Monday, May 31, 2004

Berkant send to Greenglow, thanks.

Professor Kleinert is also a leading expert on general relativity and torsion fields at the Free University in Berlin. He worked with Feynman at Cal Tech,
On May 31, 2004, at 3:43 AM, Hagen Kleinert wrote:

Thanks for your mail Jack!
Have a look also at

H. Kleinert and J. Zaanen

World Nematic Crystal Model of Gravity
Explaining the Absence of Torsion
http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/346
FU-Berlin preprint 2003
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0307033

On May 31, 2004, at 3:38 AM, Alexander Konkretny wrote:

I guess what Gennady is saying is that Hammond does not make a
distinction between the Cartan torsion and "the Ricci torsion".
Funny, but of all theoreticians I know only Gennady Shipov
makes such a distinction. I wonder if Gennady could name just one
theoretician who would know what the hell is "the Ricci torsion"
he is talking about.

I am making an annotated pdf version of Hammond's review paper and will put it on line with key parts highlighted in yellow and pop-up annotations, so everyone can see for themselves. Hammond has a nice concise description of the essence of Gennady's particular version of torsion fields in Section 4 "Teleparallelism" eqs. 185-190.

"Teleparallelism" is a kind of absolute holonomy or integrability, i.e. path independence in parallel transport between two events (state functions - reversible process of constant entropy in the Catheodory (spelling?) formal thermodynamics analogy, e.g. R. Kiehn). This is like elementary Euclidean geometry. Of course the connection field is more than the symmetric Levi-Civita one from 1916 GR. The generalized curvature is zero, but this curvature is the Einstein curvature + torsion field contribution.

My theory of exotic vacuum from zero point energy has an equation

Guv(Einstein) + /\zpfguv(Einstein) = 0

which is a special case of Hammond's eq. 186. My quantum correction term /\zpfguv(Einstein) is independent of Hammond's (Shipov's?) classical torsion term tuv(torsion) spelled out in eq. (187). Therefore, in my theory with torsion, the exotic vacuum equation is

Guv(Einstein) + /\zpfguv(Einstein) + tuv(torsion) = 0

Let h = c = G = 1 for now for simplicity.

The vacuum propeller equation is simply the Einstein covariant divergence of this exotic vacuum local field equation. Metric engineering simply means shaping Guv(Einstein) on the world line of the Unconventional Flying Object (as defined by Paul Hill) from INSIDE the spacecraft using small amounts of power.

Hal Puthoff has never given a clear definition of what precisely he means by "metric engineering."

This is only possible if effective G, i.e. G* >> Newton's G on the scale of the propulsion device. Alleged observations by military intelligence sources of several nations of actual craft suggest this is true.

The Einstein covariant 4 divergences of the second and third terms in the exotic vacuum field equation are the zero point energy and the torsion field vacuum propeller terms respectively.

The /\zpfguv term includes both dark energy and dark matter as w = -1 exotic vacuum phases of negative and positive quantum pressure respectively which can, it appears, be controlled locally by a generalized Josephson effect (essence of Schauberger-Podkletnov-Ning Li effect)

/\zpf(induced) =
(volume of circulating supercurrent in a loop)^1/3(density of paired real electrons)^1/2(density of paired virtual electron-positron pairs)^1/2cos2pi[(magnetic flux trapped inside sc loop)/(magnetic flux quantum) - (mechanical circulation (vorticity) of single electron pair)/(vorticity quantum)]

This requires very delicate precise phase stability in the rotating superconductors almost impossible to achieve in the big rotating disks of Podkletnov and Ning Li which is why their effects are weak and hard to reproduce. They have the wrong idea in their heads. Modanese only had a small piece of the right idea. You have to go nano-tech! This is why the flying saucers are empty inside (Col. Phil Corso) it's all inside the thin strong smart nano-engineered skin of the alleged captured alien ET saucers that I am reverse engineering in the sense of Einstein's gedankenexperiment meditiation-visualization technique. In a sense I am remote-viewing them like any good psychic detective! :-) That is "detective" not "defective." :-)

See Berkant's latest on possible nano-tech mesh architectures for the smart skin of the zero point energy powered space-craft with zero g-force "G-Engine" (1956 George Trimble in Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point")

On May 31, 2004, at 1:00 AM, Gennady I Shipov wrote:

Hi, Jack!

I have closely studied R.Nammonda's work.
I think it is necessary to begin discussion on torsion with participation of Hammond. Once again I want to pay your attention to distinction between Cartan and Ricci torsions. Similar, that R.Hammond of this distinction does not make (see the formula (190) his article).

On May 31, 2004, at 8:11 AM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:

"Jack Sarfatti" schrieb:
Note one minor typo correction below. I would like to see entire paper
with math and pictures. You have a lot of ideas. :-)
Make sure you cite latest papers also the one with Ken Shoulders on
EVOs.

As usual in my papers.. I will quote the source and all relevant as much as possible.

This paper is for the...

It is not for ... dealing with warp drives. I think even your 1999 Heaviside force ideas are superior to what we have seen up-to-date from other sources which are quoted in the attached AIAA paper by Tony Robertson from 2001. Topic is "Exploration of anomalous gravity effects by magnetized high-Tx superconducting oxides.

You need to talk to James Woodward and Hal Puthoff BEFORE you give your paper. Even though Woodward and Puthoff disagree with each other on many things, they agree that Corum's Heaviside idea will not work. I am not sure if any of that will work. Ask Woodward, he may have something which might work? In any case, you should make the distinction that any kind of Heaviside force propulsion is NOT a warp drive. The problem is that the two guys running this part of STAIF i.e. Tony Robertson and Paul Murad simply do not understand what the problem is. They are not asking the right questions and have entirely confused not even wrong pictures in their minds. So does Marc Millis of NASA BPP, so does the entire Greenglow group. All these people are in the Dark Ages of blood letting and exorcism - it's all Cargo Cult Physics.

"The Question is: What is the Question?" John A. Wheeler

The STAIF split into FO5 and FO7 is confused. If Tony Robertson is interested in Podkletnov/Ning Li Modanese/Schauberger type physics that is WARP DRIVE, i.e. metric engineering Guv(Einstein) to make an Alcubierre type self-controlled timelike geodesic with the smart skin.
What Tony Robertson tried to duplicate would be a warp drive not a Heaviside force effect if he succeeded. He did not succeed and cannot succeed because you cannot do it with large rotating superconducting disks- there is too much phase noise that washes out the all important cosine control term in /\zpf(induced)! Any attempt to explain Podkletnov/Ning Li as an electromagnetic stress propulsion Heaviside force is completely confused! That's the point here. Of course, there is little hope that Robertson and Murad will understand what I am saying to you here. The STAIF 2005 meeting is essentially a waste of time and money for whoever is paying for it. It's the blind leading the blind in my opinion. They are not even close to understanding the real problem.
Yes, we played with Heaviside force at ISSO 1999-2000 and wasted one million dollars on a SARA contract because of Jim Corum's prestige and because we did not understand the nature of the problem. I was as much in the dark then as Jim Corum, Hal Puthoff, Bernie Haisch, Paul Murad, Tony Robertson, Marc Millis, Modanese, et-al still are today because they have closed their minds to what I have been saying since 2002. Dark energy was not understood in 1999-2000, I did not connect the dots between the dark energy of precision cosmology
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308418
and the Bondi-Hill-Trimble acceleration field G-Engine (negative zero point quantum vacuum pressure) for UFOs until 2002!

*I would not spend any money on Heaviside force propulsion. It is the wrong way to go. Even if it worked it is too energy inefficient as a matter of principle.


You know that my vacuum propeller equation is from modified Bianchi
zero point energy identities in exotic vacuum

Guv;^v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

This is for zero torsion fields and zero non-metricity fields that
would add still more "propulsion" terms as shown by Richard Hammond in
"Torsion Gravity" Vol 65 Rep. Prog. Phys. (2002).

It's the /\zpf,^v that does the vacuum propeller trick even without
torsion fields. Remember how I relate all that to the gravimagnetic
field

3D Divergence of Gravimagnetic Field = Alcubierre's "Tr(K)" ~ /\zpf

This needs G* >>> Newton's G at the nanometer scale

where

/\zpf(induced) ~ Lp*^-2 ~ (volume of vacuum- superconductor Weak
Link)^1/3(density of superconductor electron pairs)^1/2(density of
virtual electron-positron bound state pairs)^1/2cos2pi[(magnetic flux
through sc loop node of mesh)/(quantum of magnetic flux) - (mechanical
vorticity flux)/(quantum of vorticity)]

Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3

See my very recent papers at http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
Be sure to cite that directory and also
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
for details.

Okay. I will quote relevant papers. But please note this time we are talking about Heaviside forces. So your old ISSO papers are most relevant. But the outlook chapters could talk about the next steps towards zero-g drives.

It's like you are giving a paper on horse-driven carriages as the future of transportation when there is a Toyota Prius parked outside.
The organization of STAIF 2005 split into FO5 and FO7 is totally confused conceptually if they are linking Podkletnov/Ning Li with Heaviside force propulsion.

On my 1999-2000 Heaviside force confusions listen to

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/frank/sounds/doodoo.wav

Been there, done that. Heaviside force is a false lead, wrong turn in the road, barking up the wrong tree, shining strong light in the wrong part of the dark Cave, touching the wrong part of the Elephant. As a Sufi you know what I mean, eh? ;-)

The Heaviside force is not a true vacuum propeller at all because the crew will feel g-forces! The crew is in a LNIF. Any vacuum propeller worthy of the name must keep the crew in a LIF at all times!

This is an important distinction.


This paper will also discuss the practical feasibility of a
Heaviside lifting vacuum propeller reaction force using state-of-
the-art nano-circuit design based on coaxial nanotube capacitors
wound into a torus loop with a toriodal solenoid made of
superconducting carbon nanotube quantum wires able to carry
supercurrents (Josephson currents).

I need to see a detailed picture of what you mean.

I confused here. It is real supercurrents as you already described.

Yes, there are real supercurrents in the little loops. The coherent phase of those real supercurrents must STABLY beat against the coherent phase of the virtual electron-positron vacuum currents, but there is no actual tunnelling current in this case. The real electron pairs of charge 2e do not transform into virtual electron-positron pairs of charge zero and vice versa! There is no physical quantum jumping between the superconductor nodal loop and the vacuum it occupies. Nevertheless their macro-quantum coherent phases can interfere with each other because they are collective emergent processes that do not remember their micro-dynamic origin but acquire a life of their own so to speak. P.W. Anderson talks about this as "generalized phase rigidity" in his "More is different" series of papers "A Career in Theoretical Physics" (World Scientific)

The fact that real electron pairs quantum jump across thin barriers in Josephson's junction is not essential to the more general effect of the beating of macro-coherent phases, which in that particular case is concommitant with actual quantum jumping of real pairs of charge 2e.

The wires are wrapped around the
capacitor whereby each end of the solenoid is connected to a
different plate of the coaxial carbon nano-tube metal-insulator-
semiconductor capacitor. It is envisioned that this set up can give
a rectified Heaviside force that gets larger as the LC circuit is
scaled down to nanometer size. Millions of such vacuum propeller
nano-modules could form an ultra-strong 3D-matrix smart skin carbon
nanotube composite material for use on transatmospheric flight
vehicles of future generations.

What do you mean "transatmospheric"? You mean "space"?

Transatmospheric is a term often used by aerospace engineers working on hypersonic applications. you enter space and re-enter atmosphere again.

Sort of like popping into and out of the vacuum in virtual processes.

Multi-wall carbon nanotubes consist of multiple shells, where the
tube is arranged in a coaxial fashion. Tubes with different atomic
and electronic structures can be fused together to create intra-
molecular metal-metal, metal-semiconductor, or semiconductor-
semiconductor junctions that are only a few atoms in cross section
and based entirely on carbon. Single-wall carbon nanotubes are
discussed for use as molecular superconducting quantum wires to
carry high supercurrents (Josephson currents).

Same mistake here. Of course, real currents.

Please note that we do not need any metals. You can mimic metal-like properties using carbon nanotubes. so the entire matrix could be made of carbon only.. this is what I understand.

Fine. I never said anything about that.


the question is how can we form the matrix??

In 1998, Bezryadin described an electrostatic self-assembly
technique which is used to arrange conducting nanoparticles into
long continous chains. The process takes place between a pair of
voltage biased micro-electrodes, immersed in a dielectric
(electrorheological) liquid with suspended graphitized carbon
nanoparticles.

I think this is a good approach.. yesterday I got it mind to use electrostatic (sound) waves to be used in the dielectric liquid with the suspended graphitized carbon nanoparticles..

Fine - I am not thinking on that level as yet.


the micro-electrodes could be used to generate electrostatic waves which could sound shape the nanoparticles into any shape we want.. but I am not sure how this could work..

