitudes. How to extend this to the macro-quantum case, with the breakdown of linearity, nonlocality and unitarity, relevant to Einstein's local nonlinear gravity needs further study.
The tensor laws also contain within them the tetrads which provide a purely LOCAL formulation of the equivalence principle at the SAME point event neighborhood P of a physical event. The "event" has has more structure than merely a point in a manifold.
Consider two observers Alice and Bob in empty space-time (generally curved) this time near a large gravitating source Tuv(matter) =/= 0 in a region near the experiment in a small neighborhood of localized event P. Alice is on a timelike INERTIAL geodesic, Bob is on a timelike NON-INERTIAL geodesic. Bob must be using a non-gravity force to do this. At least a non-gravity "translational" force e.g. ejecting propellent in a rocket, using the Lorentz force on charges, using quantum presssure. Usually, it is all of the above. Alice and Bob are on near collision course, narrowly missing each other, to the degree of coarse-graining of the scale-dependent metric. The LOCAL TETRAD GR formulation of the equivalence principle is
guv(Bob) = eu^aev^bnab(Alice)
nab is the constant INERTIAL LIF geodesic metric of special relativity.
guv is the curved NON-INERTIAL LNIF non-geodesic metric of general relativity.
Geodesics and non-geodesics are DEFINED only relative to the metric {LC} connection from locally gauging ONLY the 4 translations. When adding torsion et-al fields one is also adding to the connection so one must be very clear which group of transformations for "tensors" one is talking about!
On Dec 8, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks Gennady - looks good. I will study it. :-)
On Dec 7, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
"Jack and Paul!
I send you work of my pupil - Gubarev Evgeni.
Pay attention to that part of work in which localization of Galilean group
is considered. Localization of Galilean group - is a correct way to pass
from inertial 3-dimensional reference frame in accelerated. Other methods
are limited or incorrect.
From looking briefly at the paper your student seems to come to same conclusion I did with Paul that the idea of uniform gravity g-field for LNIFs is a Galilean approximation needing gz/c^2 << 1.
From Gubarev's work follows, that the correct description accelerated
systems of reference in physics impossible without use of Ricci torsion
fields."
Shipov Gennady.
Quick comment on Gubarev's paper that I have only read the first few pages of so far. On the translational equivalence principle - there are several ways to state it.
1. Global Galilean-Newtonian picture: Inside of the Newtonian paradigm where gravity is an external force field that in the Galilean inertial frame can be approximated by the Lagrangian for a NON-ORIENTED point test particle, i.e. the internal relative coordinates are neglected here. They are not neglected in Shipov's torsion theory extension of Einstein's 1916 "translational" GR that only strictly applies to idealized "point" test particles. Einstein's theory only locally gauges the 4 parameter translation group. Einstein, of course, did not think in those modern terms back then. Shipov's theory locally gauges the additional 3 space-space rotations generated by angular momentum and the 3-space-time Lorentz constant velocity boosts. A still further generalization beyond Shipov's extension of 1916 GR would be to locally gauge the 4 conformal boosts of constant proper acceleration to what is called hyperbolic motion in special relativity, and the dilation. This would give dynamical compensating fields to the complete Lie algebra "charges" of the conformal "twistor" group of 4D space-time. Einstein's 1916 plain vanilla GR only locally gauges the four "momenergy" generators of flat spacetime translations whose compensating field is that of the GCT tensor curvature with the non-tensor connection field {LC} as the "potential". The curvature is the 4-D covariant curl of the {LC} connection exactly like the EM tensor Fuv field is the 4D curl of the EM potential Au. The EM potential Au is also a connection field for parallel transport in the internal space beyond 4D spacetime. The {LC} connection is for parallel transport of geometrodynamic fields inside curved spacetime. Getting back now to Newton's simple picture:
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z is height above surface of the Earth APPROXIMATED as a Galilean inertial frame (neglecting Earth's rotation about its polar axis etc)
One can also consider a uniformly accelerated frame out in deep space far from any sources so that the conformal curvature tensor Cuvwl = 0.
There is an APPROXIMATE equivalence between these to cases so long as one confines one's measurements to the CENTER OF MASS of the test particle of mass m. Obviously Cuvwl =/= 0 near surface of the Earth, which is actually a non-inertial frame in Einstein's paradigm.
Note also that this is a GLOBAL comparison of two physical situations very far apart from each other! Hal Puthoff's PV theory's Table's I & II only have the equivalence principle in this global Galilean - Newtonian sense.
Therefore, in this common way of stating the equivalence principle one is only asserting an approximate correspondence between two situations both really described in terms of Galilean relativity without the complications of special relativity's time dilation, which, in fact, introduces enormous counter-intuitive complications.
2. Within Einstein's paradigm of LOCAL GEOMETRODYNAMICS: "translational" gravity force is abolished. That is the POINT CENTER OF MASS of an extended elastic test particle follows a timelike geodesic in the curved spacetime. Translational inertial forces are zero in this free float weightless "inertial motion".
The motion of a bullet is non-inertial in Newton's paradigm, but is inertial in Einstein's. The surface of the Earth is not even approximately an inertial frame in Einstein's paradigm.
The local laws of nature must be GCT TENSOR transformations, i.e. no preferred coordinates in the LOCAL field equations from the action principle. The CLASSICAL action is an extremal critical point in the bundle of alternative histories of the motion of the system. This corresponds to constructive interference of the micro-quantum Feynman quantum amplitudes. How to extend this to the macro-quantum case, with the breakdown of linearity, nonlocality and unitarity, relevant to Einstein's local nonlinear gravity needs further study.
The tensor laws also contain within them the tetrads which provide a purely LOCAL formulation of the equivalence principle at the SAME point event neighborhood P of a physical event. The "event" has has more structure than merely a point in a manifold.
Consider two observers Alice and Bob in empty space-time (generally curved) this time near a large gravitating source Tuv(matter) =/= 0 in a region near the experiment in a small neighborhood of localized event P. Alice is on a timelike INERTIAL geodesic, Bob is on a timelike NON-INERTIAL geodesic. Bob must be using a non-gravity force to do this. At least a non-gravity "translational" force e.g. ejecting propellent in a rocket, using the Lorentz force on charges, using quantum presssure. Usually, it is all of the above. Alice and Bob are on near collision course, narrowly missing each other, to the degree of coarse-graining of the scale-dependent metric. The LOCAL TETRAD GR formulation of the equivalence principle is
guv(Bob) = eu^aev^bnab(Alice)
nab is the constant INERTIAL LIF geodesic metric of special relativity.
guv is the curved NON-INERTIAL LNIF non-geodesic metric of general relativity.
Geodesics and non-geodesics are DEFINED only relative to the metric {LC} connection from locally gauging ONLY the 4 translations. When adding torsion et-al fields one is also adding to the connection so one must be very clear which group of transformations for "tensors" one is talking about!
On Dec 8, 2004, at 9:21 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Thanks Gennady - looks good. I will study it. :-)
On Dec 7, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Gennady Shipov wrote:
"Jack and Paul!
I send you work of my pupil - Gubarev Evgeni.
Pay attention to that part of work in which localization of Galilean group
is considered. Localization of Galilean group - is a correct way to pass
from inertial 3-dimensional reference frame in accelerated. Other methods
are limited or incorrect.
From looking briefly at the paper your student seems to come to same conclusion I did with Paul that the idea of uniform gravity g-field for LNIFs is a Galilean approximation needing gz/c^2 << 1.
From Gubarev's work follows, that the correct description accelerated
systems of reference in physics impossible without use of Ricci torsion
fields."
Shipov Gennady.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Nazi Super Weapons: Fact or Fantasy?
To appear in my book "Super Cosmos" (held off till spring/summer 2005 for major revisions & updates including extensive reviews of Penrose's "Road to Reality" as well as recent Wheeler and Hawking Festschrift volumes).
BTW Noteworthy in Physics Today Dec 2004 synchronicity with our recent revisiting of Nick Cook's claims on Nazi UFO Weapons in WWII in "The Hunt for Zero Point" from Jane's Defence Weekly leading to anti-gravity lift threshold voltage gradient of ~ 10^16/k^1/2 volts/meter, k = dimensionless dielectric response that we want k >> 1 at some resonant low EM frequency in a tunable L-C oscillator built into the fuselage of the alleged wobbly flying tin cans of the 1940s powered with U-Boat batteries?
http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/naziufo.html
http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/nazi2.html

That the Nazis would use Einstein's physics for super secret weapons to trump the Allies is shown for example in
"With regard to Einstein ... The physicist is through and through first class, but his early fame appears to have gone to his head, so that he has become insufferable as a person. But science cannot concern itself with such personality characteristics. Instead it has to accept the fact that physical laws have been discovered ... which one cannot leave out without destroying the body of knowledge ..." "The German Physical Society Under National Socialism" Physics Today
Written by "respected AERONAUTICAL researcher Ludwig Prandtl" to SS Reich's Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler I think ~ 1937? BTW there is a copy of a letter by Peter Debye signed "Heil Hitler" in the Physics Today article. The persistent current of Einstein-bashing continues to this day and is, indeed, increasing in frequency on the WEB especially in regard to New Age "free energy claims". We saw a lot of that at ISSO 1999-2000.
Einstein's equivalence principle is "Gravity without gravity".
Newton's theory is "Gravity with gravity."
The Paradigm Shift is from the second to the first.
IV: The 4th rank tidal stretch-squeeze GCT curvature tensor has 20 independent components, but only the trace free 10 independent components of its conformal part are important for the pure gravity energy problem. The 10 Ricci components are from the source term Tuv(matter) that excludes the gravity field.
By "equivalence principle" I mean that the center of mass of an extended neutral test body follows a timelike geodesic in the curved spacetime relative to the metric Levi-Civita non-tensor connection field. Extensions to Shipov's torsion and other conformal boost and dilaton fields are excluded in this "plain vanilla" 1916 GR context. Simple things first. The tidal stretch-squeeze in the relative coordinates of the extended test body decoupled from the CM coordinate are not directly relevant to the main point here. They are there and measurable in the LIF of course. The main point here is that there are no objective gravity GCT tensor forces in the REST LIFs of a test particle in inertial motion in curved spacetime. Indeed, Einstein's deep insight is that the pure objective gravity force of Newton's theory does not really exist! What you experience as "weight" or "the force of gravity" is not a gravity force at all, but is the inertial response to an electrical reaction force forcing you into the role of a non-inertial observer pushed off a timelike geodesic into a timelike non-geodesic in which you age slower by a insignificant amount. The idea of "inertial compensation" is simply Newton's second law of motion F = ma adapted to curved spacetime from the POV of the REST LNIF of the test particle. One is in a state of free float weightlessness on a timelike geodesic in which no non-gravity forces are operating. Of course, there are still the generally tiny imperceptible tidal stretch-squeeze curvature effects on your body even when in free float zero g orbit around Earth in space. The g-force that feels like Newton's objective gravity force is really the inertial force reaction to non-gravity electrical forces and micro-quantum pressures. This is counter-intuitive and many people get confused by it.
This is Gravity without gravity.
The equivalence principle demands nonlocality of the total energy of pure conformal gravity. Any attempt to construct a classical local conformal gravity energy density is inconsistent with Einstein's general relativity. This includes Alex Potorak's attempt because he has to bring in a rigid non-dynamical background-dependent "affine connection" with a "nonmetricity" tensor that violates the core of Einstein's theory. Similarly for the Yilmaz theory. These theories are not equivalent to Einstein's, but are alternative theories.
The equivalence principle and GCT tensors are closely linked. This is why Hal Puthoff's PV theory is inconsistent with the equivalence principle and why top physicists in the field like Cliff Will, Matt Visser, Bill Unruh and other important figures, who I polled at GR 17 in Dublin, unanimously reject Puthoff's papers even though he did manage to get them published in Physical Review. There was no mention of Puthoff's theories in the hundreds of papers at the International GR 17 in July 2004. Hal Puthoff's theory was not THE hot topic in mainstream physics. Hawking's turn around on information loss down a black hole was. This was an international media event. It even led to a Law and Order program in which the Hawking-based character is the Bad Guy. Several top physicists there told me not to waste my time on it. I told them the reason I am is that US Department of Defense agencies as well as media like Jane's Defence Weekly and Aviation and Space Technology magazine take Hal's claims seriously because of his long-time "Good Old Boy" status with USG Intelligence agencies.
Is it wise to dispense with tensors as Puthoff does in his PV theory?
Penrose wrote:"Einstein's field equation is expressed in terms of the tensor formalism ... Recall Albert, our astronaut A orbiting freely in the gravitational field of the Earth. In various directions out from A there are inward accelerations [squeeze positive curvature], and in other directions there are outward accelerations [stretch negative curvature]. These represent the tidal forces experienced by A. Tidal forces are manifestations of spacetime curvature ... But there is another reason, apart from just organizing complication, that the tensor calculus plays such a fundamental role in Einstein's theory. This goes back to the foundational principle of equivalence which started Einstein's whole line of thinking. GRAVITY IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS A FORCE (CAPS not in Penrose); for, to an observer who is falling freely ... THERE IS NO GRAVITATIONAL FORCE TO BE FELT ... NOW IT IS IMPORTANT IF THIS IDEA IS TO WORK, THAT THERE BE NO 'PREFERRED COORDINATES' IN THE THEORY. For, if a certain limited class of coordinate systems were taken to be Nature's preferred choices, then these would define 'natural observer systems' with respect to which the notion of a 'GRAVITATIONAL FORCE' COULD BE REINTRODUCED, AND THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE WOULD BE LOST."
This is certainly true of Puthoff's PV theory, as confirmed by his co-worker Michael Ibison at IAS-Austin, and also Zielinski's proposal to sneak in a gravitational force in inertial motion that is "compensated" for. I suspect also that his objection applies to Poltorak's rigid "affine connection" though I am not sure not having studied his papers yet in enough detail.
"The point in fact is a rather delicate one, AND MANY PHYSICISTS HAVE, FROM TIME TO TIME AND IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, DEPARTED FROM IT. To my way of thinking, it is essential for the spirit of Einstein's theory that this notion of coordinate independence be maintained. This is what is referred to as THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL COVARIANCE." p. 459 Penrose "The Road to Reality".
Penrose means by this the local field equations
Guv + /\zpfguv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
that must be GCT tensors.
What does a GCT mean? It means a transformation between sets of local observers in arbitrary motion. Certainly one choice of a set of observers can be more useful than others. For example in the Schwarzschild metric with the choice
gt't' = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) = -1/gr'r' etc.
for r > 2GM/c^2
where the area of a concentric sphere is 4pir^2
This is for REST LNIF observers on special non-geodesics from non-gravity forces that are at fixed r from source M. Coincident LIF observers on geodesics see
gtt = 1, grr = -1 etc.
