Note #3
From last time:
"Markus concluded ... 'It comes down to a difference in people's calculations and interpretations. Some say there is enough energy in a shoe box to blow the world apart; others say that all the ZPE in the volume of the Earth couldn't boil you an egg... with Puthoff ... it's closer to the shoebox scenario..." p. 110
All that is accurate. "Markus" is no fool. But who is this "Deep Throat" X-Files Spook "Markus" who is playing Nick Cook and other defense journalists? Is he from our cousins in British Intelligence or from somewhere else? What is the real hidden agenda here? Are we all on the same team or not? What is the Final Secret of the Super Illuminati? Doc Savage is on the case. ;-)
Now I actually agree with Puthoff here, but it is not enough to be right. One must be right for the right reasons. Puthoff is right for the wrong reasons. Since Puthoff has credibility in the world of Black Ops this is a very dangerous situation because it is "bad intelligence" just like the bad intelligence from my neoconservative over-zealous naive friends working for Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney that got us into Iraq for the wrong reasons actually weakening our security against Al Qaeda as long-time pro Richard Clarke and others of more competence coming out of the Bushes are now revealing.
What are the right reasons?
http://qedcorp.com/London/RVUri.JPG
Me (Jack Sarfatti) and Uri Geller with results of RV demonstration.
http://qedcorp.com/London/UriTV1.JPG
Uri Geller interviews Jack Sarfatti for his future TV documentary.
http://qedcorp.com/London/Hileytalk.JPG
Basil Hiley gives popular physics talk on the nature of quantum physics, Bohm's theory and Beyond.
Other photos include Simon Daniel, Colin and Philamena Bennett, Mark Davidson, Kevin Kingsland, Phillip Gauguin (who spoke on his own approach http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en_science.html to the micro-geons that Alexander Burinski is working on in Moscow, that I worked in in 1973 with Abdus Salam and have been working on again now). Also if you look carefully you will see the real "Faithful Sam" The Hobbit from "Lord of The Rings" along with "Gandolph in a Beret."
For more details on who is who in the photos contact me directly.
Note #2 for high school and college physics students
Boiled Eggs
p. 110: Agreed the zero point energy exists and we see it in the massive total amount of dark energy in the universe although that energy density is still small. The total mass M of all the stuff in the universe is now observed to be just the right amount to make 3D space flat to about 2% error at present. Therefore,
GM/c^2 ~ c/Ho ~ 10^28 cm
Ho is the present value of the Hubble constant.
Ho^-1 = 13.7 billion years to 2% error.
(G/c^2)10^-5 gm = 10^-33 cm Planck scale
Therefore,
M/10^-5gm = 10^28/10^-33 = 10^61
M ~ 10^56 gm
Zero point exotic vacuum dark energy is about 3/4 of that and actually 0.96 in my theory where dark matter is also zero point energy of positive rather than negative quantum pressure.
Therefore, the density of exotic vacuum zero point energy averaged over the largest scales of the Universe is
Mc^2/(Ho/c)^3 ~ 10^56x10^21 (10^-28)^3 ~ 10^77 x 10^-84 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc
This is not a lot of energy density.
"Markus concluded ... 'It comes down to a difference in people's calculations and interpretations. Some say there is enough energy in a shoe box to blow the world apart; others say that all the ZPE in the volume of the Earth couldn't boil you an egg... with Puthoff ... it's closer to the shoebox scenario..." p. 110
All that is accurate. "Markus" is no fool. But who is this "Deep Throat" X-Files Spook "Markus" who is playing Nick Cook and other defense journalists? Is he from our cousins in British Intelligence or from somewhere else? What is the real hidden agenda here? Are we all on the same team or not? What is the Final Secret of the Super Illuminati? Doc Savage is on the case. ;-)
Now I actually agree with Puthoff here, but it is not enough to be right. One must be right for the right reasons. Puthoff is right for the wrong reasons. Since Puthoff has credibility in the world of Black Ops this is a very dangerous situation because it is "bad intelligence" just like the bad intelligence from my neoconservative over-zealous naive friends working for Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney that got us into Iraq for the wrong reasons actually weakening our security against Al Qaeda as long-time pro Richard Clarke and others of more competence coming out of the Bushes are now revealing.
What are the right reasons?
The missing links here are the ideas of "vacuum coherence" that controls the amount of random noise in the zero point exotic vacuum fluctuations and of scale dependence. A few key basic conceptual points that you will not find in any papers by Hal Puthoff & Co:
1. The ordinary "non-exotic" physical vacuum is optimally coherent at a given specified scale such that it neither gravitates nor anti-gravitates as our common sense notion of "vacuum" dictates.
2. The repulsive anti-gravitating "dark energy phase" of "exotic" physical vacuum is more coherent that the optimum at the specified scale giving a positive net zero point energy density from all quantum fields with an equal and opposite negative quantum pressure (i.e. w = -1).
3. The attractive gravitating "dark matter phase" of "exotic" physical vacuum is less coherent that the optimum at the specified scale giving a negative net zero point energy density with an equal and opposite positive quantum pressure (i.e. w = -1).
4. It is the sign of the quantum pressure of the physical vacuum in a given region of curved space-time at a specified scale of coarse-graining that determines direct gravitational properties of the zero point energy density completely independent of the quantum electrodynamic Casimir force, which plays no important role in "metric engineering" as is seen in the "flying saucers.". Note that the cover of Nick Cook's book has a picture of a flying saucer and that is really what the book is all about.
5. The basic thesis of Nick Cook's book, when one throws away all the noise of false leads, e.g. Townsend Brown's "capacitor", as I shall do in subsequent notes, is that the flying saucers somehow use zero point vacuum energy to control their flight. This is true in my opinion. The issue is in the details.
The fact that Nick Cook works for Jane's Defence Weekly and that Hal Puthoff has held high secret clearances from USG and that Hal's real interest is in the flying saucers, and that misleading information on this topic has made its way to Aviation Week make this an urgent matter.
"I reached Puthoff's offices ... Puthoff's link to NASA was bound up in theoretical work he had been conducting since the early 1970's into the zero point energy field. Before getting out of the car, I was beset with the rush of all the old doubts. Did I really want to declare my interest in antigravity to a man who had a clear connection to the intelligence community?" p. 108 Nick Cook
But of course Nick had already done that with his "Deep Throat" named "Markus." This whole thing is intelligence. Let's not pretend otherwise. The only issue is whether the intelligence is good, bad or bogus? Therefore, we must continue into our investigation into what may well be the greatest mystery true adventure story of all time.
It is also curious that Hal Puthoff's interest in zero point energy began at around the same time that he started his CIA-financed paranormal studies of Uri Geller and other psychics at SRI, which also coincided with my meeting him for the first time as preserved in a tape recording that Saul-Paul Sirag has. I seem to have misplaced my copy.
Is there a connection between zero point energy and consciousness? Generally, the answer in my opinion is yes via the notion of "vacuum coherence." Does this connect to Colonel Phillip Corso's allegation of direct mental control of the flying saucers? Probably. What about "Q" in Star Trek? Gene Roddenberry was influenced by Andrija Puharich who bought Uri Geller to America. Is "Q" pure fiction or might some advanced intelligence with such God-like power be possible in fact? Is it random coincidence that I appear in Paramount Pictures "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" DVD "Special Collector's Edition" (Disk 2 "Time Travel: The Art of the Possible") all too briefly touching on all these thrilling ideas?
to be continued:
Friday, March 26, 2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004
On Mar 25, 2004, at 9:00 AM, simondaniel wrote:
Wasn't it the IdeAs of March!
Excellent! Will use that. Shall I reference you on that bon mot? :-)
New photos of last week's London meetings with Brian Josephson, Basil Hiley and other Pundits and Poo Bahs such as myself and Uri Geller now uploaded to
http://qedcorp.com/London/
Each photo is rather large ~ 1/2 meg. We have not had time to make them web friendly, but no big deal with DSL or faster.
http://qedcorp.com/London/RVUri.JPG
Me (Jack Sarfatti) and Uri Geller with results of RV demonstration.
http://qedcorp.com/London/UriTV1.JPG
Uri Geller interviews Jack Sarfatti for his future TV documentary.
http://qedcorp.com/London/Hileytalk.JPG
Basil Hiley gives popular physics talk on the nature of quantum physics, Bohm's theory and Beyond.
Other photos include Simon Daniel, Colin and Philamena Bennett, Mark Davidson, Kevin Kingsland, Phillip Gauguin (who spoke on his own approach http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en_science.html to the micro-geons that Alexander Burinski is working on in Moscow, that I worked in in 1973 with Abdus Salam and have been working on again now). Also if you look carefully you will see the real "Faithful Sam" The Hobbit from "Lord of The Rings" along with "Gandolph in a Beret."
For more details on who is who in the photos contact me directly.
Note #2 for high school and college physics students
Boiled Eggs
p. 110: Agreed the zero point energy exists and we see it in the massive total amount of dark energy in the universe although that energy density is still small. The total mass M of all the stuff in the universe is now observed to be just the right amount to make 3D space flat to about 2% error at present. Therefore,
GM/c^2 ~ c/Ho ~ 10^28 cm
Ho is the present value of the Hubble constant.
Ho^-1 = 13.7 billion years to 2% error.
(G/c^2)10^-5 gm = 10^-33 cm Planck scale
Therefore,
M/10^-5gm = 10^28/10^-33 = 10^61
M ~ 10^56 gm
Zero point exotic vacuum dark energy is about 3/4 of that and actually 0.96 in my theory where dark matter is also zero point energy of positive rather than negative quantum pressure.
Therefore, the density of exotic vacuum zero point energy averaged over the largest scales of the Universe is
Mc^2/(Ho/c)^3 ~ 10^56x10^21 (10^-28)^3 ~ 10^77 x 10^-84 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc
This is not a lot of energy density.
"Markus concluded ... 'It comes down to a difference in people's calculations and interpretations. Some say there is enough energy in a shoe box to blow the world apart; others say that all the ZPE in the volume of the Earth couldn't boil you an egg... with Puthoff ... it's closer to the shoebox scenario..." p. 110
All that is accurate. "Markus" is no fool. But who is this "Deep Throat" X-Files Spook "Markus" who is playing Nick Cook and other defense journalists? Is he from our cousins in British Intelligence or from somewhere else? What is the real hidden agenda here? Are we all on the same team or not? What is the Final Secret of the Super Illuminati? Doc Savage is on the case. ;-)
Now I actually agree with Puthoff here, but it is not enough to be right. One must be right for the right reasons. Puthoff is right for the wrong reasons. Since Puthoff has credibility in the world of Black Ops this is a very dangerous situation because it is "bad intelligence" just like the bad intelligence from my neoconservative over-zealous naive friends working for Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney that got us into Iraq for the wrong reasons actually weakening our security against Al Qaeda as long-time pro Richard Clarke and others of more competence coming out of the Bushes are now revealing.
What are the right reasons?
Tune or "toon" in to the next episode #3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: 25 March 2004 16:44
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: "The Hunt For Zero Point" Book Review
Notes for a review to appear in book "Super Cosmos."
Note #1
Nick Cook, Aviation Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, is a charming
honest well-intentioned chap who I had the pleasure of meeting in
London at the chic Electric Club Frontier Physics Workshop
http://qedcorp.com/London/ and elsewhere near the offices of MI5 and
MI6 on the Ides of March, 2004 where a meeting of the minds happened.
This review is constructive criticism for a second edition of his book
and whatever else may emerge.
The major flaw in the book, and in the March 1, 2004 "Aviation Week"
"To The Stars" by a colleague of Nick's in Austin, Texas, is the
complete omission of the relevance of the amazing discovery of
anti-gravitating zero point vacuum dark energy that is approximately
73% of the "large-scale" stuff of that part of the Universe in the past
light cones of our telescopes throughout the range of electromagnetic
frequencies we can detect. The second major flaw, common to all
popular discussions of the subject, is the deep misunderstanding of the
role of the quantum electrodynamic Casimir force that should
essentially be omitted except in passing. Contrary to the late Robert
Forward's confusion there is no way that the Casimir force can be used
for practical over-unity energy production and/or propulsion of space
vehicles. The energy that can be "mined" from the zero point Casimir
force is no greater than the very weak Van Der Waals electrostatic
energy between induced electric multipoles in the electrically neutral
metal plate impurities placed in the zero point vacuum energy field.
There is, in principle, no direct tapping of the vacuum zero point
energy between the plates via the pure Casimir force. See for example
the misinformation by "Markus" on page 109. Also Nick's sentence
fragment:
"Casimir reasoned, that there would be nothing between the plates."
Should be corrected to
Casimir reasoned, that there would be fewer zero point vibrations
between the plates than outside them."
There is, of course, still "something" between the plates. The idea
here is that electromagnetic wavelengths longer than the separation
between the neutral conducting plates where the electric field must
drop to zero are excluded from the interior though not the exterior of
the plates.
"Puthoff's reputation as a scientist of vast repute went a long way
before him. His papers on gravity and inertia were viewed as seminal
works by the science community."
p. 108 Ch 10 (paperback).
This sentence will not stand up to close examination. Hal is viewed as
an eccentric odd ball on gravity and inertia theories and on zero point
energy way off in left field far from the mainstream. I do not think
there is even one major theorist in relativity who would agree with the
above sentence? Note I distinguish Hal's theoretical work from his
experimental work. I do not mean to imply that this is necessarily a
bad thing as there are many fashions in theoretical physics, which is
undergoing a severe crisis and breakdown. For example:
Martinus Veltman, awarded the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, with
t'Hooft - from his recent book "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary
Particle Physics"
"The reader may ask why in this book string theory and supersymmetry
have not been discussed...The fact is that this book is about physics,
and this implies that the theoretical ideas discussed must be
supported by experimental facts. Neither super symmetry nor string
theory satisfy this criterion. They are figments of the theoretical
mind. To quote Pauli: they are not even wrong. They have no place
here." Gary Bekkum to me March, 24, 2004
"He also sat on something called the Advanced Deep Space Transport
Group, ADST, a low-profile organization ... Staffed by select NASA, Air
Force and industry representatives ... Soon after gaining his Master's
degree at the University of Florida, he went on active duty as a Naval
Intelligence Officer seconded to the National Security Agency. When he
left the Navy, he converted to civilian status at the NSA, then went on
sabbatical at Stanford University ... to get his Ph.D. p. 111
Hal has held, and may continue to hold, high level USG security
clearances. This is why it is important to get the physics right in
this national security area of technological surprise relevant to the
WMD issue and the issues raised by Sir Martin Rees in "Our Final Hour."
There is one thing, Hal and I agree on here, contrary to Captain (USAF
Intelligence ret) Robert Collins's allegations that Hal had invented an
over-unity energy machine in e-mail to me :
"Of the 30-odd devices that have come through this door, none has
passed the magic test yet: a demonstrable measurement of more energy
flowing out than is flowing in."
to be continued
Wasn't it the IdeAs of March!
Excellent! Will use that. Shall I reference you on that bon mot? :-)
New photos of last week's London meetings with Brian Josephson, Basil Hiley and other Pundits and Poo Bahs such as myself and Uri Geller now uploaded to
http://qedcorp.com/London/
Each photo is rather large ~ 1/2 meg. We have not had time to make them web friendly, but no big deal with DSL or faster.
http://qedcorp.com/London/RVUri.JPG
Me (Jack Sarfatti) and Uri Geller with results of RV demonstration.
http://qedcorp.com/London/UriTV1.JPG
Uri Geller interviews Jack Sarfatti for his future TV documentary.
http://qedcorp.com/London/Hileytalk.JPG
Basil Hiley gives popular physics talk on the nature of quantum physics, Bohm's theory and Beyond.
Other photos include Simon Daniel, Colin and Philamena Bennett, Mark Davidson, Kevin Kingsland, Phillip Gauguin (who spoke on his own approach http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/en_science.html to the micro-geons that Alexander Burinski is working on in Moscow, that I worked in in 1973 with Abdus Salam and have been working on again now). Also if you look carefully you will see the real "Faithful Sam" The Hobbit from "Lord of The Rings" along with "Gandolph in a Beret."
For more details on who is who in the photos contact me directly.
Note #2 for high school and college physics students
Boiled Eggs
p. 110: Agreed the zero point energy exists and we see it in the massive total amount of dark energy in the universe although that energy density is still small. The total mass M of all the stuff in the universe is now observed to be just the right amount to make 3D space flat to about 2% error at present. Therefore,
GM/c^2 ~ c/Ho ~ 10^28 cm
Ho is the present value of the Hubble constant.
Ho^-1 = 13.7 billion years to 2% error.
(G/c^2)10^-5 gm = 10^-33 cm Planck scale
Therefore,
M/10^-5gm = 10^28/10^-33 = 10^61
M ~ 10^56 gm
Zero point exotic vacuum dark energy is about 3/4 of that and actually 0.96 in my theory where dark matter is also zero point energy of positive rather than negative quantum pressure.
Therefore, the density of exotic vacuum zero point energy averaged over the largest scales of the Universe is
Mc^2/(Ho/c)^3 ~ 10^56x10^21 (10^-28)^3 ~ 10^77 x 10^-84 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc
This is not a lot of energy density.
"Markus concluded ... 'It comes down to a difference in people's calculations and interpretations. Some say there is enough energy in a shoe box to blow the world apart; others say that all the ZPE in the volume of the Earth couldn't boil you an egg... with Puthoff ... it's closer to the shoebox scenario..." p. 110
All that is accurate. "Markus" is no fool. But who is this "Deep Throat" X-Files Spook "Markus" who is playing Nick Cook and other defense journalists? Is he from our cousins in British Intelligence or from somewhere else? What is the real hidden agenda here? Are we all on the same team or not? What is the Final Secret of the Super Illuminati? Doc Savage is on the case. ;-)
Now I actually agree with Puthoff here, but it is not enough to be right. One must be right for the right reasons. Puthoff is right for the wrong reasons. Since Puthoff has credibility in the world of Black Ops this is a very dangerous situation because it is "bad intelligence" just like the bad intelligence from my neoconservative over-zealous naive friends working for Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney that got us into Iraq for the wrong reasons actually weakening our security against Al Qaeda as long-time pro Richard Clarke and others of more competence coming out of the Bushes are now revealing.
What are the right reasons?
Tune or "toon" in to the next episode #3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@pacbell.net]
Sent: 25 March 2004 16:44
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: "The Hunt For Zero Point" Book Review
Notes for a review to appear in book "Super Cosmos."
Note #1
Nick Cook, Aviation Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly, is a charming
honest well-intentioned chap who I had the pleasure of meeting in
London at the chic Electric Club Frontier Physics Workshop
http://qedcorp.com/London/ and elsewhere near the offices of MI5 and
MI6 on the Ides of March, 2004 where a meeting of the minds happened.
This review is constructive criticism for a second edition of his book
and whatever else may emerge.