To meet future environmental quality goals, the aeroengine company
Rolls-Royce Deutschland (RRD) recently announced the technology
tasks for air transportation in 2012 and after. The major technology
task for the time horizon after 2020 is the development of zero
emission propulsion systems: 1. Fuel cells driven conventional
mechanical propellers, 2. Fuel cells driven speculative electro-
magnetic vacuum propellers.

Probably tiny imbedded nano-fuel cells that get recharged from
/\zpf(induced).

yes, maybe. please note that carbon nanotubes are currently also discussed as hydrogen storage devices.. but I think you have something else in mind.. is it possible to generate hydrogen out of nothing?

No I don't mean that. I mean negative matter propulsion is a source of energy. Look at my EVO paper with Ken Shoulders for some possibly real data! Ken used to work with Puthoff, but obviously thinks my theory is better than Hal's to deal with the actual experimental data!


The smart skin is also a computer at three levels.

1. Classical with signal locality

2. Quantum with signal locality

3. Post-Quantum with "Conscious AI" (term I coined) with "signal
nonlocality"

Woow.

So the smart skin is a Command Control Communication zero g-force warp
drive "G-Engine" (George Trimble) with a controlled Paul Hill
"acceleration field" using Hermann Bondi's "negative matter propulsion"
with "negative matter" replaced by my original /\zpf field that depends
on vacuum coherence. Be sure to quote me exactly as these are all
original ideas of mine not found anywhere else. Also cite my book
"Super Cosmos" and Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point."

Yes. It is all your and Creon's idea and this will be mentioned.
See my paper on the smart skin.. it is nearly all a paper of quotations.:-)
so it is nearly like a paper written in a popular scientific journal.
but please do not ask me to quote book which I have not read so far...

Cite ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
Podkletnov.pdf

in http://qedcorp.com/destiny

that you have read


What's The Big Deal?


Origin of Arrow of Time simply explained below.

Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly in "The Hunt for Zero Point"
mentions a torsion field as a possible explanation for the alleged Nazi
"Time Machine" experiment of Victor Schauberger in the final days of
WWII. This is of interest because Nick also says that Schauberger's
work influenced Podkletnov's work that was apparently also tested by
Tony Robertson of NASA/STAIF?
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Hammond has a nice historical discussion of torsion fields as a gauge
force theory. The fact is that you get a theory of gravity as
space-time curvature from matter stress-energy density currents (4
translation parameters), and torsion from quantum spin and orbital
rotational currents (3 space rotations + 3 Lorentz boosts or space-time
rotations).
This excludes the 4 special conformal translations and the dilation
that will give more "force" fields in addition to curvature and
torsion. I use "force" loosely since the "geometrodynamic" view
eliminates force. We can use either depending on what level we are
talking. For example, the curvature field derives ultimately from the
Kleinert elastic world crystal lattice distortion field that comes from
the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) macro-quantum coherent hologram
phase of the virtual electron-positron PV condensate. Einstein's metric
field is the "spin 2" elastic strain tensor of the Kleinert spin 1
compensating gauge force field from locally gauging the 4 space-time
translations infinitesimally generated by the total energy-momentum
4-vector Pu. The curvature field comes from 1-dim string topological
defects in the spin 0 scalar PV condensate corresponding to
disclination defects in the world crystal lattice spacing Lp* that is a
scale-dependent variable. Although the electron is a 4-component Dirac
spinor field, the PV condensate is a spin 0 scalar macro-quantum order
parameter from a BCS pairing of two spinor fields. A spin 1 vector
order parameter is also conceivable with new classes of topological
defects. The additional torsion field corresponds to dislocation
defects in the scalar order parameter. These defects are phase singular
strings on which the order parameter vanishes like in the core of a
vortex in a superfluid. Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for
emergent smooth c-number ODLRO Einstein gravity corresponds to P.W.
Anderson's "More is different" "generalized phase rigidity" (basis for
"world hologram" of Lenny Susskind), and to inverse of Ed Witten's
string tension alpha'^-1 and the "quantum of area" Lp*^2 of
non-perturbative Loop Gravity.

G*/c^4 ~ (G*h/c^3)(hc)^-1 = Lp*^2/hc = alpha'/hc = (String Tension)^-1
= (Phase Rigidity)^-1 = (Metric Elasticity)

The world hologram entropy of a 3D region of space with bounding area A
is S/k ~ A/4Lp*^2 (k = Boltzmann's constant)

For the expanding FRW universe with scale factor R(t) (in units of
length)

Lp* = Lp^2/3R(t)^1/3

The thermodynamic entropy of the Universe is therefore,

S(Universe)/k ~ R(t)^2 /4Lp^4/3R(t)^2/3 ~ R(t)^4/3

This explains the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in
terms of the spatial expansion of the Universe and it also explains why
the entropy of the Universe is zero at the Big Bang because R(0) = 0.
What's the Big Deal?

The effects of the extra dimensions of hyperspace is to promote
Newton's G from a constant to a renormalization group flow
scale-dependent running coupling parameter G*(s) at scale s in the
sense of the continuous wavelet transform generalization of Wigner's
phase space density and Green's function propagators based on the rigid
Fourier transform.

On May 29, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

A: No. So we eliminate that.

Equation (28) p. 604 of Richard Hammond's "Torsion Gravity" Rep Prog
Phys 65 (2002) is interesting. It is, for a metric theory with zero
non-metricity tensor, but with torsion S

R = Ro + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u

Where ; is covariant derivative with respect to only the 1916
symmetric Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor
fields in the curved-torsioned space-time.

In the ordinary non-gravitating vacuum Ro i.e. the zero torsion Ricci
curvature scalar vanishes.

That leaves for the exotic vacuum field equation

Ruv + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = 0

Only if

4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = /\zpfguv

Could we interpret the torsion field as a cosmological field. This
does not seem like a good idea. Since the torsion field comes from
locally gauging the Lorentz group, it is a classical field with no
necessary connection to zero point energy density.

Saturday, May 29, 2004

What's The Big Deal?

Origin of Arrow of Time simply explained below.

Nick Cook of Jane's Defence Weekly in "The Hunt for Zero Point" mentions a torsion field as a possible explanation for the alleged Nazi "Time Machine" experiment of Victor Schauberger in the final days of WWII. This is of interest because Nick also says that Schauberger's work influenced Podkletnov's work that was apparently also tested by Tony Robertson of NASA/STAIF?
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Hammond has a nice historical discussion of torsion fields as a gauge force theory. The fact is that you get a theory of gravity as space-time curvature from matter stress-energy density currents (4 translation parameters), and torsion from quantum spin and orbital rotational currents (3 space rotations + 3 Lorentz boosts or space-time rotations).
This excludes the 4 special conformal translations and the dilation that will give more "force" fields in addition to curvature and torsion. I use "force" loosely since the "geometrodynamic" view eliminates force. We can use either depending on what level we are talking. For example, the curvature field derives ultimately from the Kleinert elastic world crystal lattice distortion field that comes from the "More is different" (P.W. Anderson) macro-quantum coherent hologram phase of the virtual electron-positron PV condensate. Einstein's metric field is the "spin 2" elastic strain tensor of the Kleinert spin 1 compensating gauge force field from locally gauging the 4 space-time translations infinitesimally generated by the total energy-momentum 4-vector Pu. The curvature field comes from 1-dim string topological defects in the spin 0 scalar PV condensate corresponding to disclination defects in the world crystal lattice spacing Lp* that is a scale-dependent variable. Although the electron is a 4-component Dirac spinor field, the PV condensate is a spin 0 scalar macro-quantum order parameter from a BCS pairing of two spinor fields. A spin 1 vector order parameter is also conceivable with new classes of topological defects. The additional torsion field corresponds to dislocation defects in the scalar order parameter. These defects are phase singular strings on which the order parameter vanishes like in the core of a vortex in a superfluid. Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity" for emergent smooth c-number ODLRO Einstein gravity corresponds to P.W. Anderson's "More is different" "generalized phase rigidity" (basis for "world hologram" of Lenny Susskind), and to inverse of Ed Witten's string tension alpha'^-1 and the "quantum of area" Lp*^2 of non-perturbative Loop Gravity.

G*/c^4 ~ (G*h/c^3)(hc)^-1 = Lp*^2/hc = alpha'/hc = (String Tension)^-1 = (Phase Rigidity)^-1 = (Metric Elasticity)

The world hologram entropy of a 3D region of space with bounding area A is S/k ~ A/4Lp*^2 (k = Boltzmann's constant)

For the expanding FRW universe with scale factor R(t) (in units of length)

Lp* = Lp^2/3R(t)^1/3

The thermodynamic entropy of the Universe is therefore,

S(Universe)/k ~ R(t)^2 /4Lp^4/3R(t)^2/3 ~ R(t)^4/3

This explains the Arrow of Time of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in terms of the spatial expansion of the Universe and it also explains why the entropy of the Universe is zero at the Big Bang because R(0) = 0. What's the Big Deal?

The effects of the extra dimensions of hyperspace is to promote Newton's G from a constant to a renormalization group flow scale-dependent running coupling parameter G*(s) at scale s in the sense of the continuous wavelet transform generalization of Wigner's phase space density and Green's function propagators based on the rigid Fourier transform.

On May 29, 2004, at 12:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

A: No. So we eliminate that.

Equation (28) p. 604 of Richard Hammond's "Torsion Gravity" Rep Prog Phys 65 (2002) is interesting. It is, for a metric theory with zero non-metricity tensor, but with torsion S

R = Ro + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u

Where ; is covariant derivative with respect to only the 1916 symmetric Levi-Civita connection for parallel transport of tensor fields in the curved-torsioned space-time.

In the ordinary non-gravitating vacuum Ro i.e. the zero torsion Ricci curvature scalar vanishes.

That leaves for the exotic vacuum field equation

Ruv + 4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = 0

Only if

4(S^u;u - S^uSu) + SuvwS^u^v^w - 2SuvwS^v^w^u = /\zpfguv

Could we interpret the torsion field as a cosmological field. This does not seem like a good idea. Since the torsion field comes from locally gauging the Lorentz group, it is a classical field with no necessary connection to zero point energy density.

Friday, May 28, 2004

On May 28, 2004, at 9:55 AM, Hermann and Christine Bondi wrote:

It would be nice to hear from you after all these years. Hermann Bondi

Dear Professor Bondi

It's too bad I missed you when I visited Trinity College last September.

I remember fondly your wonderful performances with Ivor Robinson on third floor of Newman Laboratory at Cornell with Hans Bethe, Phil Morrison, Tommy Gold, Ed Salpeter in his kakhi shorts looking like Indiana Jones, Kinoshita, Robert Wilson, Robert Woodward, Jay Orear, Ronnie Peierls et-al lecturing on general relativity. You had us all in stitches with your wonderful Lewis Carrollian/Monty Python/Gilbert & Sullivan sense of British humor, whilst teaching Einstein's ideas in a most entertaining and inspiring way. Is Ivor still among us?

One of your talks which stuck in my mind for more than 40 years now was on "negative matter" and how that could cause propulsion in combination with ordinary matter. Robert Forward of course wrote about that years later citing your work. I did not know until looking at Forward's paper that Yakov Terletskii, Stalin's nuclear spymaster, also was interested in that idea.

I am working with some far out scientists in USG Military/Intelligence circles and also with Nick Cook at Jane's Defence Weekly, Simon Daniel, a Cambridge physics grad in London, and other eccentric Brits who "go out in the noonday sun" on the idea of "dark energy," which has the properties of "negative matter" and whether or not it can be "bottled" for practical "negative matter propulsion" of "Unconventional Flying Objects."

Now I see you have signed that letter in May 22, 2004 on the alternative cosmology dating back to Tommy Gold's and Fred Hoyle's ideas. That is how I realized you were still at Cambridge. Perhaps we can discuss that next time I am in UK. I do have an idea that both dark energy and dark matter are real enough as w = -1 zero point energy density of negative and positive pressure respectively. The sign of the zero point pressure depends on something I call "vacuum coherence," that you can picture as a vacuum condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs something like a BCS superconductor inside the vacuum, which is also the inflation field. This vacuum coherence also explains why Einstein's cosmological constant /\ ~ (Hubble radius)^-2 rather than ~ (hG/c^3)^-1.

Therefore, I have natural dynamical explanations for dark energy, dark matter and the inflation field in terms of rather elementary battle-tested ideas of Einstein's 1916 version of GR, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and the spontaneous broken ground state symmetry of condensed matter physics that P.W. Anderson has generalized to "More is different" in accord with Andrei Sakharov's idea of emergent gravity.
In the Cornell tradition of more with less, string theory and loop quantum gravity do not seem to be needed. Also this new picture, in which the effective gravity coupling seems to be strong on short scales, has consequences for particle physics like the old problem of the stability of the classical electron as a spatially extended charge distribution as well as the universal slope of the Regge trajectories of the hadronic resonances. The invisible sphere of the galactic halo that prevents our solar system from escaping into outer space may be the same zero point energy density of positive pressure that prevents the charge on the electron from exploding where the electron is Wheeler's geon of "Mass without mass" and "Charge without charge" but now the effective G* >> G on the scale of a fermi.