You can write the tensor T in any local frame. A general GCT tensor transforms linearly and homogeneously in each index, i.e.
GCT: T -> T'= X...T
For example
Au -> Au' = Xu'^uAu
sum on repeated upper & lower indices
guv -> gu'v' = Xu'^uXv'^vguv
What about the g-force you feel when the elevator lurches into motion, or when you step on the gas of a fast Porsche? That is not a real gravity force at all! What you are feeling is the inertial force response compensating the real non-gravity electrical force pushing you off the free-float timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. If there were no electrical forces and micro-quantum pressures you would never feel weight. Also you could not exist.
This is "Gravity without gravity."
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John Archibald Wheeler
Zielinski has been asking the wrong question.
Zielinski's question is "What is the real force of gravity?" Zielinski's question has an answer: The real force of gravity is zero. It's always zero. So that is not the best question to ask. Note that the "g-force" is not at all a "gravity force" but an inertial force response to the "non-gravity force" pushing you off the geodesic.
In your rest LNIF
Weight (Inertial Force) - Non-Gravity Real Force = 0
To any outside observer this is simply Newton's 2nd Law F = ma, which in curved space-time is the covariant tensor equation
mc^2D^2x^u/ds^2 = F^u(non-gravity)
D/ds is the GCT covariant derivative
D^2x^u/ds^2 = d^2x^u/ds^2 + {LC}^uvw(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds)
Where {LC} is the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection field.
Note that in the REST LNIF with instant non-inertial acceleration along z'
mc^2{LC}^z't't' - F^z(non-gravity) = 0
Felt Weight = mc^2{LC}^z't't'
To be continued.
To appear in my book "Super Cosmos" (held off till spring/summer 2005 for major revisions & updates including extensive reviews of Penrose's "Road to Reality" as well as recent Wheeler and Hawking Festschrift volumes).
BTW Noteworthy in Physics Today Dec 2004 synchronicity with our recent revisiting of Nick Cook's claims on Nazi UFO Weapons in WWII in "The Hunt for Zero Point" from Jane's Defence Weekly leading to anti-gravity lift threshold voltage gradient of ~ 10^16/k^1/2 volts/meter, k = dimensionless dielectric response that we want k >> 1 at some resonant low EM frequency in a tunable L-C oscillator built into the fuselage of the alleged wobbly flying tin cans of the 1940s powered with U-Boat batteries?
http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/naziufo.html
http://www.members.tripod.com/uforeview/nazi2.html

That the Nazis would use Einstein's physics for super secret weapons to trump the Allies is shown for example in
"With regard to Einstein ... The physicist is through and through first class, but his early fame appears to have gone to his head, so that he has become insufferable as a person. But science cannot concern itself with such personality characteristics. Instead it has to accept the fact that physical laws have been discovered ... which one cannot leave out without destroying the body of knowledge ..." "The German Physical Society Under National Socialism" Physics Today
Written by "respected AERONAUTICAL researcher Ludwig Prandtl" to SS Reich's Fuhrer Heinrich Himmler I think ~ 1937? BTW there is a copy of a letter by Peter Debye signed "Heil Hitler" in the Physics Today article. The persistent current of Einstein-bashing continues to this day and is, indeed, increasing in frequency on the WEB especially in regard to New Age "free energy claims". We saw a lot of that at ISSO 1999-2000.
Einstein's equivalence principle is "Gravity without gravity".
Newton's theory is "Gravity with gravity."
The Paradigm Shift is from the second to the first.
IV: The 4th rank tidal stretch-squeeze GCT curvature tensor has 20 independent components, but only the trace free 10 independent components of its conformal part are important for the pure gravity energy problem. The 10 Ricci components are from the source term Tuv(matter) that excludes the gravity field.
By "equivalence principle" I mean that the center of mass of an extended neutral test body follows a timelike geodesic in the curved spacetime relative to the metric Levi-Civita non-tensor connection field. Extensions to Shipov's torsion and other conformal boost and dilaton fields are excluded in this "plain vanilla" 1916 GR context. Simple things first. The tidal stretch-squeeze in the relative coordinates of the extended test body decoupled from the CM coordinate are not directly relevant to the main point here. They are there and measurable in the LIF of course. The main point here is that there are no objective gravity GCT tensor forces in the REST LIFs of a test particle in inertial motion in curved spacetime. Indeed, Einstein's deep insight is that the pure objective gravity force of Newton's theory does not really exist! What you experience as "weight" or "the force of gravity" is not a gravity force at all, but is the inertial response to an electrical reaction force forcing you into the role of a non-inertial observer pushed off a timelike geodesic into a timelike non-geodesic in which you age slower by a insignificant amount. The idea of "inertial compensation" is simply Newton's second law of motion F = ma adapted to curved spacetime from the POV of the REST LNIF of the test particle. One is in a state of free float weightlessness on a timelike geodesic in which no non-gravity forces are operating. Of course, there are still the generally tiny imperceptible tidal stretch-squeeze curvature effects on your body even when in free float zero g orbit around Earth in space. The g-force that feels like Newton's objective gravity force is really the inertial force reaction to non-gravity electrical forces and micro-quantum pressures. This is counter-intuitive and many people get confused by it.
This is Gravity without gravity.
The equivalence principle demands nonlocality of the total energy of pure conformal gravity. Any attempt to construct a classical local conformal gravity energy density is inconsistent with Einstein's general relativity. This includes Alex Potorak's attempt because he has to bring in a rigid non-dynamical background-dependent "affine connection" with a "nonmetricity" tensor that violates the core of Einstein's theory. Similarly for the Yilmaz theory. These theories are not equivalent to Einstein's, but are alternative theories.
The equivalence principle and GCT tensors are closely linked. This is why Hal Puthoff's PV theory is inconsistent with the equivalence principle and why top physicists in the field like Cliff Will, Matt Visser, Bill Unruh and other important figures, who I polled at GR 17 in Dublin, unanimously reject Puthoff's papers even though he did manage to get them published in Physical Review. There was no mention of Puthoff's theories in the hundreds of papers at the International GR 17 in July 2004. Hal Puthoff's theory was not THE hot topic in mainstream physics. Hawking's turn around on information loss down a black hole was. This was an international media event. It even led to a Law and Order program in which the Hawking-based character is the Bad Guy. Several top physicists there told me not to waste my time on it. I told them the reason I am is that US Department of Defense agencies as well as media like Jane's Defence Weekly and Aviation and Space Technology magazine take Hal's claims seriously because of his long-time "Good Old Boy" status with USG Intelligence agencies.
Is it wise to dispense with tensors as Puthoff does in his PV theory?
Penrose wrote:"Einstein's field equation is expressed in terms of the tensor formalism ... Recall Albert, our astronaut A orbiting freely in the gravitational field of the Earth. In various directions out from A there are inward accelerations [squeeze positive curvature], and in other directions there are outward accelerations [stretch negative curvature]. These represent the tidal forces experienced by A. Tidal forces are manifestations of spacetime curvature ... But there is another reason, apart from just organizing complication, that the tensor calculus plays such a fundamental role in Einstein's theory. This goes back to the foundational principle of equivalence which started Einstein's whole line of thinking. GRAVITY IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS A FORCE (CAPS not in Penrose); for, to an observer who is falling freely ... THERE IS NO GRAVITATIONAL FORCE TO BE FELT ... NOW IT IS IMPORTANT IF THIS IDEA IS TO WORK, THAT THERE BE NO 'PREFERRED COORDINATES' IN THE THEORY. For, if a certain limited class of coordinate systems were taken to be Nature's preferred choices, then these would define 'natural observer systems' with respect to which the notion of a 'GRAVITATIONAL FORCE' COULD BE REINTRODUCED, AND THE CENTRAL ROLE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUIVALENCE WOULD BE LOST."
This is certainly true of Puthoff's PV theory, as confirmed by his co-worker Michael Ibison at IAS-Austin, and also Zielinski's proposal to sneak in a gravitational force in inertial motion that is "compensated" for. I suspect also that his objection applies to Poltorak's rigid "affine connection" though I am not sure not having studied his papers yet in enough detail.
"The point in fact is a rather delicate one, AND MANY PHYSICISTS HAVE, FROM TIME TO TIME AND IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, DEPARTED FROM IT. To my way of thinking, it is essential for the spirit of Einstein's theory that this notion of coordinate independence be maintained. This is what is referred to as THE PRINCIPLE OF GENERAL COVARIANCE." p. 459 Penrose "The Road to Reality".
Penrose means by this the local field equations
Guv + /\zpfguv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv
that must be GCT tensors.
What does a GCT mean? It means a transformation between sets of local observers in arbitrary motion. Certainly one choice of a set of observers can be more useful than others. For example in the Schwarzschild metric with the choice
gt't' = (1 - 2GM/c^2r) = -1/gr'r' etc.
for r > 2GM/c^2
where the area of a concentric sphere is 4pir^2
This is for REST LNIF observers on special non-geodesics from non-gravity forces that are at fixed r from source M. Coincident LIF observers on geodesics see
gtt = 1, grr = -1 etc.
You can write the tensor T in any local frame. A general GCT tensor transforms linearly and homogeneously in each index, i.e.
GCT: T -> T'= X...T
For example
Au -> Au' = Xu'^uAu
sum on repeated upper & lower indices
guv -> gu'v' = Xu'^uXv'^vguv
What about the g-force you feel when the elevator lurches into motion, or when you step on the gas of a fast Porsche? That is not a real gravity force at all! What you are feeling is the inertial force response compensating the real non-gravity electrical force pushing you off the free-float timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. If there were no electrical forces and micro-quantum pressures you would never feel weight. Also you could not exist.
This is "Gravity without gravity."
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John Archibald Wheeler
Zielinski has been asking the wrong question.
Zielinski's question is "What is the real force of gravity?" Zielinski's question has an answer: The real force of gravity is zero. It's always zero. So that is not the best question to ask. Note that the "g-force" is not at all a "gravity force" but an inertial force response to the "non-gravity force" pushing you off the geodesic.
In your rest LNIF
Weight (Inertial Force) - Non-Gravity Real Force = 0
To any outside observer this is simply Newton's 2nd Law F = ma, which in curved space-time is the covariant tensor equation
mc^2D^2x^u/ds^2 = F^u(non-gravity)
D/ds is the GCT covariant derivative
D^2x^u/ds^2 = d^2x^u/ds^2 + {LC}^uvw(dx^v/ds)(dx^w/ds)
Where {LC} is the non-tensor Levi-Civita connection field.
Note that in the REST LNIF with instant non-inertial acceleration along z'
mc^2{LC}^z't't' - F^z(non-gravity) = 0
Felt Weight = mc^2{LC}^z't't'
To be continued.
Gravity's Force without force in Einstein's General Relativity
On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
III Z's Cognitive Dissonance on Newton to Einstein Gestalt Shift in meaning of the "inertial/non-inertial motion" creative tension.
Also message from retired USAF SAC scientist R. Kiehn on Cartan, Stoke's theorem, Bohm-Aharonov, aerodynamic lift etc.
On Dec 6, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:25 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:41 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The metric for an x-y vacuum domain wall can be written as
ds^2 = -(1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 . d(ct)^2 + (1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 .e^-(2kappa ct).(dx^2 + dy^2) + dz^2
JS: So what?
1. That is ONLY the linear weak field approximation I suspect.
PZ: This is the exact solution for the vacuum domain wall. It is not a weak-field approximation.
JS: What equation in the paper? Even if it is exact solution so what? This or that solution, exact or not, has nothing whatever to do with the real problem here, which is your deep confusion over the meaning of "inertial motion". Indeed YOU VIOLATE NEWTON'S FIRST LAW as well as Einstein's GR. You confound Newton's first and second laws.
"Inertial motion" means FORCE-FREE MOTION.
There is NO INERTIAL COMPENSATION of forces in inertial motion.
Let's take your misbegotten idea in its simplest application to Newton's mechanics in Galilean relativity.
Inertial motion there means motion of a point test particle in a straight line in Euclidean space at constant speed.
There is ZERO FORCE there. "Zero" means zero. Your confused idea is that even in that case you have INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e.
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
This is obviously wrong.
Your equation for curved space-time that in inertial motion (i.e. timelike geodesic in curved space-time) along which the torsion-free plain vanilla Levi-Civita connection {LC} can be set to zero in a sequence of LIFs (geodesic coordinates) is
0 = {LC} = T + N
where you say T is a GCT 3rd rank tensor =/= 0 but that you have "inertial compensation", i.e.
T + N = 0
T = - N =/= 0
But this is the same as saying that in Newtonian inertial motion
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
where
T = F(real force)
N = F(inertial force)
Now, why have you made such an obvious mistake?
You are suffering a common cognitive dissonance missing the switch in the meaning of "inertial motion" in the paradigm shift from Newton's mechanics of forces acting at a distance to Einstein's LOCAL geometrodynamics. Now this cognitive dissonance is epidemic and accounts for a lot of crackpot psychoceramic attacks on Einstein and general relativity. So it is worth explicating it. Traces of it underly Hal Puthoff's PV "electro-gravitic" or "dielectric" theory eschewing tensors and general coordinate covariance (GCT) of the local classical field equations. Indeed, Paul your rhetoric shows a lack of respect, stemming from a superficial understanding of the "equivalence principle" and "covariance". Note also that Michael Ibison has correctly written that Hal Puthoff's PV model claims for the metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon W^3, is not consistent with "GCT" nor, I add, is it consistent with experiment/observation beyond the 3 basic weak field tests such as the 1913+16 Pulsar data on gravity radiation. Einstein's GCT theory is in agreement with that data to 10^-14 while Puthoff's PV is off by a whopping 33% as I recall? But at least Paul, Puthoff makes a falsifiable prediction, which is good, and which you never do. You know what Wolfgang Pauli always said about bogus physics being "not even wrong". Note Newton's gravity theory is accurate to 10^-7 in most NASA applications.
One comment on Puthoff's brute force approach to metric engineering with Eric Davis of WARP METRICS in Las Vegas recently in the news because of the USAF contract on "teleportation" and "stargates", using only Einstein's
Guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv(electrostatic capacitor)
where Guv ~ g/c^2(radius of Earth) for geodesic gliding warp drive in atmosphere
Tuv ~ E.D/2
MKS SI units
I get a critical lift voltage gradient
V/d ~ 10^16/k^1/2 volts per meter
to nullify the Earth's 1g field for non-inertial observers
k is the dielectric coefficient that can have a resonance peak.