The major flaw in the book, and in the March 1, 2004 "Aviation Week"
"To The Stars" by a colleague of Nick's in Austin, Texas, is the
complete omission of the relevance of the amazing discovery of
anti-gravitating zero point vacuum dark energy that is approximately
73% of the "large-scale" stuff of that part of the Universe in the past
light cones of our telescopes throughout the range of electromagnetic
frequencies we can detect. The second major flaw, common to all
popular discussions of the subject, is the deep misunderstanding of the
role of the quantum electrodynamic Casimir force that should
essentially be omitted except in passing. Contrary to the late Robert
Forward's confusion there is no way that the Casimir force can be used
for practical over-unity energy production and/or propulsion of space
vehicles. The energy that can be "mined" from the zero point Casimir
force is no greater than the very weak Van Der Waals electrostatic
energy between induced electric multipoles in the electrically neutral
metal plate impurities placed in the zero point vacuum energy field.
There is, in principle, no direct tapping of the vacuum zero point
energy between the plates via the pure Casimir force. See for example
the misinformation by "Markus" on page 109. Also Nick's sentence
fragment:
"Casimir reasoned, that there would be nothing between the plates."
Should be corrected to
Casimir reasoned, that there would be fewer zero point vibrations
between the plates than outside them."
There is, of course, still "something" between the plates. The idea
here is that electromagnetic wavelengths longer than the separation
between the neutral conducting plates where the electric field must
drop to zero are excluded from the interior though not the exterior of
the plates.
"Puthoff's reputation as a scientist of vast repute went a long way
before him. His papers on gravity and inertia were viewed as seminal
works by the science community."
p. 108 Ch 10 (paperback).
This sentence will not stand up to close examination. Hal is viewed as
an eccentric odd ball on gravity and inertia theories and on zero point
energy way off in left field far from the mainstream. I do not think
there is even one major theorist in relativity who would agree with the
above sentence? Note I distinguish Hal's theoretical work from his
experimental work. I do not mean to imply that this is necessarily a
bad thing as there are many fashions in theoretical physics, which is
undergoing a severe crisis and breakdown. For example:
Martinus Veltman, awarded the 1999 Nobel Prize for Physics, with
t'Hooft - from his recent book "Facts and Mysteries in Elementary
Particle Physics"
"The reader may ask why in this book string theory and supersymmetry
have not been discussed...The fact is that this book is about physics,
and this implies that the theoretical ideas discussed must be
supported by experimental facts. Neither super symmetry nor string
theory satisfy this criterion. They are figments of the theoretical
mind. To quote Pauli: they are not even wrong. They have no place
here." Gary Bekkum to me March, 24, 2004
"He also sat on something called the Advanced Deep Space Transport
Group, ADST, a low-profile organization ... Staffed by select NASA, Air
Force and industry representatives ... Soon after gaining his Master's
degree at the University of Florida, he went on active duty as a Naval
Intelligence Officer seconded to the National Security Agency. When he
left the Navy, he converted to civilian status at the NSA, then went on
sabbatical at Stanford University ... to get his Ph.D. p. 111
Hal has held, and may continue to hold, high level USG security
clearances. This is why it is important to get the physics right in
this national security area of technological surprise relevant to the
WMD issue and the issues raised by Sir Martin Rees in "Our Final Hour."
There is one thing, Hal and I agree on here, contrary to Captain (USAF
Intelligence ret) Robert Collins's allegations that Hal had invented an
over-unity energy machine in e-mail to me :
"Of the 30-odd devices that have come through this door, none has
passed the magic test yet: a demonstrable measurement of more energy
flowing out than is flowing in."
to be continued
Friday, March 05, 2004
To future historians of physics and "metric engineering"
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Who discovered what at
The Birth of Metric Engineering
The Big Picture -- The Context of the Conflict Below:
The one important matter related to national security that Kit Green, Bruce Maccabee, Robert Collins, Eric Davis, Jack Sarfatti, Colonel John Alexander and Hal Puthoff do agree on is the factual reality of flying saucers as a military weapons issue. Note
On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Green, Christopher wrote:
Thanks, Victor.
I am the Chair of the Independent Science Panel for the Undersecretary
of Operations, and the recent (for 12 years membership) Chair of the
Board on Army Science and Technology. I am currently on an Air Force
sponsored National Academy of Sciences Commission to look at emergent
technologies of national security significance. Finally, I was the chair
of the Biotechnology Chapter in the Science and Technology for the Army
National Academy of Sciences Study.
--------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard."
Hal Puthoff to Jack Sarfatti, Nov 26, 2003
Thanks to Captain Robert Collins, USAF ret "UFO researcher" whose fatuity and malapropisms inspired this work. ;-)
On Mar 5, 2004, at 9:56 AM, sonata wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Every theoretical physicist who has real standing in the field who has bothered to look at Hal's published papers in PV agrees with me on this.
There are other Theoretical Physicist that disagree with your's.
I would like details. Vague rumor mongering went out with Joseph McCarthy. Of course I expect controversy and intelligent disagreement. In fact, unlike Hal it appears, I welcome it.
Hal can name them but they don't want any part of you. Hal has advised me not even to talk to you......Rmc
Noted for the record. No doubt "they" are part of Hal's group. Of course Hal is shaking in his boots about you talking to me in the public record!
With True Believer UFO Cult groupies like you, Hal does not need enemies! You are a naive bumpkin in this Balzacian Dantesque Shakespearean Comedy of Errors. You are putty in my hands. You are my Golem, who I shape with clay. You are my straight man, my shill. If you did not exist, I would have had to invent you. God works in weird ways Collins. ;-)
On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:57 AM, Leonard Susskind, a leading theoretical physicist and full professor at Stanford, wrote:
What Sarfatti says is correct: the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the
paper should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states"
LS
See interview of Susskind at http://edge.org or maybe http://www.edge.org
Citeren Doc Savage:
Thanks Art. Keep up the good work.:-)
On Mar 4, 2004, at 12:43 AM, art wagner wrote:
"On the Cyclotomic Quantum Algebra of Time Perception" by Michel
Planat (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020)
This is a deep difficult paper that requires much study, but is worth
the effort. Note that the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the paper
should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states" as
Lenny Susskind will confirm if asked.
Of course this was early work 1963-64 that we all did at Cornell and is not related to the current stuff (at least not that I am presently aware).
It will do Hal no honor for the historical record that he took such an attitude. I have earlier e-mails from him saying we are "all on the same team" and that he basically did not disagree with what I was doing. Indeed here is a representative list of messages from Hal to me for future scholars to evaluate. Hal needs to think of his legacy. The words I write will live in History for a very long time and not only on this planet, indeed not only in this universe. Never underestimate the intellectual and magical power of a Sarfatti. We have been at this for a very long time you know. ;-)
On Dec 11, 2002, at 8:50 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/02 9:27:27 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
Propelling spacecraft with gravity waves? No! You need to use
the /\ field.
Jack, as much as you like to knock the PV (polarizable vacuum) approach to GR phenomena (and its associated metric engineering implications), you might well change your mind when you see the role played by /\ in the PV approach. (Two papers in preparation, which we will share when completed.)
Cheers,
Hal
Hal never kept his promise here. Had he done so, things might have turned out differently for History. Hal still has a chance to redeem his reputation because I am holding off sending in Super Cosmos to be published for another three weeks. It is already copyrighted at Library of Congress by the publisher. I have been bending over backwards to be fair to Hal who is acting in a very short sighted way. If he has something good I will admit it. But like Michael Wolf Kruvant I have not seen any evidence of that. The evidence I have seen does not pass the test.
On Jan 3, 2003, at 9:48 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/2/03 8:46:11 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
That's the least of the deluge of disinformation and misinformation
from ORMES and other crackpots about you. I sent you the email L.
Gardner sent to Neil Freer saying you endorsed ORMES as the only path
to warp drive - you know the David Hudson goofy dust that Joe gave
Victor from Budapest $650,000 for.
I have corrected the record many times that I do not endorse the Hudson claims because I was never given samples to test, but the Internet keeps the urban myth circulating.
Hal
Hal and I were in agreement on this particular matter.
On Jan 4, 2003, at 8:24 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/3/03 8:09:03 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
I retract on the minor factual historical point that I used "seem" on,
Hal does cite Adler,
Thank you for correcting this.
but his papers do not seem to reflect any of
Adler's insights.
Only for those who have eyes to see. Why do you think I cited it? Because it was directly relevant to what I was developing in the ZPE model of gravity, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 39, pp. 2333-2342 (1989).
Cheers,
Hal
From my reading of Adler's paper, it is obvious why the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff strategy to connect zero point energy of ONLY the transverse polarized virtual photons to gravity is wrong. To this day Hal, Bernie, Dan Cole, Rueda, Wesson, Marshall et-al do not seem to understand the meaning of w = -1 and the fact that the zero point energy of the EM makes repulsive anti-gravity! No mention of that in any of their publications. No evidence that they understand what Peter Milonni wrote about that in his book "The Quantum Vacuum."
Indeed, they do not understand the qualitative difference between the QED Casimir force and the direct gravity properties of ZPE! The Aviation Week March 1, 2004 article garbles all this. All the money BAE and anyone else in the Pentagon is spending on this ZPE propulsion is a complete waste of money. These Dogs of War are barking up the wrong tree. Hal and his Claque are trying to supress the truth here and trying to fund essentially bogus physics in the context of national defense. That is what this is all about. It is obvious that it is Hal who is attempting to stifle professional peer review of his ideas in this field. In contrast, I welcome the same of my ideas.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
On Jul 24, 2003, at 8:51 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/23/03 10:40:06 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
3. Pointlike parton behavior of lepto-quarks with deep probes.
>>
>> Puthoff's math change to GR gives wrong answer to 3.
My approach does not address 3, so it couldn't give the wrong answer. Perhaps you attempted to apply my approach with the incorrect metric? (Did you use our version of the Reissner-Nordstrom metric with hyperbolic metric -> sinusoidal metric? If not, any comments you make about 3 are by definition false.)
Hal Puthoff
In Hal's SSS theory the local derivative of the area of a sphere relative to the radius is the same as in flat Euclidean geometry. This is the point.
It is not that way in Einstein's theory. That is why Einstein's theory, together with strong short range gravity is able to explain all the key data of elementary particle physics like partons and universal Regge slope as well as cosmology. As Above So Below! Hal has no inkling of this at all.
Note from first page of Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
On the physical principles of consciousness, warp drive and wormhole star gate time travel in the light of the new precision cosmology of dark energy and their relations to the coded knowledge of the once and future techgnostic mystery schools fictionalized in “The Da Vinci Code” and described in fact in “Techgnosis.”
Newton realized that the fall of the apple was the same as the motion of the Earth around the Sun. That was his alchemical techgnostic insight into “As Above So Below.” I have shown that the invisible Galactic Halo holds the stars together in the same way, through negative zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive quantum pressure, that the electron’s distributed repulsive electric charge is held together. It’s “As Above So Below” all over again. Real original physics on the deep structure of the many worlds not found in any other book is weaved together with great literature and my true adventure story. Quantum reality is not only weirder than we have imagined, but may be weirder than we can imagine. We are such dreams that stuff is made from.
Including special reports by U.S. Navy physicist Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D. on the USAF and FBI response to the real flying saucer invasion of 1952 and on the paranormal and spirituality by Russell Targ who worked on the CIA’s investigation of “remote viewing” during the Occult Cold War.
On Jul 24, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/24/03 1:02:45 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
The metric I use here is your SSS metric in your papers - it's a toy
model sure without rotation and charge. Are you saying that you have
done a calculation now in PV with rotation and in that case the surface
area does not go to a minimum and then increase again as your radial
coordinate ri << GM/c^2? If that is the case, I will reconsider.
For a lepto quark, SSS doesn't apply. Charge makes all the difference. Metric is entirely different. This case is mentioned in Section 5.2 of my June 2002 Found. Phys. paper on PV. (Rotation not yet taken into account.) Much work done with this (in part because of modeling Shoulders' EVs), but still a work in progress. Very complex.
Hal
Note Hal admits he cannot solve the problem of a rotating source. This alone shows his theory is no good. It's a done deal in Einstein's theory! Hal has been making extraordinary claims without extraordinary justification and he goes into a state of denial when I call him on the carpet about it. Since national defense is part of this equation I can do no less. "Duty, Honor, Country" General Douglas MacArthur.
On Aug 5, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/5/03 12:15:35 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Puthoff's theory without an event horizon predicts the electron should
grow larger as the imaging probe scale gets smaller. The opposite is
observed.
Ho hum. Nonsense as usual. The PV approach to the Reissner-Nordstrom type solution for charged particles says no such thing.
Hal Puthoff
Show us then what it does say on this matter?
On Nov 25, 2003, at 8:30 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/03 8:31:12 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
<
The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence. You've missed the whole point!
Hal
This statement by Hal shows he is completely clueless about what I mean by "vacuum coherence." He obviously has no real understanding of the vast literature in "ODLRO", "Spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry", P.W. Anderson's "More is different", order parameters in Landau-Ginzburg theory, (all topics in background of in my PhD thesis UCR Aug 1969 and my paper 1967 with A. M. Stoneham at UKAERE Harwell on Goldstone Theorem and Jahn-Teller Effect and my Physics Letters 1966 paper on self-trapped laser filaments )and what T.D. Lee really means in his
"Based on either the spontaneous symmetry-breaking mechanism or the quark-confinement phenomena, we believe our vacuum, though Lorentz invariant, to be quite complicated. Like any other physical medium, it can carry long-range-order parameters and it may also undergo phase transitions." T.D. Lee
Hal pays superficial lip service to this. Where does Hal publish on "symmetry-breaking" and "long-range-order parameters" in relation to zero point energy in his papers? That's what "vacuum coherence" means! Hal does not have even a clue here.
On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
> <
> Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
> mathematics.>>
>
>
> HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a
> change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
> degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
> coherence. You've missed the whole point!
>
> Hal
JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?
HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime. I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum electron-positron pairs with an electric field. When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an electric field to separate charge. It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge distribution are induced.
There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.
BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me. (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.) My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is that I also do not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force" stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me. Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.
Hal Puthoff
On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:29 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/25/03 8:00:03 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
IMHO Hal and Mike Ibison are misinterpreting the physics of EEP in
Tables I & II.
Their tables as far as I can tell are based on their SSS metric not on
their Lagrangian,
No, you're wrong here. The Tables define the fundamental definitions that go into the Lagrangian. The Tables apply to SSS case, yes, but also to cylindrical Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbell case, Krasnikov-tube problem, etc., etc., a well as to various cosmological solutions that have been submitted for publication.
Hal
On Nov 29, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
This is most interesting!
There is also a published paper (Phys. Essays) by Clark Jeffries who argues that the exponential metric handles the missing mass problem that looks interesting, though I have not really dug into the details.
Hal Puthoff
On Dec 11, 2003, at 3:22 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/03 3:46:26 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
........
In fact physically, as any standard text on GR shows
dT = goo^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
Therefore, when ds^2 = 0 in radial direction in SSS case
Physically measured radial speed of light = dR/dT =
(grr/goo)^1/2(dr/dt)
In your model
goo = K^-1
grr = K
Therefore,
grr/goo = K^2
Therefore
dR/dT = c
so that n = 1 ALWAYS in this situation!
So what are you talking about?
Your difficulty following the PV approach is because you only think in the usual GR terms, and do not differentiate between the local physical measured speed of light, which is always c; and the coordinate speed of light which varies with the coordinate grid chosen, and whose numerical value is generally not equal to c. An excellent paper by R. Klauber straightens this all out. See R. Klauber, "Physical components, coordinate components and the speed of light," see gr-qc/0105071 v1 18 May 2001. Here he discusses the differences:
dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed (=c/K in my case,as measured with "super-steel" non-rubber rods and clocks);
sqrt (g_11) dx^1/sqrt (-g_oo) dt = c = measured speed of light = number of standard meter sticks traversed/number of seconds on local standard (in my parlance, "rubber") clocks.
I'm talking about the first, you're talking about the second.
Hal
OK
On Dec 11, 2003, at 10:21 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/03 11:01:49 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
OK, but give me an operational way to measure the first.
Can be measured from afar, as in radar delay and observed light bending. Cannot be measured locally (easily), where one cannot tell that radar is delayed and light rays are bent.
However, based on the PV model one could in principle lay out a grid and set up slowed-rate clocks, taking the PV aspect into account, and then a "measurement" could be made, as in Klauber's description of the coordinate speed:
dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number
of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed
Read Klauber, he is very clear about this. It will give you a new appreciation for what your kind of Einstein GR really says; it is not a defense of my view per se.
You'll like it.
Hal
On Dec 14, 2003, at 2:07 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/14/03 3:05:02 PM, pzielins@ix.netcom.com writes:
That is, in any SSS metric theory look at the relation between
> isotropic and curvature radial coordinates. You get a polynomial of
> degree N with the curvature radial coordinate as a control parameter.
> The N roots for isotropic r, at least when real, each define a
> coordinate patch. In the exponential case that Hal uses in his PV
> model, N --> infinity. In Einstein's GR N = 2.
>
> PZ: OK, this is certainly a legitimate kind of criticism and goes to the technical details,
> so it cannot be ignored.
>
> JS: Hal has ignored it for more than a year. I published all this in
> Space-Time and Beyond II a year ago.
Hal?
Jack's (mis)interpretation comes from trying to forcefit the PV non-curved-space results into standard GR curved-space modeling, which takes coordinate-choice pathologies (e.g., "event horizons") as physical. Ibison went to a great deal of effort to educate Jack on this with a long attachment replete with spacetime graphs, etc., but Jack just blew it off because it didn't agree with his view as "not even wrong."
So what else is new?! Jack really can quote the dogma (with expertise, I might add, to cut him some slack), but doesn't seem to understand where it comes from, what it represents, how the underlying reality can be modeled from many POVs (as you are showing excellently), etc.
Hal
On Dec 15, 2003, at 8:26 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)
(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray holes).
(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses) found not to exist. (Robertson evidence is that they do.)
(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric.
How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?
Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak. Stay tuned!
Hal
Well black holes do exist. Also where is this cosmology paper? It's time for Hal to throw in the towel. I mean if he wants to save his reputation for the next million years. Note that Hal cannot honestly claim that whatever he writes about dark energy was not influenced by me.
On Dec 16, 2003, at 8:45 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/15/03 10:54:15 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
JS: Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)
HP: "(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray
holes)."
JS: What kind of observational data needed to make this distinction?
Photon circular orbits are at slightly different radii.
HP: "(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses)
found not to exist. (Robertson evidence is that they do.)"
JS: Please give complete details on this.
See S. L. Robertson, The Astrophys. Jour. 517, L117-L119 (1999); 515, 365-380 (1999).
HP: "(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to
match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric."