I will be in London at Thistle Hotel 104 Bayswater Rd July 13-17 and then at Herbert Park Hotel in Dublin July 18 - 25 for GR 17? Will you be at GR 17? I will also come back to London later in the fall of 2004.

Live Long and Prosper :-)

One of your admirers

Jack Sarfatti

Thursday, May 27, 2004

My rebuttal to New Scientist May 22, 2004 Open Letter: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

and Commentary on:
The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity
Authors: Miguel Alcubierre
Comments: 10 pages, 1 figure. Not previously available in gr-qc
Journal-ref: Class.Quant.Grav. 11 (1994) L73-L77

It is shown how, within the framework of general relativity and without the introduction of wormholes, it is possible to modify a spacetime in a way that allows a spaceship to travel with an arbitrarily large speed. By a purely local expansion of spacetime behind the spaceship and an opposite contraction in front of it, motion faster than the speed of light as seen by observers outside the disturbed region is possible. The resulting distortion is reminiscent of the ``warp drive'' of science fiction. However, just as it happens with wormholes, exotic matter will be needed in order to generate a distortion of spacetime like the one discussed here.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013

My comments on this paper:

The metric squared interval in Einstein's GR os

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

Use the ADM 3+1 canonical decomposition

ds^2 = -(a^2 - b^2)(cdt)^2 + 2bidx^i(cdt) + gijdx^idx^j

u,v = 0,1,2,3
i,j = 1,2,3

a = lapse function

b = (b1,b2,b3) = shift 3-vector = gravimagnetic field of frame drag Lense-Thirring effect to be tested in EINSTEIN NASA space probe.
b also plays key role in Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" superconducting transducer to convert far field gravity waves to electro-magnetic waves and vice versa via the b.A coupling Hamiltonian, where A is the EM vector potential. We need the near-field "induction" case for metric engineering the fabric of space-time (AKA the geometrodynamic field).

Note that Hal Puthoff's PV challenge to Einstein's GR is not able to describe the gravimagnetic field at all so far. We will see that the gravimagnetic field is essential to practical metric engineering on small scales where G* >> G. Therefore, PV as formulated up to present time in publications by Puthoff is irrelevant to the metric engineering of weightless warp drive and traversable wormhole star gate time travel portals.

Alcubierre's lapse function a = 1, which is a sufficient condition for weightlessness, i.e. the timelike world lines normal to the spacelike slices of space-time in the ADM 3+1 decomposition are free float geodesics for the Eulerian observers inside the "flying saucer" who are able to shape their own flight geodesic - to steer it at will including hair-pin 180 degree turns with zero g-force inside the saucer because the spacelike 3D metric gij inside the saucer is flat Euclidean.

Since the interior of the alleged alien ET flying saucer is spatially flat all of the curvature is extrinsic given by the second fundamental form

Kij = (1/2)(bj,i + bi,j)

where ,j denotes ordinary partial derivative in the usual notation.

A key parameter is the expansion of volume elements for the Eulerian observers inside the flat 3D geometry of the saucer's interior, which turns out to be simply the negative divergence of the gravimagnetic field! This is what is plotted in Alcubierre's picture in his paper.

Therefore, in terms of my theory of metric engineering controlled saucer flight

Div.b ~ /\zpf

That is, the exotic vacuum zero point energy density is a source for the gravimagnetic 3-vector field of the engineered warp drive/star gate metric field!

In the electromagnetic analogy, the zero point energy density is a gravimagnetic monopole density!

We will also need, in the special case of Alcubierre's toy model

1 - b^2 ~ /\zpf

with the critical exotic vacuum phase transition from universally repulsive dark energy density to universally attractive dark matter density at |b| = 1.

The recent letter in New Scientist (May 22, 2004) signed by 33 dissident cosmologists that

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. ... The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles."
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

is very wrong-headed in my opinion.

Note that Alcubierre's eq. (19) for Goo ~ -|/\zpf|^2 because goo ~ /\zpf and Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation is simply

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

The statements by the 33 dissident cosmologists that dark energy, dark matter and the inflation field are epicyclic fudge factors are false.

Dark energy is /\zpf > 0/

Dark matter is /\zpf < 0

The inflation field is the vacuum coherence in the large scale sense of a wavelet transform where the vacuum coherence local field is dominated by the physical vacuum ODLRO order parameter

Vacuum Coherence = <0|e+e-|0>

for a macro-quantum condensate of virtual electron-positron bound states.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/main.htm
Jack, you said
"... if you locally gauge the space-time translation
group you get Einstein's 1916 theory of General Relativity ...
... you get a torsion force field if you also
locally gauge the Lorentz group.
You get even more force fields if you locally gauge the special
conformal transformations and the dilation transformation. ...".

You also, in another message, atttached an image (attached here)
from the History of the World, Part I, quoting Moses as saying
"..these fifteen...Oy!!...these ten commandments! ...".
Was that a reference to the 15-parameter conformal group
being reduced to the 10-parameter Poincare/antideSitter group
due to the action of Earth's gravitational field ?

Tony

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

re: http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

These mesoscopic EVOs are tiny "flying saucers" with warp drive in some cases, i.e. observed anomalous self-acceleration.

A typical EVO charge cluster is 10^-4 cm across with a total charge of Ne where N ~ 10^11.

Exactly how the vacuum coherence ~ Tr(K) is tweaked is not clear yet in this phenomenon, but that it is so tweaked is the only plausible explanation for the observed facts.

One way to test this EVO hypothesis is to look for an anti-gravity blue shift of a sharp spectral line of a quantum jump in the interior of the EVO if the zero point pressure is negative or a gravity red shift if the zero point pressure is positive since the effective short-range G* >> G here.

Ken

I am adding a section:

A typical EVO has r ~ 10^-4 cm, N = 10^11. Use the hydrogen atom as the basis of comparison where r ~ 10^-8 cm and N = 1 with self-electrical force ~ 10^+16 compared to the EVO self-electrical force 10^22x10^8 = 10^30 in these relative dimensionless units. That is, the self-electrical force at the surface of the typical EVO assumed to be in a spherical thin shell is ~ 10^14 stronger than the electrical force on the atomic electron in the ground state of the hydrogen atom. Next consider a single electron as a shell of charge e at the classical electron radius 10^-13cm. The relative self-electric force is then 10^+26. Therefore, the electrical force of the typical mid-range EVO is only about 10^4 larger than that on a single electron. The effective G* induced by the zero point energy core needed to stabilize a single spatially extended electron is ~ 10^40G. That is the effective Planck length Lp* in the interior of a single electron is ~ 10^-13 cm. The effective Planck length in the interior of a typical EVO is therefore ~ 10^-11 cm ~ h/mc (a curious coincidence) since G* ~ Lp^*2. That is the “Eddington number” G*/G ~ 10^44 to stabilize the typical EVO. Note in this thin shell model the uniform zero point energy density core actually has negative pressure to give a springy positive potential self-energy that scales as r^5 whose force slope is opposite to the positive Coulomb potential self-energy that scales as 1/r.



On May 23, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:

Jack
A middle point for size is the 1 micrometer diameter EV. It has about 10^11 electrons in it. Measurements made on larger EVs are usually groups of 1 micrometer beads stuck together in various ways. It is not a good idea to give diameter measurements here. The smallest EVs I have directly measured are about 0.2 micrometers in diameter but there are no valid measurements for the number of electrons in these. From indirect observation, it appears that the cluster size extends down to single electron structures.

Ken

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Ken give me some experimental numbers for observed EVOs

i.e. size "r" of the EVO

estimated number of electron charges N


On May 23, 2004, at 7:48 AM, Ken Shoulders wrote:

Jack

I have installed my FTP software and uploaded the EVO final in PDF format. I am sure it is not perfect, but it will do for now. It is located at:

http://www.svn.net/krscfs/

Sunday, May 23, 2004

On May 23, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you say that Dark Energy can be produced

Both Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

by using a real phased-array set of current loops

Superconducting current loops, maybe they also wil bel mechanically rotating, i.e. little rotating superconducting nano washer nuts ~ 10^-7 cm or superconducting nano-spinning tops with holes in them to trap magnetic flux - an array of nano-gyros imbedded in a mesh inside covering the entire saucer smart thin material fuselage skin that is essentially empty inside - no need for large macro-engine assemblies at all! "There's plenty of room at the bottom."

to induce order in the virtual Dirac sea,

Not quite. There is lots of order there already!

/\zpf = 0 means NON-EXOTIC |VACUUM COHERENCE| = Lp*^-3/2 is already there, otherwise NO SMOOTH CURVED SPACE-TIME is possible! We want to tweak the vacuum coherence with phase modulation!

thus increasing the relative density in the Dirac sea
of the coherent condensate of bound virtual e-p pairs,

in some regions and decreasing it in other regions to get the Tr(K) field distribution needed for warp drive for example.

and
that the "... phased array creates any /\zpf(P,s) ~ Tr(K)
FIELD CONFIGURATION needed for any self-propelled UFO
creating its own local metric field guv(P,s) according
to the Einstein field equation Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0 ...".

--------------------------------------------------------

Then, the question arises,
how do you build a real phased-array set of current loops ?

That's like asking Einstein in 1905 after he first writes down

E = mc^2

for a detailed blue print of the reactor for a nuclear submarine.

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

Ask those little guys whizzing around Out There!


Do you build small loops of conventional superconductors
a la Carver Mead
or
negative permittivity structures such as those
of http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/9804195 ?

You tell me. What's the Carver Mead reference BTW.
We obviously need a Task Force to work on this problem, but DIA's "UFOGuy" is too dense to get the point it appears.

How will negative electrical permittivity help?

Main thing is to get a coherent field that will beat against the vacuum coherent field on a desired scale in a desired bandwidth set of temporal frequencies and spatial wave numbers in a given region of space at a given moment - i.e. wavelet transforms.

Do you build stiff diamondoid structures
a la Eric Drexler or the doped diamonds of http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/4/5 ?

Sounds like you are off to a good start. Send me your reports.

Do you build less-stiff organic-type structures
a la Eric Drexler ?

Do you work with crystal structures such as YBCO superconductors
a la Ning Li
or
non-YBCO materials as discussed by Ray Chaio
or
barium titanate, as to which Constantin Ivanenko said
"... importance of barium titanate - key component
of "psi-genome weapons" -
was intuitively foreseen by SF author H. Kuttner;
- who wrote in his '54 novel "Mutants" that "destiny of
Humankind is contained in the chip of barium titanate crystal". ...".
Barium titanate, like some high-temperature superconductors,
has a perovskite-type crystal structure. With some such things,
such a YBCO, you get superconductivity. With barium titanate,
you get interesting dielectric and pizeoelectric properties. ?


We need really high Tc not the puny things they have now. NO CRYOGENICS at all. It must stay SC even in high T of re-entry should that become necessary if there is some breakdown on board.

Or maybe there is some kind of pumped non-equilibrium Frohlich mode we can use and avoid superconductivity altogether?


---------------------------------------------------------

As to some geopolitical matters:

What about Lev Navrozov's statement at
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/25/210250.shtml
"... In contrast to Hitler,
who stupidly grabbed the rump of Czechoslovakia in 1939,
China has been very cautious in its territorial claims,
since the position of China now is the best for the development
of "Superweapon No. 3," such as the nano superweapon. ..."

Yeah the Chinese are likely to beat us to the punch because they are less uptight about being "respectable" immersed in the hashish dreams of M string theory, spin networks, foams and weaves - pretty math to be sure, but as physics????

These mathematicians in physicist's clothing do not have any really good physical ideas and they hope that arcane math will provide the magic they seek like Faustus in his study at Wittenburg! Pun definitely intended! :-)

A mathematical physicist is a mathematician who has given up trying to do really important mathematics.


What about Herman Wouk's new book "A Hole in Texas",
which deals with a Chinese "Boson Bomb" related to
the vacuum-mass-Higgs system?

News to me. Tell us more.
On May 23, 2004, at 7:32 AM, Ken Shoulders, the key experimental physicist who has worked with Hal Puthoff, inside USG and for Jupiter Technologies wrote:

A new paper on "Energy Conversion From The Exotic Vacuum" is available. This paper can be downloaded from:

http://www.svn.net/krscfs/

A synopsis follows:


Energy Conversion From The Exotic Vacuum

by

Ken Shoulders1 and Dr. Jack Sarfatti2

 

Abstract

A connection is shown between electron clusters, or EVs, and energy conversion processes yielding thermal energy in excess of the input energy used to form the electron cluster. This energy conversion process is traced to all known forms of cold fusion claims for over-unity or excess energy production. A theory of like charge binding as well as highly effective nuclear acceleration using the charge cluster is presented based on local gravity coupling arising from manipulation of the Exotic Vacuum.