The UFO would then be a kind of flying capacitor. However, there are other ways to accomplish The Mission. This is just an obvious way that even the Nazis who attended Arnold Sommerfeld's lectures in Munich in the 1920's & 1930's would have easily figured out if they had the right dielectric and good U-Boat batteries for their "Model T" wobbly flying tin cans. See Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" from Jane's Defence Weekly on the Nazi UFO folklore leading to current reports of flying Black Triangles with rumored electro-antigravitic propulsion.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/USSKron.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html
Start with Chapter 10 of Landau & Lifshitz's The Classical Theory of Fields for Newtonian mechanics in Galilean relativity with absolute simultaneity.
Consider the APPROXIMATE Lagrangian L for a uniform constant gravity field g in the reference frame of the surface of the Earth, which in Newtonian 17th century mechanics is considered an INERTIAL FRAME (neglecting relatively small Coriolis inertial forces from the fact that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours etc.)
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z = altitude from surface of Earth where z = 0
In Newton's paradigm GRAVITY IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE in the INERTIAL FRAME of the Earth. Gravity's potential energy in this approximation is
V(gravity) ~ mgz
The REAL FORCE of gravity in Newton's picture is
F(real force of gravity) = -dV(gravity)/dz = - mg pointing downward to surface of Earth.
Consider the test particle m. Since it is in a real external gravity force field, no different ontologically from an external electric field in Newton's world picture, the REST FRAME of the test particle is NON-INERTIAL. Therefore, you can and do use INERTIAL COMPENSATION in that case. INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e. the cancellation of a real with a "fictitious" inertial force only has meaning in NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
The Newtonian NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME of the test particle executing a parabolic path in general in this uniform gravity force field, trivially obeys
g - g = 0
where the first g is from the inertial "fictitious" force of the accelerating rest frame of the test particle, and the second g is from the Newtonian external field. But since m(gravity) = m(inertial) the common m cancels out.
To make this more clear, change the problem for a moment. Suppose the test particle has charge e in electrostatic field E without gravity. Then the inertial compensation in the non-inertial rest frame of the charge of mass m is
ma - eE = 0
That is
a = eE/m
Obviously Paul, your fancy words "inertial compensation" really mean
Newton's Second Law of Motion
F(external real force) = ma
seen from the POV of the test particle's non-inertial rest frame.
Now Paul your fundamental blunder at the heart of your darkness is trying to apply Newton's distinction between inertial and non-inertial motion to Einstein's theory!
In the Paradigm Shift from Newton to Einstein the very idea of an objective external gravity force is completely eliminated! Back to the problem
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
The test particle m is now in INERTIAL MOTION, i.e. on a timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. Therefore "inertial compensation" makes no sense other than to say
F = ma = 0
i.e. F = 0
i.e. your T = 0
A timelike geodesic is the straightest possible line with the most uniform possible motion in the curved spacetime. It is by definition FREE OF OBJECTIVE (e.g. GCT tensor forces). In Einstein's theory it is the surface of the Earth that is in non-inertial motion and the test particle on the parabola is in inertial motion. We feel weight on the surface of the Earth because of inertial compensation of the inertial g-force {LC}^z't't' against the electrical reaction real force of the rock pushing us off timelike geodesics.
Now, Paul you have confused all this! BTW I do not deny that one can have approximately uniform g-fields for some non-inertial observers from a Tuv(matter) source like an unstable short-lived vacuum wall. I never denied that. You keep raising this Red Herring. Indeed my vacuum defect hedgehog explanation of the observed anomaly in NASA Pioneer 10&11 motion of cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 pointing back to the Sun is very similar to Vilenkin's basic idea, but with a different topology for the vacuum coherence!
On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, thanks. Will incorporate what you say. I was writing fast off the cuff not focused on that particular important detail.
In a message dated 12/6/2004 1:36:10 AM Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has
physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface
integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology
(independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary
of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of
the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time.
This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the
"fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector
parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary
2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry
phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric
engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3
comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
Kiehn comments:
"JACK: This is not correct.
Stokes theorem is valid only if the integration chain is a boundary.
But there are closed circulation chains which are NOT boundaries."
The BA effect is related to the integration of closed, but not exact, forms around closed integration chains WHICH ARE NOT BOUNDARIES.
Stokes theorem is not valid for closed chains which are not boundaries.
However, those p-forms which are exact have ZERO circulation integrals whether or not the integration chain is a cycle or a boundary.
It is the integration around closed chains of closed, but not exact, p-forms that gives the deRham topological quantization.
Examples : A =(ydx-xdy)/(x^2+y^2),
dA = 0
Integral (A) around a closed chain that encircles the origin is 2pi, not zero.
(See Chapter 6 of my monograph on Non Equilibrium Themodynamics)
http://www.lulu.com/kiehn
It is also the integration around a closed chain (the airfoil), not a boundary, of a non exact, but closed. form (which has ZERO vorticity and therefor no E or B field in the EM sense ) that produces lift and makes a wing fly! Vorticity does not make a wing fly!
Lift is NOT due to a (V x B) component of a Lorentz-type force (as B = 0) outside the airfoil.
Vorticity usually causes drag in deformable viscous fluids.
Note that the Fields F=dA of MAxwell theory are related to a completely anti symmetric matrix of functions. The set induces a symplectic structure on the variety of independent variables if the matrix is of maximal (even) rank 4. The eigenvectors of such matrices are two spinor pairs of complex components, and of equal and opposite pure imaginary eigenvalues. (The eigenvectors are said to be isotropic.) The matrix rank is 3, then a contact structure is introduced, and the eigenvectors consist of one pair of spinors with complex components of pure imaginary eigenvalues, and one real eigenvector of eigenvalue zero. The spinors do NOT behave as vectors with a uniquely defined connection. See last page of E. Cartan's book on Spinors) However, spinor pairs can be combined to form well behaved vectors wrt to connections. Note that these spinor properties have little to do with symmetric concepts of elasticity deformation theory, for the eigen vectors of a symmetric real matrix are real, not complex.
Bottom line, spinors are not strangers to classical Maxwell theory defined by the topological constraint, F = dA = 0.
It does not take relativity, nor QM, to produce spinors. They are artifacts of antisymmetric matrices.
IMO Yang-Mills is NOT the same as EM, but has some formal similarities. The problem is that Yang-Mills fields can be compact, but Maxwell EB fields are usually NOT COMPACT (this is known as Gromov's theorem, and follows as F = dA, not dA+A^A.) Also, EM fields are rarely self-dual in the real world. This is not to say that YM theory should be neglected, but only that it is NOT equivalent to EM theory without the addition of constraints. I do not recommend the using a Maxwell analogy for trying to justify Yang Mills assumptions.
Regards
RMK
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
II The principle of equivalence requires nonlocality of the pure gravity energy: "We take note of the fact that in Einstein's theory, the symmetric tensor Tuv that appears in his field equation is to include the energy-momentum of all NON-gravitational fields (and particles). Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation within Tuv. This point of view is made somewhat plausible if we think again of the principle of equivalence. Imagine an [LIF] observer in free orbit ... within some spaceship without windows, so that it appears, at least to a first approximation, that there is no gravitational field. That observer would expect that energy is conserved within the spaceship ... without there being any contribution from the gravitational field. This 'conservation' is only an approximation, which is expected to need correction as soon as the relative acceleration (tidal) effects due to the non-uniformity of the gravitational field begin to play a role. The upshot of it all is that the [the conservation of the non-gravity fields in Tuv] should [approximately] remain undisturbed by the non-uniformity of the gravity field - unaffected by the spacetime curvature of the [Levi-Civita] connection - and that the contributions of gravity to energy-momentum conservation should SOMEHOW enter NON-LOCALLY as corrections to the calculation of the total energy-momentum. ... gravitational contributions to energy-momentum ... 'slip in through the cracks' that separate the LOCAL equation Tuv(non-gravity)^;v = 0 from an integral conservation law for TOTAL energy-momentum." p. 458 Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality".
On torsion field propulsion:
"Recall the discussion of Einstein's equivalence principle, and of why this leads to a curved spacetime. Thus when gravity is present, we must take into account the fact that [the GCT covariant partial derivative] is no longer simply [the ordinary partial derivative] ... but there are extra [Levi-Civita {LC}] terms that confuse the very meaning of Tuv^,v and which certainly prevent us from deriving an integral conservation law for energy-momentum JUST from our 'conservation equation' Tuv^,v = 0. The problem can be phrased as the fact that the extra index v in Tuv prevents it from being the dual of a 3-form, and we cannot write a coordinate-independent formulation of a 'conservation equation' (like the vanishing exterior derivative of the 3-form *J in d*J = 0 [in Maxwell's EM]) ... there is a more satisfactory perspective ... suppose we have a Killing vector K(u;v) = 0 [symmetrized indices] ... which describes some continuous symmetry of the [base space]. In Minkowski space, there are 10 independent such symmetries ... Thus Minkowski space has 10 independent Killing vectors ...[the action principle and] Noether's theorem allows us to derive a conservation law from each continuous symmetry ... there are also 3 components coming from the the Lorentzian boosts that take us from one velocity to the other. THESE GIVE US THE CONSERVATION OF CENTER OF MASS MOVEMENT." p. 457 Penrose
The absence of a torsion field ensures this conservation of center of mass movement. If you locally gauge the 3 Lorentz boosts along with the three rotations for the entire Lorentz group O(1,3) you do get Gennady Shipov's torsion field as shown by Kibble et-al years ago in the 1960's. Obviously this suggests torsion propulsion since we now have additional field degrees of freedom beyond Einstein's 1916 GR Levi-Civita connection non-GCT tensor field and tidal curvature GCT tensor field that comes from locally gauging ONLY the four translations! Even beyond that there are the 4 conformal boosts that take us from one proper LNIF acceleration to another. What if we also locally gauge that? Finally what if we locally gauge the dilation i.e. the 15th element of the Lie algebra of the Conformal Group? Will the purely translational weightless geodesic glider warp drive continue to hold if we have these additional dynamical fields beyond Einstein's plain vanilla 1916 GR? That is a key question for metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon W^3.
On Dec 5, 2004, at 4:16 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Inertial compensation in REST LIF? NO!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
We want to make Einstein's GR look as much like Maxwell's EM as possible. Actually like non-Abelian Yang-Mills since gravity carries its own charge like W bosons and gluons but unlike photons. Lots of papers on this of course including tetrads and also Ashtekar's (more on that down the line).
Maxwell connection for parallel transport in the internal fiber space is the vector potential Au with the U(1) gauge covariant derivative
Du = ,u - ieAu
Au is not a U(1) tensor it transforms as
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
this is the NON-TENSOR connection transform relative to the U(1) internal symmetry group.
The Maxwell field tensor Fuv is the curl of Au
AVOID RIGID CONNECTIONS! They are not BACKGROUND INDEPENDENT.
Similarly, Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of vector fields in curved spacetime "base space" (no torsion no Poltorak RIGID "affine connection" etc, just plain vanilla 1916 GR) has a GCT SPACETIME SYMMETRY GROUP gauge covariant derivative, symbolically like
Du* = ,u - {LC} ...
example, for any GCT first rank tensor we get the second rank tensor
DuB^v = B^v,u + {LC}^vuwB^w
The NON GCT TENSOR "gauge transform" analogous to
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
in Maxwell's EM is precisely
{LC} = N -> {LC}' = N' = XXXN + XY
where X is the GCT Jacobian matrix and Y is a partial derivative of X.
I can provide the indices but they are unwieldy.
Just as Au is not a U(1) tensor so also is {LC} not a GCT tensor.
Z's attempt to use Newtonian "inertial compensation" here is wrong. The shift from Newton to Einstein is a profound change in the meaning of "inertial motion" in which the idea of an objective Newtonian force of gravity in an inertial frame is completely eliminated. Hence there is nothing to compensate!
The inertial g-force, which is {LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 in the REST LNIF of a test particle not on a timelike geodesic acted on by a non-gravity force is always caused by the latter. The inertial g-force indeed compensates the non-gravity force in the REST LNIF. But that is not what Z proposes. Z wants to compensate a gravity force in a REST LIF - a profoundly wrong idea!
That is, Z proposes that in the REST LIF where {LC} = 0 that
{LC} = T + N = 0
T =/= 0
where T is a GCT tensor of rank 3.
Do not confuse this with torsion. Z is only talking 1916 GR.
This is profoundly wrong.
What is correct is that in the REST LNIF
{LC)^i00 + (External Non-Gravity Force)^i = 0
That is, the inertial g-force in the non-inertial frame exactly compensates the non-gravity external force pushing the particle off a timelike geodesic.
For example, here on surface of the Earth we are in a local non-inertial frame (LNIF) from the electrical reaction forces and quantum Fermi-Dirac pressure of the rock on which we stand. That's why we feel weight.
Z's deep error is to apply "inertial compensation" not to the REST LNIF of the test object where it does apply, to the REST LIF where it does not apply.
Back to the connections and Stoke's theorem & Bohm-Aharonov Effect
The local vector potential U(1) EM connection Au is not a local classical observable, but it is a nonlocal quantum observable because from Stoke's theorem the closed loop line integral of Au is the magnetic flux integral through the enclosed surface. From micro quantum mechanics this causes a fringe shift in a double slit experiment with electrons passing through a region free from magnetic field but with nonzero Au connection field.
Similarly in general relativity, where the macro-quantum vacuum coherence, which makes Einstein's cosmological constant near zero, is a giant quantum wave, there will be an analogous "fringe shift"!
From Stoke's theorem now in curved spacetime, the Riemann-Christoffel tidal stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation curvature 4th rank GCT tensor Ruvwl is the analog to the Fuv Maxwell field tensor. Ruvwl is the GCT covariant curl of the Levi-Civita {LC}uvw connection just like Fuv is the curl of Au.
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology (independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time. This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the "fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary 2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3 comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
III Z's Cognitive Dissonance on Newton to Einstein Gestalt Shift in meaning of the "inertial/non-inertial motion" creative tension.
Also message from retired USAF SAC scientist R. Kiehn on Cartan, Stoke's theorem, Bohm-Aharonov, aerodynamic lift etc.
On Dec 6, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:25 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:41 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The metric for an x-y vacuum domain wall can be written as
ds^2 = -(1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 . d(ct)^2 + (1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 .e^-(2kappa ct).(dx^2 + dy^2) + dz^2
JS: So what?
1. That is ONLY the linear weak field approximation I suspect.
PZ: This is the exact solution for the vacuum domain wall. It is not a weak-field approximation.