JS: Not enough information in that cryptic sentence. What does it mean?
For a high mass, spherically symmetric density distribution object, the metric in free space surrounding the object would in the PV model be exponential rather than Schwarzschild in form, e.g., no event horizon, etc..
How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?
HP: "Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak. Stay tuned!"
Hal
JS: Does Planck's h make any appearance in your PV math model?
Not overtly at the macroscopic classical level. PV, like GR, is a classical theory. Only covertly at the level of the virtual electron-positron-pairs plasma interactions that form the underlying polarizability of the vacuum.
Again I ask what does PV mean when your GM/c^2r >> 1.
It means the same as when GM/c^2r << 1. It is not a special coordinate position in PV as it is in GR. It has no special significance. As in Yilmaz, there is no event horizon there, it's just another place on a smoothly varying coordinate map.
Do you think "super-steel" rods exist?
Not locally, of course not! The remote rods as a reference play that role, however.
If they do not exist, what physical meaning does your equation
c' = c/K
really have?
It means that from afar the delay time of a light ray passing by a mass is seen to be delayed by an amount corresponding to this slower speed of light (as in GR, where c' = c[1-2phi/c^2]).
How does a flying saucer fly in your PV model?
How do you metric engineer a Star Gate in your PV model?
Sorry, proprietary trade secrets! :-)
Honestly, still exploring various options for manipulating the spacetime metric.
Is time travel to the past thinkable in your PV model?
No, at least at its present level of development.
Are parallel universes next door thinkable in your PV model?
I don't see any barrier to it, though we have not explored that option to date.
Do you think Jacques Vallee's "Magonia" effects mean parallel universes
next door?
It's a little hard to differentiate between "parallel universes next door" and "spacetime warp regions" right here. Probably isomorphic descriptions.
What about Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 report of "creature emerging" out of
a kind of sphere of light (Star Gate) in sky
at Robert Bigelow's NIDS Utah Ranch?
Sounds like a wormhole, Krasnikov tube, or some such, doesn't it?
Do you plan to extend PV to include extra space dimensions?
No. For right now extreme spacetime warps look to give much of what might be bought from extra space dimensions, so we'll stick to that for now.
.......
It is a fiction like
"The Unicorn" and like Hal Puthoff's "super-steel" in his quasi
measurement Tables I & II in his PV model that disintegrates when one
asks what happens when GM/c^2r >> 1?
Not so. See above.
It is clear to me that Hal is not really thinking about the topology and differential geometry in his naive "engineering approach".
Finally you got something right! That's the beauty of PV, you don't have to drag that baggage around to answer certain engineering questions.
Hal goes into a state of denial pretending there is no problem. He
tries to solve the cosmological constant problem the same way. It just
will not do IMHO.
Don't know what you mean by this. We have no problem including a cosmological constant in the cosmological treatments, and have a paper submitted with some nice results (e.g., matching observation without missing matter, acceleration comes out naturally, etc.)
>
All Hal ever write is
K = e^2GM/c^2r
Not so. That's the solution for one problem only, a spherical distribution of mass. You know I have published other solutions for charged masses, Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbells, etc. Why do you keep repeating this (false) mantra?
What Hal has is his mythical "super steel" rods which would give NOT c
but c/K! You forgot that!
Surely, you're joking Mr. Sarfatti. At least I'm joking. My "super steel" rods are a euphemism for unperturbed measurement instruments far from metric distortion, providing a "virtual" background, as it were. Were you taking them seriously? Houston, we have a problem.
> The problem is that Hal is completely obscure to my mind on the
> fundamental world view of his model. He uses metric notation after all?
Not really. Only to make comparisons with those like you who are addicted to such!
>
> PZ: But it is a physical metric that is simply a mathematical
> description of the physical "deformation" of measuring
> devices and the resulting scaling of the measured intervals. It is not
> a theory about the fundamental chronogeometric
> structure of the world -- any more than is the description of the
> behavior of metal bars on a heated surface (an
> example that Feynman liked to use).
Bravo Paul, bravo!
JS: I think you are missing the point here Paul. Hal seems to think
that there really are "super steel" rods and clocks that would measure
c/K when the Einstein rubber rods and clocks measure c.
Tsk, tsk, Jack. See above. There are no "super steel" rods, really. Don't need them. If you think that I really think there are, then I'll have to slow up the discussion so you can follow the bouncing ball more easily.
This after all
would be a real "bimetric" world with "super steel" in the globally
flat Yilmaz world parallel to to Einstein's rubbery curved world. This
Yilmazian split is fiction that Hal thinks is fact IMHO.
Tsk, tsk.
Again I ask. What does Hal's PV mean when his GM/c^2r >> 1?
As I said above, same as when GM/c^2r << 1. Not a "magic, mystical" coordinate location of an event horizon as in canonical GR. [BTW, to give some clarification, the event horizon appears in GR in the form of, e.g., a term (1-x) in a metric term denominator. In the exponential metric this is seen to be simply a truncated form of the correct metric polynomial 1-x+x^2/2! - x^3/3! ..... = exp (-x) .]
Cheers,
Hal
There is no evidence for an exponential metric.
On Dec 17, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/03 10:03:28 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
The name of the game is to control the local
vacuum coherence. I would like to see how Hal Puthoff uses
his PV model for this problem.
You want me to send you the blueprint already?! (Let's see, where did I put it?) :-)
Check with Table 2 in my JBIS paper. (The Table you don't like, that's "not even wrong!") Time runs very fast for the drivers (i.e., the rest of the universe is in slow motion relative to them) when they fire up to reduce K (i.e., manipulate the vacuum polarizability to make it very stiff, i.e., to resist polarizing).
Ahh, how to do that? I think you're telling me you already have the knob with <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0> mobilzing /\zpf, right? So what are you asking me for?
Hal
Yes, I may have the knob. It's the Josephson effect. I could be wrong of course. The point is Hal has nothing at all to say on how to manipulate the metric in a practical way like we see the flying saucers actually doing!
This does not mean that I think everything Hal has done is wrong. Hal's strength is not in theoretical physics but in engineering physics.
Not true: Hal has allot of experience in Theoretical Physics: Watched him myself while in his Lab, Austin Texas.....Rmc
Note Hal has still not been able to solve the problem of a rotating source in his theory.
Again for the Nth time: Those types of things are unpublished and proprietary. Hal will publish more "peer review" material as he tells me. He has nothing to prove to you or anyone else for that matter. He likes to keep quiet then publish......Rmc
Hal also predicts no black hole event horizons that current observations appear show that there are horizons consistent with Einstein's theory. Similarly BTW with the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff-Cole-Marshall ideas on origin of inertia from semi-classical transverse polarized Lorentz force drag on massless point charges.
Gray Holes do have event horizons, there will be radiation leakage. But not the same as with Black Holes.....Rmc
3. Even if we accept Hal's theory for the sake of argument. He has no practical way to apply his theory to the facts of the flying saucer data base that we ALL agree is valid data. I mean for example the data in Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 paper. Hal has never properly defined "metric engineering" mathematically in terms of his published PV papers. He has, for example, never shown how he can get a free-float warp drive like Alcubierre's in terms of his PV math. Hal shows no understanding of the relevance of dark energy to the problem, which has been my main point since 2002 and is in both my books Destiny Matrix and Space-Time and Beyond II (2002). There was no mention of dark energy in the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week article for example. One would think that the discovery that an anti-gravity zero point energy field is 73% of all the stuff in the Universe would be mentioned? But it wasn't. The fact is that I am the first physicist to connect the discovery of dark energy with the zero point propulsion problem and flying saucers - and that is recorded in Library of Congress in 2002 in my two books. Hal is pretending that I have not done so.
Again for the Nth time how do you know? You don't. You just assume and asume and assume. And for the Nth time those types of issues are locked away in a safe as Hal tells me and I advised him a year ago because of all the Gov Snooping.....Rmc
Finally, you say you like & admire Hal but yet you've made endless personal attacks
That is false. In fact it is the other way around. You have inverted the facts as usual.
against him which have nothing to do with the Physics, nothing. You've made endless personal attacks
Not at all. I have merely stated the obvious in a humorous way.
against me yet you admit you don't understand what's on the Bird Page
You can't take yes for an answer. I never said I could not understand it. I said I have no argument with you about that - at least not at this time as I am busy with more important matters.
and you'll leave it up to people like Bruce M & Stan F to decide. You judge first but you don't read or investigate except to get someone else's opinion and they don't understand the PV , ZPE or UFO material either. But, yet, they're judging ......Rmc
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Who discovered what at
The Birth of Metric Engineering
The Big Picture -- The Context of the Conflict Below:
The one important matter related to national security that Kit Green, Bruce Maccabee, Robert Collins, Eric Davis, Jack Sarfatti, Colonel John Alexander and Hal Puthoff do agree on is the factual reality of flying saucers as a military weapons issue. Note
On Mar 5, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Green, Christopher wrote:
Thanks, Victor.
I am the Chair of the Independent Science Panel for the Undersecretary
of Operations, and the recent (for 12 years membership) Chair of the
Board on Army Science and Technology. I am currently on an Air Force
sponsored National Academy of Sciences Commission to look at emergent
technologies of national security significance. Finally, I was the chair
of the Biotechnology Chapter in the Science and Technology for the Army
National Academy of Sciences Study.
--------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard."
Hal Puthoff to Jack Sarfatti, Nov 26, 2003
Thanks to Captain Robert Collins, USAF ret "UFO researcher" whose fatuity and malapropisms inspired this work. ;-)
On Mar 5, 2004, at 9:56 AM, sonata wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Every theoretical physicist who has real standing in the field who has bothered to look at Hal's published papers in PV agrees with me on this.
There are other Theoretical Physicist that disagree with your's.
I would like details. Vague rumor mongering went out with Joseph McCarthy. Of course I expect controversy and intelligent disagreement. In fact, unlike Hal it appears, I welcome it.
Hal can name them but they don't want any part of you. Hal has advised me not even to talk to you......Rmc
Noted for the record. No doubt "they" are part of Hal's group. Of course Hal is shaking in his boots about you talking to me in the public record!
With True Believer UFO Cult groupies like you, Hal does not need enemies! You are a naive bumpkin in this Balzacian Dantesque Shakespearean Comedy of Errors. You are putty in my hands. You are my Golem, who I shape with clay. You are my straight man, my shill. If you did not exist, I would have had to invent you. God works in weird ways Collins. ;-)
On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:57 AM, Leonard Susskind, a leading theoretical physicist and full professor at Stanford, wrote:
What Sarfatti says is correct: the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the
paper should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states"
LS
See interview of Susskind at http://edge.org or maybe http://www.edge.org
Citeren Doc Savage
Thanks Art. Keep up the good work.:-)
On Mar 4, 2004, at 12:43 AM, art wagner wrote:
"On the Cyclotomic Quantum Algebra of Time Perception" by Michel
Planat (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0403020)
This is a deep difficult paper that requires much study, but is worth
the effort. Note that the Susskind-Glogower states cited in the paper
should have been called the "Susskind-Glogower-Sarfatti states" as
Lenny Susskind will confirm if asked.
Of course this was early work 1963-64 that we all did at Cornell and is not related to the current stuff (at least not that I am presently aware).
It will do Hal no honor for the historical record that he took such an attitude. I have earlier e-mails from him saying we are "all on the same team" and that he basically did not disagree with what I was doing. Indeed here is a representative list of messages from Hal to me for future scholars to evaluate. Hal needs to think of his legacy. The words I write will live in History for a very long time and not only on this planet, indeed not only in this universe. Never underestimate the intellectual and magical power of a Sarfatti. We have been at this for a very long time you know. ;-)
On Dec 11, 2002, at 8:50 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/02 9:27:27 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
Propelling spacecraft with gravity waves? No! You need to use
the /\ field.
Jack, as much as you like to knock the PV (polarizable vacuum) approach to GR phenomena (and its associated metric engineering implications), you might well change your mind when you see the role played by /\ in the PV approach. (Two papers in preparation, which we will share when completed.)
Cheers,
Hal
Hal never kept his promise here. Had he done so, things might have turned out differently for History. Hal still has a chance to redeem his reputation because I am holding off sending in Super Cosmos to be published for another three weeks. It is already copyrighted at Library of Congress by the publisher. I have been bending over backwards to be fair to Hal who is acting in a very short sighted way. If he has something good I will admit it. But like Michael Wolf Kruvant I have not seen any evidence of that. The evidence I have seen does not pass the test.
On Jan 3, 2003, at 9:48 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/2/03 8:46:11 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
That's the least of the deluge of disinformation and misinformation
from ORMES and other crackpots about you. I sent you the email L.
Gardner sent to Neil Freer saying you endorsed ORMES as the only path
to warp drive - you know the David Hudson goofy dust that Joe gave
Victor from Budapest $650,000 for.
I have corrected the record many times that I do not endorse the Hudson claims because I was never given samples to test, but the Internet keeps the urban myth circulating.
Hal
Hal and I were in agreement on this particular matter.
On Jan 4, 2003, at 8:24 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/3/03 8:09:03 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
I retract on the minor factual historical point that I used "seem" on,
Hal does cite Adler,
Thank you for correcting this.
but his papers do not seem to reflect any of
Adler's insights.
Only for those who have eyes to see. Why do you think I cited it? Because it was directly relevant to what I was developing in the ZPE model of gravity, H. E. Puthoff, "Gravity as a zero-point-fluctuation force," Phys. Rev. A, vol. 39, pp. 2333-2342 (1989).
Cheers,
Hal
From my reading of Adler's paper, it is obvious why the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff strategy to connect zero point energy of ONLY the transverse polarized virtual photons to gravity is wrong. To this day Hal, Bernie, Dan Cole, Rueda, Wesson, Marshall et-al do not seem to understand the meaning of w = -1 and the fact that the zero point energy of the EM makes repulsive anti-gravity! No mention of that in any of their publications. No evidence that they understand what Peter Milonni wrote about that in his book "The Quantum Vacuum."
Indeed, they do not understand the qualitative difference between the QED Casimir force and the direct gravity properties of ZPE! The Aviation Week March 1, 2004 article garbles all this. All the money BAE and anyone else in the Pentagon is spending on this ZPE propulsion is a complete waste of money. These Dogs of War are barking up the wrong tree. Hal and his Claque are trying to supress the truth here and trying to fund essentially bogus physics in the context of national defense. That is what this is all about. It is obvious that it is Hal who is attempting to stifle professional peer review of his ideas in this field. In contrast, I welcome the same of my ideas.
"The Question is: What is The Question?" John. A. Wheeler
On Jul 24, 2003, at 8:51 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/23/03 10:40:06 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
3. Pointlike parton behavior of lepto-quarks with deep probes.
>>
>> Puthoff's math change to GR gives wrong answer to 3.
My approach does not address 3, so it couldn't give the wrong answer. Perhaps you attempted to apply my approach with the incorrect metric? (Did you use our version of the Reissner-Nordstrom metric with hyperbolic metric -> sinusoidal metric? If not, any comments you make about 3 are by definition false.)
Hal Puthoff
In Hal's SSS theory the local derivative of the area of a sphere relative to the radius is the same as in flat Euclidean geometry. This is the point.
It is not that way in Einstein's theory. That is why Einstein's theory, together with strong short range gravity is able to explain all the key data of elementary particle physics like partons and universal Regge slope as well as cosmology. As Above So Below! Hal has no inkling of this at all.
Note from first page of Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
On the physical principles of consciousness, warp drive and wormhole star gate time travel in the light of the new precision cosmology of dark energy and their relations to the coded knowledge of the once and future techgnostic mystery schools fictionalized in “The Da Vinci Code” and described in fact in “Techgnosis.”
Newton realized that the fall of the apple was the same as the motion of the Earth around the Sun. That was his alchemical techgnostic insight into “As Above So Below.” I have shown that the invisible Galactic Halo holds the stars together in the same way, through negative zero point energy density with equal and opposite positive quantum pressure, that the electron’s distributed repulsive electric charge is held together. It’s “As Above So Below” all over again. Real original physics on the deep structure of the many worlds not found in any other book is weaved together with great literature and my true adventure story. Quantum reality is not only weirder than we have imagined, but may be weirder than we can imagine. We are such dreams that stuff is made from.
Including special reports by U.S. Navy physicist Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D. on the USAF and FBI response to the real flying saucer invasion of 1952 and on the paranormal and spirituality by Russell Targ who worked on the CIA’s investigation of “remote viewing” during the Occult Cold War.
On Jul 24, 2003, at 2:46 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 7/24/03 1:02:45 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
The metric I use here is your SSS metric in your papers - it's a toy
model sure without rotation and charge. Are you saying that you have
done a calculation now in PV with rotation and in that case the surface
area does not go to a minimum and then increase again as your radial
coordinate ri << GM/c^2? If that is the case, I will reconsider.
For a lepto quark, SSS doesn't apply. Charge makes all the difference. Metric is entirely different. This case is mentioned in Section 5.2 of my June 2002 Found. Phys. paper on PV. (Rotation not yet taken into account.) Much work done with this (in part because of modeling Shoulders' EVs), but still a work in progress. Very complex.
Hal
Note Hal admits he cannot solve the problem of a rotating source. This alone shows his theory is no good. It's a done deal in Einstein's theory! Hal has been making extraordinary claims without extraordinary justification and he goes into a state of denial when I call him on the carpet about it. Since national defense is part of this equation I can do no less. "Duty, Honor, Country" General Douglas MacArthur.
On Aug 5, 2003, at 12:14 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 8/5/03 12:15:35 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Puthoff's theory without an event horizon predicts the electron should
grow larger as the imaging probe scale gets smaller. The opposite is
observed.
Ho hum. Nonsense as usual. The PV approach to the Reissner-Nordstrom type solution for charged particles says no such thing.
Hal Puthoff
Show us then what it does say on this matter?
On Nov 25, 2003, at 8:30 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/24/03 8:31:12 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
<
The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum coherence. You've missed the whole point!
Hal
This statement by Hal shows he is completely clueless about what I mean by "vacuum coherence." He obviously has no real understanding of the vast literature in "ODLRO", "Spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry", P.W. Anderson's "More is different", order parameters in Landau-Ginzburg theory, (all topics in background of in my PhD thesis UCR Aug 1969 and my paper 1967 with A. M. Stoneham at UKAERE Harwell on Goldstone Theorem and Jahn-Teller Effect and my Physics Letters 1966 paper on self-trapped laser filaments )and what T.D. Lee really means in his
"Based on either the spontaneous symmetry-breaking mechanism or the quark-confinement phenomena, we believe our vacuum, though Lorentz invariant, to be quite complicated. Like any other physical medium, it can carry long-range-order parameters and it may also undergo phase transitions." T.D. Lee
Hal pays superficial lip service to this. Where does Hal publish on "symmetry-breaking" and "long-range-order parameters" in relation to zero point energy in his papers? That's what "vacuum coherence" means! Hal does not have even a clue here.