Prologue

In earlier papers by Shoulders (3,4,5,6,7,8)
, it was shown that electrons could be clustered far beyond the densities normally allowed by classical considerations of charge repulsion. This dense state of charge clustering has produced a range of electronic devices with properties surpassing those of any other known technology. In addition, many new manifestations of anomalous energy production were shown on a laboratory scale. Although these energy gain measurements satisfied the numerous tests applied to them, they were unsupported by any theory due to their extreme divergence from classical considerations.

During the search for a highly advanced space propulsion system, Sarfatti (2) originated a theory covering many aspects of a new physics based on manipulation of the exotic vacuum that appeared relevant to the measured energy gain arising from charge clusters, or EVs, herein called Exotic Vacuum Objects, or EVOs. This writing is the first attempt to combine theory with practice on this new frontier of both physics and engineering as applied to new energy production methods. From present observations, it appears likely that future considerations will cover not only energy production processes but totally new experimental propulsion methods as well.


On May 22, 2004, at 9:51 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you say
"... There is the "equilibrium virtual pair condensate density"
defined by

(Volume Factor)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 = 1

/\ < 0 when vacuum condensate density falls below that.

/\ > 0 when vacuum condensate density rises above that.

/\ ~ "normal fluid density" i.e.
incoherent broken virtual electron-positron pairs
NOT inside
the coherent virtual condensate of bound virtual pairs! ...".

---------------

So,
do you have in the virtual Dirac electron-positron sea
two components:
1 - bound virtual pairs in a coherent condensate
and
2 - unbound incoherent broken virtual pairs

Yes, this is what I have been saying since Day 1. It's in my book "Destiny Matrix" 2002. I keep saying "two fluid model", but in this case both nonrandom coherent MACRO-quantum superfluid vacuum condensate a random incoherent micro-quantum exotic vacuum net zero point energy density are virtual off-mass shell INSIDE the vacuum.
/\zpf (P,s) the "curvature" measure of the exotic vacuum zero point energy density at a given point P at a given scale s in the sense of continuous wavelet transforms.


such that

when the coherent condensate has relatively high density
you have /\ > 0 Dark Energy
and
when the coherent condensate has relatively low density
you have /\ < 0 Dark Matter ?

Yes


Does that mean that you can produce Dark Energy
by using a real phased-array set of current loops
to
induce order in the virtual Dirac sea,
thus increasing the relative density in the Dirac sea
of the coherent condensate of bound virtual e-p pairs ?

Not only dark energy. The phased array creates any /\zpf(P,s) ~ Tr(K)
FIELD CONFIGURATION needed for any self-propelled UFO creating its own local metric field guv(P,s) according to the Einstein field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0


BTW dark energy is "springy vacuum" i.e. you need to do work to dilate a spherical lump of radius r of exotic vacuum with a uniform negative pressure interior whose self energy is

U(spherical EVO of uniform negative pressure) ~+ (/\zpf)^2r^5/G*(s)

as opposed to compressing a real gas of positive pressure with a piston in a cylinder.

This feature of positive potential energy with a positive power law is "quark confinement"! Quarks may be confined by negative pressure!
This is counter-intuitive. It is not generic but model-dependent.

A uniform distribution of electric charge needs a uniform distribution of positive pressure exotic vacuum to stabilize it.

U(uniform charge) + U(uniform positive pressure EV) ~ 0


However, counterintuitively a thin outer shell of electric charge like Ken Shoulders' EVOs needs a uniform EV core of negative pressure to stabilize it.

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/world/hwimages.htm

Saturday, May 22, 2004

On May 22, 2004, at 10:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

"Elegance is for tailors." I. Rabi - The Groucho Marx of Physics

Is the string-loop membrane bubble about to burst like Internet Vaporware stocks in 2000, like Enron, Tyco, Global Crossing, Martha Stewart, WMD in Iraq et-al? Have we all been had? Dumb dee dumb
dumb! Listen to this as you read on:
http://www.tv-timewarp.co.uk/midi_files/Dragnet.mid

My new book "Super Cosmos" explains the observational mystery of dark energy that Brian Greene's & Co M string theory and John Baez's & Co spin-weave loop theory are powerless to deal with. Both strings and loops are fine conceptual art but have little to do with the real physics problems of the day. Strings and loops are dangerously close to W. Pauli's "not even wrong." They have too many leaps of faith, too many epicyclic fudge factors that I. Rabi would say "Who ordered that?" and too little contact with the amazing observations of dark energy and dark matter as well as unsolved problems of high energy particle physics. Ed Witten has already seen the handwriting on the wall.
How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?
"I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is." Ed Witten
http://superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

"Super Cosmos" will be on Amazon et-al by Fall 2004
Free online copy 5 megs at
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc
This is 3rd book in Space-Time and Beyond Series
The 4th book "Hidden Variable" now in production.

The Russian skeptics should turn their attention to strings and loops. They can start with
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0405107
and then compare with Richard Feynman's
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

On May 21, 2004, at 10:13 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

FYI good non-technical story reviews mainstream position re: dark
energy/matter
for your non-physicist list

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob9.asp


Dark Doings

Searching for signs of a force that may be everywhere . . . or nowhere

Ron Cowen

Ever since 1998, Robert Caldwell has been obsessed with something dark and repulsive. He spends nearly every waking moment trying to comprehend a mysterious entity that may be undermining gravity and pulling everything apart, making the universe expand at a faster and faster rate. This presumed force, sometimes called dark energy, might ultimately rip apart every object in the cosmos, from the tiniest of atoms to gargantuan clusters of galaxies
(SN: 2/28/04, p. 132: Available to subscribers at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob3.asp). "It's both
fascinating and terrifying," says Caldwell, a cosmologist at Dartmouth
College in Hanover, N.H.

RADIO PROBES. This group of radio telescopes, known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Array, is one of several new efforts designed to figure out what's revving up the expansion of the universe.
E. Leitch

Caldwell has partners in his obsession, among them other theorists and the astronomers who dropped the bombshell about cosmic acceleration onto the scientific community 6 years ago. That's when two studies of distant exploding stars first revealed that the universe is accelerating its rate of expansion-exactly the opposite of what had been expected. The mutual gravity of all the matter in the cosmos ought to be slowing down the expansion that began with the Big Bang. The new observations led the teams to propose that there was something previously unimagined pushing everything away from
everything else. "It's kind of amazing that it's only been 6 years" since those findings, says observer John Tonry of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, "because it now seems so much a part of the canonical lore that we believe about the universe." Now, several teams of researchers are conducting experiments and planning ambitious new ones to investigate this suspected force. On the cosmic scale, astronomers are developing new sky surveys in search of supernovas while also studying the shapes of galaxies and the evolution of galaxy clusters. On a small scale, particle physicists are turning to atom-smashing experiments that may reveal whether the mystery lies in hidden spatial dimensions or in as-yet-undiscovered fundamental particles.

"When you have a big problem, you throw everything you can at it," says Joseph Lykken of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill.

Cosmic acceleration is "not just another mystery," says Lykken. "It's
getting at something fundamental in our understanding of gravity, energy, and quantum theory. It may take us 20 years to [figure it out], but it will open a whole new chapter in physics, a revolution in our understanding of the world."

Seeking supernovas

In trying to identify the origin of this cosmic push, researchers are
simultaneously considering two divergent and equally bizarre scenarios. In one approach, researchers embrace the concept of dark energy and look for the fingerprints of this unseen entity, which may spread uniformly through the cosmos and be an intrinsic property of empty space. The other strategy denies dark energy's existence and instead seeks to explain cosmic acceleration by modifying the laws of gravity. According to this perspective, the wildly successful theory of gravity developed by Albert Einstein needs revision, especially as it describes gravity over large distances."

This second alternative is wrong. The proof will be in bottling dark energy http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf Heads up! look to the skies. The Truth really is Out There.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

"If dark energy is real, a special type of supernova may shine a light on its properties. Known as type 1a supernovas, these stellar explosions all have about the same intrinsic brightness, like light bulbs of similar wattage. A comparison of that fixed brightness to the brightness with which each supernova appears on the sky enables astronomers to measure the distance to each of these stellar explosions. By recording the spectrum of light emitted by a type 1a supernova, astronomers learn how fast its host galaxy was
receding at the time the supernova erupted. With the information on the distance and recession velocities from many supernovas, astronomers can reconstruct how fast the universe was expanding at different times during its history.

From the 200 or so type 1a supernovas that astronomers have now studied, they've deduced that galaxies today are flying apart faster than they did 5 billion years ago-prima facie evidence for runaway expansion. Now, researchers want to learn whether the presumed dark energy has had the same density throughout cosmic history.
If its density is constant, then dark energy may resemble what Einstein called the cosmological constant-an unchanging property of empty space that imbues the universe with a constant acceleration. If dark energy's density varies, it could either increase in strength and rip the universe apart, or it could fade away. In the latter case, the gravitational tug of all the matter in the universe would eventually cause the cosmos to collapse."

This is a scale-dependent phenomenon in the sense of wavelet-transforms. What is true for the scales of these cosmology observations greater than 100 megaparsecs may not be true on scale of flying saucers ~ 1 - 10,000 meters using dark energy powered weightless zero g-force warp drive showing a "reverse Doppler effect."

SUPER TELESCOPE. A proposed design for the Supernova Acceleration Probe.

R. Lafever, LBNL

By the end of the decade, astronomers hope to have a telescope that will find thousands of type 1a supernovas and produce enough data to reveal whether or not dark energy has varied. For example, the Supernova Acceleration Probe, an orbiting satellite bearing a 1.8-meter telescope and the largest solid-state camera ever constructed, would image and take spectra of some 6,000 supernovas. If it gets funded by NASA and the Department of Energy, the 3-year mission could be launched by 2010. However, the project's funding has been delayed by NASA's recent presidential mandate to focus on human exploration of the moon and Mars.

Cluster connection

In addition to studying explosions inside individual galaxies, astronomers are also trying to glimpse dark energy's effects by determining when and how clusters of galaxies coalesced.

The evolution of clusters-or any massive cosmic structure whose formation depends on gravitational attraction-is closely tied to the strength of dark energy. Early in the universe, when the density of matter was high, gravitational attraction would have handily won the tug-of-war with dark energy's repulsive force. Later, as the universe expanded more and more, matter became more dilute, permitting dark energy's push to overpower it. So, in a universe brimming with dark energy, clusters must form early or they won't form at all.

The earlier the galaxy clusters formed, the stronger dark energy must be. To determine how far back in time most clusters coalesced, astronomers must find the most distant ones. One technique is to look for signs of the hot, X-ray-emitting gas that bathes clusters. The proposed Dark Universe Observatory, a suite of seven Earth-orbiting telescopes, would scan a large chunk of the sky in search of the X rays. Astronomers will then combine the X-ray data with information already in hand from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has recorded the distances to several hundred thousand galaxies. The results are expected to indicate when galaxy clusters formed.

Other cluster watchers examine the cosmic microwave background, the radiation left over from the Big Bang. When photons from that background strike the hot gas surrounding a cluster, they gain energy. It's this shift in photon energy, known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, that John E. Carlstrom of the University of Chicago and his colleagues will be examining in unprecedented detail beginning late this summer.

Using their new Sunyaev-Zeldovich Array of six 3.5-m radio receivers at the Owens Valley Radio Observatory near Big Pine, Calif.(pictured on this week's cover, above), Carlstrom and his collaborators expect to find thousands of new clusters. Several other teams are building similar radio telescopes. And in 2007, Carlstrom expects to have finished building an even more sensitive detector of clusters, a radio telescope at the South Pole.

Another search strategy for signs of dark energy takes advantage of a cosmic distortion known as gravitational lensing. Because any massive object causes space-time to curve, it can bend the path of a light ray emitted by a body, such as a galaxy, that lies behind it. The shape of that body appears distorted, as if the light had passed through a thick glass lens. In so-called weak lensing, light emitted by the outer parts of distant galaxies is distorted by the gravity of all the individual galaxies that lie in front of it.

Weak lensing relates to dark energy because the expansion rate of the universe determines how much volume lies between distant galaxies and Earth. Dark energy's push would increase the volume of space, making it more likely that light traveling to Earth from a distant galaxy would pass near other bodies and exhibit weak lensing. Dark energy would also require clumps of matter to begin coalescing into galaxies earlier in the history of the universe, also increasing the chances for lensing to occur. To perceive the small effect of weak lensing, astronomers will have to study millions of galaxies distributed across the sky. The proposed Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, an 8-m ground-based instrument, could open for business in 2011. The orbiting Supernova Acceleration Probe could also lend a hand in
weak-lensing studies.