JS: What equation in the paper? Even if it is exact solution so what? This or that solution, exact or not, has nothing whatever to do with the real problem here, which is your deep confusion over the meaning of "inertial motion". Indeed YOU VIOLATE NEWTON'S FIRST LAW as well as Einstein's GR. You confound Newton's first and second laws.
"Inertial motion" means FORCE-FREE MOTION.
There is NO INERTIAL COMPENSATION of forces in inertial motion.
Let's take your misbegotten idea in its simplest application to Newton's mechanics in Galilean relativity.
Inertial motion there means motion of a point test particle in a straight line in Euclidean space at constant speed.
There is ZERO FORCE there. "Zero" means zero. Your confused idea is that even in that case you have INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e.
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
This is obviously wrong.
Your equation for curved space-time that in inertial motion (i.e. timelike geodesic in curved space-time) along which the torsion-free plain vanilla Levi-Civita connection {LC} can be set to zero in a sequence of LIFs (geodesic coordinates) is
0 = {LC} = T + N
where you say T is a GCT 3rd rank tensor =/= 0 but that you have "inertial compensation", i.e.
T + N = 0
T = - N =/= 0
But this is the same as saying that in Newtonian inertial motion
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
where
T = F(real force)
N = F(inertial force)
Now, why have you made such an obvious mistake?
You are suffering a common cognitive dissonance missing the switch in the meaning of "inertial motion" in the paradigm shift from Newton's mechanics of forces acting at a distance to Einstein's LOCAL geometrodynamics. Now this cognitive dissonance is epidemic and accounts for a lot of crackpot psychoceramic attacks on Einstein and general relativity. So it is worth explicating it. Traces of it underly Hal Puthoff's PV "electro-gravitic" or "dielectric" theory eschewing tensors and general coordinate covariance (GCT) of the local classical field equations. Indeed, Paul your rhetoric shows a lack of respect, stemming from a superficial understanding of the "equivalence principle" and "covariance". Note also that Michael Ibison has correctly written that Hal Puthoff's PV model claims for the metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon W^3, is not consistent with "GCT" nor, I add, is it consistent with experiment/observation beyond the 3 basic weak field tests such as the 1913+16 Pulsar data on gravity radiation. Einstein's GCT theory is in agreement with that data to 10^-14 while Puthoff's PV is off by a whopping 33% as I recall? But at least Paul, Puthoff makes a falsifiable prediction, which is good, and which you never do. You know what Wolfgang Pauli always said about bogus physics being "not even wrong". Note Newton's gravity theory is accurate to 10^-7 in most NASA applications.
One comment on Puthoff's brute force approach to metric engineering with Eric Davis of WARP METRICS in Las Vegas recently in the news because of the USAF contract on "teleportation" and "stargates", using only Einstein's
Guv = 8pi(G/c^4)Tuv(electrostatic capacitor)
where Guv ~ g/c^2(radius of Earth) for geodesic gliding warp drive in atmosphere
Tuv ~ E.D/2
MKS SI units
I get a critical lift voltage gradient
V/d ~ 10^16/k^1/2 volts per meter
to nullify the Earth's 1g field for non-inertial observers
k is the dielectric coefficient that can have a resonance peak.
The UFO would then be a kind of flying capacitor. However, there are other ways to accomplish The Mission. This is just an obvious way that even the Nazis who attended Arnold Sommerfeld's lectures in Munich in the 1920's & 1930's would have easily figured out if they had the right dielectric and good U-Boat batteries for their "Model T" wobbly flying tin cans. See Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" from Jane's Defence Weekly on the Nazi UFO folklore leading to current reports of flying Black Triangles with rumored electro-antigravitic propulsion.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/USSKron.html
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/coffee.html
Start with Chapter 10 of Landau & Lifshitz's The Classical Theory of Fields for Newtonian mechanics in Galilean relativity with absolute simultaneity.
Consider the APPROXIMATE Lagrangian L for a uniform constant gravity field g in the reference frame of the surface of the Earth, which in Newtonian 17th century mechanics is considered an INERTIAL FRAME (neglecting relatively small Coriolis inertial forces from the fact that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours etc.)
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z = altitude from surface of Earth where z = 0
In Newton's paradigm GRAVITY IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE in the INERTIAL FRAME of the Earth. Gravity's potential energy in this approximation is
V(gravity) ~ mgz
The REAL FORCE of gravity in Newton's picture is
F(real force of gravity) = -dV(gravity)/dz = - mg pointing downward to surface of Earth.
Consider the test particle m. Since it is in a real external gravity force field, no different ontologically from an external electric field in Newton's world picture, the REST FRAME of the test particle is NON-INERTIAL. Therefore, you can and do use INERTIAL COMPENSATION in that case. INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e. the cancellation of a real with a "fictitious" inertial force only has meaning in NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
The Newtonian NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME of the test particle executing a parabolic path in general in this uniform gravity force field, trivially obeys
g - g = 0
where the first g is from the inertial "fictitious" force of the accelerating rest frame of the test particle, and the second g is from the Newtonian external field. But since m(gravity) = m(inertial) the common m cancels out.
To make this more clear, change the problem for a moment. Suppose the test particle has charge e in electrostatic field E without gravity. Then the inertial compensation in the non-inertial rest frame of the charge of mass m is
ma - eE = 0
That is
a = eE/m
Obviously Paul, your fancy words "inertial compensation" really mean
Newton's Second Law of Motion
F(external real force) = ma
seen from the POV of the test particle's non-inertial rest frame.
Now Paul your fundamental blunder at the heart of your darkness is trying to apply Newton's distinction between inertial and non-inertial motion to Einstein's theory!
In the Paradigm Shift from Newton to Einstein the very idea of an objective external gravity force is completely eliminated! Back to the problem
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
The test particle m is now in INERTIAL MOTION, i.e. on a timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. Therefore "inertial compensation" makes no sense other than to say
F = ma = 0
i.e. F = 0
i.e. your T = 0
A timelike geodesic is the straightest possible line with the most uniform possible motion in the curved spacetime. It is by definition FREE OF OBJECTIVE (e.g. GCT tensor forces). In Einstein's theory it is the surface of the Earth that is in non-inertial motion and the test particle on the parabola is in inertial motion. We feel weight on the surface of the Earth because of inertial compensation of the inertial g-force {LC}^z't't' against the electrical reaction real force of the rock pushing us off timelike geodesics.
Now, Paul you have confused all this! BTW I do not deny that one can have approximately uniform g-fields for some non-inertial observers from a Tuv(matter) source like an unstable short-lived vacuum wall. I never denied that. You keep raising this Red Herring. Indeed my vacuum defect hedgehog explanation of the observed anomaly in NASA Pioneer 10&11 motion of cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 pointing back to the Sun is very similar to Vilenkin's basic idea, but with a different topology for the vacuum coherence!
On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, thanks. Will incorporate what you say. I was writing fast off the cuff not focused on that particular important detail.
In a message dated 12/6/2004 1:36:10 AM Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has
physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface
integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology
(independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary
of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of
the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time.
This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the
"fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector
parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary
2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry
phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric
engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3
comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
Kiehn comments:
"JACK: This is not correct.
Stokes theorem is valid only if the integration chain is a boundary.
But there are closed circulation chains which are NOT boundaries."
The BA effect is related to the integration of closed, but not exact, forms around closed integration chains WHICH ARE NOT BOUNDARIES.
Stokes theorem is not valid for closed chains which are not boundaries.
However, those p-forms which are exact have ZERO circulation integrals whether or not the integration chain is a cycle or a boundary.
It is the integration around closed chains of closed, but not exact, p-forms that gives the deRham topological quantization.
Examples : A =(ydx-xdy)/(x^2+y^2),
dA = 0
Integral (A) around a closed chain that encircles the origin is 2pi, not zero.
(See Chapter 6 of my monograph on Non Equilibrium Themodynamics)
http://www.lulu.com/kiehn
It is also the integration around a closed chain (the airfoil), not a boundary, of a non exact, but closed. form (which has ZERO vorticity and therefor no E or B field in the EM sense ) that produces lift and makes a wing fly! Vorticity does not make a wing fly!
Lift is NOT due to a (V x B) component of a Lorentz-type force (as B = 0) outside the airfoil.
Vorticity usually causes drag in deformable viscous fluids.
Note that the Fields F=dA of MAxwell theory are related to a completely anti symmetric matrix of functions. The set induces a symplectic structure on the variety of independent variables if the matrix is of maximal (even) rank 4. The eigenvectors of such matrices are two spinor pairs of complex components, and of equal and opposite pure imaginary eigenvalues. (The eigenvectors are said to be isotropic.) The matrix rank is 3, then a contact structure is introduced, and the eigenvectors consist of one pair of spinors with complex components of pure imaginary eigenvalues, and one real eigenvector of eigenvalue zero. The spinors do NOT behave as vectors with a uniquely defined connection. See last page of E. Cartan's book on Spinors) However, spinor pairs can be combined to form well behaved vectors wrt to connections. Note that these spinor properties have little to do with symmetric concepts of elasticity deformation theory, for the eigen vectors of a symmetric real matrix are real, not complex.
Bottom line, spinors are not strangers to classical Maxwell theory defined by the topological constraint, F = dA = 0.
It does not take relativity, nor QM, to produce spinors. They are artifacts of antisymmetric matrices.
IMO Yang-Mills is NOT the same as EM, but has some formal similarities. The problem is that Yang-Mills fields can be compact, but Maxwell EB fields are usually NOT COMPACT (this is known as Gromov's theorem, and follows as F = dA, not dA+A^A.) Also, EM fields are rarely self-dual in the real world. This is not to say that YM theory should be neglected, but only that it is NOT equivalent to EM theory without the addition of constraints. I do not recommend the using a Maxwell analogy for trying to justify Yang Mills assumptions.
Regards
RMK
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
II The principle of equivalence requires nonlocality of the pure gravity energy: "We take note of the fact that in Einstein's theory, the symmetric tensor Tuv that appears in his field equation is to include the energy-momentum of all NON-gravitational fields (and particles). Whatever energy there is in the gravitational field itself is to be excluded from having any representation within Tuv. This point of view is made somewhat plausible if we think again of the principle of equivalence. Imagine an [LIF] observer in free orbit ... within some spaceship without windows, so that it appears, at least to a first approximation, that there is no gravitational field. That observer would expect that energy is conserved within the spaceship ... without there being any contribution from the gravitational field. This 'conservation' is only an approximation, which is expected to need correction as soon as the relative acceleration (tidal) effects due to the non-uniformity of the gravitational field begin to play a role. The upshot of it all is that the [the conservation of the non-gravity fields in Tuv] should [approximately] remain undisturbed by the non-uniformity of the gravity field - unaffected by the spacetime curvature of the [Levi-Civita] connection - and that the contributions of gravity to energy-momentum conservation should SOMEHOW enter NON-LOCALLY as corrections to the calculation of the total energy-momentum. ... gravitational contributions to energy-momentum ... 'slip in through the cracks' that separate the LOCAL equation Tuv(non-gravity)^;v = 0 from an integral conservation law for TOTAL energy-momentum." p. 458 Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality".
On torsion field propulsion:
"Recall the discussion of Einstein's equivalence principle, and of why this leads to a curved spacetime. Thus when gravity is present, we must take into account the fact that [the GCT covariant partial derivative] is no longer simply [the ordinary partial derivative] ... but there are extra [Levi-Civita {LC}] terms that confuse the very meaning of Tuv^,v and which certainly prevent us from deriving an integral conservation law for energy-momentum JUST from our 'conservation equation' Tuv^,v = 0. The problem can be phrased as the fact that the extra index v in Tuv prevents it from being the dual of a 3-form, and we cannot write a coordinate-independent formulation of a 'conservation equation' (like the vanishing exterior derivative of the 3-form *J in d*J = 0 [in Maxwell's EM]) ... there is a more satisfactory perspective ... suppose we have a Killing vector K(u;v) = 0 [symmetrized indices] ... which describes some continuous symmetry of the [base space]. In Minkowski space, there are 10 independent such symmetries ... Thus Minkowski space has 10 independent Killing vectors ...[the action principle and] Noether's theorem allows us to derive a conservation law from each continuous symmetry ... there are also 3 components coming from the the Lorentzian boosts that take us from one velocity to the other. THESE GIVE US THE CONSERVATION OF CENTER OF MASS MOVEMENT." p. 457 Penrose
The absence of a torsion field ensures this conservation of center of mass movement. If you locally gauge the 3 Lorentz boosts along with the three rotations for the entire Lorentz group O(1,3) you do get Gennady Shipov's torsion field as shown by Kibble et-al years ago in the 1960's. Obviously this suggests torsion propulsion since we now have additional field degrees of freedom beyond Einstein's 1916 GR Levi-Civita connection non-GCT tensor field and tidal curvature GCT tensor field that comes from locally gauging ONLY the four translations! Even beyond that there are the 4 conformal boosts that take us from one proper LNIF acceleration to another. What if we also locally gauge that? Finally what if we locally gauge the dilation i.e. the 15th element of the Lie algebra of the Conformal Group? Will the purely translational weightless geodesic glider warp drive continue to hold if we have these additional dynamical fields beyond Einstein's plain vanilla 1916 GR? That is a key question for metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon W^3.
On Dec 5, 2004, at 4:16 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Inertial compensation in REST LIF? NO!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
We want to make Einstein's GR look as much like Maxwell's EM as possible. Actually like non-Abelian Yang-Mills since gravity carries its own charge like W bosons and gluons but unlike photons. Lots of papers on this of course including tetrads and also Ashtekar's (more on that down the line).
Maxwell connection for parallel transport in the internal fiber space is the vector potential Au with the U(1) gauge covariant derivative
Du = ,u - ieAu
Au is not a U(1) tensor it transforms as
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
this is the NON-TENSOR connection transform relative to the U(1) internal symmetry group.
The Maxwell field tensor Fuv is the curl of Au
AVOID RIGID CONNECTIONS! They are not BACKGROUND INDEPENDENT.
Similarly, Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of vector fields in curved spacetime "base space" (no torsion no Poltorak RIGID "affine connection" etc, just plain vanilla 1916 GR) has a GCT SPACETIME SYMMETRY GROUP gauge covariant derivative, symbolically like
Du* = ,u - {LC} ...
example, for any GCT first rank tensor we get the second rank tensor
DuB^v = B^v,u + {LC}^vuwB^w
The NON GCT TENSOR "gauge transform" analogous to
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
in Maxwell's EM is precisely
{LC} = N -> {LC}' = N' = XXXN + XY
where X is the GCT Jacobian matrix and Y is a partial derivative of X.