On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
> <
> Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
> mathematics.>>
>
>
> HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you think a
> change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
> degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
> coherence. You've missed the whole point!
>
> Hal
JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?
HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how difficult it is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime. I'm using it to characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum electron-positron pairs with an electric field. When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an electric field to separate charge. It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects in the charge distribution are induced.
There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat when you thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special "electrical" relationship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.
BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute replacement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me. (For example, in PV analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR 1913 + 16.) My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and consequences from an engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is that I also do not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force" stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me. Rather, I am interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that undergird the PV (but not usual GR) approach.
Hal Puthoff
On Nov 26, 2003, at 9:29 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/25/03 8:00:03 PM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
IMHO Hal and Mike Ibison are misinterpreting the physics of EEP in
Tables I & II.
Their tables as far as I can tell are based on their SSS metric not on
their Lagrangian,
No, you're wrong here. The Tables define the fundamental definitions that go into the Lagrangian. The Tables apply to SSS case, yes, but also to cylindrical Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbell case, Krasnikov-tube problem, etc., etc., a well as to various cosmological solutions that have been submitted for publication.
Hal
On Nov 29, 2003, at 8:17 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
This is most interesting!
There is also a published paper (Phys. Essays) by Clark Jeffries who argues that the exponential metric handles the missing mass problem that looks interesting, though I have not really dug into the details.
Hal Puthoff
On Dec 11, 2003, at 3:22 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/03 3:46:26 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
........
In fact physically, as any standard text on GR shows
dT = goo^1/2dt
dR = grr^1/2dr
Therefore, when ds^2 = 0 in radial direction in SSS case
Physically measured radial speed of light = dR/dT =
(grr/goo)^1/2(dr/dt)
In your model
goo = K^-1
grr = K
Therefore,
grr/goo = K^2
Therefore
dR/dT = c
so that n = 1 ALWAYS in this situation!
So what are you talking about?
Your difficulty following the PV approach is because you only think in the usual GR terms, and do not differentiate between the local physical measured speed of light, which is always c; and the coordinate speed of light which varies with the coordinate grid chosen, and whose numerical value is generally not equal to c. An excellent paper by R. Klauber straightens this all out. See R. Klauber, "Physical components, coordinate components and the speed of light," see gr-qc/0105071 v1 18 May 2001. Here he discusses the differences:
dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed (=c/K in my case,as measured with "super-steel" non-rubber rods and clocks);
sqrt (g_11) dx^1/sqrt (-g_oo) dt = c = measured speed of light = number of standard meter sticks traversed/number of seconds on local standard (in my parlance, "rubber") clocks.
I'm talking about the first, you're talking about the second.
Hal
OK
On Dec 11, 2003, at 10:21 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/11/03 11:01:49 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
OK, but give me an operational way to measure the first.
Can be measured from afar, as in radar delay and observed light bending. Cannot be measured locally (easily), where one cannot tell that radar is delayed and light rays are bent.
However, based on the PV model one could in principle lay out a grid and set up slowed-rate clocks, taking the PV aspect into account, and then a "measurement" could be made, as in Klauber's description of the coordinate speed:
dx^1/dt = sqrt (-g_oo/g_11) X c = coordinate speed of light = number
of spatial grid lines traversed/number of coordinate time units passed
Read Klauber, he is very clear about this. It will give you a new appreciation for what your kind of Einstein GR really says; it is not a defense of my view per se.
You'll like it.
Hal
On Dec 14, 2003, at 2:07 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/14/03 3:05:02 PM, pzielins@ix.netcom.com writes:
That is, in any SSS metric theory look at the relation between
> isotropic and curvature radial coordinates. You get a polynomial of
> degree N with the curvature radial coordinate as a control parameter.
> The N roots for isotropic r, at least when real, each define a
> coordinate patch. In the exponential case that Hal uses in his PV
> model, N --> infinity. In Einstein's GR N = 2.
>
> PZ: OK, this is certainly a legitimate kind of criticism and goes to the technical details,
> so it cannot be ignored.
>
> JS: Hal has ignored it for more than a year. I published all this in
> Space-Time and Beyond II a year ago.
Hal?
Jack's (mis)interpretation comes from trying to forcefit the PV non-curved-space results into standard GR curved-space modeling, which takes coordinate-choice pathologies (e.g., "event horizons") as physical. Ibison went to a great deal of effort to educate Jack on this with a long attachment replete with spacetime graphs, etc., but Jack just blew it off because it didn't agree with his view as "not even wrong."
So what else is new?! Jack really can quote the dogma (with expertise, I might add, to cut him some slack), but doesn't seem to understand where it comes from, what it represents, how the underlying reality can be modeled from many POVs (as you are showing excellently), etc.
Hal
On Dec 15, 2003, at 8:26 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)
(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray holes).
(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses) found not to exist. (Robertson evidence is that they do.)
(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric.
How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?
Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak. Stay tuned!
Hal
Well black holes do exist. Also where is this cosmology paper? It's time for Hal to throw in the towel. I mean if he wants to save his reputation for the next million years. Note that Hal cannot honestly claim that whatever he writes about dark energy was not influenced by me.
On Dec 16, 2003, at 8:45 AM, puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/15/03 10:54:15 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
In a message dated 12/15/03 4:23:36 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
JS: Hal, I ask you, what would prove PV wrong? ;-)
HP: "(1) Black holes really exist (instead of only very dark gray
holes)."
JS: What kind of observational data needed to make this distinction?
Photon circular orbits are at slightly different radii.
HP: "(2) So-called non-black-hole Yilmaz stars (M > 2.8 solar masses)
found not to exist. (Robertson evidence is that they do.)"
JS: Please give complete details on this.
See S. L. Robertson, The Astrophys. Jour. 517, L117-L119 (1999); 515, 365-380 (1999).
HP: "(3) For dense matter SS distribution observation were found to
match Schwarzschild instead of exponential metric."
JS: Not enough information in that cryptic sentence. What does it mean?
For a high mass, spherically symmetric density distribution object, the metric in free space surrounding the object would in the PV model be exponential rather than Schwarzschild in form, e.g., no event horizon, etc..
How do you explain dark energy and dark matter with PV?
HP: "Our cosmological modeling under way as we speak. Stay tuned!"
Hal
JS: Does Planck's h make any appearance in your PV math model?
Not overtly at the macroscopic classical level. PV, like GR, is a classical theory. Only covertly at the level of the virtual electron-positron-pairs plasma interactions that form the underlying polarizability of the vacuum.
Again I ask what does PV mean when your GM/c^2r >> 1.
It means the same as when GM/c^2r << 1. It is not a special coordinate position in PV as it is in GR. It has no special significance. As in Yilmaz, there is no event horizon there, it's just another place on a smoothly varying coordinate map.
Do you think "super-steel" rods exist?
Not locally, of course not! The remote rods as a reference play that role, however.
If they do not exist, what physical meaning does your equation
c' = c/K
really have?
It means that from afar the delay time of a light ray passing by a mass is seen to be delayed by an amount corresponding to this slower speed of light (as in GR, where c' = c[1-2phi/c^2]).
How does a flying saucer fly in your PV model?
How do you metric engineer a Star Gate in your PV model?
Sorry, proprietary trade secrets! :-)
Honestly, still exploring various options for manipulating the spacetime metric.
Is time travel to the past thinkable in your PV model?
No, at least at its present level of development.
Are parallel universes next door thinkable in your PV model?
I don't see any barrier to it, though we have not explored that option to date.
Do you think Jacques Vallee's "Magonia" effects mean parallel universes
next door?
It's a little hard to differentiate between "parallel universes next door" and "spacetime warp regions" right here. Probably isomorphic descriptions.
What about Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 report of "creature emerging" out of
a kind of sphere of light (Star Gate) in sky
at Robert Bigelow's NIDS Utah Ranch?
Sounds like a wormhole, Krasnikov tube, or some such, doesn't it?
Do you plan to extend PV to include extra space dimensions?
No. For right now extreme spacetime warps look to give much of what might be bought from extra space dimensions, so we'll stick to that for now.
....
It is a fiction like
"The Unicorn" and like Hal Puthoff's "super-steel" in his quasi
measurement Tables I & II in his PV model that disintegrates when one
asks what happens when GM/c^2r >> 1?
Not so. See above.
It is clear to me that Hal is not really thinking about the topology and differential geometry in his naive "engineering approach".
Finally you got something right! That's the beauty of PV, you don't have to drag that baggage around to answer certain engineering questions.
Hal goes into a state of denial pretending there is no problem. He
tries to solve the cosmological constant problem the same way. It just
will not do IMHO.
Don't know what you mean by this. We have no problem including a cosmological constant in the cosmological treatments, and have a paper submitted with some nice results (e.g., matching observation without missing matter, acceleration comes out naturally, etc.)
>
All Hal ever write is
K = e^2GM/c^2r
Not so. That's the solution for one problem only, a spherical distribution of mass. You know I have published other solutions for charged masses, Levi-Civita effects, rotating dumbbells, etc. Why do you keep repeating this (false) mantra?
What Hal has is his mythical "super steel" rods which would give NOT c
but c/K! You forgot that!
Surely, you're joking Mr. Sarfatti. At least I'm joking. My "super steel" rods are a euphemism for unperturbed measurement instruments far from metric distortion, providing a "virtual" background, as it were. Were you taking them seriously? Houston, we have a problem.
> The problem is that Hal is completely obscure to my mind on the
> fundamental world view of his model. He uses metric notation after all?
Not really. Only to make comparisons with those like you who are addicted to such!
>
> PZ: But it is a physical metric that is simply a mathematical
> description of the physical "deformation" of measuring
> devices and the resulting scaling of the measured intervals. It is not
> a theory about the fundamental chronogeometric
> structure of the world -- any more than is the description of the
> behavior of metal bars on a heated surface (an
> example that Feynman liked to use).
Bravo Paul, bravo!
JS: I think you are missing the point here Paul. Hal seems to think
that there really are "super steel" rods and clocks that would measure
c/K when the Einstein rubber rods and clocks measure c.
Tsk, tsk, Jack. See above. There are no "super steel" rods, really. Don't need them. If you think that I really think there are, then I'll have to slow up the discussion so you can follow the bouncing ball more easily.
This after all
would be a real "bimetric" world with "super steel" in the globally
flat Yilmaz world parallel to to Einstein's rubbery curved world. This
Yilmazian split is fiction that Hal thinks is fact IMHO.
Tsk, tsk.
Again I ask. What does Hal's PV mean when his GM/c^2r >> 1?
As I said above, same as when GM/c^2r << 1. Not a "magic, mystical" coordinate location of an event horizon as in canonical GR. [BTW, to give some clarification, the event horizon appears in GR in the form of, e.g., a term (1-x) in a metric term denominator. In the exponential metric this is seen to be simply a truncated form of the correct metric polynomial 1-x+x^2/2! - x^3/3! ..... = exp (-x) .]
Cheers,
Hal
There is no evidence for an exponential metric.
On Dec 17, 2003, at 12:52 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/03 10:03:28 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
The name of the game is to control the local
vacuum coherence. I would like to see how Hal Puthoff uses
his PV model for this problem.
You want me to send you the blueprint already?! (Let's see, where did I put it?) :-)
Check with Table 2 in my JBIS paper. (The Table you don't like, that's "not even wrong!") Time runs very fast for the drivers (i.e., the rest of the universe is in slow motion relative to them) when they fire up to reduce K (i.e., manipulate the vacuum polarizability to make it very stiff, i.e., to resist polarizing).
Ahh, how to do that? I think you're telling me you already have the knob with <0|e+(x)e-(x)|0> mobilzing /\zpf, right? So what are you asking me for?
Hal
Yes, I may have the knob. It's the Josephson effect. I could be wrong of course. The point is Hal has nothing at all to say on how to manipulate the metric in a practical way like we see the flying saucers actually doing!
This does not mean that I think everything Hal has done is wrong. Hal's strength is not in theoretical physics but in engineering physics.
Not true: Hal has allot of experience in Theoretical Physics: Watched him myself while in his Lab, Austin Texas.....Rmc
Note Hal has still not been able to solve the problem of a rotating source in his theory.
Again for the Nth time: Those types of things are unpublished and proprietary. Hal will publish more "peer review" material as he tells me. He has nothing to prove to you or anyone else for that matter. He likes to keep quiet then publish......Rmc
Hal also predicts no black hole event horizons that current observations appear show that there are horizons consistent with Einstein's theory. Similarly BTW with the Haisch-Rueda-Puthoff-Cole-Marshall ideas on origin of inertia from semi-classical transverse polarized Lorentz force drag on massless point charges.
Gray Holes do have event horizons, there will be radiation leakage. But not the same as with Black Holes.....Rmc
3. Even if we accept Hal's theory for the sake of argument. He has no practical way to apply his theory to the facts of the flying saucer data base that we ALL agree is valid data. I mean for example the data in Eric Davis's MUFON 2001 paper. Hal has never properly defined "metric engineering" mathematically in terms of his published PV papers. He has, for example, never shown how he can get a free-float warp drive like Alcubierre's in terms of his PV math. Hal shows no understanding of the relevance of dark energy to the problem, which has been my main point since 2002 and is in both my books Destiny Matrix and Space-Time and Beyond II (2002). There was no mention of dark energy in the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week article for example. One would think that the discovery that an anti-gravity zero point energy field is 73% of all the stuff in the Universe would be mentioned? But it wasn't. The fact is that I am the first physicist to connect the discovery of dark energy with the zero point propulsion problem and flying saucers - and that is recorded in Library of Congress in 2002 in my two books. Hal is pretending that I have not done so.
Again for the Nth time how do you know? You don't. You just assume and asume and assume. And for the Nth time those types of issues are locked away in a safe as Hal tells me and I advised him a year ago because of all the Gov Snooping.....Rmc
Finally, you say you like & admire Hal but yet you've made endless personal attacks
That is false. In fact it is the other way around. You have inverted the facts as usual.
against him which have nothing to do with the Physics, nothing. You've made endless personal attacks
Not at all. I have merely stated the obvious in a humorous way.
against me yet you admit you don't understand what's on the Bird Page
You can't take yes for an answer. I never said I could not understand it. I said I have no argument with you about that - at least not at this time as I am busy with more important matters.
and you'll leave it up to people like Bruce M & Stan F to decide. You judge first but you don't read or investigate except to get someone else's opinion and they don't understand the PV , ZPE or UFO material either. But, yet, they're judging ......Rmc
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
On Mar 3, 2004, at 4:51 PM, sonata AKA Captain Qweeg :-) (Robert Collins USAF ret) wrote:
You don't understand the math. You're in
no position to judge. That was reviewed by
"peers" who know the math. Ranting and
raving jealousy on your part. Prove him
wrong besides lots of you stupid
innuendoes ....Get lost......Rmc
I did not write the stuff below. It's written by a Pundit in relativity as shown in the URL below and he understands the math, which you admitted to Kit Green you did not understand. You are about Hal the way Boylan is about Michael Wolf Kruvant. You are completely incapable of rational thought on the subject. My evaluation of Hal's work is in my book Super Cosmos for the permanent historical record - made more urgent now by the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week and Space Technology article in which Hal makes no reference at all to the anti-gravity dark energy field.
[astro-ph/0402512] Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble
Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark
Energy Evolution
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512
This is the key to whole puzzle. It's the Baby in the Bathwater that Hal threw out. Fortunately I have the idea recorded in 2002 in both my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" in Library of Congress, so there is little doubt who saw it first.
Hal does say in the article that the Casimir effect is too small to be used for practical propulsion. He has not, however, connected the following dots
1. Dark energy is 73% of the Universe.
2. Dark energy is zero point energy because w = -1
3. Dark energy anti-gravitates in a BIG way.
4. All the traversable wormhole and Alcubierre warp drive solutions of Einstein's theory starting with Paul Hill's "acceleration field" need dark energy.
5. Dark energy used to be called "negative matter" and then "exotic matter."
6. Dark matter that is 23% of the Universe is also probably zero point energy with w = -1 that is only apparently w = 0 CDM - my original idea of course.
7. UFOs are "real" working hypothesis (e.g. Bruce Maccabee's article in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny
None of these ideas are in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week only the same old same old tired vague speculations that have gotten nowhere in what? -- almost 20 years. Hal has no recognition of the relevance of the the new "precision cosmology" to what he is trying to do. He did not have until I told him of course. He never published anything like that. Never mentioned "vacuum coherence" at all in publications. I just want this all straight for the record. Not everyone is incapable of seeing what is in front of their nose.
On Feb 21, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/21/04 5:40:42 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
I have a section in my new book Super
Cosmos under construction
that the oft-cited Forward-Haisch-Puthoff-Cole speculations that the
purely quantum electrodynamic Casimir effect can be used
one day to extract zero point energy in enough quantity to be used
Such misrepresentation, Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself. Extract ZPE for use? Possibly. Via the Casimir Effect? Hardly, the effect is too small. All our potential approaches involve interactions other than the Casimir effect, and you know it. Your continuous red herrings and straw men do a disservice to the field. What I'm not certain of with regard to your statements is if there's malice of forethought, or if you really don't understand the field.
Hal Puthoff
I am doing a "disservice to the field"? Take the mote out of thine own eye Hal before ye cast stones at Rabbi Sarfatti. ;-)
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Since Chris is naming names so will I: Hal Puthoff (nobody mention cutlery!)
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037
>
> Regardless of whether it is wrong or not (hint: it is!), it is actually
> misleading. The author seems to suggest near the beginning of the paper that
> his "representation of GR", is equivalent to GR -- but later on he "proves"
> that they only agree approximately. Given that he seems to be targeting the
> paper at "beginning students", this seems somewhat worrying. :-/
yes some of these things are borderline, but the above is not the raving lunacy
that's rejected outright, actually requires reading more than the abstract to
conclude one way or another...
and the philosophy remains to err in the direction of letting slightly too much
through. ideally there will be future overlays to guide people throught the
bitstream, and the disconnected component will be less visible.
more or less equivalent to the following $.05:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-10/msg0018600.html
You don't understand the math. You're in
no position to judge. That was reviewed by
"peers" who know the math. Ranting and
raving jealousy on your part. Prove him
wrong besides lots of you stupid
innuendoes ....Get lost......Rmc
I did not write the stuff below. It's written by a Pundit in relativity as shown in the URL below and he understands the math, which you admitted to Kit Green you did not understand. You are about Hal the way Boylan is about Michael Wolf Kruvant. You are completely incapable of rational thought on the subject. My evaluation of Hal's work is in my book Super Cosmos for the permanent historical record - made more urgent now by the March 1, 2004 Aviation Week and Space Technology article in which Hal makes no reference at all to the anti-gravity dark energy field.