Getting particular

Dark energy may also reveal itself on the subatomic scale. Particle
physicists at Fermilab and other high-energy physics laboratories are paying close attention to the neutrino, an elementary particle known to come in three flavors-tau, muon, and electron. A decade ago, scientists discovered that each type of neutrino could transform into the others. These so-called oscillations indicate that neutrinos, which for decades were thought to be massless, actually have some weight.
Theorists have homed in on what may be a deep connection between dark energy and particle physics. Mass and energy are equivalent, according to Einstein, and scientists have noticed that the energy scale associated with dark energy, about one-thousandth of an electronvolt, is approximately the same as the masses associated with the three known types of neutrinos. Assuming that this isn't a coincidence, scientists have been trying to identify a single quantum mechanical description that applies to both dark energy and neutrinos."

How to compute the dark energy scale: Energy density scales as E^4 in natural units h = c = G = 1. The random ZPE theory-observational discrepancy in dark energy density is ~ 10^122. 120/4 ~ 31. Planck energy scale is ~ 10^28 ev, 28 - 31 = -3, hence dark energy scale is ~ 10^-31x10^28 ev ~ 10^-3 ev ~ 10^12 Hertz, i.e. 1 gigahertz.
Note that random ZPE theory has zero vacuum coherence. That's the problem Ed Witten et-al does not understand in his M-Theory which is an answer without a question!
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0405107

"The Question is: What is The Question?" John A. Wheeler

"They've found that neutrino oscillations can be described by a time-varying field that resembles the time-varying dark energy described in some models. However, these models also predict a fourth type of neutrino for which there is yet no experimental evidence.

In a series of ongoing experiments at Fermilab, scientists are searching for that missing neutrino. In these studies, a beam of muon neutrinos crosses a 30-foot tank of mineral oil. Some 520 light detectors lining the tank record the flashes that occur when neutrinos strike carbon nuclei in the tank. An analysis of those flashes has yet to reveal evidence of a fourth neutrino, but the experiment is set to continue for another 2 years.

Gravity on the fly

Despite the interest in time-varying dark energy, an unchanging energy density akin to the cosmological constant now appears to be the more accurate model for the brand of dark energy that might exist in our universe, says cosmologist Sean Carroll of the University of Chicago. Yet for Carroll and other theorists, the notion of a cosmological constant is downright distasteful."

Only because they do not understand "vacuum coherence." This is what "Super Cosmos" is about.

"For starters, the only source that scientists have come up with for an
unvarying dark-energy density is the energy associated with the vacuum of space. As described by quantum theory, the vacuum seethes with the relentless creation and annihilation of subatomic particles and their antiparticles. But calculations show that the density of this vacuum energy is a whopping 10120 times as big as that of dark energy. Such a glaring discrepancy makes it hard for Carroll and others to fully embrace the cosmological-constant model."

Sean needs to read "Super Cosmos."

"Then there's the cosmic-coincidence scandal. The density of matter in the universe has steadily declined since the Big Bang, and measurements show that today it's about the same as the density of dark energy predicted by the cosmological-constant models. There's only a 1 percent chance, Carroll calculates, that observers would be living at a time when the density of dark energy and matter were comparable. For some physicists, this match is too unlikely to be true.
Instead of accepting dark energy, these scientists would rather try to
account for the acceleration of the universe's expansion by tinkering with Einstein's general theory of relativity."


"O Brane New Worlds!"


"OUTER LIMITS. Illustration of how gravity might leak out of our
four-dimensional world into hidden dimensions, thus explaining why the cosmos is revving up its expansion.

Fermilab

Gia Dvali of New York University and his colleagues propose that gravity parts company with Einstein's theory because some of it leaks away into extra, hidden dimensions. They suggest that the universe as we know it-galaxies, stars, and familiar elementary particles-is confined to a four-dimensional space-time, called a brane, that's embedded in a higher-dimensional world.

Because gravity is an intrinsic property of all of space-time, however, it
may be the only component of the cosmos that isn't trapped on this
four-dimensional brane, Dvali suggests. He compares the scenario to what happens when a metal plate submerged in water is struck with a hammer. As the plate-representing the brane-vibrates, some of the sound waves escape into the surrounding water-representing higher dimensions.

When gravitons, the particles that mediate gravitation attraction, escape the local brane, the gravitational force that remains within the brane diminishes. The weakening of gravity shows up as an increase in the rate of cosmic expansion. In this way, leaky gravity looks and behaves much like dark energy.

Dvali and his collaborators are still fleshing out their model, but it
already has some concrete predictions measurable within our own solar system. Leaky gravity, it turns out, should cause the moon to tilt ever so slightly in its orbit about Earth. New measurements are looking for such a precession by using ground-based lasers that bounce off mirrors that the Apollo 11 astronauts left on the moon 3 decades ago."

I have nothing against extra dimensions, but it is not the only way to have strong short-range gravity.

"Hidden dimensions and leaky gravity may also reveal themselves in
experiments at Fermilab (SN: 2/19/00, p. 122:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob9.asp). At extremely high energies, collisions between two particles, such as a proton and an antiproton, should produce a graviton, along with a spray of other particles. Those other particles will remain trapped on a four-dimensional brane, but the graviton can escape. If it does so, then there ought to be a noticeable deficit in the amount of energy recorded. Such missing energy would serve as a signpost of the universe's higher dimensions and a gravitational theory that goes beyond that of Einstein."

A strong short-range Einstein gravity field in 4D is an off-mass-shell vacuum sink and source of either "missing" or its inverse "anomalous" energy for on-mass-shell quanta by tweaking the local vacuum coherence field. On alleged actual measurements of anomalous energy of mesoscopic EVOs by Ken Shoulders see
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

"No such missing energy has yet been detected,"

But anomalous energy production in mesoscopic EVO "charge clusters" allegedly have.

"but physicists continue to search. "We had the capability to look for this before, but people didn't' think [the notion of higher dimensions] was a reasonable idea. Now, people have started to take this seriously," says Lykken.

Whether it's dark energy that rules the universe or a kind of gravity that goes beyond what Einstein had imagined remains to be seen. Whatever the answer is, Caldwell notes, it's bound "to answer some deep questions about the universe."

E = mc^2 from Einstein's special relativity of 1905 gave us the WMD of nuclear fission and fusion bombs.

What makes you think that

Ruv ---> Grho(1 + 3w) in weak curvature Newtonian limit and

Ruv + /\zpfguv = 0

in exotic vacuum from Einstein's general relativity of 1916 and Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle of 1925 with "More is different" (P.W. Anderson 1967) "vacuum coherence" as the macro-quantum origin of gravity and inertia (J.A. Wheeler 1956 & Andrei Sakharov 1967) will not bring us new WMD as well as peaceful applications? Indeed we already see them in the skies above our nuclear weapons bases. Heads up!
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/dan.html
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html


"Dark Musings

A springboard to space?

The notion that gravity can be repulsive instead of attractive may sound bizarre, but it has its roots in Einstein's general theory of relativity. The theory states that mass isn't the only source of gravity. Pressure also exerts a gravitational force. There's a further complication because pressure can be positive or negative. And if pressure happens to be negative, gravity pushes rather than pulls."

Say the Magick without magic word and win a trillion smackeroos.
"You bet your life" and everyone else's the day after tomorrow.
http://www.tvparty.com/moviemarx.html

"Positive pressure is the familiar type, like that exerted by an inflated
balloon. You have to expend energy in order to compress it. Something with negative pressure acts like a spring-you have to expend energy to stretch it. That's why theorists say that dark energy imbues space with a springiness, notes David H. Weinberg of Ohio State University, Columbus."

See Appendix 1 in http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf i.e., eq. 1.6 Uzpf(self energy) ~ r^5

Taking the spring analogy further, he says that the question of whether the density of dark energy varies over time is equivalent to asking how hard it is to compress the springiness of space. If the density of dark energy is constant, as in the cosmological-constant model, then dark energy is difficult to compress, as if you're dealing with an especially stiff spring. Models in which dark energy varies with time are akin to imbuing space with a more flexible spring. Observers are now trying to determine the compressibility.

If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for publication in Science News, send it to editors@sciencenews.org. Please include your name and location.

To subscribe to Science News (print), go to https://www.kable.com/pub/scnw/
subServices.asp.
To sign up for the free weekly e-LETTER from Science News, go to
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/subscribe_form.asp.
Further Readings:
Caldwell, R.R., M. Kamionkowski, and N.N. Weinberg. 2003. Phantom energy and
cosmic doomsday. Physical Review Letters 91(Aug. 15):071301. Available at
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302506.pdf.
Carroll, S.M., and M.M. Guica. Preprint. Sidestepping the cosmological
constant with football-shaped extra dimensions. Available at
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0302/0302067.pdf.
Cowen, R. 2004. Wrenching findings: Homing in on dark energy. Science News
165(Feb. 28):132. Available to subscribers at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040228/fob3.asp.
______. 2000. Hunting for higher dimensions. Science News 157(Feb.
19):122-124. Available at
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000219/bob9.asp.
Deffayet, C., G. Dvali, and G. Gabadadze. 2002. Accelerated universe from
gravity leaking to extra dimensions. Physical Review D 65(Feb. 15):044023.
Available at http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0105/0105068.pdf.
Sources:
Robert R. Caldwell
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Dartmouth College
6127 Wilder Laboratory
Hanover, NH 03755
Claude Carlstrom
University of Chicago
Department of Astrophysics
5640 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
Sean M. Carroll
Enrico Fermi Institute
Department of Physics
Center for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
5640 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
Gia Dvali
Department of Physics
New York University
New York, NY 10003
Joe Lykken
Fermilab
P.O. box 500
Mailstop 106
Batavia, IL 60510
John L. Tonry
University of Hawaii, Honolulu
Institute for Astronomy
2680 Woodlawn Drive
Honolulu, HI 96822
David H. Weinberg
Ohio State University
Department of Astronomy
140 West 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040522/bob9.asp
From Science News, Vol. 165, No. 21, May 22, 2004, p. 330.
Copyright (c) 2004 Science Service. All rights reserved.

BTW New version of
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf
online (with Hal Puthoff's old partner Ken Shoulders from Jupiter Tech)
also see
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf

On May 22, 2004, at 7:09 AM, main_engineering wrote:

The Josephson effect is a tunneling current that flows "Between two
Superconductors" separated by an insulating layer. The dc current depends on
the phase difference between the two wave functions and the density of
electron pairs in each superconductor.

The tunneling current interpretation is NOT FUNDAMENTAL. What is fundamental is the wave interference of TWO macro-quantum coherent order parameters. In the case of the Josephson junction with identical superconductors on both sides of the weak link, yes you have an actual supercurrent across the weak link. NOT so in the vacuum-superconductor link. All you have is a real circulating supercurrent in each nano-ring node of the phase coherent array mesh imbedded in the fuselage of the "saucer". The local PHASE of that real circulating loop of supercurrent INTERFERES with the local PHASE of the vacuum coherence to generate the local value of Alcubierre's key control source parameter Tr(K)

Tr(K) ~ cosine[relative LOCAL phase of loop of real supercurrent minus local phase of virtual electron-positron pairs inside vacuum occupying same space-time region as the real supercurrent. The real electron Cooper pairs are swimming in the virtual sea of coherent electron-positron pairs! Their relative local coherent phases BEAT at a single node of the nanomesh network to form Tr(K) at that node provided the inherent phase noise in the real supercurrent closed loop can be filtered out! You do not want to quiet the phase noise of the real supercurrent nano-loops too much because the effect is intrinsically huge, much larger than nuclear fusion energy density release. This phase coherence is a cosmic trigger to the enormous energy density of the vacuum. This is not a Casimir force effect - completely different laws of physics!

You're saying that there is only 1 superconductor and "the interpenetrating
vacuum coherence in the common support" and that the Josephson effect takes
place between the superconductor and the vacuum. To me, this is the most
important point in your theory. It represents your method of coupling to the
vacuum to control space-time curvature. Now I see that you are saying that
this all happens "inside" the superconductor.

YES! There is no actual tunneling current between real control superconductor and the vacuum in this case. That is not fundamental here. The virtual electron-positron pairs stay virtual. You do not want to hit them with 2mc^2 energy transfers to make them real. That destroys the delicate coherent local phase matching between COINCIDENT real supercurrents and virtual supercurrents that together generate the weightless warp drive.

You say "The vacuum is
everywhere the superconductor is". My question is if it happens inside, then
why not at the surface? If not at the surface, then why would it happen
inside? If it is happening inside, then why are currents persistent for eons
inside a superconductor?