I can provide the indices but they are unwieldy.
Just as Au is not a U(1) tensor so also is {LC} not a GCT tensor.
Z's attempt to use Newtonian "inertial compensation" here is wrong. The shift from Newton to Einstein is a profound change in the meaning of "inertial motion" in which the idea of an objective Newtonian force of gravity in an inertial frame is completely eliminated. Hence there is nothing to compensate!
The inertial g-force, which is {LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 in the REST LNIF of a test particle not on a timelike geodesic acted on by a non-gravity force is always caused by the latter. The inertial g-force indeed compensates the non-gravity force in the REST LNIF. But that is not what Z proposes. Z wants to compensate a gravity force in a REST LIF - a profoundly wrong idea!
That is, Z proposes that in the REST LIF where {LC} = 0 that
{LC} = T + N = 0
T =/= 0
where T is a GCT tensor of rank 3.
Do not confuse this with torsion. Z is only talking 1916 GR.
This is profoundly wrong.
What is correct is that in the REST LNIF
{LC)^i00 + (External Non-Gravity Force)^i = 0
That is, the inertial g-force in the non-inertial frame exactly compensates the non-gravity external force pushing the particle off a timelike geodesic.
For example, here on surface of the Earth we are in a local non-inertial frame (LNIF) from the electrical reaction forces and quantum Fermi-Dirac pressure of the rock on which we stand. That's why we feel weight.
Z's deep error is to apply "inertial compensation" not to the REST LNIF of the test object where it does apply, to the REST LIF where it does not apply.
Back to the connections and Stoke's theorem & Bohm-Aharonov Effect
The local vector potential U(1) EM connection Au is not a local classical observable, but it is a nonlocal quantum observable because from Stoke's theorem the closed loop line integral of Au is the magnetic flux integral through the enclosed surface. From micro quantum mechanics this causes a fringe shift in a double slit experiment with electrons passing through a region free from magnetic field but with nonzero Au connection field.
Similarly in general relativity, where the macro-quantum vacuum coherence, which makes Einstein's cosmological constant near zero, is a giant quantum wave, there will be an analogous "fringe shift"!
From Stoke's theorem now in curved spacetime, the Riemann-Christoffel tidal stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation curvature 4th rank GCT tensor Ruvwl is the analog to the Fuv Maxwell field tensor. Ruvwl is the GCT covariant curl of the Levi-Civita {LC}uvw connection just like Fuv is the curl of Au.
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology (independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time. This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the "fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary 2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3 comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
Inertial compensation in REST LIF? NO!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
We want to make Einstein's GR look as much like Maxwell's EM as possible. Actually like non-Abelian Yang-Mills since gravity carries its own charge like W bosons and gluons but unlike photons. Lots of papers on this of course including tetrads and also Ashtekar's (more on that down the line).
Maxwell connection for parallel transport in the internal fiber space is the vector potential Au with the U(1) gauge covariant derivative
Du = ,u - ieAu
Au is not a U(1) tensor it transforms as
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
this is the NON-TENSOR connection transform relative to the U(1) internal symmetry group.
The Maxwell field tensor Fuv is the curl of Au
AVOID RIGID CONNECTIONS! They are not BACKGROUND INDEPENDENT.
Similarly, Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of vector fields in curved spacetime "base space" (no torsion no Poltorak RIGID "affine connection" etc, just plain vanilla 1916 GR) has a GCT SPACETIME SYMMETRY GROUP gauge covariant derivative, symbolically like
Du* = ,u - {LC} ...
example, for any GCT first rank tensor we get the second rank tensor
DuB^v = B^v,u + {LC}^vuwB^w
The NON GCT TENSOR "gauge transform" analogous to
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
in Maxwell's EM is precisely
{LC} = N -> {LC}' = N' = XXXN + XY
where X is the GCT Jacobian matrix and Y is a partial derivative of X.
I can provide the indices but they are unwieldy.
Just as Au is not a U(1) tensor so also is {LC} not a GCT tensor.
Z's attempt to use Newtonian "inertial compensation" here is wrong. The shift from Newton to Einstein is a profound change in the meaning of "inertial motion" in which the idea of an objective Newtonian force of gravity in an inertial frame is completely eliminated. Hence there is nothing to compensate!
The inertial g-force, which is {LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 in the REST LNIF of a test particle not on a timelike geodesic acted on by a non-gravity force is always caused by the latter. The inertial g-force indeed compensates the non-gravity force in the REST LNIF. But that is not what Z proposes. Z wants to compensate a gravity force in a REST LIF - a profoundly wrong idea!
That is, Z proposes that in the REST LIF where {LC} = 0 that
{LC} = T + N = 0
T =/= 0
where T is a GCT tensor of rank 3.
Do not confuse this with torsion. Z is only talking 1916 GR.
This is profoundly wrong.
What is correct is that in the REST LNIF
{LC)^i00 + (External Non-Gravity Force)^i = 0
That is, the inertial g-force in the non-inertial frame exactly compensates the non-gravity external force pushing the particle off a timelike geodesic.
For example, here on surface of the Earth we are in a local non-inertial frame (LNIF) from the electrical reaction forces and quantum Fermi-Dirac pressure of the rock on which we stand. That's why we feel weight.
Z's deep error is to apply "inertial compensation" not to the REST LNIF of the test object where it does apply, to the REST LIF where it does not apply.
Back to the connections and Stoke's theorem & Bohm-Aharonov Effect
The local vector potential U(1) EM connection Au is not a local classical observable, but it is a nonlocal quantum observable because from Stoke's theorem the closed loop line integral of Au is the magnetic flux integral through the enclosed surface. From micro quantum mechanics this causes a fringe shift in a double slit experiment with electrons passing through a region free from magnetic field but with nonzero Au connection field.
Similarly in general relativity, where the macro-quantum vacuum coherence, which makes Einstein's cosmological constant near zero, is a giant quantum wave, there will be an analogous "fringe shift"!
From Stoke's theorem now in curved spacetime, the Riemann-Christoffel tidal stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation curvature 4th rank GCT tensor Ruvwl is the analog to the Fuv Maxwell field tensor. Ruvwl is the GCT covariant curl of the Levi-Civita {LC}uvw connection just like Fuv is the curl of Au.
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology (independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time. This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the "fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary 2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3 comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, thanks. Will incorporate what you say. I was writing fast off the cuff not focused on that particular important detail.
In a message dated 12/6/2004 1:36:10 AM Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has
physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface
integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology
(independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary
of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of
the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time.
This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the
"fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector
parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary
2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry
phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric
engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3
comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
JACK: This is not correct.
Stokes theorem is valid only if the integration chain is a boundary.
But there are closed circulation chains, which are NOT boundaries.
The BA effect is related to the integration of closed but not exact forms,
around closed integration chains WHICH ARE NOT BOUNDARIES.
Stokes theorem is not valid for closed chain,s which are not boundaries.
However, those p-forms, which are exact have ZERO circulation integrals
whether or not the integration chain is a cycle or a boundary.
**
It is the integration around closed chains of closed but not exact p-forms that
gives the deRham topological quantization.
Examples : A =(ydx-xdy)/(x^2+y^2),
dA = 0
Integral (A) around a closed chain that encircles the origin is 2pi, not zero.
(See Chapter 6 of my monograph on Non Equilibrium Themodynamics)
http://www.lulu.com/kiehn
It is also the integration around a closed chain (the airfoil), not a boundary, of a non exact, but closed form, (which has ZERO vorticity and therefor no E or B field in the EM sense )
that produces lift and makes a wing fly! Vorticity does not make a wing fly.!
Lift is NOT due to a (V x B) component of a Lorentz- type force
( as B = 0) outside the airfoil.
Vorticity usually causes drag in deformable viscous fluids.
**
Note that the Fields F=dA of MAxwell theory are related to a completely anti symmetric
matrix of functions. The set induces a symplectic structure on the variety of independent variables if the matrix is of maximal (even) rank 4. The eigen vectors of such matrices are two Spinor pairs of complex components, and of equal and opposite pure imaginary eigenvalues. (The eigenvectors are said to be isotropic.)
It the matrix rank is 3, then a contact structure is introduced, and the eigenvectors consist of one pair of spinors with complex components of pure imaginary eigen values, and one real eigenvector of eigen value zero.
The Spinors do NOT behave as vectors with a uniquely defined connection
See last page of E. Cartan's book on Spinors)
However, Spinor pairs can be combined to form well behaved vectors wrt to connections.
Note that these spinor properties have little to do with symmetric concepts of elasticity deformation theory, for the eigen vectors of a symmetric real matrix are real, not complex.
Bottom line, Spinors are not strangers to classical Maxwell theory defined by the topological
constraint, F=dA = 0.
It does not take relativity, nor QM, to produce Spinors. They are artifacts of antisymmetric matrices.
***
IMO Yang Mills is NOT the same as EM, but has some formal similarities.
The problem is that Yang Mills fields can be compact, but Maxwell EB fields
are usually NOT COMPACT ( this is known as Gromov's theorem, and follows as F = dA, not dA+A^A.)
Also, EM fields are rarely self dual in the real world.
This is not to say that YM theory should be neglected, but only that it is
NOT equivalent to EM theory without the addition of constraints.
**
I do not recommend the using a Maxwell analogy for trying to justify Yang Mills asumptions.
Regards
RMK
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:25 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:41 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The metric for an x-y vacuum domain wall can be written as
ds^2 = -(1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 . d(ct)^2 + (1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 .e^-(2kappa ct).(dx^2 + dy^2) + dz^2
So what?
1. That is ONLY the linear weak field approximation I suspect.
You "suspect". You *are* a suspect!
Loopy polemics. Look I am too busy to read the paper in detail. From my quick scan he only does a weak field case.
This is the exact solution for the vacuum domain wall. It is not a weak-field approximation.
What equation in the paper? Even if it is exact solution so what? This or that solution, exact or not has nothing, whatever to do with the real problem here, which is your clueless confusion, worthy of Mrs Malaprop, over the meaning of "inertial motion". Indeed YOU VIOLATE NEWTON'S FIRST LAW as well as Einstein's GR.
"Inertial motion" means FORCE-FREE MOTION.
There is NO INERTIAL COMPENSATION of forces in inertial motion.
Let's take your really stupid idea in its simplest application to Newton's mechanics in Galilean relativity.
Inertial motion there means motion of a point test particle in a straight line in Euclidean space at constant speed.
There is ZERO FORCE there. "Zero" means zero. Your kakamany idea is that even in that case you have INERTIAL COMPENSATION i.e.
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
This is obviously stupid.
Your equation for curved space-time that in inertial motion (i.e. timelike geodesic in curved space-time) along which the torsion-free plain vanilla Levi-Civita connection {LC} can be set to zero in a sequence of LIFs (geodesic coordinates) is
0 = {LC} = T + N
where you say T is a GCT 3rd rank tensor =/= 0 but that you have "inertial compensation" i.e.
T + N = 0
T = - N =/= 0
But this is the same as saying that in Newtonian inertial motion
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
where
T = F(real force)
N = F(inertial force)
Now, why have you made such an incompetent stupid mistake?
I have seen a lot of stupid mistakes in physics but really Paul, you take the cake on this one. This is the stupidest mistake I have seen in a long time and you have wasted years of futile effort on it.
You are suffering cognitive dissonance in the switch in the meaning of "inertial motion" in the paradigm shift from Newton's mechanics of forces acting at a distance to Einstein's LOCAL geometrodynamics. Now this cognitive dissonance is epidemic and accounts for a lot of crackpot psychoceramic attacks on Einstein and general relativity. So it is worth explicating it. Traces of it underly Hal Puthoff's PV theory.
Start with Chapter 10 of Landau & Lifshitz's The Classical Theory of Fields for Newtonian mechanics in Galilean relativity with absolute simultaneity.
Consider the APPROXIMATE Lagrangian L for a uniform constant gravity field g in the reference frame of the surface of the Earth, which in Newtonian 17th century mechanics is considered an INERTIAL FRAME (neglecting relatively small Coriolis inertial forces from the fact that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours etc.
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z = altitude from surface of Earth where z = 0
In Newton's paradigm GRAVITY IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE in the INERTIAL FRAME of the Earth. Gravity's potential energy in this approximation is
V(gravity) ~ mgz
The REAL FORCE of gravity in Newton's picture is
F(real force of gravity) = -dV(gravity)/dz = - mg pointing downward to surface of Earth.
Consider the test particle m. Since it is in a real external gravity force field, no different ontologically from an external electric field in Newton's world picture, the REST FRAME of the test particle is NON-INERTIAL. Therefore, you can and do use INERTIAL COMPENSATION in that case. INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e. the cancellation of a real with a "fictitious" inertial force only has meaning in NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
The Newtonian NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME of the test particle executing a parabolic path in general in this uniform gravity force field, trivially obeys
g - g = 0
where the first g is from the inertial "fictitious" force of the accelerating rest frame of the test particle, and the second g is from the Newtonian external field. But since m(gravity) = m(inertial) the common m cancels out.
To make this more clear, change the problem for a moment. Suppose the test particle has charge e in electrostatic field E without gravity. Then the inertial compensation in the non-inertial rest frame of the charge of mass m is
ma - eE = 0
That is
a = eE/m
Obviously Paul, your fancy words "inertial compensation" really mean
Newton's Second Law of Motion
F(external real force) = ma
seen from the POV of the test particle's non-inertial rest frame.
Now Paul your fundamental blunder at the heart of your darkness is trying to apply Newton's distinction between inertial and non-inertial motion to Einstein's theory!
In the Paradigm Shift from Newton to Einstein the very idea of an objective external gravity force is completely eliminated! Back to the problem
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
The test particle m is now in INERTIAL MOTION, i.e. on a timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. Therefore "inertial compensation" makes no sense other than to say
F = ma = 0
i.e. F = 0
i.e. your T = 0
A timelike geodesic is the straightest possible line with the most uniform possible motion in the curved spacetime. It is by definition FREE OF OBJECTIVE (e.g. GCT tensor forces). In Einstein's theory it is the surface of the Earth that is in non-inertial motion and the test particle on the parabola is in inertial motion. We feel weight on the surface of the Earth because of inertial compensation of the inertial g-force {LC}^z't't' against the electrical reaction real force of the rock pushing us off timelike geodesics.
Now, Paul you have confused all this! BTW I do not deny that one can have approximately uniform g-fields for some non-inertial observers from a Tuv(matter) source like an unstable short-lived vacuum wall. I never denied that. You keep raising this Red Herring. Indeed my vacuum defect hedgehog explanation of the observed anomaly in NASA Pioneer 10&11 motion of cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 pointing back to the Sun is very similar to Vilenkin's basic idea, but with a different topology for the vacuum coherence!