[astro-ph/0402512] Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble
Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark
Energy Evolution
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512
This is the key to whole puzzle. It's the Baby in the Bathwater that Hal threw out. Fortunately I have the idea recorded in 2002 in both my books "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" in Library of Congress, so there is little doubt who saw it first.
Hal does say in the article that the Casimir effect is too small to be used for practical propulsion. He has not, however, connected the following dots
1. Dark energy is 73% of the Universe.
2. Dark energy is zero point energy because w = -1
3. Dark energy anti-gravitates in a BIG way.
4. All the traversable wormhole and Alcubierre warp drive solutions of Einstein's theory starting with Paul Hill's "acceleration field" need dark energy.
5. Dark energy used to be called "negative matter" and then "exotic matter."
6. Dark matter that is 23% of the Universe is also probably zero point energy with w = -1 that is only apparently w = 0 CDM - my original idea of course.
7. UFOs are "real" working hypothesis (e.g. Bruce Maccabee's article in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny
None of these ideas are in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week only the same old same old tired vague speculations that have gotten nowhere in what? -- almost 20 years. Hal has no recognition of the relevance of the the new "precision cosmology" to what he is trying to do. He did not have until I told him of course. He never published anything like that. Never mentioned "vacuum coherence" at all in publications. I just want this all straight for the record. Not everyone is incapable of seeing what is in front of their nose.
On Feb 21, 2004, at 10:27 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/21/04 5:40:42 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
I have a section in my new book Super
Cosmos under construction
that the oft-cited Forward-Haisch-Puthoff-Cole speculations that the
purely quantum electrodynamic Casimir effect can be used
one day to extract zero point energy in enough quantity to be used
Such misrepresentation, Jack, you should be ashamed of yourself. Extract ZPE for use? Possibly. Via the Casimir Effect? Hardly, the effect is too small. All our potential approaches involve interactions other than the Casimir effect, and you know it. Your continuous red herrings and straw men do a disservice to the field. What I'm not certain of with regard to your statements is if there's malice of forethought, or if you really don't understand the field.
Hal Puthoff
I am doing a "disservice to the field"? Take the mote out of thine own eye Hal before ye cast stones at Rabbi Sarfatti. ;-)
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
> Since Chris is naming names so will I: Hal Puthoff (nobody mention cutlery!)
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909037
>
> Regardless of whether it is wrong or not (hint: it is!), it is actually
> misleading. The author seems to suggest near the beginning of the paper that
> his "representation of GR", is equivalent to GR -- but later on he "proves"
> that they only agree approximately. Given that he seems to be targeting the
> paper at "beginning students", this seems somewhat worrying. :-/
yes some of these things are borderline, but the above is not the raving lunacy
that's rejected outright, actually requires reading more than the abstract to
conclude one way or another...
and the philosophy remains to err in the direction of letting slightly too much
through. ideally there will be future overlays to guide people throught the
bitstream, and the disconnected component will be less visible.
more or less equivalent to the following $.05:
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1999-10/msg0018600.html
Click on
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Jacksings1.mov
This will open in your web browser in Quick Time player. It's mpeg 4. It streams well on DSL.
It may not play well on 56 K. I have it set for 128 K
This snippet is from the 1964 Oberlin Conservatory High Field Summer Theater near Falmouth Cape Cod
performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers with me in lead tenor role as Marco. I am about 24 years old.
It's a tenor-baritone duet.
More sophisticated editing of parts of Gondoliers and Fledermaus from that 1964 Oberlin season to come. Also Cornell
Savoyard Production of Yeomen of the Guard I think also 1964. The musical quality of the the Cornell production not
as good as Oberlin's, but my singing is quite good anyway. Also scenes with Professor Alfred Kahn the economist
who I think deregulated airlines under Jimmy Carter?
The open directory http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
has a few more musical numbers from Oberlin 1964 uploaded.
Click on the .mov files
e.g. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/sparklingeyes.mov
"Take a pair of sparkling eyes" was allegedly a James Joyce favorite. Slight glitch at beginning.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/madrigal.mov
quartet "In a contemplative fashion"
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/republicanfallacies.mov
appropriate for Election 2004 :-)
a lively number is
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/royalqueen.mov
Finale Act III Fledermaus will be uploaded shortly - very spritely with the great soprano Kirsten Falke and Tim Jerome. I play Alfred - the more dramatic of the two tenors.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/bat3.mov
On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Jacksings1.mov
This will open in your web browser in Quick Time player. It's mpeg 4. It streams well on DSL.
It may not play well on 56 K. I have it set for 128 K
This snippet is from the 1964 Oberlin Conservatory High Field Summer Theater near Falmouth Cape Cod
performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's Gondoliers with me in lead tenor role as Marco. I am about 24 years old.
It's a tenor-baritone duet.
More sophisticated editing of parts of Gondoliers and Fledermaus from that 1964 Oberlin season to come. Also Cornell
Savoyard Production of Yeomen of the Guard I think also 1964. The musical quality of the the Cornell production not
as good as Oberlin's, but my singing is quite good anyway. Also scenes with Professor Alfred Kahn the economist
who I think deregulated airlines under Jimmy Carter?
The open directory http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
has a few more musical numbers from Oberlin 1964 uploaded.
Click on the .mov files
e.g. http://qedcorp.com/destiny/sparklingeyes.mov
"Take a pair of sparkling eyes" was allegedly a James Joyce favorite. Slight glitch at beginning.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/madrigal.mov
quartet "In a contemplative fashion"
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/republicanfallacies.mov
appropriate for Election 2004 :-)
a lively number is
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/royalqueen.mov
Finale Act III Fledermaus will be uploaded shortly - very spritely with the great soprano Kirsten Falke and Tim Jerome. I play Alfred - the more dramatic of the two tenors.
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/bat3.mov
On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:31 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
The paper by Kibble is "Lorentz Invariance and the Gravitational Field" J.Math. Phys. March-April 1961, 212 - 221
"Utiyama's discussion is extended by considering the 10-parameter group of inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations involving variations of the coordinates as well as the field variables."
It is this "variations of the coordinates" that I interpreted as locally gauging the translation group. That is breaking the global symmetry of homogeneity and time translation of non-dynamical global Minkowski space-time only to restore it by the local compensating "world crystal distortion" geometrodynamic field d^u = Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u whose string topological defect densities are both local curvature and local torsion Diff(4) tensor fields of 4th and 3rd rank respectively. The new dynamical degrees of freedom of the warp geometrodynamic field restores local conservation of stress-energy current densities. The geometrodynamic vacuum stress-energy current density is trivially zero for unstable Minkowski space-time, but not so in the presence of matter sources or in presence of net unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities. The Bianchi identities in presence of metricity and absence of torsion and absence of unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities ensure "separate but equal" local conservation of geometrodynamic and matter currents. That is, in Einstein's 1915 geometrodynamics Guv^;v = 0 (Bianchi identities) hence Tuv(Source Matter)^;v = 0 where
Guv ~ (String Tension)^-1Tuv = (Metric Elasticity)Tuv ~ (Loop Quantum of Area)Tuv = (Witten alpha')Tuv
In this limit /\zpf = 0 and practical "soft ecological" metric engineering of globally superluminal weightless (timelike geodesic) warp drive ("acceleration field propulsion" in Paul Hill's sense) and star gate time travel machines (including to universes next door in hyperspace) is not possible.
"It is then unnecessary to introduce apriori curvilinear coordinates or a Riemann metric."
So you see guv was not at all emergent in Utiyama's paper using only the 6-parameter O(1,3) homogeneous Lorentz subgroup! It was put in by hand ad-hoc. Similarly much of Stephen Adler's paper sticks guv in adhoc, except possibly at the end when he tries a quantum metric and claims that the Einstein-Hilbert action emerges as a more is different low energy effective field theory like the Fermi theory of beta decay emerges from the W boson weak force SU(2) gauge theory. However, I need to study Adler there more closely to see if it is really kosher.
"The new field variables introduced ... include the vierbein components hk^u as well as the local affine connection A^iju. So Utiyama only got the local affine connection from O(1,3) whose symmetry in i,j indices means zero torsion tensor gauge force field. The world crystal elastic distortion field involves the vierbeins or tetrads, i.e.
d^u(x) = hk^udx^k
Therefore, Einstein's local equivalence principle is automatically built into local gauging of the 4-parameter translation subgroup. That is,
guv(Einstein's curved LNIF spacetime at event P) = hu^i(P)hv^j(P)(Minkowski LIF metric)ij
= (Minkowski metric)uv + (1/2)[du(P),v + dv(p),u]
I am not sure if my equations are mathematically consistent. That never stopped physicists since QED renormalization theory including today's M theory I suspect. ;-)
"The extended transformations for which the ten parameters become arbitrary functions of position..."
That is the formal meaning of "local gauging" but you then need to keep the dynamical action invariant and this forces you to bring in the compensating gauge force fields. I mean gauge now in an extended sense not just internal symmetries in perhaps the extra space dimensions of hyperspace.
"... may be interpreted as general coordinate transformations and rotations of the vierbein system."
Therefore, quite obviously, the local passive general coordinate transformations x^u(P) -> x^u'(P) = x^u'(x^u(P)) come from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation subgroup since u = 0,1,2,3. Note I am not considering the active x^u(P) -> x^u'(P') where P =/= P'. One then gets into a can of worms whether full blown Diff(4) in the active sense even allows one to tell the difference between point events P & P'? Save that for another day. This is prior to asking about parallel transport of objects along paths from P to P' that need the affine connection A^iju from O(3,1). Note that i,j are in the locally flat tangent vector space fiber and u,v are in the curved base space-time. "Locally flat" does not demand that the local curvature tensor vanish BTW. This is a subtle point that confused Paul Zielinski.
OK Kibble has locally gauged O(3,1) as well as did Utiyama earlier without locally gauging T4. Because he has done that he says he gets a torsion field but that it only shows itself when Tuv(Matter) =/= 0.
"The free Lagrangian for the new fields is ... a function of two covariant quantities analogous to Fuv for the electromagnetic field, and the simplest possible form is just the usual curvature scalar density expressed in terms of the hk^u (vierbeins AKA tetrads) and A^iju (spin connection). This Lagrangian is first order in derivatives and is the analog for the vierbein formalism of Palatini's Lagrangian. In the absence of matter it yields Ruv = 0 for empty space, but when matter is present there is a difference from the usual theory (first pointed out by Weyl) which arises from the fact that A^iju appears in the matter field Lagrangian, so that the equation of motion relating A^iju to hk^u is changed ... although the covariant derivative of the metric vanishes" i.e. definition of "metricity" "the affine connection {^l,uv} is nonsymmetric". BINGO there is Shipov's torsion tensor field from locally gauging the homogeneous Lorentz group. Why did not Kibble ask what new fields emerge from locally gauging the 4 special conformal boosts to hyperbolic motion in special relativity, which have something to do with Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect - not known in 1961 of course, and locally gauging the single dilation transformation? Kibble points out that the torsion field will couple to quantum spins, also one would think it would couple to gyroscopes, but Kibble thinks the effects are too small to see. Akimov and Shipov think otherwise.
"These terms are almost certainly too small to make any experimentally detectable difference to the predictions of the usual metric theory."
What have we learned here from Kibble?
1. Shipov's torsion field has a solid basis in the local gauge principle applied to the Poincare symmetry group.
2. The only issue is how big is the coupling at what scale? This seems to be an empirical problem?
3. Will the torsion field couple to the exotic vacuum "dark energy" w = -1 where
tuv(Dark Energy) ~ (String Tension)(Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]guv
= (String Tension)/\zpfguv
Where |Vacuum Coherence| ~ nonperturbative BCS-Nambu-Jona Lasino "Energy Gap" for virtual electron-positron pairing inside the 2mc^2 barrier.
That is,
|Vacuum Coherence| ~ (Debye Frequency of World Crystal Lattice)exp[1/(Density of virtual electron states per unit energy at the -mc^2 Dirac-Fermi surface)(effective static potential energy of virtual space-like photon exchange binding together a virtual negative energy electron and its positron hole)]
With an essential nonanalytic singularity when the static potential between the virtual electron and its positron hole vanishes.
e.g. eqs 4.29 & 4.30 p. 741 of Adler's paper below.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The key paper is Stephen Adler's "Einstein Gravity as a Symmetry Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point particle quantum field theory including renormalization in U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals (Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in "equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid" curved space-time background in order that the coupling to lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea as in HRP cannot be correct.
Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant from breaking conformal scale invariance.
Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where
G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF? There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous sense?
However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.
Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what "acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.
"Utiyama's discussion is extended by considering the 10-parameter group of inhomogeneous Lorentz transformations involving variations of the coordinates as well as the field variables."
It is this "variations of the coordinates" that I interpreted as locally gauging the translation group. That is breaking the global symmetry of homogeneity and time translation of non-dynamical global Minkowski space-time only to restore it by the local compensating "world crystal distortion" geometrodynamic field d^u = Lp^2(Phase of Vacuum Coherence),u whose string topological defect densities are both local curvature and local torsion Diff(4) tensor fields of 4th and 3rd rank respectively. The new dynamical degrees of freedom of the warp geometrodynamic field restores local conservation of stress-energy current densities. The geometrodynamic vacuum stress-energy current density is trivially zero for unstable Minkowski space-time, but not so in the presence of matter sources or in presence of net unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities. The Bianchi identities in presence of metricity and absence of torsion and absence of unbalanced quantum zero point vacuum stress-energy current densities ensure "separate but equal" local conservation of geometrodynamic and matter currents. That is, in Einstein's 1915 geometrodynamics Guv^;v = 0 (Bianchi identities) hence Tuv(Source Matter)^;v = 0 where
Guv ~ (String Tension)^-1Tuv = (Metric Elasticity)Tuv ~ (Loop Quantum of Area)Tuv = (Witten alpha')Tuv
In this limit /\zpf = 0 and practical "soft ecological" metric engineering of globally superluminal weightless (timelike geodesic) warp drive ("acceleration field propulsion" in Paul Hill's sense) and star gate time travel machines (including to universes next door in hyperspace) is not possible.
"It is then unnecessary to introduce apriori curvilinear coordinates or a Riemann metric."
So you see guv was not at all emergent in Utiyama's paper using only the 6-parameter O(1,3) homogeneous Lorentz subgroup! It was put in by hand ad-hoc. Similarly much of Stephen Adler's paper sticks guv in adhoc, except possibly at the end when he tries a quantum metric and claims that the Einstein-Hilbert action emerges as a more is different low energy effective field theory like the Fermi theory of beta decay emerges from the W boson weak force SU(2) gauge theory. However, I need to study Adler there more closely to see if it is really kosher.
"The new field variables introduced ... include the vierbein components hk^u as well as the local affine connection A^iju. So Utiyama only got the local affine connection from O(1,3) whose symmetry in i,j indices means zero torsion tensor gauge force field. The world crystal elastic distortion field involves the vierbeins or tetrads, i.e.
d^u(x) = hk^udx^k
Therefore, Einstein's local equivalence principle is automatically built into local gauging of the 4-parameter translation subgroup. That is,
guv(Einstein's curved LNIF spacetime at event P) = hu^i(P)hv^j(P)(Minkowski LIF metric)ij
= (Minkowski metric)uv + (1/2)[du(P),v + dv(p),u]
I am not sure if my equations are mathematically consistent. That never stopped physicists since QED renormalization theory including today's M theory I suspect. ;-)
"The extended transformations for which the ten parameters become arbitrary functions of position..."
That is the formal meaning of "local gauging" but you then need to keep the dynamical action invariant and this forces you to bring in the compensating gauge force fields. I mean gauge now in an extended sense not just internal symmetries in perhaps the extra space dimensions of hyperspace.
"... may be interpreted as general coordinate transformations and rotations of the vierbein system."
Therefore, quite obviously, the local passive general coordinate transformations x^u(P) -> x^u'(P) = x^u'(x^u(P)) come from locally gauging the 4-parameter translation subgroup since u = 0,1,2,3. Note I am not considering the active x^u(P) -> x^u'(P') where P =/= P'. One then gets into a can of worms whether full blown Diff(4) in the active sense even allows one to tell the difference between point events P & P'? Save that for another day. This is prior to asking about parallel transport of objects along paths from P to P' that need the affine connection A^iju from O(3,1). Note that i,j are in the locally flat tangent vector space fiber and u,v are in the curved base space-time. "Locally flat" does not demand that the local curvature tensor vanish BTW. This is a subtle point that confused Paul Zielinski.
OK Kibble has locally gauged O(3,1) as well as did Utiyama earlier without locally gauging T4. Because he has done that he says he gets a torsion field but that it only shows itself when Tuv(Matter) =/= 0.
"The free Lagrangian for the new fields is ... a function of two covariant quantities analogous to Fuv for the electromagnetic field, and the simplest possible form is just the usual curvature scalar density expressed in terms of the hk^u (vierbeins AKA tetrads) and A^iju (spin connection). This Lagrangian is first order in derivatives and is the analog for the vierbein formalism of Palatini's Lagrangian. In the absence of matter it yields Ruv = 0 for empty space, but when matter is present there is a difference from the usual theory (first pointed out by Weyl) which arises from the fact that A^iju appears in the matter field Lagrangian, so that the equation of motion relating A^iju to hk^u is changed ... although the covariant derivative of the metric vanishes" i.e. definition of "metricity" "the affine connection {^l,uv} is nonsymmetric". BINGO there is Shipov's torsion tensor field from locally gauging the homogeneous Lorentz group. Why did not Kibble ask what new fields emerge from locally gauging the 4 special conformal boosts to hyperbolic motion in special relativity, which have something to do with Hawking radiation and the Unruh effect - not known in 1961 of course, and locally gauging the single dilation transformation? Kibble points out that the torsion field will couple to quantum spins, also one would think it would couple to gyroscopes, but Kibble thinks the effects are too small to see. Akimov and Shipov think otherwise.
"These terms are almost certainly too small to make any experimentally detectable difference to the predictions of the usual metric theory."
What have we learned here from Kibble?
1. Shipov's torsion field has a solid basis in the local gauge principle applied to the Poincare symmetry group.
2. The only issue is how big is the coupling at what scale? This seems to be an empirical problem?
3. Will the torsion field couple to the exotic vacuum "dark energy" w = -1 where
tuv(Dark Energy) ~ (String Tension)(Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]guv
= (String Tension)/\zpfguv
Where |Vacuum Coherence| ~ nonperturbative BCS-Nambu-Jona Lasino "Energy Gap" for virtual electron-positron pairing inside the 2mc^2 barrier.
That is,
|Vacuum Coherence| ~ (Debye Frequency of World Crystal Lattice)exp[1/(Density of virtual electron states per unit energy at the -mc^2 Dirac-Fermi surface)(effective static potential energy of virtual space-like photon exchange binding together a virtual negative energy electron and its positron hole)]
With an essential nonanalytic singularity when the static potential between the virtual electron and its positron hole vanishes.
e.g. eqs 4.29 & 4.30 p. 741 of Adler's paper below.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 4:59 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
The key paper is Stephen Adler's "Einstein Gravity as a Symmetry Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point particle quantum field theory including renormalization in U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals (Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in "equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid" curved space-time background in order that the coupling to lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea as in HRP cannot be correct.
Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant from breaking conformal scale invariance.
Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where
G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF? There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous sense?
However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.
Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what "acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.
The key paper is Stephen Adler's "Einstein Gravity as a Symmetry
Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point
particle quantum field theory including renormalization in
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals
(Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that
corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry
condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call
amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in
"equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability
of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal
fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid"
curved space-time background in order that the coupling to
lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is
obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea
as in HRP cannot be correct.
Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant
from breaking conformal scale invariance.
Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally
gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs
to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal
distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging
translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for
the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally
gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck
the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey
Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where
G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF?
There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I
remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous
sense?
However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.
Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric
engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h
etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which
never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal
keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test
particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what
"acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.
Breaking Effect in Quantum Field Theory."
It's a lengthy deep paper that covers a lot of concepts in point
particle quantum field theory including renormalization in
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3), renormalization group methods, functional integrals
(Fadeev-Popov ghosts), method of background curved metric that
corresponds roughly to my ODLRO, spontaneous broken vacuum symmetry
condensates including fermion pairs with "energy gap" as what I call
amplitude of vacuum coherence, vanishing of cosmological constant in
"equilibrium" but not in non-equilibrium, discussion of the stability
of globally flat vacuum and the necessity to have what I call "normal
fluid" ZPE "gravitons" around the c-number dynamical "superfluid"
curved space-time background in order that the coupling to
lepto-quark/gauge force fields be consistent with Diff(4). It is
obvious from this paper why a simple model based only on the SED idea
as in HRP cannot be correct.
Adler talks about computing both G(Newton) and cosmological constant
from breaking conformal scale invariance.
Kibble et-al get the guv field, without computing G & /\ from locally
gauging Poincare group. I need to check details of what exactly needs
to be locally gauged to get what. It is obvious that the world crystal
distortion field is the compensating field from locally gauging
translation subgroup, but one also needs the Lie algebra of O(3,1) for
the spin connection although O(3,1) I think in itself is not locally
gauged unless you also want the torsion field? Again I need to recheck
the Utiyama-Kibble papers. More anon.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:48 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I now seem to recall that Hal maybe in late 80's did attempt a Mickey
Mouse version of Sakharov's idea done better
by Adler in Rev Mod Phys 1982 prior to Hal where
G(Newton) is written down in terms of a cut off frequency for EM ZPF?
There are no virtual electron positron pairs in his model if I
remember correctly? So there is no vacuum polarization in the rigorous
sense?
However, that model has no vacuum coherence the way I mean it.
Also none of Hal's recent papers specifically dealing with "metric
engineering" like the Mitre Conference on BPP have any reference to h
etc in his PV papers which are only classical models with K and which
never make clear how the path of the UFO is controlled via K. Hal
keeps the Lorentz force term in his equation of motion for the test
particle .... That shows that Hal still does not understand what
"acceleration field" propulsion means in terms of his own model.
re: The Boylan who cried Wolf
Colin & Victor please pass on my comments to the lists at large if you like. :-)
Oh what a joy to wake up to Colin's delicious prose in the morning to replace my morning bun that I ate last night - naughty boy. :-)
Irrespective of the issues I enjoy the aesthetics. :-)
I really must get out into the sunny streets to vote to vote to vote - it's Super Tuesday here in Toon Town, Baghdad by the Bay! Will be boarding for London Town in a few days to see you. I think I should include this repartee in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ like the comedic scenes with Falstaff & Co in Henry IV & V.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 2:44 AM, Colin Bennett wrote:
"Sir,
You have a habit Stanton, of knocking corpses round the ring and calling
yourself a champion. Well in name of the poor devils of the world who can'’t
cope with you, I thought I would step through the ropes and make your day,
sir.
Amazing. You sound as if you have written this “reply” in a tantrum. Most of
your amusing complaints about the CIA, autographs, black budgets etc.,
hardly apply to the matter in hand at all. Frankly, you sound confused and
tired, and somewhat unfocused. Do you think that anyone is impressed with
this old soldier length-of service cant? 37 years of lecturing, in 50 states
9 provinces, and 13 other countries sounds like self-pity and a plea for
brownie points to me. As for your claim to have taken part in the building
of a nuclear power station I think as a claim for fame, it rivals that of
Ted Bundy, and should be kept a family secret, locked in the west wing.
You really have no need to feel so vulnerable, self-protective, and paranoid
about criticism. Most (including myself) regard you as one of our great
ufologists, even if you are somewhat out of date. But all this nervous
self-justification stuff about your TV appearances (the ultimate in naff
non-impressive things!) and all the huff-puffing about the important
meetings you attend does you no good at all. For a moment, in all this
wallowing self-pity, I expected a mention of the Christmas cheques you sent
to the local orphanage and dog'’s home.
You sound sir, like a petulant teenager pop star under pressure, you really
do. I expect soon the scream that you want to be left alone. If I hear you
petulant poor thing throwing punches in a nightclub I will know the End is
Nigh. You poor tired star, my heart bleeds for you. I do hope that the last
flash bulbs won’t catch you in a forecourt asking for a celeb discount for a
cut-price Ford."
What's that about a "celeb discount"? :-)
"I don’t want to be too hard on you Stanton but your Wolf questionnaire is
highly dangerous, and let’s hope the likes of it don'’t breed. If you had
lived in Germany in 1939, and you were asked if you were homosexual, you
would know what question was coming next.
No one quarrels with your unique ability to obtain information of all kinds,
such as the material you include here about Wolf. But sheer quantity is
secondary. What you do not do is fit all this info into the wider
theoretical constructions of the psycho-cultural context. If you do not do
this, you will be left, like most “factual researchers” with whole bags of
nuts and bolts not knowing who or what agendas (or conspiracies)
manufactured them. Go from nuts and bolts to something far more important
and more complicated, and this can cause disastrous blindness as regards the
wider schemes that the “fact” was generated by in the first place. A “fact”
is after all a very potent and complex symbol. A “fact” has roots like a
plant consisting of all kinds of deep structure. An array of facts can be
analysed like a play or a poem. A fact is a text. It can be deconstructed,
and its multifaceted history traced and demonstrated in terms of language,
concept, and function.
But I will leave you now, because we are past Mr Maccabee’'s bedtime a long
time ago, and he is dying to be out of the way of all this pseud and phoney
and lengthy and difficult nonsense spouted by Colin Bennett. (there Bruce, I
have just written it for you, don'’t bother repeating it). The trouble is Mr.
Maccabee and Mr. Friedman, as horse-generals of old ufology, there are
concepts swirling like a tide around Old East Germany (the common name for
the UFO Updates List) that will turn it into an area of the rusted factories
of a ufological age past.
Finally sir, you mention your 9000-word review of Kevin Randle'’s book Case
MJ12. Like Randle’'s book, this is an excellent piece of work, but it is not
in question here.
It is in the situationist “holistic” view of human beings where you fall
short. You simply cannot deal with people good or bad like wriggling worms
on the end of a stick. Human beings are vast symbiotic agendas programming
and reprogramming constantly. You should really absorb more art and
literature to convince you that people are much more than the sum of their
parts. Being also moral creatures of sort or another, this often makes
things extremely difficult as far as analysing finite actions, beliefs and
motivations are concerned.
The difference between fact and fiction is nowhere near as simple to define
as you make it out to be. You should really read more Borges than Agatha
Christy.
Our emails crossed, and so I include here the extended reply that I sent to
the Jack Sarfatti Science Group, which you may or may not have seen. I am
preparing a MUFON paper on this “Kill the Deviant” matter (stop him! stop
him! I hear the horse-generals cry)."
SARFATTI wrote:
While I do not want to argue the humanistic points you raise, the
simple fact is that I have not seen one iota, one shred of evidence,
that Wolf Kruvant had even one interesting original idea about anything
of importance in general and about UFOs in particular. I find it
exceedingly odd that none of his champions are able to produce any
evidence other than gossip and hearsay of the most trite kind that is
rampant in urban legends on the WEB. So why should I be interested in Michael
Wolf-Kruvant anymore than in, say, Louis Dinardi, a colorful drunk with a trust fund who
chooses to live homeless on the Streets of North Beach? At least local North Beach Citizen Phil
Kaufman is thinking of making a film about Louis. Perhaps Wolf's life
has interest as drama, but I see no scientific interest at all. If you
have any relevant evidence please share it.
BENNETT:
"Thank you sir, I now share my relevant evidence with thee.
The intrinsic claims of Wolf may or may not be of scientific interest. But
that he made such claims at all IS of scientific interest. The psychology
behind the deviant claim lends itself certainly to scientific evaluation,
and does the anger of Stanton Friedman towards people who do not behave
themselves."
Yes, OK as a matter of social psychology and the mass hysteria of crowds OK.
Look at all the millions and millions of people who believe in UFOs and the
scores who have suicided over bogus beliefs. Look at Captain Collins'
True Believer irrationality over Puthoff's bogus model for UFO metric engineering.
Is there no physical reality to the flying saucer? Do they have as much reality as
WMD in Iraq since 1994? Do they have as much reality as the paranormal? And to
really get into over-hyped idle speculations, do they have as much reality as M-Theory's
"vibrating strings of pure energy" as told on Brian Greene's NOVA "Elegant Universe" and
in his two new books? When fancy is paraded as fact on National Public Television, are
we not at The End Time, the Final Days in The Decline and Fall of The Empire?
Did it not all start with that Copenhagen Fairy Tale from that Great Dane, no not Hans Christian Anderson,
but Niels Bohr? Did I not help by catalyzing Capra's "Tao of Physics" at Esalen with Werner Erhard's money at a crucial moment, and by writing much of Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters"? Mea Culpa. Shall I not fiddle as Rome burns?
"Certainly deviant claims within the scientific community have significance
in that they show exclusivity sets that form the boundary of the general
paradigm. Such claims gives us the morphology of the no-go areas, and are
pointers not so much to truth and falsehood, but to what, within the cut-off
boundaries of cultural group is allowed or not allowed. From the Fortean
point of view, the claims of Wolf and many like him are part of cultural
wonder-management rather than being “wrong” answers in the old deterministic
mechanical sense.
In a Fortean sense again any culture (and science is a culture despite the
protests of scientists) must automatically manufacture the false claim as a
functional entity within the culture set. Both myself in Politics of the
Imagination and George Hansen in The Trickster and the Paranormal have
argued that the deviant (Fort’s daemon, Hanson’s Trickster) and his implicit
denials must appear at some time within this set, meme, gene, quanta, or
whatever is the current fashionable metaphor for information transfer within
the cultural cell as it develops in cultural time. The functional of the
anomaly is the same as it always was: its “function” is to help the gaming
agendas of a particular set of cultural affairs get into the next stage of
development.
In this process, the deviant is the vital covert subtext of all cultural
life. Entertainment alone, for example (absolutely vital for mental health)
consists of almost nothing but deviants of one sort or another. The average
straight persona (bless him!) is of almost no psychological interest. Almost
without exception, the great geniuses of history were Michael Wolf Kruvant
in embryo. Destroy the likes of him and you destroy the rain forest of the
mind in the sense that possibilities are destroyed rather than facts or
fictions.
We don'’t know what the universe is about, but we do know that it isn'’t about
good behaviour, if only because the well-balanced conformist gets nowhere.
The deviant has that higher disturbance called the imagination. That means
that he is involved in play and deceptive experimentation of all kinds. The
psychological tricks practiced to form the Calculus (particularly with
regard to dealing with the idea of infinity and limits) were downright
criminal as far as respectable rational standards of Newton'’s time were
concerned, most of Newton'’s inspirations being rooted in alchemical
mysticism. To say that such things are right or wrong or false or true is a
thought not worthy of Stanton’'s fine brain. He is simply not catching
complexity theory here, but then ufology at the moment is in intellectual
stasis. Trying to change the 1914 pre-Planck horse generals of mainstream
ufology into quantum tankmen is not going to be easy!"
I certainly agree with this. The only issue here was whether or not Wolf was an interesting deviant?
After all, it takes one to know one. So far I do not find him interesting, I mean in terms of any real legacy of ideas.
With regard to how established cultures treat deviants, at the moment I am
preparing a study of C.G. Barkla for Philosophy Now magazine, and will make
it available to the Sarfatti Science Group by attached document when it is
ready. Barkla was a physicist and a Nobel Prize winner. After studying under
J.J. Thomson and Oliver Lodge, he became a leading expert on X-ray
scattering and polarisation. Briefly, he showed that the atom was composed
of concentric electron shells around the central high density nucleus.
However, he stuck to using multi-chromatic beams of X rays for scattering
and absorption experiments at a time when people such as Bragg and his son
were using monochromatic X ray beams.
Bragg'’s much more effective method was ignored by Barkla, who was pushed out
slowly on a limb of non-acceptance. But such was Barkla's’ prestige and
power that he was kept on in his position for many years, though his studies
were regarded as complete relics. He continued to supervise groups of PhDs,
who for years were obliged to go through the motions concerning a theory
that most knew was regarded as completely false."
Sounds like M Theory which may not be even wrong? Too soon to tell.
"Yours in hope and anticipation!
Colin (Bad Man) Bennett"
Note CAPS below put in by Martinez not by me.
-------Original Message-------
From: Victor Martinez
Date: 01 March 2004 21:44:45
To: sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk
Subject: Stan Friedman responds to Colin Bennett's defense of Michael Wolf
www.stantonfriedman.com
www.geocities.com/dreamingbones/wolf.html
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
------------------------------------------
COLIN BENNETT:
Dedicated researcher, author and personal friend Stan Friedman has been
indisposed recently having worked a number of TV shows in Chicago and
was UNable to respond to your criticism of his fine work on the
seemingly, never-ending Michael Wolf saga,.... er,.... uh fairy tale.
On his behalf, he asked me to forward his personal message from him to
you. Before reading his response, a few things worth noting:
1) Irrespective of the "offensive questions" Stan asked on his 16-item
questionnaire, I thought Dr Jack Sarfatti made one of the strongest
arguments in this powerful stated semantic prose:
"It's real simple,... THE HARD CURRENCY IS IDEAS. Show us ONE of his
original ideas. I have NOT even seen ONE. [While] I agree absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence, but [it is] Boylan who makes these
wild claims, has NOT produced [even] ONE IOTA of REAL EVIDENCE,
[instead] only easily fabricated trivia with no intellectual value to my
mind." (2-28-04, 3:55 p.m.)
"What is of interest is whether he was a serious scientific player in
UFOs as Boylan represents him to be. There is NO evidence in ANY
writings by Wolf that he was any more than say Bob Lazar whose
information is worthless to me. (2-29-04, 12:26 p.m.)
"Irrespective of the issues of psychology and ethics that Colin
eloquently raises below, I have NOT seen,... any coherent and cogent
ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION TO PHYSICS, and/or culture that the
Wolf in question below has made. I am NOT saying he did not make any,
only that I have NOT seen it."
(2-28-04, 8:21 a.m.)
NOTE: Dr Sarfatti, made an important caveat here: He's NOT denying
that Wolf made any contributions in physics, only that he has NOT seen
any evidence of it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." – the late Dr
Carl Sagan
2) One would think that with two (2) PhDs in theoretical physics from
MIT and Cal Tech that SOMEthing would have been left behind for us to
examine and evaluate. Nothing....
3) By his continued stubborn insistence that Wolf was Chairman of
MJ-12's SSG team, Richard Boylan has seriously impugned and cast the
entire UFO scene in an UNfavorable public light. The logical extension
of his support of the Wolf fairy tale extends to larger matters: If
Boylan is wrong about Wolf -- and clearly, he is -- then WHAT ELSE is he
wrong about, too?!
I agree w/ Dr Bruce Maccabee here when he says that outrageous claims
like this only serve to make all of us look bad in the public arena and
in fact hurts the movement for disclosure of government-held UFO
information.
4) Boylan has also oft times repeated one of Wolf's claims that Dr Jack
Sarfatti worked on the reverse engineering of a recovered alien craft in
1973 thereby further eroding the public's confidence in the UFO research
field.
Here is what Dr Jack Sarfatti has said about that claim:
"Boylan has seriously LIED about me and has NOT changed his tune [even]
after I pointed out the ERROR in his story about me,...It's OK to make
an HONEST ERROR, but to PERSIST it it is NOT OK."
(2-28-04), 3:55 p.m.)
NOTE: Dr Sarfatti wishes it were TRUE, but it ISN'T.
5) Here is what Dr Hal Puthoff had to say in a private e-mail to me
about this very subject:
"He [Boylan] supports a number of questionable reports,... Also claims
that physicist Jack Sarfatti was involved in the 'back-reverse
engineering program,' which Jack claims not to be the case, and I
BELIEVE Jack.
Thanks, Hal"
(10-27-03, 12:12 a.m.)
6) Colin, it's important to keep in mind that a lot of good, solid
research has been done on Wolf, most of which is just too lengthy to
list here and again. Besides claiming associations with Drs Sarfatti
and Puthoff -- both of whom deny working or meeting him -- he also
claimed association with Harvard University professor Dr Jessica Stern,
author of the bestseller, TERROR IN THE NAME OF GOD.
I personally called AND e-mailed her [ jessica_stern@harvard.edu ]
about Michael Wolf and whether she in fact had ever worked w/ him in the
Clinton White House from 1992-2000 and she had her personal assistant
Michael Johnson both CALL and e-mail me back firmly stating "NO" that
she had never worked with him at the NSC nor had ever even heard of him!
7) I was criticized by one of Wolf's few supporters for being an
"armchair researcher," so I drove out to Cal Tech (15 min from my home)
where Wolf claimed to have obtained one of his two PhDs in physics. I
made a extensive, solid search leaving no stone unturned to find
evidence that he attended there. NO such luck.
This brings to mind an e-mail John Alexander had written regarding this
aspect of the Wolf saga stating:
"Well, I guess they [the 'Cabal'] recalled all the yearbooks and shot
all the students and teachers" suggesting this is why I couldn't find --
nor anyone else -- any evidence of Wolf's attendance and degrees
obtained at ANY schools.
John Alexander continues:
"Source credibility is important. In this case, Boylan, et al, place
great emphasis on the credibility of Wolf's background to support his
claims. Therefore Stan has done us an EXCELLENT SERVICE by putting the
issue to bed once and for all. Remember, Boylan, not Friedman, raised
the issue to begin with."
(2-28-04, 12:02 p.m.)