Again you are barking up the wrong tree. Wherever there is a real electron-pair supercurrent there is also the virtual electron-positron pair "aether" it is swimming through. Each real Cooper pair is immersed inside the virtual electron-positron pair vacuum condensate. They each have coherent macro-quantum phases that coherently interfere with each other. What Hal Puthoff and everyone else miss is the coherent local phase of the virtual electron-positron sea. They mistakenly believe the "PV" virtual spin 1/2 electron-positron sea is completely 100% incoherent and uncontrollably random! For example, in SED for EM field it's uncontrollably random for the spin 1 virtual photons in that case. Furthermore, you need smooth ODLRO coherence of the virtual electron-positron pairs in order to generate Einstein's guv(x) field of locally curved smooth space-time with gravity.

Read Ray Chiao's background paper
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0211078
and his more extensive 80 page paper linked from there.

Current cannot be flowing in or out of the
supercouductor, so therefore there is no Josephson effect.

Wrong as I explained above. The flow of actual particles is not fundamental to the basic wave interference essence of the Josephson effect. It is incidental. You have misperceived the physical essence of the macro-quantum effect! You have only seen the shadow not the light. Call this a generalized Josephson-Bohm-Aharonov effect.


I don't see anyone else challenging your ideas where I can learn from their
experience, and I'm not saying that you're wrong.

That's obviously because no one else on this planet at this time has thought of this precise idea-conceptual. I am the first one to have conceived it. It is uniquely original here and now. There is only one Mona Lisa painting by Leonardo Da Vinci, there is only one Ninth Symphony by Beethoven etc. None of the others, Volovik, Modanese et-al have seen precisely what I have seen and am bringing down from the Magick Mountain's Burning Bush. :-)



..these fifteen...Oy!!...these ten commandments!

http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/world/hwimages.htm

Friday, May 21, 2004

Plugging in numbers for metric engineering is of course very important.

BTW this stuff is much closer to observations than is both string theory of Brian Greene/Ed Witten & Co (hyped on NOVA cannot explain standard model in detail) and loop gravity of Ashetkar/Baez (spin networks -> spin foam weaves - cannot really get Einstein's GR)
Both strings and loops are almost pseudo-science because
i. too may fudge factors
ii. no conceptual and math consistency
iii. hardly any contact with experiment and observation.
see http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0405107
for evidence that what I say about strings and loops as Cargo-Cult is not really exaggerated.

1. Cosmology e.g. type 1a Supernovae, CHANDRA, CDMSII, gravity lensing.

2. Stability of spatially electron -> possible tight atomic states (J.P. Vigier, Maric & Dragic in Beograd "plasma pinch" (new form of non-nuclear atomic power) http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html Note that exotic vacuum zpe induced strong short range gravity inside core of single spatially extended electron counteracts both Coulomb repulsive self-energy and repulsive QED Casimir force as well as rotational centrifugal barrier as model for "spin."

3. Universality of Regge slope of hadronic resonances.

4. Charge cluster EVOs
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

5. UFOs, e.g. most recently Mexico - this is data!
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf


On May 21, 2004, at 6:05 PM, main_engineering wrote:

That helps, Thank you!

-----Original Message-----
From: Jack



On May 21, 2004, at 9:13 AM, main_engineering wrote:


In any case, okay I see.

2mv is the momentum of the Cooper pairs in the superconductor,

Yes

A_u is the EM Gauge field, probably understood as the superposition of the applied EM field from Podkletnov's inductor coils and the EM field of the superconductor's 4-current density. There is more than 1 source of A_u in Podkletnov's experiment and their relative contributions differ.

Yes, Au is the potential not the field Fuv


Your coherent vacuum field is the /\zpf,

NO. Coherent vacuum field is PSI

/\zpf(induced) ~ Tr(K) (Alcubierre warp drive paper)

where starting from non-exotic vacuum = 0

Locally at a point P, for each NODE in the nano-mesh imbedded in the
flying saucer fuselage (a phased array)

Tr(K) ~ (hG*/c^3)^-1[(Volume of tiny superconducting loop where real
electron pairs flow)(density of condensate of virtual electron-positron
pairs inside vacuum)^1/2(density of condensate of real electron pairs
of tiny superconducting loop)cos2pi[(rotational flux of single real
electron pair in loop)/h - (magnetic flux through superconducting
loop)/(quantum of magnetic flux)]

where mechanical vorticity vector of nanosupercurrent is opposite to
external magnetic field through tiny control superconducting loop (a
node) in the nano-mesh.

G* is effective gravity coupling on scale s of the tiny superconducting
ring.

Magnetic flux = Closed loop line integral of A.dl Stoke's theorem!

Local Phase Difference = (Mechanical Vorticity Flux of single sc
electron pair)/hbar - 2pi(Magnetic Flux through tiny sc loop
node)/(Quantum of Magnetic Flux)

Local Tr(K) that controls WARP FIELD ~ cosine(Local Phase Difference)

This is the Josephson effect where the weak link is between the vacuum coherence and the superconductor "control knob" coherence in their common overlap region of space for each tiny sc loop node of the mesh.

In /\zpf you have sqrt(Cooper pair density}*sqrt(electron-positron)
pair density. What is your estimate of the actual numerical value for these terms and for this product?

~ 10^29 electrons per cubic meter ~ 10^23 per cc.
~ 10^-4 of those form Cooper pairs so that's 10^19 pairs per cc

So roughly (sc density)^1/2 ~ 10^9 per cm^-3/2

What is quantum of area?

Suppose it's a Planck area.

How big is effective volume of SC nano ring? Say 10^-21 cc

/\zpf ~ 10^+66 cm^-2 (10^-21 cc)(10^33)(10^9)cos(Theta)

This is too strong an effect!

Suppose instead, quantum of area is 1 fermi^2

/\zpf ~ 10^+26cm^-2 10^-21 cc 10^42 cos(Theta)

Still very strong compared to curvature of space at surface of Earth which is only ~ 10^-26 cm^-2

Remember, generally the Theta phase noise will wash out the effect, fortunately! We are playing with a very large effect here if we quiet down the Theta phase noise. In general the statistical average

-> zero

The hugeness of the effect is similar to the 122 Powers of Ten random estimate of the Cosmological Constant.

It's only because rotating superconductors, and currents in superconducting coils have large phase noise that we do not see these "anti-gravity" controlled or "bottled dark energy" effects easily. This is a good thing in a way because this is potentially a huge effect - i.e. dangerous if we do not know what we are doing. Sorceror's Apprentice Effect. I mean if any of this is correct.

In other words what Ning Li and Podkletnov are attempting could be dangerous - an inadvertent WMD - maybe. I mean if I am in right ball park here.

If the flying saucers are real and are alien ET then we know already such supertechnology is Out There Here-Now.

There is also the volume factor and the quantum of area.

The point is that if real saucers fly with zero g-force warp drive (G. Trimble "G-Engine") they must obey my equations and that gives estimates of the parameters in my equations. What they are precisely depends on the state of the advanced ET alien supertechnology. There is a manifold of these control parameters that we need to estimate from the observed flight of the saucers and the "fact" they are "empty" inside (Col. Phil Corso). That is a big job of gedanken reverse engineering, but it is doable by a team of visonary metric
engineers here in North Beach not in Austin, Texas.

The scale of curvature at surface of Earth is of order

GM/c^2r^3

M = mass of Earth, r = radius of Earth

So we need

/\zpf ~ Tr(K) ~ GM/c^2r^3 for observed flights

GM/c^2r^3 ~ (hG*/c^3)^-1(Volume of Tiny SC Loop))(Vacuum Condensate Density)^1/2(SuperConducting Density)^1/2

That is if we want to metric engineer at the scale of the local
curvature tensor field at the surface of the Earth to shape the
timelike geodesic path of the saucer from the saucer itself, i.e. to
nullify the external curvature tensor field from M!

If hG*/c^3 ~ 1 fermi^2

Then non-exotic vacuum condensate density ~ (1 fermi)^-3

Thursday, May 20, 2004

Work in progress with Ken Shoulders who worked with Hal Puthoff I think at NSA and later at Bill Church's Jupiter Technologies and in Austin.

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

Some think that Ken's "charge clusters" that I rename EVO's are merely charged mercury droplets. Ken says he can disprove that. What do I know? I am merely a simple-minded theorist. In any case I make a model of what Ken may be seeing.

One curious counterintuitive feature

Einstein's GR in weak field limit is Newton's gravity with a correction term

Grad^2(Gravity Potential) ~ G(mass density)(1 + 3w)

For exotic vacuum, Type 1a supernovae + CHANDRA et-al show
w ~ -1

The rule of thumb is G(mass density)(1 + 3w) is replaced by c^2/\zpf when w = -1. /\zpf can have either sign depending on intensity of local vacuum coherence field PSI.

Consider a thin shell of N electrons at radius r. The repulsive Coulomb self-energy is

~ (Ne)^2/r

Imagine a homogeneous sphere of uniform /\zpf field up to radius r as the inner core of the thin shell of N electrons.

The gravity potential self energy is then of the form (c^2/\zpf)^2r^6/G*r
where G* >> G on a short scale.

The total self-potential energy is then of the form

U = a(Ne)^2/r + b(c^2/\zpf)^2r^5/G* > 0

Note that both energy terms must be positive to have a possibility of metastability of the charge cluster. This BTW applies to a single spatially extended electron as in J.P. Vigier's "tight atomic states" theory for "cold fusion" or the "sub-atomic bomb."
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

The positive Coulomb repulsive barrier self-energy decreases with increasing radius of the thin shell. In contrast the positive exotic vacuum core zero point energy induced strong short-range effective gravity potential self-energy increases with increasing radius of the thin shell of electric charge. Together they form a potential well of oppositely directed force gradients allowing for the possibility of metastable equilibrium in this toy static spherically symmetric model where

Total Force on Thin Shell of Electric Charge

= -GradU = +a(Ne)^2/r^2 - 5b(c^2/\zpf)^2r^4/G*

With the metastable equilibrium point of the EVO charge cluster at the critical point:

GradU = 0

Of course in real EVOs this toy model is too simple.

/\zpf = (hG*/c^3)^-1[(hG*/c^3)^3/2|PSI|^2 - 1]

and PSI obeys a nonlinear dynamical Landau-Ginzburg type nonlinear nonunitary local partial differential equation with the Mexican Sombrero potential coupled to Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

And we have the complex dynamical behavior you see in Ken Shoulders' photographs in

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/ExoticVacuumObjects.pdf

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

re: http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:59:06 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: New data on dark energy Chandra: Thumbs up for w = -1.

Excellent news. They are saying w = -1 as I have said. This and CDMSII
refuting Italian false positives is thumbs up for my theory in "Super
Cosmos" thumbs down for phantom energy w < -1 and thumbs down for
quintessence -1 < w < -1/3. Also thumbs down for dark matter as
supersymmetry partners.

Let's see if the experiments continue to confirm this in next few years.

This is all explained in my book Super Cosmos soon out as well as in my
two previous books Destiny Matrix and Space-Time and Beyond II from
late 2002.


Memorandum for the Record

Cargo cult pseudo-physics or important breakthroughs?

Paul Murad, allegedly from DIA who runs STAIF 'out of the box' meetings sponsored by AIP, worked with Dyatlov.
Murad allegedly wrote about flying saucers:

The mis-spellings are in the original.


From:

"Because of attitudes, mentioning UFOs per se will detract from the credibility of the paper. There is nothing wrong with discussing a hypothetical ship that was saucer shape.... This looks quite interesting. From my limited knowledge about UFO wreakage, the vehicles are made with a top half of pure magnesium and bottom half with aluminum. Magesium cannot sustain a magenetic field but is a great conductor. The sphere constellation uses nickel for magnetic properties. Basically, you have a rotating magnetic field trapped inside of an electric field."

Note Uri Geller warns of "11-11" note "11" in Murad's e-mail address and use of "UFO" - curious coincidence. Murad admits "knowledge about UFO wreakage" (sic)



On May 19, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Doc Savage wrote:


On May 19, 2004, at 3:09 AM, SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com wrote:

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/CBirlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

There are 19 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Man-Made Flying Saucers?
From: Jack Sarfatti
2. Re: Reply to Jack Sarfatti's Comments in PRAVDA
From: Jack Sarfatti
3. Re: And what about Dyatlov???
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
4. Re: And what about Dyatlov???
From: "Berkant"
5. Searl Replication in the USA???
From: "Berkant"
6. Re: Searl Replication in the USA???
From: "Berkant"
7. PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: Jack Sarfatti
8. Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: "Berkant"
9. P. Murad and V. I Dyatlov
From: "Berkant"
10. Classical electromagnetic devices to generate macroscopic Kerr-Newman singularit
From: "Berkant"
11. Re: Classical electromagnetic devices to generate macroscopic Kerr-Newman singularit
From: "Berkant"
12. Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
13. Father of Jet Engine Von Ohain - Expert in Electrofluidsystems
From: "Berkant"
14. Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
15. Heim
From: Jack Sarfatti
16. Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: Jack Sarfatti
17. Richard Feynman on Cargo Cult Science Re: Rabbi Sarfatti introduces "Torsion Field Invocation"
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
18. Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
19. Re: New data on dark energy Chandra: Thumbs up for w = -1.
From: Jack Sarfatti


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 06:50:52 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Man-Made Flying Saucers?