Inertial compensation in REST LNIF? YES!
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler
We want to make Einstein's GR look as much like Maxwell's EM as possible. Actually like non-Abelian Yang-Mills since gravity carries its own charge like W bosons and gluons but unlike photons. Lots of papers on this of course including tetrads and also Ashtekar's (more on that down the line).
Maxwell connection for parallel transport in the internal fiber space is the vector potential Au with the U(1) gauge covariant derivative
Du = ,u - ieAu
Au is not a U(1) tensor it transforms as
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
this is the NON-TENSOR connection transform relative to the U(1) internal symmetry group.
The Maxwell field tensor Fuv is the curl of Au
AVOID RIGID CONNECTIONS! They are not BACKGROUND INDEPENDENT.
Similarly, Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of vector fields in curved spacetime "base space" (no torsion no Poltorak RIGID "affine connection" etc, just plain vanilla 1916 GR) has a GCT SPACETIME SYMMETRY GROUP gauge covariant derivative, symbolically like
Du* = ,u - {LC} ...
example, for any GCT first rank tensor we get the second rank tensor
DuB^v = B^v,u + {LC}^vuwB^w
The NON GCT TENSOR "gauge transform" analogous to
Au -> Au' = Au + Chi,u
in Maxwell's EM is precisely
{LC} = N -> {LC}' = N' = XXXN + XY
where X is the GCT Jacobian matrix and Y is a partial derivative of X.
I can provide the indices but they are unwieldy.
Just as Au is not a U(1) tensor so also is {LC} not a GCT tensor.
Z's attempt to use Newtonian "inertial compensation" here is wrong. The shift from Newton to Einstein is a profound change in the meaning of "inertial motion" in which the idea of an objective Newtonian force of gravity in an inertial frame is completely eliminated. Hence there is nothing to compensate!
The inertial g-force, which is {LC}^i00, i = 1,2,3 in the REST LNIF of a test particle not on a timelike geodesic acted on by a non-gravity force is always caused by the latter. The inertial g-force indeed compensates the non-gravity force in the REST LNIF. But that is not what Z proposes. Z wants to compensate a gravity force in a REST LIF - a profoundly wrong idea!
That is, Z proposes that in the REST LIF where {LC} = 0 that
{LC} = T + N = 0
T =/= 0
where T is a GCT tensor of rank 3.
Do not confuse this with torsion. Z is only talking 1916 GR.
This is profoundly wrong.
What is correct is that in the REST LNIF
{LC)^i00 + (External Non-Gravity Force)^i = 0
That is, the inertial g-force in the non-inertial frame exactly compensates the non-gravity external force pushing the particle off a timelike geodesic.
For example, here on surface of the Earth we are in a local non-inertial frame (LNIF) from the electrical reaction forces and quantum Fermi-Dirac pressure of the rock on which we stand. That's why we feel weight.
Z's deep error is to apply "inertial compensation" not to the REST LNIF of the test object where it does apply, to the REST LIF where it does not apply.
Back to the connections and Stoke's theorem & Bohm-Aharonov Effect
The local vector potential U(1) EM connection Au is not a local classical observable, but it is a nonlocal quantum observable because from Stoke's theorem the closed loop line integral of Au is the magnetic flux integral through the enclosed surface. From micro quantum mechanics this causes a fringe shift in a double slit experiment with electrons passing through a region free from magnetic field but with nonzero Au connection field.
Similarly in general relativity, where the macro-quantum vacuum coherence, which makes Einstein's cosmological constant near zero, is a giant quantum wave, there will be an analogous "fringe shift"!
From Stoke's theorem now in curved spacetime, the Riemann-Christoffel tidal stretch-squeeze geodesic deviation curvature 4th rank GCT tensor Ruvwl is the analog to the Fuv Maxwell field tensor. Ruvwl is the GCT covariant curl of the Levi-Civita {LC}uvw connection just like Fuv is the curl of Au.
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology (independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time. This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the "fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary 2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3 comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Yes, thanks. Will incorporate what you say. I was writing fast off the cuff not focused on that particular important detail.
In a message dated 12/6/2004 1:36:10 AM Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Note that Ruvwl has physical dimensions of 1/Area, and the {LC} has
physical dimensions 1/Length. The line integral and the surface
integral in the generalized Stoke's theorem of manifold topology
(independent of metric)
i.e. DeRham-Hodge integral of p-Cartan form about a closed p-boundary
of a p+1 co-form = integral of the exterior derivative p + 1 form of
the p-form over the bounded p + 1 co-form (manifold)
Gives the curvature flux through any bounded area in curved space-time.
This is analogous to the magnetic flux. What is the analog of the
"fringe shift"? Is it the change in the orientation of a vector
parallel transported around the closed loop boundary of that arbitrary
2-surface in curved spacetime?
If you do a macro-quantum interference experiment, you will get a Berry
phase shift as well. How can you do that? That's where metric
engineering the fabric of spacetime for warp, wormhole and weapon W^3
comes in. Another story coming soon to a computer screen near you.
JACK: This is not correct.
Stokes theorem is valid only if the integration chain is a boundary.
But there are closed circulation chains, which are NOT boundaries.
The BA effect is related to the integration of closed but not exact forms,
around closed integration chains WHICH ARE NOT BOUNDARIES.
Stokes theorem is not valid for closed chain,s which are not boundaries.
However, those p-forms, which are exact have ZERO circulation integrals
whether or not the integration chain is a cycle or a boundary.
**
It is the integration around closed chains of closed but not exact p-forms that
gives the deRham topological quantization.
Examples : A =(ydx-xdy)/(x^2+y^2),
dA = 0
Integral (A) around a closed chain that encircles the origin is 2pi, not zero.
(See Chapter 6 of my monograph on Non Equilibrium Themodynamics)
http://www.lulu.com/kiehn
It is also the integration around a closed chain (the airfoil), not a boundary, of a non exact, but closed form, (which has ZERO vorticity and therefor no E or B field in the EM sense )
that produces lift and makes a wing fly! Vorticity does not make a wing fly.!
Lift is NOT due to a (V x B) component of a Lorentz- type force
( as B = 0) outside the airfoil.
Vorticity usually causes drag in deformable viscous fluids.
**
Note that the Fields F=dA of MAxwell theory are related to a completely anti symmetric
matrix of functions. The set induces a symplectic structure on the variety of independent variables if the matrix is of maximal (even) rank 4. The eigen vectors of such matrices are two Spinor pairs of complex components, and of equal and opposite pure imaginary eigenvalues. (The eigenvectors are said to be isotropic.)
It the matrix rank is 3, then a contact structure is introduced, and the eigenvectors consist of one pair of spinors with complex components of pure imaginary eigen values, and one real eigenvector of eigen value zero.
The Spinors do NOT behave as vectors with a uniquely defined connection
See last page of E. Cartan's book on Spinors)
However, Spinor pairs can be combined to form well behaved vectors wrt to connections.
Note that these spinor properties have little to do with symmetric concepts of elasticity deformation theory, for the eigen vectors of a symmetric real matrix are real, not complex.
Bottom line, Spinors are not strangers to classical Maxwell theory defined by the topological
constraint, F=dA = 0.
It does not take relativity, nor QM, to produce Spinors. They are artifacts of antisymmetric matrices.
***
IMO Yang Mills is NOT the same as EM, but has some formal similarities.
The problem is that Yang Mills fields can be compact, but Maxwell EB fields
are usually NOT COMPACT ( this is known as Gromov's theorem, and follows as F = dA, not dA+A^A.)
Also, EM fields are rarely self dual in the real world.
This is not to say that YM theory should be neglected, but only that it is
NOT equivalent to EM theory without the addition of constraints.
**
I do not recommend the using a Maxwell analogy for trying to justify Yang Mills asumptions.
Regards
RMK
On Dec 5, 2004, at 10:25 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Dec 5, 2004, at 6:41 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
The metric for an x-y vacuum domain wall can be written as
ds^2 = -(1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 . d(ct)^2 + (1 - g|z|/c^2)^2 .e^-(2kappa ct).(dx^2 + dy^2) + dz^2
So what?
1. That is ONLY the linear weak field approximation I suspect.
You "suspect". You *are* a suspect!
Loopy polemics. Look I am too busy to read the paper in detail. From my quick scan he only does a weak field case.
This is the exact solution for the vacuum domain wall. It is not a weak-field approximation.
What equation in the paper? Even if it is exact solution so what? This or that solution, exact or not has nothing, whatever to do with the real problem here, which is your clueless confusion, worthy of Mrs Malaprop, over the meaning of "inertial motion". Indeed YOU VIOLATE NEWTON'S FIRST LAW as well as Einstein's GR.
"Inertial motion" means FORCE-FREE MOTION.
There is NO INERTIAL COMPENSATION of forces in inertial motion.
Let's take your really stupid idea in its simplest application to Newton's mechanics in Galilean relativity.
Inertial motion there means motion of a point test particle in a straight line in Euclidean space at constant speed.
There is ZERO FORCE there. "Zero" means zero. Your kakamany idea is that even in that case you have INERTIAL COMPENSATION i.e.
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
This is obviously stupid.
Your equation for curved space-time that in inertial motion (i.e. timelike geodesic in curved space-time) along which the torsion-free plain vanilla Levi-Civita connection {LC} can be set to zero in a sequence of LIFs (geodesic coordinates) is
0 = {LC} = T + N
where you say T is a GCT 3rd rank tensor =/= 0 but that you have "inertial compensation" i.e.
T + N = 0
T = - N =/= 0
But this is the same as saying that in Newtonian inertial motion
F(real force) + F(inertial force) = 0
where
T = F(real force)
N = F(inertial force)
Now, why have you made such an incompetent stupid mistake?
I have seen a lot of stupid mistakes in physics but really Paul, you take the cake on this one. This is the stupidest mistake I have seen in a long time and you have wasted years of futile effort on it.
You are suffering cognitive dissonance in the switch in the meaning of "inertial motion" in the paradigm shift from Newton's mechanics of forces acting at a distance to Einstein's LOCAL geometrodynamics. Now this cognitive dissonance is epidemic and accounts for a lot of crackpot psychoceramic attacks on Einstein and general relativity. So it is worth explicating it. Traces of it underly Hal Puthoff's PV theory.
Start with Chapter 10 of Landau & Lifshitz's The Classical Theory of Fields for Newtonian mechanics in Galilean relativity with absolute simultaneity.
Consider the APPROXIMATE Lagrangian L for a uniform constant gravity field g in the reference frame of the surface of the Earth, which in Newtonian 17th century mechanics is considered an INERTIAL FRAME (neglecting relatively small Coriolis inertial forces from the fact that the Earth rotates once every 24 hours etc.
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
z = altitude from surface of Earth where z = 0
In Newton's paradigm GRAVITY IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE in the INERTIAL FRAME of the Earth. Gravity's potential energy in this approximation is
V(gravity) ~ mgz
The REAL FORCE of gravity in Newton's picture is
F(real force of gravity) = -dV(gravity)/dz = - mg pointing downward to surface of Earth.
Consider the test particle m. Since it is in a real external gravity force field, no different ontologically from an external electric field in Newton's world picture, the REST FRAME of the test particle is NON-INERTIAL. Therefore, you can and do use INERTIAL COMPENSATION in that case. INERTIAL COMPENSATION, i.e. the cancellation of a real with a "fictitious" inertial force only has meaning in NON-INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE.
The Newtonian NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME of the test particle executing a parabolic path in general in this uniform gravity force field, trivially obeys
g - g = 0
where the first g is from the inertial "fictitious" force of the accelerating rest frame of the test particle, and the second g is from the Newtonian external field. But since m(gravity) = m(inertial) the common m cancels out.
To make this more clear, change the problem for a moment. Suppose the test particle has charge e in electrostatic field E without gravity. Then the inertial compensation in the non-inertial rest frame of the charge of mass m is
ma - eE = 0
That is
a = eE/m
Obviously Paul, your fancy words "inertial compensation" really mean
Newton's Second Law of Motion
F(external real force) = ma
seen from the POV of the test particle's non-inertial rest frame.
Now Paul your fundamental blunder at the heart of your darkness is trying to apply Newton's distinction between inertial and non-inertial motion to Einstein's theory!
In the Paradigm Shift from Newton to Einstein the very idea of an objective external gravity force is completely eliminated! Back to the problem
L = (1/2)mv^2 - mgz
The test particle m is now in INERTIAL MOTION, i.e. on a timelike geodesic in curved spacetime. Therefore "inertial compensation" makes no sense other than to say
F = ma = 0
i.e. F = 0
i.e. your T = 0
A timelike geodesic is the straightest possible line with the most uniform possible motion in the curved spacetime. It is by definition FREE OF OBJECTIVE (e.g. GCT tensor forces). In Einstein's theory it is the surface of the Earth that is in non-inertial motion and the test particle on the parabola is in inertial motion. We feel weight on the surface of the Earth because of inertial compensation of the inertial g-force {LC}^z't't' against the electrical reaction real force of the rock pushing us off timelike geodesics.
Now, Paul you have confused all this! BTW I do not deny that one can have approximately uniform g-fields for some non-inertial observers from a Tuv(matter) source like an unstable short-lived vacuum wall. I never denied that. You keep raising this Red Herring. Indeed my vacuum defect hedgehog explanation of the observed anomaly in NASA Pioneer 10&11 motion of cH ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 pointing back to the Sun is very similar to Vilenkin's basic idea, but with a different topology for the vacuum coherence!
Saturday, December 04, 2004
ALINTEL
December 4, 2004
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Plausibility of Pop Media on Secret Nazi UFO Weapons & Black Triangles
Abstract
Critical voltage for lift is ~ 10^15 volts per meter divided by the square root of the dimensionless dielectric coefficient. Therefore, a resonant peak in the electrical susceptibility of the special dielectric material between the double hull of the UFO geodesic glider should increase the power efficiency needed for flight. The lowest possible AC frequencies are preferred to minimize radiation leaks and ionized plasmas outside the ships that ruin their stealth cloaking.
Note that this report summarizes semi-secret work done by me at ISSO 1999-2000 and some recent developments in 2004.
The fundamental idea for the metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon is the on-board manufacture of any desired free float weightless timelike geodesic in curved spacetime for the desired path of the Unconventional Flying Object. Here I give some basic constraints from Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism for near Earth flight. This is all old physics well known to Nazi scientists in the 1930's not needing any zero point dark energy, perhaps only conventional capacitors, coils and U-Boat batteries. See Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" on the Nazi history of this field. The purpose of this message is to see if there is any plausible credibility to the extensive folklore information on Nazi WWII research collected in Nick Cook's writings from Jane's Defence Weekly consistent with Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects".