8) Even one of Stan's detractors, researcher-author Kal K Korff, who
went head-to-head with him over the Roswell incident, had this to say
about Stan's work:
"Concerning Friedman, well, he and I go way back to when he was one of
my mentors. I think some of Stan's BEST WORK on Roswell has been via
his private papers, and not his book."
(2-22-04, 6:26 p.m.)
9) A few people found some of the questions Stan asked offensive, e.g.,
Wolf's sexual orientation, but Stan asked those within the scope,
context and breadth of his investigation. If Wolf lied about that, what
else did he lie about?
Wolf claimed he had a wife, a daughter and that they were killed in a
plane crash (?), but again, the "secret government's Cabal" cleaned up
the accident with no evidence left behind, newspaper articles/media
reports of the crash and death certificates,... all cleaned up by the
"Cabal!"
The irony is, of course, is that the Cabal was sloppy because they
forgot to "clean up" Wolf's DEATH CERTIFICATE which Stan obtained a copy
of! Oops! The "Cabal" screwed up!
And now, without further ado here is Stan Friedman's response to you,
Colin.
--------------------------------------------
From: fsphys@rogers.com (Stanton Friedman)
Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004, 8:46 p.m.
To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez) Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN
BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF
Vic: Too many recipients... can you help me distribute this? – Stan
Friedman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanton Friedman"
To: "Colin Bennett"
; ; Cc:
February 29, 2004 5:29 PM
Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME
REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF
COLIN:
Frankly I am at a loss to understand your comments. I have been self
employed for 34 years except for 5 months spent working on commissioning
The Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Generating station. Corporate? Who said
anything about deviant besides you? I certainly don't consider anybody
as deviant because he or she is homosexual.
Michael Wolf Kruvant was a mentally ill, quite bright person, who
CREATED A TOTAL FAIRY TALE ABOUT HIMSELF, his background and his
activities. I had many conversations with him a decade ago.
For reasons known only to themselves, he was believed by Richard Boylan
and Paola Harris.
He claimed six (6) degrees including an MD, JD, 2 PhDs in Theoretical
Physics and 2 others. My research showed he had NONE. He FLUNKED OUT of
Upsala. He was supposedly an AF Colonel and a pilot. The Military
personnel records Office in St. Louis has NO RECORD of him. He claimed
he was Chairman Emeritus of an advanced research institute employing 75+
people....
It existed ONLY in his head. Dunn and Bradstreet couldn't find it nor
could any of the state offices I called. He claimed that he had been
married and his wife and son were tragically killed. NO evidence for
the marriage, or the child, or the deaths. His foundation in
Indianapolis also had NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
Yes, I am concerned about hardware, but I have also dealt with thousands
and thousands of people over the past 37 years of lecturing in 50
states, 9 provinces, and 13 other countries. I have answered more than
35,000 questions. I am the one who coined the phrase "gray basket" to
indicate that I wait to make judgments about a whole host of questions,
such as the legitimacy of the claims of Lazar and Kruvant, or of the Tim
Cooper MJ-12 documents, until I DO MY HOMEWORK.
With that said, would you and others do yours?! Yes, Richard Boylan,
Paola Harris, and right wing zealot Milton William Cooper have made such
ridiculous charges about me as that I am a:
– CIA disinformation agent
– that I worked on Black Budget Programs
– that I charge for all autographs.
THESE ARE FALSE. If you or they don't believe me, provide some EVIDENCE
THEY ARE TRUE, or SHUT [the "F"] UP.
The questions I asked Ron Kruvant dealt directly with the false claims
made by and about his brother; they weren't pulled out of the air. In
addtion, I managed to obtain a copy of his death certificate from the
State of Connecticut and spoke with the funeral director responsible for
his cremation. Michael was very poor, had arranged the details in
advance during a home visit by the director. Michael had made a down
payment, but wasn't able to cover the rest of the fees in the year prior
to his death.
IF he had HELD all the EXALTED POSITIONS HE CLAIMED, he would have been
able to afford to both LIVE AND DIE BETTER.
I know you don't approve of the word FACT, but isn't it about time you
paid some attention to the FACTS?!
Regarding Kevin Randle's book "Case MJ-12," may I suggest that anybody
who is interested in the facts please read my 9,000 word review of the
book at my Web site:
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
Even Kevin has finally admitted that Frank Kaufmann was a fraud. New
evidence from the Eisenhower Library shows that his strongest argument..
Hillenkoetter referring to himself as Admiral though he was only a rear
admiral, crashes once one notes that Brigadier General Andrew Goodpaster
refers to himself as General Goodpaster when listing attendees at White
House meetings for which he wrote memos and which he signed as Brigadier
General.. He used generic ranks for all the military attendees including
himself. Copies are available.
Sworn and subscribed on this day of:
February 29, 2004,
STANTON T. FRIEDMAN
-------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Bennett"
To:; ;
Cc:;
Hello Savants all:
I protest at Stanton's interrogation (see below).Here is yet another
Maoist interrogation of almost Marxist-Leninist severity from a mechanic
of the nut and bolts brigade whose HQ appears to be the UFO Updates List
and its steam-age engineers. Hard "objective" intellectual Stalinists
such as Stanton (and I include in this category Hall, Aldrich and
Maccabee) should really leave the subtleties of human relations and
character alone.
As history shows, practical scientists and engineers are absolutely
hopeless at human analysis which in no lends itself to neo-Victorian
deterministic assumptions. With regard to this astonishing
questionnaire, any social worker or law student in training would laugh
out loud at Stanton's amateur psychology, his simplistic assumptions,
his leading questions, and his almost fascist assumptions worthy of
Condon's old East German mentality.
This is naked ufological McCarthyism. Stanton sounds like an ancient
Pavlovian behaviourist gone mad. How dare he have the cheek to ask about
Wolf's homosexuality, his possible marriage, and about any children he
may or may not have? We know what he wants to do - he wants to show that
Wolf was a failure, a disreputable scoundrel and a dropout. Whilst this
may or may not be true, if Stanton had the slightest knowledge of the
history of science and mathematics he would know that such a description
as this fits many significant scientists and mathematicians of the past
800 years.
What would he make for example of Newton's pathological preoccupation
with alchemy? What would he make of Kepler's fantasy-prone intellect, or
Turing's almost insane preoccupation with homosexuality?
Who does Stanton think he is?
Many leading intellects have been in and out of mental homes, and
countless scientific and technological advances have emerged from
fantasy processes implicit in the very nature of human consciousness.
According to Kevin Randles' book on MJ-12. Our moral commissar Stanton
has more devastating accusations around his head than poor Wolf ever
had. As regards the statement that "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his
entire life" there are many people (including Kevin Randle) who regard
the entire MJ12 business as a complete fabrication from beginning to
end.
If he is going to continue his pathetic "research" into the human
condition, I advise him to go to any local court first thing on a Monday
morning and he will see his beloved facts and fictions change place so
rapidly he will become quite dizzy. Such a court is not a place for
scientists who want to test and judge humanity in terms of
circuit-probes. In vein would Stanton like the universe to stand still
whilst it is being measured, just like the engineer he was trained as
originally.
I would advise Stanton to stick to what he knows and is good at. He
should leave human relations alone because its software is quite beyond
him and the rest of the rationalist/behaviourists that he represents. As
Weizenbaum observes in Computer Power and Human Reason, in human nature
there are far too many anomalies for any hard-wired approach.
Consciousness (and hence behaviour) involves concepts of language and
information that Commissar Stanton knows nothing about.
Colin Bennett
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
During late January 2004, UFO researcher and nuclear physicist Stan
Friedman mailed off a 1-page, 16-item questionnaire (prepared 1-26-04)
to Ron Kruvant, brother of the late "Dr" Michael Wolf Kruvant, about his
late brother. His brother dutifully completed the questionnaire on
2-4-04.
Stan received the questionnaire back in the SASE he had provided on
2-12-04 and then provided me a copy which he mailed to me from the
Houlton, ME post office on 2-14-04. Stan has signed off (see attached)
on my posting the stinging results of that very revealing questionnaire.
Without further ado, here is the questionnaire reproduced VERBATIM with
NO alterations and/or editorial comments:
----------------------------------------
QUESTIONNAIRE Re: MICHAEL WOLF KRUVANT, January 26, 2004, prepared by
Stanton T Friedman (Please answer to the best of your knowledge):
1. Was Michael Wolf Kruvant your brother?
YES.
2) How much younger are you than Michael?
TWO YEARS.
3) Were you in contact with Michael during most of his life?
YES.
4) Did Michael flunk out of Upsala College?
YES.
5) Did Michael ever receive a diploma from ANY college or university?
NO.
6) Did Michael ever serve in the military?
NO.
7) Did Michael ever work for the U.S. government?
NO.
8) Did Michael ever have a security clearance?
NO.
9) Was Michael ever married?
NEVER.
10) Did Michael ever father a child?
NEVER.
11) Was Michael a homosexual?
YES.
12) Did Michael ever have a major full-time job for more than a week
making more than $8,000/year?
HE WORKED A TOTAL OF TWO (2) DAYS IN HIS LIFETIME.
13) Did Michael ever spend time in various mental hospitals?
YES, SEVERAL.
14) Did you inform Dr Richard Boylan of the answers to most of the above
questions?
YES, AND BOYLAN SAID I WAS LYING.
15) Was Michael's only income in the last years of his life from Social
Security and your mother's payment of $300/month to help him out?
YES.
16) Do you know of ANY meetings between Michael and U.S presidents?
NO.
OTHER COMMENTS: "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his ENTIRE life. I
watched his life destroyed by FEAR, parental abuse -- both
psychologically and physically -- and through the use of alcohol and
drugs. He became incapable of human emotion."
Signature: Ron Kruvant (signed) 2/4/04
ADDENDUM: "He was intelligent and at an early age, he became adept at
LYING. This continued THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE. He was subject to
schizophrenia and delusions of GRANDEUR."
– Ron Kruvant
------------------------------------------
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net (Jack Sarfatti) Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2004,
10:34am To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
Subject: "THE BOY(LAN) WHO CRIED WOLF!"
On Feb 20, 2004, at 8:00 AM,
Victor Martinez wrote:
Hey DOC:
Q: Is the attached e-mail from Boylan 'cargo cult' pseudo-science in
your opinion?
A: Hard to say since I was one of them in Walter Breen's group in the
early to mid-50's. I mean we were weird precocious kids whether from ETs
who knows?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.pdf
The phone call happened, but it could have been faked to get us to think
we were contacted by ETs. BTW I did not know Breen until months after
the call(s).
I no longer hold court in Caffe Trieste – not for 10 years now. I am
too busy obviously. Whatever really happened it's strange. Perhaps
stranger than we CAN imagine.
The point is that BOYLAN has so BESMIRCHED HIMSELF with the MICHAEL WOLF
FAIRY TALE and his DISTORTIONS OF MY STORY that he is literally,... The
Boylan who cried Wolf! :-)
The next time you "hold court" at the Caffe Trieste aka "Sarfatti's
Cave," issue a "court" ruling and stream it to all of us!
www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id773/pg1/
.
Colin & Victor please pass on my comments to the lists at large if you like. :-)
Oh what a joy to wake up to Colin's delicious prose in the morning to replace my morning bun that I ate last night - naughty boy. :-)
Irrespective of the issues I enjoy the aesthetics. :-)
I really must get out into the sunny streets to vote to vote to vote - it's Super Tuesday here in Toon Town, Baghdad by the Bay! Will be boarding for London Town in a few days to see you. I think I should include this repartee in Super Cosmos http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ like the comedic scenes with Falstaff & Co in Henry IV & V.
On Mar 2, 2004, at 2:44 AM, Colin Bennett wrote:
"Sir,
You have a habit Stanton, of knocking corpses round the ring and calling
yourself a champion. Well in name of the poor devils of the world who can'’t
cope with you, I thought I would step through the ropes and make your day,
sir.
Amazing. You sound as if you have written this “reply” in a tantrum. Most of
your amusing complaints about the CIA, autographs, black budgets etc.,
hardly apply to the matter in hand at all. Frankly, you sound confused and
tired, and somewhat unfocused. Do you think that anyone is impressed with
this old soldier length-of service cant? 37 years of lecturing, in 50 states
9 provinces, and 13 other countries sounds like self-pity and a plea for
brownie points to me. As for your claim to have taken part in the building
of a nuclear power station I think as a claim for fame, it rivals that of
Ted Bundy, and should be kept a family secret, locked in the west wing.
You really have no need to feel so vulnerable, self-protective, and paranoid
about criticism. Most (including myself) regard you as one of our great
ufologists, even if you are somewhat out of date. But all this nervous
self-justification stuff about your TV appearances (the ultimate in naff
non-impressive things!) and all the huff-puffing about the important
meetings you attend does you no good at all. For a moment, in all this
wallowing self-pity, I expected a mention of the Christmas cheques you sent
to the local orphanage and dog'’s home.
You sound sir, like a petulant teenager pop star under pressure, you really
do. I expect soon the scream that you want to be left alone. If I hear you
petulant poor thing throwing punches in a nightclub I will know the End is
Nigh. You poor tired star, my heart bleeds for you. I do hope that the last
flash bulbs won’t catch you in a forecourt asking for a celeb discount for a
cut-price Ford."
What's that about a "celeb discount"? :-)
"I don’t want to be too hard on you Stanton but your Wolf questionnaire is
highly dangerous, and let’s hope the likes of it don'’t breed. If you had
lived in Germany in 1939, and you were asked if you were homosexual, you
would know what question was coming next.
No one quarrels with your unique ability to obtain information of all kinds,
such as the material you include here about Wolf. But sheer quantity is
secondary. What you do not do is fit all this info into the wider
theoretical constructions of the psycho-cultural context. If you do not do
this, you will be left, like most “factual researchers” with whole bags of
nuts and bolts not knowing who or what agendas (or conspiracies)
manufactured them. Go from nuts and bolts to something far more important
and more complicated, and this can cause disastrous blindness as regards the
wider schemes that the “fact” was generated by in the first place. A “fact”
is after all a very potent and complex symbol. A “fact” has roots like a
plant consisting of all kinds of deep structure. An array of facts can be
analysed like a play or a poem. A fact is a text. It can be deconstructed,
and its multifaceted history traced and demonstrated in terms of language,
concept, and function.
But I will leave you now, because we are past Mr Maccabee’'s bedtime a long
time ago, and he is dying to be out of the way of all this pseud and phoney
and lengthy and difficult nonsense spouted by Colin Bennett. (there Bruce, I
have just written it for you, don'’t bother repeating it). The trouble is Mr.
Maccabee and Mr. Friedman, as horse-generals of old ufology, there are
concepts swirling like a tide around Old East Germany (the common name for
the UFO Updates List) that will turn it into an area of the rusted factories
of a ufological age past.
Finally sir, you mention your 9000-word review of Kevin Randle'’s book Case
MJ12. Like Randle’'s book, this is an excellent piece of work, but it is not
in question here.
It is in the situationist “holistic” view of human beings where you fall
short. You simply cannot deal with people good or bad like wriggling worms
on the end of a stick. Human beings are vast symbiotic agendas programming
and reprogramming constantly. You should really absorb more art and
literature to convince you that people are much more than the sum of their
parts. Being also moral creatures of sort or another, this often makes
things extremely difficult as far as analysing finite actions, beliefs and
motivations are concerned.
The difference between fact and fiction is nowhere near as simple to define
as you make it out to be. You should really read more Borges than Agatha
Christy.
Our emails crossed, and so I include here the extended reply that I sent to
the Jack Sarfatti Science Group, which you may or may not have seen. I am
preparing a MUFON paper on this “Kill the Deviant” matter (stop him! stop
him! I hear the horse-generals cry)."
SARFATTI wrote:
While I do not want to argue the humanistic points you raise, the
simple fact is that I have not seen one iota, one shred of evidence,
that Wolf Kruvant had even one interesting original idea about anything
of importance in general and about UFOs in particular. I find it
exceedingly odd that none of his champions are able to produce any
evidence other than gossip and hearsay of the most trite kind that is
rampant in urban legends on the WEB. So why should I be interested in Michael
Wolf-Kruvant anymore than in, say, Louis Dinardi, a colorful drunk with a trust fund who
chooses to live homeless on the Streets of North Beach? At least local North Beach Citizen Phil
Kaufman is thinking of making a film about Louis. Perhaps Wolf's life
has interest as drama, but I see no scientific interest at all. If you
have any relevant evidence please share it.
BENNETT:
"Thank you sir, I now share my relevant evidence with thee.
The intrinsic claims of Wolf may or may not be of scientific interest. But
that he made such claims at all IS of scientific interest. The psychology
behind the deviant claim lends itself certainly to scientific evaluation,
and does the anger of Stanton Friedman towards people who do not behave
themselves."
Yes, OK as a matter of social psychology and the mass hysteria of crowds OK.
Look at all the millions and millions of people who believe in UFOs and the
scores who have suicided over bogus beliefs. Look at Captain Collins'
True Believer irrationality over Puthoff's bogus model for UFO metric engineering.
Is there no physical reality to the flying saucer? Do they have as much reality as
WMD in Iraq since 1994? Do they have as much reality as the paranormal? And to
really get into over-hyped idle speculations, do they have as much reality as M-Theory's
"vibrating strings of pure energy" as told on Brian Greene's NOVA "Elegant Universe" and
in his two new books? When fancy is paraded as fact on National Public Television, are
we not at The End Time, the Final Days in The Decline and Fall of The Empire?
Did it not all start with that Copenhagen Fairy Tale from that Great Dane, no not Hans Christian Anderson,
but Niels Bohr? Did I not help by catalyzing Capra's "Tao of Physics" at Esalen with Werner Erhard's money at a crucial moment, and by writing much of Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters"? Mea Culpa. Shall I not fiddle as Rome burns?
"Certainly deviant claims within the scientific community have significance
in that they show exclusivity sets that form the boundary of the general
paradigm. Such claims gives us the morphology of the no-go areas, and are
pointers not so much to truth and falsehood, but to what, within the cut-off
boundaries of cultural group is allowed or not allowed. From the Fortean
point of view, the claims of Wolf and many like him are part of cultural
wonder-management rather than being “wrong” answers in the old deterministic
mechanical sense.
In a Fortean sense again any culture (and science is a culture despite the
protests of scientists) must automatically manufacture the false claim as a
functional entity within the culture set. Both myself in Politics of the
Imagination and George Hansen in The Trickster and the Paranormal have
argued that the deviant (Fort’s daemon, Hanson’s Trickster) and his implicit
denials must appear at some time within this set, meme, gene, quanta, or
whatever is the current fashionable metaphor for information transfer within
the cultural cell as it develops in cultural time. The functional of the
anomaly is the same as it always was: its “function” is to help the gaming
agendas of a particular set of cultural affairs get into the next stage of
development.