On May 17, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Interesting -- it also contains WW2 era photos with ground crews:
http://www.buforadio.com/ufofilespennsylvania/id22.html

I am skeptical. Nick is in a better position to judge.
No known propulsion system back in 20's & 30's not to mention dubious
aerodynamics.


[This message contained attachments]



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 07:00:19 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: Reply to Jack Sarfatti's Comments in PRAVDA

Gary let me know if they publish this.

On May 17, 2004, at 9:24 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Dear Inna Novikova,

Thank you for having the foresight to run my story and Dr. Sarfatti's
comments in PRAVDA.

I offer a few additional remarks, in response to Sarfatti's comments:

Sarfatti writes:

As far as I know I am the only physicist so far to claim: " that the
invisible gravitating dark matter could be the other side of the
invisible
dark energy coin..."

Sarfatti's ideas are unique, however at least one other physicist,
Gonzalez-Diaz in Madrid has suggested a related idea based on a
sub-quantum
potential: "dark matter and dark energy are both unitarily described
by just
the scalar field..."

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311244

Yes, but I had not read that by Diaz when I made that remark. Also Diaz does not derive the Einstein GR gravity field equations from the phase of the scalar field the way I claim to do. Diaz assumes GR as a given, so does Modanese. Further he does not make the explicit prediction that dark matter detectors should give null results in principle like Michelson-Morley experiments for ether drift.

Regarding "Some French, Serbian and Ukrainian physicists have been working on new theories of extended electrons and solitons, so perhaps a sub-quantum bomb is not entirely out of the question."

Sarfatti writes:

"Bekkum fails to acknowledge J.P. Vigier as the leader of this
project."

Although I neglected to mention Vigier, Jack also fails to mention the
influence of George Lochak and the The Foundation Louis de Broglie.

I don't know if Lochak and Vigier collaborated on this. I do not see
any work by Lochak on "tight atomic states" as a mechanism for "cold
fusion" energy production.

As an example, here is a Russian paper:

---

http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-26j/aflb26jp381.pdf

Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 26 n± special, 2001
381

Soliton Model of Extended Quantum Particles

Yu.P. Rybakova and Bijan Sahab
Department of Theoretical Physics, Peoples' Friendship University of
Russia
Laboratory of Information Technologies,
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research

ABSTRACT. Some first principles that, we believe, could serve as
foundation for quantum theory of extended particles are formulated.
It is also shown that in the point-like particles limit the
non-relativistic
quantum mechanics can be restored. Bohm problem of nonlinear resonance
has been considered and its possible solution has been given.
Within the frame-work of the Einstein-de Broglie soliton model a
hydrogen
atom has been simulated.

I never read this paper.

----

As for the "Podkletnov effect" and the theory of Ning Li:

American Military Investigated Anti-gravity Weapons

Government Budget Document evidence that the United States Department
of
Defense actively pursued reports of anti-gravity effects

The United States Government Official Website, http://www.firstgov.gov/
allows a rapid search of official government documents available over
the
internet.

A quick search for Dr. Ning Li, the physicist that predicted an
anti-gravity
effect from her theory, and the key word "contract" leads to an
official US
Government Department of Defense budget document:

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

The document describes contract number DAAH01-01-9-R001, titled
"Gravito-Electro Magnetic Superconductivity Experiment", awarded by
the US
Army Aviation and Missile Command, to Dr. Ning Li's company AC
Gravity, LLD

New means of propulsion, ways of controlling missiles and gun launched
munitions, lowering of the effective weight of tanks and heavy
vehicles,
deflecting incoming missiles, including ICBM's, are listed as among the
military applications for this technology.

This document supports Jane's Defence Weekly contributor Nick Cook's
exposure of a similar project at the American aerospace contractor
Boeing.
Previously Nick Cook showed the BBC and Jane's documents as proof that
Boeings' Phantom Works facility were investigating the Russian
scientist
Evgeny Podkletnov's reports of repulsive antigravity from spinning
superconducting disks.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Gary S. Bekkum
Starstream Research
USA




__________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:18:13 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
Subject: Re: And what about Dyatlov???

Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:43:44 -0000 From: "Berkant"
Subject: And what about Dyatlov???

What is the opinion of the Russian Academy
of Science regarding the
person and work of Prof. V. L. Dyatlov??

RAS Academicians Edward Kruglyakov and Valery
Rubakov published their review on
books by V.L.Dyatlov, A.N.Dmitriev, and
V.I.Merkulov in Physics-Uspekhi
1999, v. 169, #5.
The review is highly negative.
http://ufn.ru/abstracts/con1999.html
(subscription to Physics-Uspekhi required)

Please summarize content of critical review as none of us subscribe to Uspekhi.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:42:38 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Re: And what about Dyatlov???

Paul Murad claims to have worked with Dyatlov on exotic propulsion - a euphemism for flying saucers obviously.


Alexander, thanks for the info..

http://www.ufn.ru:/Index99.html#99_1

Please can you provide me with a PDF copy of the following articles:

On "What is happening to us?" by E.P. Kruglyakov (V.L. Ginzburg)
Download .pdf file (ufn993p.pdf, 65Kb)

and

On the "Problems of non-uniform physical vacuum" book series (Ê.P.
Kruglyakov, V.A. Rubakov)
Download .pdf file (ufn995g.pdf, 93Kb)

--

Sergej Godin told us at the greenglow list that he is applying the
work of Dyatlov.. he didn't want to tell us more.. but he also added
that in his view those triangled crafts were using generators
similar to Searl generators on the three corners of the craft..
he even added that he observed such a craft over Shukovsky test area
in Moscow.. of course, we were not able to check his claims.. and I
assume Marc Millis as list member of greenglow was curious and
accepted his abstract... at the time I was co-moderator at
greenglow..

maybe you know about those dubious experiments claiming to have
replicated the so-called Searl-effect..

http://users.erols.com/iri/JPCReport.htm

An Experimental Investigation of the Physical Effects in a Dynamic
Magnetic System V. Roschin, Russian Academy of Science, Moscow,
Russia; S. Godin, Inst. for High Temperatures, Russian Academy of
Science, Moscow, Russia


Sergey was never able to show us photos of the build-up..
only some photos of small scale rotors of magnets...
we thought he would show them at the NASA conference...

please note that Evgeny Podkletnov also claims to have worked for
the Institute for High Temperatures of the RAS...

Nick Cook says Podkletnov's father had Victor Schauberger's papers on the Nazi "Bell" machine that seems to have influenced Podkletnov's current anti-gravity work.


Are Roschin and Godin really RAS Academicians???

if yes, please can you provide me with the contact addresses..
I assume you are an RAS Academician...

Thank you in advance.

Berkant

--- In SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander
Konkretny" wrote:
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:43:44 -0000 From: "Berkant"

Subject: And what about Dyatlov???

What is the opinion of the Russian Academy
of Science regarding the
person and work of Prof. V. L. Dyatlov??

RAS Academicians Edward Kruglyakov and Valery
Rubakov published their review on
books by V.L.Dyatlov, A.N.Dmitriev, and
V.I.Merkulov in Physics-Uspekhi
1999, v. 169, #5.
The review is highly negative.
http://ufn.ru/abstracts/con1999.html
(subscription to Physics-Uspekhi required)



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:21:31 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Searl Replication in the USA???


Several years ago I was also in touch with Searl... is he alive???

in the past he was regularly invited to the meetings of the German
Association of Vacuum Field Energy... this was the time when Dr.
Hans A. Nieper was head of this German group.. Uri Geller may
remember him.. Nieper made several photos with him...

in Nieper's final years he was in touch with Bernie Haisch.. he was
proud telling us about his Lockheed contacts.. this was the time
when this German group began to promote the work of Hal Puthoff..

then I left this group and entered MUFON-CES...

anyway, Tim Ventura has recently uploaded some papers dealing with the Searl generator...

http://www.americanantigravity.com/paul-brown-seg.shtml


In this letter, dated December 5th, 1986, Paul Brown details the
results of his amazing SEG replication.

Brown claims that the SEG generated enough power to actually melt
the Neodymium Magnets, and estimated that the output was measured
in 'kilowatts or megawatts'.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:47:26 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Re: Searl Replication in the USA???


PS: Now I am no ufo study group...

Just a brave scientist working on bionics at TU Berlin:-)



-________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 14:14:22 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons

Memorandum for the Record

Military Intelligence information/disinformation/misinformation I am
receiving in the wake of the article in PRAVDA
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

On May 18, 2004, at 6:50 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On May 17, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Interesting -- it also contains WW2 era photos with ground crews:
http://www.buforadio.com/ufofilespennsylvania/id22.html

I am skeptical. Nick is in a better position to judge.
No known propulsion system back in 20's & 30's not to mention dubious
aerodynamics.

STAIF leader Paul Murad has written that he too thinks the saucers are
real and he works for DIA in the Pentagon. In that regard Murad agrees
with the French chap below.

I received this. I have deleted many detailed images and designs from
the original document of more than 2 megs. My comments are sparse and
incomplete as I have not digested it nor really checked its
authenticity as yet. Caveat, this document is probably disinformation.
I am not endorsing it. Intelligent feedback welcome.

The document is mostly about MHD with copious images. There is some
wrong physics about anti-gravity that I excerpt here at beginning

" About anti-gravitation.
Research in theoretical cosmology which we have published, inspired by
information received through alien contacts, has led us to build a
cosmological model based on two universes,"

This model was discussed by Phillipe Gaugain in our recent Ideas of
March London Meeting March 17, 2004 described in my book "Super Cosmos"
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc 5 meg file FREE ONLINE COPY
Now in production in hard copy and soon to be available from
http://amazon.com et-al

On May 18, 2004, at 7:38 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/docs/Stargate-en.pdf

Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal
Philippe-Alexandre GAUGAIN
mirror@europeanufosurvey.com


On May 18, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:


okay... now I have it... after looking at the homepage of the
European Ufo Survey... interesting.. shall I contact them??!

are you member of this group??

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html

Mission Statement

We are an independant European team of about 28 scientists (
Physicists, Mathematicians, Astronomers, Biologists, Computering ,
Optics engineers, Free Energy researchers, Linguists,
Archeologists...) and free Ufo researchers who have been silently
involved in Ufological investigations for more than 20 years .

EUS is a diverse team from over 10 different European nationalities.
We share professional, respect and friendship links for a very long
time.
Each one of us have is accurate research field and skills and
individually deal with, and share his results when, and in the way
they wish with the rest of the team.

The most important thing for EUS:

Is to work and continue the research without any waste of time.
As many of us are in university careers, or the like, for the moment
we have decided to protect the private datas of the associate members
of the team, and publish our statements, and conclusions as a joint
voice of one accord, and thus the group EUS.



" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 : the
twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in
contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech,
which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on receiving
the Nobel Prize. This model consists of a two-fold universe or
double-universe. Australian researchers Foot and Volkas today follow a
similar path, calling it "mirror-universes" (papers published in
Physics Review). We have shown that the "apparent mass" of the "twin
universe" was negative, i.e. twin matter repels ours while two
particles of twin matter attract each other, in accordance with
Newton's law. This repulsion explains the re-acceleration of the
expansion of our universe, while it slows down the expansion of the
twin."

I am skeptical of this particular model. It is not needed. See my book
for details.

"When interstellar vessels cruise over huge distances, they use the
twin as a sort of "express subway". In this universe, which is
extremely rarefied in regions adjacent to ours, distances are shortened
and the speed of light is high. This makes space travel possible,
subject to the principle : "it is illegal to exceed the speed of light
of the universe in which one is travelling."

The Alcubierre "FTL without ftl" weightless warp drive solution solves
this problem without needing a huge Kerr-Newman black hole and with my
/\zpf field for the exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point dark energy/matter
we can implement that solution in principle.

"One American research team is working on an idea based on attempting
locally to modify the value of the speed of light; the "warp driving
concept"."