Using MKS SI units I use Arnold Sommerfeld's Munich Lectures that Bethe, Pauli et-al all attended. The printed version I use is circa 1933. It is easy to screw up numerical computations in classical electrodynamics because of all the different conventions on electrical units. Bethe, of course, was one of my teachers at Cornell.
The electrical energy density in a dielectric is
(1/2)E.D = (1/2)keoE^2
k = 1 + x
k is the dimensionless dielectric constant, x is the dimensionless susceptibility of the dielectric material between the plates. eo is permittivity of free space, i.e. non-exotic non-gravitating vacuum with vanishing total zero point energy density corresponding to zero Einstein cosmological constant in the large-scale FRW limit from optimal vacuum coherence). This ignores the small spontaneous dark energy correction of
/\~ (1/10^26 meters)^2
i.e. very coarse-grained dark energy density of
(c^4/8piG)/\ ~ 3^4 (10^8)^4/24x6.67x10^-11x(10^26)^2 ~ 10^43/10^52
~ 10^-9 Joules/meter^3
eo ~ (1/36pi)10^-9 ~ 10^-11 [farads/meter = Coulomb^2/Joule-meter]
The curvature at the surface of the Earth is
~ g/c^2r ~ 10/10^17x10^7 ~ 10^-23 meters^-2
V = Voltage drop
A = area of a pair of flat plates separated by d holding charges + Q and -Q
V = Q/C
D ~ Q/A = Charge/Area
E = F/Q = Force/Charge
ED = Force/Area = Pressure = Energy Density
d separation of oppositely charged conducting metal plates
Electrical capacitance is C = Q/(Voltage Difference) = Q/V = Aeok/d = Q/Ed
[E] = [Q/eokA]
[D] = [Q/A]
[ED] = [Q^2/A^2eok] = JouleCoulomb^2/meter^3 Coulomb^2 = Joule/meter^3
Electrostatic capacitor stored energy density is
=(1/2) Q^2/A^2eok = (CV)^2/2A^2eok = eokV^2/2d^2
C is the electrical capacitance of the double-hull UFO with voltage drop V between the two conducting hull shells of total area A separated by distance d.
* Therefore, a resonance peak in the electrical susceptibility x of the dielectric material between the double hull is desirable.
The metric engineering warping power of this stored non-propagating localized near field energy of virtual longitudinal photons in macro-quantum coherent "Glauber states", possibly squeezed, is determined from
8piGeokV^2/2c^4d^2 ~ g/c^2r(Earth)
i.e. the threshold voltage per unit meter needed to get significant weightless warping of the Earth's gravity field for controlled geodesic gliding is
V/d ~ [c^2g/2eok8piGr(Earth)]^1/2
Neglecting dielectric resonance peaks that help, and sticking to DC note that AC will probably be needed but that radiation leak decreases efficiency of operation. We want ELF near fields ideally. The lower the frequency the better. Radio, microwave, IR etc will all tend to leak away as real photons decreasing the anti-gravity lift efficiency.
OK rough numerical estimate for k = 1
V/d ~ [(10^17)(10)/(10^3)(10^-11)^2(10^6)]^1/2 ~ [(10^18)(10^22)/10^9]^1/2
~ 10^31/2 ~ 10^15/k^1/2 volts per meter.
December 4, 2004
Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Plausibility of Pop Media on Secret Nazi UFO Weapons & Black Triangles
Abstract
Critical voltage for lift is ~ 10^15 volts per meter divided by the square root of the dimensionless dielectric coefficient. Therefore, a resonant peak in the electrical susceptibility of the special dielectric material between the double hull of the UFO geodesic glider should increase the power efficiency needed for flight. The lowest possible AC frequencies are preferred to minimize radiation leaks and ionized plasmas outside the ships that ruin their stealth cloaking.
Note that this report summarizes semi-secret work done by me at ISSO 1999-2000 and some recent developments in 2004.
The fundamental idea for the metric engineering of warp, wormhole and weapon is the on-board manufacture of any desired free float weightless timelike geodesic in curved spacetime for the desired path of the Unconventional Flying Object. Here I give some basic constraints from Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism for near Earth flight. This is all old physics well known to Nazi scientists in the 1930's not needing any zero point dark energy, perhaps only conventional capacitors, coils and U-Boat batteries. See Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" on the Nazi history of this field. The purpose of this message is to see if there is any plausible credibility to the extensive folklore information on Nazi WWII research collected in Nick Cook's writings from Jane's Defence Weekly consistent with Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects".
Using MKS SI units I use Arnold Sommerfeld's Munich Lectures that Bethe, Pauli et-al all attended. The printed version I use is circa 1933. It is easy to screw up numerical computations in classical electrodynamics because of all the different conventions on electrical units. Bethe, of course, was one of my teachers at Cornell.
The electrical energy density in a dielectric is
(1/2)E.D = (1/2)keoE^2
k = 1 + x
k is the dimensionless dielectric constant, x is the dimensionless susceptibility of the dielectric material between the plates. eo is permittivity of free space, i.e. non-exotic non-gravitating vacuum with vanishing total zero point energy density corresponding to zero Einstein cosmological constant in the large-scale FRW limit from optimal vacuum coherence). This ignores the small spontaneous dark energy correction of
/\~ (1/10^26 meters)^2
i.e. very coarse-grained dark energy density of
(c^4/8piG)/\ ~ 3^4 (10^8)^4/24x6.67x10^-11x(10^26)^2 ~ 10^43/10^52
~ 10^-9 Joules/meter^3
eo ~ (1/36pi)10^-9 ~ 10^-11 [farads/meter = Coulomb^2/Joule-meter]
The curvature at the surface of the Earth is
~ g/c^2r ~ 10/10^17x10^7 ~ 10^-23 meters^-2
V = Voltage drop
A = area of a pair of flat plates separated by d holding charges + Q and -Q
V = Q/C
D ~ Q/A = Charge/Area
E = F/Q = Force/Charge
ED = Force/Area = Pressure = Energy Density
d separation of oppositely charged conducting metal plates
Electrical capacitance is C = Q/(Voltage Difference) = Q/V = Aeok/d = Q/Ed
[E] = [Q/eokA]
[D] = [Q/A]
[ED] = [Q^2/A^2eok] = JouleCoulomb^2/meter^3 Coulomb^2 = Joule/meter^3
Electrostatic capacitor stored energy density is
=(1/2) Q^2/A^2eok = (CV)^2/2A^2eok = eokV^2/2d^2
C is the electrical capacitance of the double-hull UFO with voltage drop V between the two conducting hull shells of total area A separated by distance d.
* Therefore, a resonance peak in the electrical susceptibility x of the dielectric material between the double hull is desirable.
The metric engineering warping power of this stored non-propagating localized near field energy of virtual longitudinal photons in macro-quantum coherent "Glauber states", possibly squeezed, is determined from
8piGeokV^2/2c^4d^2 ~ g/c^2r(Earth)
i.e. the threshold voltage per unit meter needed to get significant weightless warping of the Earth's gravity field for controlled geodesic gliding is
V/d ~ [c^2g/2eok8piGr(Earth)]^1/2
Neglecting dielectric resonance peaks that help, and sticking to DC note that AC will probably be needed but that radiation leak decreases efficiency of operation. We want ELF near fields ideally. The lower the frequency the better. Radio, microwave, IR etc will all tend to leak away as real photons decreasing the anti-gravity lift efficiency.
OK rough numerical estimate for k = 1
V/d ~ [(10^17)(10)/(10^3)(10^-11)^2(10^6)]^1/2 ~ [(10^18)(10^22)/10^9]^1/2
~ 10^31/2 ~ 10^15/k^1/2 volts per meter.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Uniform gravity fields do not exist. They are useful approximate
fictions!
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:55 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"So Jack -- what is the exact GR metric for a *uniformly accelerating
frame of reference*?"
In the Galilean limit low speed limit it's the one I originally wrote.
ds^2 = -(1 - (gt'/c)^2)(cdt')^2 + 2(gt'/c)dz'(cdt') + dx'^2 + dy'^2 +
dz'^2
= -(cdt)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
where
c^2{LC}^z't't' = g
{LC}^ztt = 0
z' = z - (1/2)gt^2
x = x'
y = y'
t = t'
gt'/c << 1
gz'/c^2 << 1
There is an off-diagonal gravimagnetic term in gu'v' because in this
approximation we have absolute simultaneity. This gravimagnetic term
gets cancelled out as a special relativity effect and in fact it is no
longer possible to have a truly uniform artificial gravity inertial
force in globally flat spacetime. It is also not possible to have it
"sourced" from Tuv(source) =/= 0. Indeed, it is the presence of the
gravimagnetism here that permits the approximation of the uniform
g-field inertial force in the accelerated rocket frame. This comes from
the spacetime asymmetry of the low-speed limit. That asymmetry
disappears as we approach the light cone and the quaint Newtonian
notion of a uniform gravity field disappears with it because of the
time dilation of the speed of light barrier!
In the high speed limit you can use a suitably modified Rindler
metric as Smoot shows for an extended set of non-inertial observers. In
both cases the spacetime is globally flat Minkowski spacetime with NO
SOURCES i.e Tuv = 0, which is the POINT here. You mistakenly think Tuv
=/= 0 for that metric you swiped from Smoot without understanding its
physical meaning.
That is, when gt'/c -> 1
it is NOT possible to have
c^2{LC}^z't't' = g uniformly & constantly over a large spacetime region.
You have horizons and time dilation distortions of the Rindler metric
as George Smoot showed in detail.
The uniform constant gravity field is strictly a Galilean approximation
that cannot be extrapolated into the high speed realm of special
relativity!
You have misinterpreted the physical meaning of the Rindler metric as
describing a curved spacetime with Tuv =/= 0 sources giving at least
an approximately uniform gravity field. That is not true.
Also, note you only see gravity fields, i.e. g-fields in non-inertial
off-geodesic LNIFs. One however measures tidal curvature local tensor
fields in LIFs using only geodesic test particles.
George Smoot at UCB in
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/eight.pdf then claims
that different non-inertial point observers at z'(i) i = 1 to N at same
t', each having different local proper accelerations a(i) = c^2/z'(i),
relative to the local inertial (z,t) observers at the same objective
events P, will be at fixed relative distances to each other with
identical good running clocks remaining in synchrony with each
non-inertial observer reporting a weight per unit mass of g.
There are no Tuv sources here. The counter-intuitive artificial gravity
effects here are all inertial forces in globally flat Minkowski created
by the non-gravity forces of ejecting propellant. You could never
attain the Rindler metric if the ships were only using geodesic warp
drive.
The OFF-GEODESIC non-inertial frame Rindler coordinates are t' and z',
where t and z are the inertial frame GEODESIC coordinates.
ct' = (c^2/g)tanh^-1(ct/z)
z' = [z^2 - (ct)^2]^1/2
The GLOBALLY FLAT Minkowski 1 + 1 metric
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dz^2 = [(gz'/c^2)^2(cdt')^2 - dz'^2
Tuv(source matter) = 0 here everywhere!
The world lines z' = constant for the off-geodesic NON-INERTIAL REST
FRAME are the hyperbolic world lines z = z(t)|z' in the z-t plane
with constant proper acceleration g in the NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME.
The latter only exists by a non-gravity force effect like the
expulsion of propellent in rocket engines along each world line for
different fixed choices of z' = constant in the family of hyperbolas
z = z(t)|z'
fictions!
On Dec 3, 2004, at 8:55 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
"So Jack -- what is the exact GR metric for a *uniformly accelerating
frame of reference*?"
In the Galilean limit low speed limit it's the one I originally wrote.
ds^2 = -(1 - (gt'/c)^2)(cdt')^2 + 2(gt'/c)dz'(cdt') + dx'^2 + dy'^2 +
dz'^2
= -(cdt)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
where
c^2{LC}^z't't' = g
{LC}^ztt = 0
z' = z - (1/2)gt^2
x = x'
y = y'
t = t'
gt'/c << 1
gz'/c^2 << 1
There is an off-diagonal gravimagnetic term in gu'v' because in this
approximation we have absolute simultaneity. This gravimagnetic term
gets cancelled out as a special relativity effect and in fact it is no
longer possible to have a truly uniform artificial gravity inertial
force in globally flat spacetime. It is also not possible to have it
"sourced" from Tuv(source) =/= 0. Indeed, it is the presence of the
gravimagnetism here that permits the approximation of the uniform
g-field inertial force in the accelerated rocket frame. This comes from
the spacetime asymmetry of the low-speed limit. That asymmetry
disappears as we approach the light cone and the quaint Newtonian
notion of a uniform gravity field disappears with it because of the
time dilation of the speed of light barrier!
In the high speed limit you can use a suitably modified Rindler
metric as Smoot shows for an extended set of non-inertial observers. In
both cases the spacetime is globally flat Minkowski spacetime with NO
SOURCES i.e Tuv = 0, which is the POINT here. You mistakenly think Tuv
=/= 0 for that metric you swiped from Smoot without understanding its
physical meaning.
That is, when gt'/c -> 1
it is NOT possible to have
c^2{LC}^z't't' = g uniformly & constantly over a large spacetime region.
You have horizons and time dilation distortions of the Rindler metric
as George Smoot showed in detail.
The uniform constant gravity field is strictly a Galilean approximation
that cannot be extrapolated into the high speed realm of special
relativity!
You have misinterpreted the physical meaning of the Rindler metric as
describing a curved spacetime with Tuv =/= 0 sources giving at least
an approximately uniform gravity field. That is not true.
Also, note you only see gravity fields, i.e. g-fields in non-inertial
off-geodesic LNIFs. One however measures tidal curvature local tensor
fields in LIFs using only geodesic test particles.
George Smoot at UCB in
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/eight.pdf then claims
that different non-inertial point observers at z'(i) i = 1 to N at same
t', each having different local proper accelerations a(i) = c^2/z'(i),
relative to the local inertial (z,t) observers at the same objective
events P, will be at fixed relative distances to each other with
identical good running clocks remaining in synchrony with each
non-inertial observer reporting a weight per unit mass of g.
There are no Tuv sources here. The counter-intuitive artificial gravity
effects here are all inertial forces in globally flat Minkowski created
by the non-gravity forces of ejecting propellant. You could never
attain the Rindler metric if the ships were only using geodesic warp
drive.