In this process, the deviant is the vital covert subtext of all cultural
life. Entertainment alone, for example (absolutely vital for mental health)
consists of almost nothing but deviants of one sort or another. The average
straight persona (bless him!) is of almost no psychological interest. Almost
without exception, the great geniuses of history were Michael Wolf Kruvant
in embryo. Destroy the likes of him and you destroy the rain forest of the
mind in the sense that possibilities are destroyed rather than facts or
fictions.
We don'’t know what the universe is about, but we do know that it isn'’t about
good behaviour, if only because the well-balanced conformist gets nowhere.
The deviant has that higher disturbance called the imagination. That means
that he is involved in play and deceptive experimentation of all kinds. The
psychological tricks practiced to form the Calculus (particularly with
regard to dealing with the idea of infinity and limits) were downright
criminal as far as respectable rational standards of Newton'’s time were
concerned, most of Newton'’s inspirations being rooted in alchemical
mysticism. To say that such things are right or wrong or false or true is a
thought not worthy of Stanton’'s fine brain. He is simply not catching
complexity theory here, but then ufology at the moment is in intellectual
stasis. Trying to change the 1914 pre-Planck horse generals of mainstream
ufology into quantum tankmen is not going to be easy!"
I certainly agree with this. The only issue here was whether or not Wolf was an interesting deviant?
After all, it takes one to know one. So far I do not find him interesting, I mean in terms of any real legacy of ideas.
With regard to how established cultures treat deviants, at the moment I am
preparing a study of C.G. Barkla for Philosophy Now magazine, and will make
it available to the Sarfatti Science Group by attached document when it is
ready. Barkla was a physicist and a Nobel Prize winner. After studying under
J.J. Thomson and Oliver Lodge, he became a leading expert on X-ray
scattering and polarisation. Briefly, he showed that the atom was composed
of concentric electron shells around the central high density nucleus.
However, he stuck to using multi-chromatic beams of X rays for scattering
and absorption experiments at a time when people such as Bragg and his son
were using monochromatic X ray beams.
Bragg'’s much more effective method was ignored by Barkla, who was pushed out
slowly on a limb of non-acceptance. But such was Barkla's’ prestige and
power that he was kept on in his position for many years, though his studies
were regarded as complete relics. He continued to supervise groups of PhDs,
who for years were obliged to go through the motions concerning a theory
that most knew was regarded as completely false."
Sounds like M Theory which may not be even wrong? Too soon to tell.
"Yours in hope and anticipation!
Colin (Bad Man) Bennett"
Note CAPS below put in by Martinez not by me.
-------Original Message-------
From: Victor Martinez
Date: 01 March 2004 21:44:45
To: sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk
Subject: Stan Friedman responds to Colin Bennett's defense of Michael Wolf
www.stantonfriedman.com
www.geocities.com/dreamingbones/wolf.html
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
------------------------------------------
COLIN BENNETT:
Dedicated researcher, author and personal friend Stan Friedman has been
indisposed recently having worked a number of TV shows in Chicago and
was UNable to respond to your criticism of his fine work on the
seemingly, never-ending Michael Wolf saga,.... er,.... uh fairy tale.
On his behalf, he asked me to forward his personal message from him to
you. Before reading his response, a few things worth noting:
1) Irrespective of the "offensive questions" Stan asked on his 16-item
questionnaire, I thought Dr Jack Sarfatti made one of the strongest
arguments in this powerful stated semantic prose:
"It's real simple,... THE HARD CURRENCY IS IDEAS. Show us ONE of his
original ideas. I have NOT even seen ONE. [While] I agree absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence, but [it is] Boylan who makes these
wild claims, has NOT produced [even] ONE IOTA of REAL EVIDENCE,
[instead] only easily fabricated trivia with no intellectual value to my
mind." (2-28-04, 3:55 p.m.)
"What is of interest is whether he was a serious scientific player in
UFOs as Boylan represents him to be. There is NO evidence in ANY
writings by Wolf that he was any more than say Bob Lazar whose
information is worthless to me. (2-29-04, 12:26 p.m.)
"Irrespective of the issues of psychology and ethics that Colin
eloquently raises below, I have NOT seen,... any coherent and cogent
ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION TO PHYSICS, and/or culture that the
Wolf in question below has made. I am NOT saying he did not make any,
only that I have NOT seen it."
(2-28-04, 8:21 a.m.)
NOTE: Dr Sarfatti, made an important caveat here: He's NOT denying
that Wolf made any contributions in physics, only that he has NOT seen
any evidence of it.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." – the late Dr
Carl Sagan
2) One would think that with two (2) PhDs in theoretical physics from
MIT and Cal Tech that SOMEthing would have been left behind for us to
examine and evaluate. Nothing....
3) By his continued stubborn insistence that Wolf was Chairman of
MJ-12's SSG team, Richard Boylan has seriously impugned and cast the
entire UFO scene in an UNfavorable public light. The logical extension
of his support of the Wolf fairy tale extends to larger matters: If
Boylan is wrong about Wolf -- and clearly, he is -- then WHAT ELSE is he
wrong about, too?!
I agree w/ Dr Bruce Maccabee here when he says that outrageous claims
like this only serve to make all of us look bad in the public arena and
in fact hurts the movement for disclosure of government-held UFO
information.
4) Boylan has also oft times repeated one of Wolf's claims that Dr Jack
Sarfatti worked on the reverse engineering of a recovered alien craft in
1973 thereby further eroding the public's confidence in the UFO research
field.
Here is what Dr Jack Sarfatti has said about that claim:
"Boylan has seriously LIED about me and has NOT changed his tune [even]
after I pointed out the ERROR in his story about me,...It's OK to make
an HONEST ERROR, but to PERSIST it it is NOT OK."
(2-28-04), 3:55 p.m.)
NOTE: Dr Sarfatti wishes it were TRUE, but it ISN'T.
5) Here is what Dr Hal Puthoff had to say in a private e-mail to me
about this very subject:
"He [Boylan] supports a number of questionable reports,... Also claims
that physicist Jack Sarfatti was involved in the 'back-reverse
engineering program,' which Jack claims not to be the case, and I
BELIEVE Jack.
Thanks, Hal"
(10-27-03, 12:12 a.m.)
6) Colin, it's important to keep in mind that a lot of good, solid
research has been done on Wolf, most of which is just too lengthy to
list here and again. Besides claiming associations with Drs Sarfatti
and Puthoff -- both of whom deny working or meeting him -- he also
claimed association with Harvard University professor Dr Jessica Stern,
author of the bestseller, TERROR IN THE NAME OF GOD.
I personally called AND e-mailed her [ jessica_stern@harvard.edu ]
about Michael Wolf and whether she in fact had ever worked w/ him in the
Clinton White House from 1992-2000 and she had her personal assistant
Michael Johnson both CALL and e-mail me back firmly stating "NO" that
she had never worked with him at the NSC nor had ever even heard of him!
7) I was criticized by one of Wolf's few supporters for being an
"armchair researcher," so I drove out to Cal Tech (15 min from my home)
where Wolf claimed to have obtained one of his two PhDs in physics. I
made a extensive, solid search leaving no stone unturned to find
evidence that he attended there. NO such luck.
This brings to mind an e-mail John Alexander had written regarding this
aspect of the Wolf saga stating:
"Well, I guess they [the 'Cabal'] recalled all the yearbooks and shot
all the students and teachers" suggesting this is why I couldn't find --
nor anyone else -- any evidence of Wolf's attendance and degrees
obtained at ANY schools.
John Alexander continues:
"Source credibility is important. In this case, Boylan, et al, place
great emphasis on the credibility of Wolf's background to support his
claims. Therefore Stan has done us an EXCELLENT SERVICE by putting the
issue to bed once and for all. Remember, Boylan, not Friedman, raised
the issue to begin with."
(2-28-04, 12:02 p.m.)
8) Even one of Stan's detractors, researcher-author Kal K Korff, who
went head-to-head with him over the Roswell incident, had this to say
about Stan's work:
"Concerning Friedman, well, he and I go way back to when he was one of
my mentors. I think some of Stan's BEST WORK on Roswell has been via
his private papers, and not his book."
(2-22-04, 6:26 p.m.)
9) A few people found some of the questions Stan asked offensive, e.g.,
Wolf's sexual orientation, but Stan asked those within the scope,
context and breadth of his investigation. If Wolf lied about that, what
else did he lie about?
Wolf claimed he had a wife, a daughter and that they were killed in a
plane crash (?), but again, the "secret government's Cabal" cleaned up
the accident with no evidence left behind, newspaper articles/media
reports of the crash and death certificates,... all cleaned up by the
"Cabal!"
The irony is, of course, is that the Cabal was sloppy because they
forgot to "clean up" Wolf's DEATH CERTIFICATE which Stan obtained a copy
of! Oops! The "Cabal" screwed up!
And now, without further ado here is Stan Friedman's response to you,
Colin.
--------------------------------------------
From: fsphys@rogers.com (Stanton Friedman)
Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004, 8:46 p.m.
To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez) Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN
BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF
Vic: Too many recipients... can you help me distribute this? – Stan
Friedman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanton Friedman"
To: "Colin Bennett"
February 29, 2004 5:29 PM
Subject: MY RESPONSE TO COLIN BENNETT's AD HOMINEM ATTACK ON ME
REGARDING MICHAEL WOLF
COLIN:
Frankly I am at a loss to understand your comments. I have been self
employed for 34 years except for 5 months spent working on commissioning
The Pt. Lepreau Nuclear Generating station. Corporate? Who said
anything about deviant besides you? I certainly don't consider anybody
as deviant because he or she is homosexual.
Michael Wolf Kruvant was a mentally ill, quite bright person, who
CREATED A TOTAL FAIRY TALE ABOUT HIMSELF, his background and his
activities. I had many conversations with him a decade ago.
For reasons known only to themselves, he was believed by Richard Boylan
and Paola Harris.
He claimed six (6) degrees including an MD, JD, 2 PhDs in Theoretical
Physics and 2 others. My research showed he had NONE. He FLUNKED OUT of
Upsala. He was supposedly an AF Colonel and a pilot. The Military
personnel records Office in St. Louis has NO RECORD of him. He claimed
he was Chairman Emeritus of an advanced research institute employing 75+
people....
It existed ONLY in his head. Dunn and Bradstreet couldn't find it nor
could any of the state offices I called. He claimed that he had been
married and his wife and son were tragically killed. NO evidence for
the marriage, or the child, or the deaths. His foundation in
Indianapolis also had NO SUCH EVIDENCE.
Yes, I am concerned about hardware, but I have also dealt with thousands
and thousands of people over the past 37 years of lecturing in 50
states, 9 provinces, and 13 other countries. I have answered more than
35,000 questions. I am the one who coined the phrase "gray basket" to
indicate that I wait to make judgments about a whole host of questions,
such as the legitimacy of the claims of Lazar and Kruvant, or of the Tim
Cooper MJ-12 documents, until I DO MY HOMEWORK.
With that said, would you and others do yours?! Yes, Richard Boylan,
Paola Harris, and right wing zealot Milton William Cooper have made such
ridiculous charges about me as that I am a:
– CIA disinformation agent
– that I worked on Black Budget Programs
– that I charge for all autographs.
THESE ARE FALSE. If you or they don't believe me, provide some EVIDENCE
THEY ARE TRUE, or SHUT [the "F"] UP.
The questions I asked Ron Kruvant dealt directly with the false claims
made by and about his brother; they weren't pulled out of the air. In
addtion, I managed to obtain a copy of his death certificate from the
State of Connecticut and spoke with the funeral director responsible for
his cremation. Michael was very poor, had arranged the details in
advance during a home visit by the director. Michael had made a down
payment, but wasn't able to cover the rest of the fees in the year prior
to his death.
IF he had HELD all the EXALTED POSITIONS HE CLAIMED, he would have been
able to afford to both LIVE AND DIE BETTER.
I know you don't approve of the word FACT, but isn't it about time you
paid some attention to the FACTS?!
Regarding Kevin Randle's book "Case MJ-12," may I suggest that anybody
who is interested in the facts please read my 9,000 word review of the
book at my Web site:
www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfpage.html
Even Kevin has finally admitted that Frank Kaufmann was a fraud. New
evidence from the Eisenhower Library shows that his strongest argument..
Hillenkoetter referring to himself as Admiral though he was only a rear
admiral, crashes once one notes that Brigadier General Andrew Goodpaster
refers to himself as General Goodpaster when listing attendees at White
House meetings for which he wrote memos and which he signed as Brigadier
General.. He used generic ranks for all the military attendees including
himself. Copies are available.
Sworn and subscribed on this day of:
February 29, 2004,
STANTON T. FRIEDMAN
-------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Colin Bennett"
To:
Cc:
Hello Savants all:
I protest at Stanton's interrogation (see below).Here is yet another
Maoist interrogation of almost Marxist-Leninist severity from a mechanic
of the nut and bolts brigade whose HQ appears to be the UFO Updates List
and its steam-age engineers. Hard "objective" intellectual Stalinists
such as Stanton (and I include in this category Hall, Aldrich and
Maccabee) should really leave the subtleties of human relations and
character alone.
As history shows, practical scientists and engineers are absolutely
hopeless at human analysis which in no lends itself to neo-Victorian
deterministic assumptions. With regard to this astonishing
questionnaire, any social worker or law student in training would laugh
out loud at Stanton's amateur psychology, his simplistic assumptions,
his leading questions, and his almost fascist assumptions worthy of
Condon's old East German mentality.
This is naked ufological McCarthyism. Stanton sounds like an ancient
Pavlovian behaviourist gone mad. How dare he have the cheek to ask about
Wolf's homosexuality, his possible marriage, and about any children he
may or may not have? We know what he wants to do - he wants to show that
Wolf was a failure, a disreputable scoundrel and a dropout. Whilst this
may or may not be true, if Stanton had the slightest knowledge of the
history of science and mathematics he would know that such a description
as this fits many significant scientists and mathematicians of the past
800 years.
What would he make for example of Newton's pathological preoccupation
with alchemy? What would he make of Kepler's fantasy-prone intellect, or
Turing's almost insane preoccupation with homosexuality?
Who does Stanton think he is?
Many leading intellects have been in and out of mental homes, and
countless scientific and technological advances have emerged from
fantasy processes implicit in the very nature of human consciousness.
According to Kevin Randles' book on MJ-12. Our moral commissar Stanton
has more devastating accusations around his head than poor Wolf ever
had. As regards the statement that "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his
entire life" there are many people (including Kevin Randle) who regard
the entire MJ12 business as a complete fabrication from beginning to
end.
If he is going to continue his pathetic "research" into the human
condition, I advise him to go to any local court first thing on a Monday
morning and he will see his beloved facts and fictions change place so
rapidly he will become quite dizzy. Such a court is not a place for
scientists who want to test and judge humanity in terms of
circuit-probes. In vein would Stanton like the universe to stand still
whilst it is being measured, just like the engineer he was trained as
originally.
I would advise Stanton to stick to what he knows and is good at. He
should leave human relations alone because its software is quite beyond
him and the rest of the rationalist/behaviourists that he represents. As
Weizenbaum observes in Computer Power and Human Reason, in human nature
there are far too many anomalies for any hard-wired approach.
Consciousness (and hence behaviour) involves concepts of language and
information that Commissar Stanton knows nothing about.
Colin Bennett
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
During late January 2004, UFO researcher and nuclear physicist Stan
Friedman mailed off a 1-page, 16-item questionnaire (prepared 1-26-04)
to Ron Kruvant, brother of the late "Dr" Michael Wolf Kruvant, about his
late brother. His brother dutifully completed the questionnaire on
2-4-04.
Stan received the questionnaire back in the SASE he had provided on
2-12-04 and then provided me a copy which he mailed to me from the
Houlton, ME post office on 2-14-04. Stan has signed off (see attached)
on my posting the stinging results of that very revealing questionnaire.
Without further ado, here is the questionnaire reproduced VERBATIM with
NO alterations and/or editorial comments:
----------------------------------------
QUESTIONNAIRE Re: MICHAEL WOLF KRUVANT, January 26, 2004, prepared by
Stanton T Friedman (Please answer to the best of your knowledge):
1. Was Michael Wolf Kruvant your brother?
YES.
2) How much younger are you than Michael?
TWO YEARS.
3) Were you in contact with Michael during most of his life?
YES.
4) Did Michael flunk out of Upsala College?
YES.
5) Did Michael ever receive a diploma from ANY college or university?
NO.
6) Did Michael ever serve in the military?
NO.
7) Did Michael ever work for the U.S. government?
NO.
8) Did Michael ever have a security clearance?
NO.
9) Was Michael ever married?
NEVER.
10) Did Michael ever father a child?
NEVER.
11) Was Michael a homosexual?
YES.
12) Did Michael ever have a major full-time job for more than a week
making more than $8,000/year?
HE WORKED A TOTAL OF TWO (2) DAYS IN HIS LIFETIME.
13) Did Michael ever spend time in various mental hospitals?
YES, SEVERAL.
14) Did you inform Dr Richard Boylan of the answers to most of the above
questions?
YES, AND BOYLAN SAID I WAS LYING.
15) Was Michael's only income in the last years of his life from Social
Security and your mother's payment of $300/month to help him out?
YES.
16) Do you know of ANY meetings between Michael and U.S presidents?
NO.
OTHER COMMENTS: "Michael had a need to FABRICATE his ENTIRE life. I
watched his life destroyed by FEAR, parental abuse -- both
psychologically and physically -- and through the use of alcohol and
drugs. He became incapable of human emotion."
Signature: Ron Kruvant (signed) 2/4/04
ADDENDUM: "He was intelligent and at an early age, he became adept at
LYING. This continued THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE. He was subject to
schizophrenia and delusions of GRANDEUR."
– Ron Kruvant
------------------------------------------
From: sarfatti@pacbell.net (Jack Sarfatti) Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2004,
10:34am To: victorgm@webtv.net (Victor Martinez)
Subject: "THE BOY(LAN) WHO CRIED WOLF!"
On Feb 20, 2004, at 8:00 AM,
Victor Martinez wrote:
Hey DOC:
Q: Is the attached e-mail from Boylan 'cargo cult' pseudo-science in
your opinion?
A: Hard to say since I was one of them in Walter Breen's group in the
early to mid-50's. I mean we were weird precocious kids whether from ETs
who knows?
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.pdf
The phone call happened, but it could have been faked to get us to think
we were contacted by ETs. BTW I did not know Breen until months after
the call(s).
I no longer hold court in Caffe Trieste – not for 10 years now. I am
too busy obviously. Whatever really happened it's strange. Perhaps
stranger than we CAN imagine.
The point is that BOYLAN has so BESMIRCHED HIMSELF with the MICHAEL WOLF
FAIRY TALE and his DISTORTIONS OF MY STORY that he is literally,... The
Boylan who cried Wolf! :-)
The next time you "hold court" at the Caffe Trieste aka "Sarfatti's
Cave," issue a "court" ruling and stream it to all of us!
www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id773/pg1/
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