The OFF-GEODESIC non-inertial frame Rindler coordinates are t' and z',
where t and z are the inertial frame GEODESIC coordinates.
ct' = (c^2/g)tanh^-1(ct/z)
z' = [z^2 - (ct)^2]^1/2
The GLOBALLY FLAT Minkowski 1 + 1 metric
ds^2 = (cdt)^2 - dz^2 = [(gz'/c^2)^2(cdt')^2 - dz'^2
Tuv(source matter) = 0 here everywhere!
The world lines z' = constant for the off-geodesic NON-INERTIAL REST
FRAME are the hyperbolic world lines z = z(t)|z' in the z-t plane
with constant proper acceleration g in the NON-INERTIAL REST FRAME.
The latter only exists by a non-gravity force effect like the
expulsion of propellent in rocket engines along each world line for
different fixed choices of z' = constant in the family of hyperbolas
z = z(t)|z'
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Will I have to eat my hat on my remark
There is no way to bend spacetime by brute force because spacetime is too stiff at the scale of the thickness of the fuselage of the alien birds?
Good thing I have not let Super Cosmos into print yet. Is this what Tricky Hal has up his sleeve? :-)
OK what's wrong with the following numbers that seem to suggest that the Townsend-Brown "lifter" effect is not as crackpot as I first thought? Huh? This shows that once concrete calculation plugging in the numbers is worth "billions and billions" of Zielinski's excess verbal baggage. :-)
These parameters for geodesic gliding (simple warp drive) of operational USAF Black "Anti-Gravity" Birds like the Black Triangles and what Nick Cook is hunting for are well within current technology. Is it really as simple as this to make a George Trimble G-Engine or have I made a colossal arithmetic blunder below?
PS I would like to thank Gordon Novel for stimulating this revolting new development! Without his urging I would not have done this little exercise. Maybe it's wrong? Maybe it's not? Intelligent corrections welcomed. It can't be this easy? Is it? I do not believe what I show below - at least not yet. I have astonished myself. I am very skeptical myself of what I say here. As Richard Feynman admonished me more than once "Jack, always try to prove yourself wrong."
Working with electromagnetic units is a bitch and counter-intuitive.
Here goes:
PS The cgs emu electrical field E energy density is E^2/8pi ergs/cc
where MKS 1 volt per meter = 10^6 abvolts per cm
Therefore
10^21 ergs/cc ~ E^2/8pi
E ~ (25 10^21)^1/2 ~ 10^10 abvolts/cm ~ 10^4 volts/meter
This is NOT a lot! I mean this is easy.
Suppose you have a capacitor with a separation between the plates of say 1 cm.
That's a voltage difference of only 100 volts to get the above E. So how come charged capacitors are not floating all over the place. What's wrong with this picture? Where is my error below? Back to the drawing boards boys and girls.
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Clarifications.
Note that the PV theory of Hal Puthoff promoted by Eric Davis in the USAF report says that black holes do not exist. This is one reason why Lawrence Kraus labeled the USAF report bogus and crackpot. It is also why Cliff Will, Matt Visser (who Davis cites significantly in the USAF report), Bill Unruh and others I talked to at GR 17 reject the PV theory completely. Sir Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge gave ample evidence for the factual status of black holes as did others.
1. How much energy does it take to make a simple black hole?
Let R be the radius of the total mass M.
The critical energy density T00* to make the black hole of radius r* is determined from
r* = 2GM/c^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*r*^3
This is an induced curvature of
1/r*^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*
The numbers below give the energy density needed to make a black hole of size 10^4 cm.
Let r' be the actual radius of the gravitating source (assumed static, uniform and isotropic for simplicity here in this toy model. Then the dimensionless black hole parameter is
b = (r'/r)^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*r'^2
The event horizon of infinite redshift where time literally stops is when b = 1. When b < 1 we have a black hole.
2. The geodesic glider in Earth's atmosphere.
Let M be the mass of the Earth.
M = 6x10^27 grams
GM/c^2 ~ 0.5 cm
That is if the Earth were a black hole its surface area would be only ~ 3.14 cm^2 that would fit in the palm of your hand. Of course you would be crushed out of existence.
When you stand on the surface of rotating Earth at a radius r' = 6x10^8 cm you are a non-inertial observer pushed off the inertial motion geodesic path in curved spacetime by the electrical reaction forces and the Pauli exclusion quantum correlations in the material rock beneath your feet. You feel the inertial g-force proportional to your "weight" only because of these non-gravity electrical forces and quantum pressures from Fermi-Dirac statistics of identical particles.
The universal g-acceleration at Earth's surface is
g = GM/r'^2 ~ 10^3 cm/sec^2
Note that
b = ~ 10^18 for Earth.
The radius of curvature at the surface of the Earth induced by the Earth is r@ where
1/r@^2 ~ GM/c^2r'^3 = g/c^2r'
Note that the Levi-Civita connection that is not a tensor, and that has zero tensor component, in this LNIF at the surface of the Earth is
(LC)' ~ g/c^2
Paul Zielinski falling off his ladder next to you has (LC) = 0. :-)
Therefore,
r@ = c(r'/g)^1/2 ~ 310^10(6 10^10/10^3)^1/2 ~ 10^13 cm ~ 1 Au
The applied brute force energy density T00@ we need to neutralize the Earth's (LC)' in the LNIF for the geodesic glider is of order
1/r@^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00@ = g/c^2r'
i.e.
T00@ ~ (c^4/8piG)(g/c^2r') = (c^2/8piG)(g/r') ~ (1/8pi)10^28x10^3/6 10^8 ergs/cc
~ 10^21 ergs/cc ~ 10^14 Joules/cc
This corrects my late last night off the top of my lazy dog head instant estimate below that was too high by a factor of 100.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
There is no way to bend spacetime by brute force because spacetime is too stiff at the scale of the thickness of the fuselage of the alien birds.
The spacetime stiffness or "string tension" is c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
1 Gev is a billion electron volts of energy.
10^19 is 10^7x10^12 = ten million trillion electron volts of energy
10^19 Gev is ten million billion trillion electron volts of energy
The space warp induced curvature factor is
1/(Area of Induced Spacetime Warp) ~ (G/c^4) (Applied Energy Density)
To get your weightless warp drive as allegedly seen in real flying saucers
suppose the saucer is say 100 meters i.e. 10^4 cm
The warp factor around the saucer must be of order
10^-8 cm^-2 = (10^-33 cm/10^19Gev)(Applied Energy Density)
The required energy density for this Hal Puthoff/Eric Davis PV warp drive metric engineering approach is therefore
(Applied Energy Density) ~ 10^19 Gev x 10^33 x 10^-8 ~ 10^44 Gev/(cubic centimeter)
That's 10^53 electron volts of energy per cubic centimeter, that ~ 10^34 Joules of energy per cubic centimeter.
That's simply too much for any high voltage circuit to make.
Note that the energy density of a proton is
10^9 ev/(10-13)^3 = 10^9 10^39 = 10^48 ev/cc = 10^30 Joules per cc.
This is the energy density of a neutron star that has the mass of the entire Sun in a sphere of ~ 10km diameter. The flying saucer needs ten thousand times more than that following the Puthoff-Davis approach.
It don't work that way quite obviously. The alleged fact that saucers fly easily through our skies without burning us all to a crisp in Darth Vader's "Death Star WMD" means there is a kinder gentler way - there is.
Actually the above is really more for a primitive star gate - to neutralize Earth's 1 g field, i.e. weightless geodesic gliding we only need 10^-18 of the above energy density in the brute force method. I will double check this number later as it is late. Manana.
So that's only 10^14 Joules per cc - still quite a lot, but not as bad as above.
In terms of Poynting EM flux
That's 10^24 Joules per cm^2 per second or 10^24 watts per square centimeter. That's still a hell of a lot.
There is no way to bend spacetime by brute force because spacetime is too stiff at the scale of the thickness of the fuselage of the alien birds?
Good thing I have not let Super Cosmos into print yet. Is this what Tricky Hal has up his sleeve? :-)
OK what's wrong with the following numbers that seem to suggest that the Townsend-Brown "lifter" effect is not as crackpot as I first thought? Huh? This shows that once concrete calculation plugging in the numbers is worth "billions and billions" of Zielinski's excess verbal baggage. :-)
These parameters for geodesic gliding (simple warp drive) of operational USAF Black "Anti-Gravity" Birds like the Black Triangles and what Nick Cook is hunting for are well within current technology. Is it really as simple as this to make a George Trimble G-Engine or have I made a colossal arithmetic blunder below?
PS I would like to thank Gordon Novel for stimulating this revolting new development! Without his urging I would not have done this little exercise. Maybe it's wrong? Maybe it's not? Intelligent corrections welcomed. It can't be this easy? Is it? I do not believe what I show below - at least not yet. I have astonished myself. I am very skeptical myself of what I say here. As Richard Feynman admonished me more than once "Jack, always try to prove yourself wrong."
Working with electromagnetic units is a bitch and counter-intuitive.
Here goes:
PS The cgs emu electrical field E energy density is E^2/8pi ergs/cc
where MKS 1 volt per meter = 10^6 abvolts per cm
Therefore
10^21 ergs/cc ~ E^2/8pi
E ~ (25 10^21)^1/2 ~ 10^10 abvolts/cm ~ 10^4 volts/meter
This is NOT a lot! I mean this is easy.
Suppose you have a capacitor with a separation between the plates of say 1 cm.
That's a voltage difference of only 100 volts to get the above E. So how come charged capacitors are not floating all over the place. What's wrong with this picture? Where is my error below? Back to the drawing boards boys and girls.
On Nov 30, 2004, at 9:22 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Clarifications.
Note that the PV theory of Hal Puthoff promoted by Eric Davis in the USAF report says that black holes do not exist. This is one reason why Lawrence Kraus labeled the USAF report bogus and crackpot. It is also why Cliff Will, Matt Visser (who Davis cites significantly in the USAF report), Bill Unruh and others I talked to at GR 17 reject the PV theory completely. Sir Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal and Master of Trinity College, Cambridge gave ample evidence for the factual status of black holes as did others.
1. How much energy does it take to make a simple black hole?
Let R be the radius of the total mass M.
The critical energy density T00* to make the black hole of radius r* is determined from
r* = 2GM/c^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*r*^3
This is an induced curvature of
1/r*^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*
The numbers below give the energy density needed to make a black hole of size 10^4 cm.
Let r' be the actual radius of the gravitating source (assumed static, uniform and isotropic for simplicity here in this toy model. Then the dimensionless black hole parameter is
b = (r'/r)^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00*r'^2
The event horizon of infinite redshift where time literally stops is when b = 1. When b < 1 we have a black hole.
2. The geodesic glider in Earth's atmosphere.
Let M be the mass of the Earth.
M = 6x10^27 grams
GM/c^2 ~ 0.5 cm
That is if the Earth were a black hole its surface area would be only ~ 3.14 cm^2 that would fit in the palm of your hand. Of course you would be crushed out of existence.
When you stand on the surface of rotating Earth at a radius r' = 6x10^8 cm you are a non-inertial observer pushed off the inertial motion geodesic path in curved spacetime by the electrical reaction forces and the Pauli exclusion quantum correlations in the material rock beneath your feet. You feel the inertial g-force proportional to your "weight" only because of these non-gravity electrical forces and quantum pressures from Fermi-Dirac statistics of identical particles.
The universal g-acceleration at Earth's surface is
g = GM/r'^2 ~ 10^3 cm/sec^2
Note that
b = ~ 10^18 for Earth.
The radius of curvature at the surface of the Earth induced by the Earth is r@ where
1/r@^2 ~ GM/c^2r'^3 = g/c^2r'
Note that the Levi-Civita connection that is not a tensor, and that has zero tensor component, in this LNIF at the surface of the Earth is
(LC)' ~ g/c^2
Paul Zielinski falling off his ladder next to you has (LC) = 0. :-)
Therefore,
r@ = c(r'/g)^1/2 ~ 310^10(6 10^10/10^3)^1/2 ~ 10^13 cm ~ 1 Au
The applied brute force energy density T00@ we need to neutralize the Earth's (LC)' in the LNIF for the geodesic glider is of order
1/r@^2 = 8pi(G/c^4)T00@ = g/c^2r'
i.e.
T00@ ~ (c^4/8piG)(g/c^2r') = (c^2/8piG)(g/r') ~ (1/8pi)10^28x10^3/6 10^8 ergs/cc
~ 10^21 ergs/cc ~ 10^14 Joules/cc
This corrects my late last night off the top of my lazy dog head instant estimate below that was too high by a factor of 100.
On Nov 29, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
There is no way to bend spacetime by brute force because spacetime is too stiff at the scale of the thickness of the fuselage of the alien birds.
The spacetime stiffness or "string tension" is c^4/G ~ 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm.
1 Gev is a billion electron volts of energy.
10^19 is 10^7x10^12 = ten million trillion electron volts of energy
10^19 Gev is ten million billion trillion electron volts of energy
The space warp induced curvature factor is
1/(Area of Induced Spacetime Warp) ~ (G/c^4) (Applied Energy Density)
To get your weightless warp drive as allegedly seen in real flying saucers
suppose the saucer is say 100 meters i.e. 10^4 cm
The warp factor around the saucer must be of order
10^-8 cm^-2 = (10^-33 cm/10^19Gev)(Applied Energy Density)
The required energy density for this Hal Puthoff/Eric Davis PV warp drive metric engineering approach is therefore
(Applied Energy Density) ~ 10^19 Gev x 10^33 x 10^-8 ~ 10^44 Gev/(cubic centimeter)
That's 10^53 electron volts of energy per cubic centimeter, that ~ 10^34 Joules of energy per cubic centimeter.
That's simply too much for any high voltage circuit to make.
Note that the energy density of a proton is
10^9 ev/(10-13)^3 = 10^9 10^39 = 10^48 ev/cc = 10^30 Joules per cc.
This is the energy density of a neutron star that has the mass of the entire Sun in a sphere of ~ 10km diameter. The flying saucer needs ten thousand times more than that following the Puthoff-Davis approach.
It don't work that way quite obviously. The alleged fact that saucers fly easily through our skies without burning us all to a crisp in Darth Vader's "Death Star WMD" means there is a kinder gentler way - there is.
Actually the above is really more for a primitive star gate - to neutralize Earth's 1 g field, i.e. weightless geodesic gliding we only need 10^-18 of the above energy density in the brute force method. I will double check this number later as it is late. Manana.
So that's only 10^14 Joules per cc - still quite a lot, but not as bad as above.
In terms of Poynting EM flux
That's 10^24 Joules per cm^2 per second or 10^24 watts per square centimeter. That's still a hell of a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