He probably means Hal Puthoff. I refute Hal's "PV" dielectric program
in my book "Super Cosmos." It has no chance of working in my opinion.
It has already been contradicted by experiment in the case of the
pulsar data as shown by Michael Ibison who works with Hal. I call this
NASA BPP where "BPP" means "Broken Propulsion Program." ;-)

Note "with the help of aliens"
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html :-)

"Our approach is different and far more advanced. With the help of
aliens, it has taken us years just to begin understanding how it works
and it would require pages to describe. In principle, the vehicle's
mass must be transferred to the twin universe."

This whole idea of changing mass m is wrong-headed and muddled. Hal
Puthoff has a version of it, and it is in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt
for Zero Point."

Standard physics for rest mass of lepto-quarks is the "Higgs mechanism"

m ~ (coupling)(vacuum coherence) at scale ~ 10^-16 cm

You do not want to change e/m ratios and e^2/hc even if you could
because that will blow up the matter so modified!

What you have on timelike worldlines that are NOT free float geodesic

W = mg

and it is the g you control with metric engineering! You leave m alone!
Change it at your peril! Changing m is Mickey Mouse in Sorceror's
Apprentice in Walt Disney's "Fantasia."

"When this operation takes place near the Earth, the latter becomes
invisible to the craft but acts on it as a negative, repulsive mass. If
the stations in our universe and in the adjacent region if the twin are
rapidly alternated, this is not detected by an observer, however in one
phase the vessel drops under the Earth's attraction, while in the other
it rises under the Earth's repulsion. Globally this amounts to an
apparent cancellation of the vessel's weight, whichever it's mass may
be. This is our interpretation of what people call anti-gravitation. We
do not know whether aliens have given earthlings the tip about those
techniques."

The "French' are wrong here. One can cancel weight W, but that is a
primitive way to put it. The idea is that the flying saucer can steer
its only local timelike geodesic in which it is weightless! W = 0, m
stays the same! You do this with a nano-mesh phase array of devices
embedded in the fuselage of the saucers that controls the /\zpf field
configuration in Einstein's exotic vacuum equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

With stress-energy density current flow conserved according to

Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

/\zpf is the source pump to metric engineer Guv as desired with small
amounts of on-board power using delicate phase matching as in the
Josephson effect. The weak link is between the control high Tc
superconductor coherence in each node of the mesh and the vacuum
coherence as shown in math detail in my book "Super Cosmos."

Obviously the French "CNRS" do not understand how anti-gravity zero
point energy metric engineering works any better than Hal Puthoff,
STAIF and NASA BPP. I show above how it really works.

The MHD stuff has nothing to do with anti-gravity and my remarks do not
apply to the MHD information in this document.


"Open Letter from a group of French scientists to the Initiator of the
Disclosure Project.

Introduction.
We are a group of French scientists. We have read Dr. Greer's text on
the Disclosure Web site and have been impressed by his remarks. We are
convinced, as he is, that certain nations, and chiefly the US, have
been able to derive from the UFO files, from crashed UFO retrievals and
from possible contacts with aliens, information which has led to
entirely new scientific knowledge. We shall farther discuss the
assessment of developments achieved on the basis of these information.
The question is : "how far have they reached ?". We hold accurate
information about the American black programs linked with hypersonic
planes, be it the satellisable Aurora spy craft or a hypersonic long
range bomber for which the B2 is but a cover-up. Technical data in our
possession allow us, in this particular case, to sustain our
assertions. These technologies were directly derived from the analysis
of the wreck retrieved at Roswell, which was a hypersonic space shuttle
and not an interstellar vehicle. We deplore the fact that this reverse
engineering has only been applied to military ends, since these
techniques could have found better use, the one as a completely
re-reusable space launcher - much more efficient and cheaper than the
customary rockets - the other as a hypersonic commercial plane.

Possible antimatter synthesis.
Besides the above, it is highly presumable that the Americans have
mastered a massive antimatter production technique, this - and not the
"void energy" - being the near magic, inexhaustible future energy
coming out of nowhere; unless one considers the transformation of
matter into antimatter by thermonuclear compression as a means of
"extracting energy from the void". I shall add that once antimatter has
been produced in this way, it can farther be used to produce more. No
nuclear explosion is needed at every start. However this technology
lays in the hands of humanity incredibly more destructive bombs than
the most powerful thermonuclear weapons presently available. It also
generates a potential straightforward war hazard through the fact that
very small quantities of antimatter can be stocked in crystals under
very stable electrostatic confinement; this allows the production of
tiny bombs - "bucky balls" - , the size of an egg, thermal shield
included, of 40 ton TNT power. Thanks to their relatively limited power
and the fact that no waste is produced, these bombs could readily be
used. Instead of dropping high power bombs on isolated targets, which
would throw up great quantities of pulverulent matter into the high
atmosphere and generate nuclear winter effects, it would be possible to
scatter a great number of these mini antimatter bombs and cause equal
damage, whilst avoiding that the dust should rise at high altitudes and
generate a nuclear winter. We believe that the US already possess a
considerable number of such weapons with which they would be capable of
reducing whole countries to ashes, and we fear that these devices will
soon be discreetly brought into action on more restricted scales. This
takes us far out of sight of the positive applications of which
Humanity could benefit from such a technology and thus produce, as Dr.
Greer rightly puts it, "flowering deserts".

The raw material and waste problem.
We believe that the ET vehicles visiting us use antimatter, stocked on
board or synthesised, as primary source of energy. This basic energy
could be put to a wide range of uses. One of the most useful is to
master the transmutation of materials and be thus able to synthesise at
will any type of atom. Coupled with a very advanced nano-technology,
this would allow the most complex systems to be synthesised without
human intervention, i.e. without "work". Inversely, any system composed
of atoms could be converted into neutral waste such as helium, the
typically ideal waste. If we survive the next century, this is the
picture of our future technology. If such a set of techniques were
completed with a more comprehensive approach of biology then that which
is practised on Earth today, the Human being would have the keys of a
Golden Age within arm's reach.

Present state of technology on Earth.
We do not know how far these technologies may have been developed on
Earth. To this date we may only strongly suspect that antimatter
synthesis through thermonuclear compression has been obtained in the US
towards the end of the sixties; we shall farther come back to this.
Another problem raised by Dr. Greer is machine weight reduction,
suppression or even inversion (anti-gravity). We consider this as
feasible. This is the technique used by UFO's when they hover without
any air displacement. In our opinion this can only be understood via an
important paradigm shift, a different way of comprehending space and
matter. But this is still speculative and we suggest also coming back
to it farther on. Anti-gravity control could obviously be applied to
civilian transportation, but far beyond this, we think it would open
the way to outer space travel. Here again, we shall postpone the
subject to the end of this paper.

Our comments on the Space Energy Access Systems.
However commendable the feeling from which this project arises, we are
doubtful as to its chances of success. We think that its applications
(unlimited energy production, anti-gravity), even though physically
conceivable, would call for very expensive advanced technologies. By
comparison one could imagine the Foundation offering men of the
Antiquity a full purse of gold to whomever would fly a plane with three
passengers over more than six miles. We are sceptical as to the
compatibility of such techniques with soft technologies within reach of
amateurs and moderately sized laboratories. Such developments may, to
our mind, only be envisaged by large scale laboratories with
considerable funds for which a million dollar prize would seem but a
derisory sum compared with the cost of such research. Consequently,
laboratories of that size would inevitably be part of the
military-industrial lobbies. At best would the supporters of such a
project be rewarded with interesting theoretical ideas, but no
exploitable practical results. Such is our opinion, but of course we
may be mistaken.

Our answer to the Disclosure Manifest.
Whilst we are not in a state to submit to Dr. Greer plans for an
unlimited energy producing machine or one that could suppress the force
of gravity, we are, on the other hand, able to present strong arguments
in support of his campaign against the diversion of technologies by
military-industrial complexes elusive to American political power and
dedicated to serve a few who seek world domination by force. The
elements we are in a state to produce are related to underwater high
velocity propulsion and construction of very long range hypersonic
planes, both these techniques being based on what is called
magneto-hydro-dynamics, or MHD.

deleted

above from a "Dr Petit" allegedly of CNRS in Paris?


Message: 8
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:37:55 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons


Mama mia... I have not read the Petit text.. maybe I should do now..

please note that I was introduced to Paul Murad by Gary Stephenson
from Boeing.. Gary was fascinated from the MHD Braking idea which is
not mine.. I only revived the idea of Prof. Ali Bülent Cambel and
also the work of Prof. Arthur Kantrowitz..

it seems that aerospace companies are highly interested in MHD
Braking... I did not know.. the French MHD text forwarded by Jack
was sent to me by an Italian aerospace engineer from Alenia.. like
Gary from Boeing he was interested in MHD Braking and papers of
Cambel who by the way was also science advisor to the White House
when Kennedy was president..

The MHD stuff may be very important to conventional machines, but is not directly important for anti-gravity warp drive.


and several days ago I was also contacted by a German Aerospace
company.. they will come with a delegation soon.. mama mia..
I did not know that MHD is so interesting...

there are virtual and real plasmons.. I think Jack is talking about
virtual plasmsons whereby me and other talk about real plasmons..

The only link I can see for what I need would be a macro-quantum condensate of plasmons (real or virtual) in a pumped open system far from thermodynamic equilibrium (Prigogine dissipative structure & Frohlich pumped non-equilibrium macro-condensates) whose giant coherent wave can interfere with the giant physical vacuum wave it shares same space with to form a Josephson weak link. Changing the relative phase between control condensate and vacuum condensate in a given volume element changes the Tr(K) Alcubierre warp drive field configuration of the self-controlled free float timelike geodesic path of the ship. The coherent phase nano-array imbedded all over the ship's outer hull enables it to execute hairpin turns instantly without any g-forces on the ship and crew.


the second may be more of a secondary effect.. so I doubt that ufos
have only MHD propulsion which would only work in atmosphere..

it is a nice synchronicity here that trixcleverspace mentioned the
old message

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/message/3171

I will come back to plasmons.. this is a key item..
and I agree with Jack that the key people at DoD, NASA etc. have no
idea about this.. so I also won't go to STAIF2005..


_________________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:57:14 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: P. Murad and V. I Dyatlov


Alexander may know understand why I am interested in the review of
the Dyatlov book.. I hope he is able to send us PDF copies of the
review papers from Academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences..

BTW, the following informations have nothing to do with Gary's
article to PRAVDA.. it only come out as a result of reviewing papers
on MHD!!!


Here we go with a paper from Paul about celestial mechanics and the
works of Jefimenko and Dyatlov.. anyone interested can email me for
a Winword DOC copy

Yes, send me one. Thanks.


--

ROTATION EFFECTS OF BODIES IN CELESTIAL MECHANICS

Lavrentiev M.M., Dyatlov V.L., Fadeev S.I., Murad P.A.*, Kostsova
N.E.

Russia, Novosibirsk, Institute of Mathematics SB RAN
*USA, Vienna, Virginia

The gravitational equations of Heaviside are used to derive the
momentum equations of celestial mechanics. The derivation includes
a gravity potential that has additional terms that account for the
spin (torsion) field of the sun and the galaxy which are ignored in
both Newtonian theory as well as Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
These 'spin' terms account for rotation of the sun, planetary
bodies, and other space objects as well as the contraction of the
elliptical orbits of the planets moving around the sun. The
consequences of the gravity theory of Heaviside are numerically
verifiable and represent a modern approach to better understand
Astronautics.

---

A UNIFIED MACROSCOPIC MODEL OF MATTER AND THE PHYSICAL VACUUM
Dyatlov V.L., Murad P.A.*, Kostsova N.E.

Russia, Novosibirsk, Institute of Mathematics SB RAN
*USA, Vienna, Virginia.

Matter consists of elementary particles with both a positive rest
mass and energy. The physical vacuum is a heterogeneous medium that
possess a neutral charge, polarization, electrical, magnetic,
gravitational, and spin fields. To understand each, a unified
macroscopic model is created based upon the foundations of four
different but interconnected theories. These are electrodynamics
from Maxwell; gravidynamics from Heaviside; the special theory of
relativity; and mechanics. This union creates a more complete
description to describe macroscopic physical processes exhibited in
both matter and the physical vacuum.
The introduction of the Heaviside theory into the model of the
physical vacuum allows an extension that includes explaining the
rotation effects of planetary bodies in celestial mechanics which
are ignored by Newtonian and special relativity theory as well as
the physical behavior of self-luminous bodies of natural anomalous
phenomena capable of penetrating through solid substance, emitting
radiation of electromagnetic waves, initiating electrical and
magnetic field, levitation, rotation, explosions, and the
modification of matter.

---


I. INTRODUCTION

There is always a requirement to examine the gravity
potential in problems involving orbital mechanics. Obviously with
the success of current models, changes in the gravity gradient are
included to the point that oceans, mountain peaks, and ore deposits
are adequately described and the orbital prediction and tracking of
a satellite is well-known beyond needed accuracies. Why look at a
new potential?
The Newtonian approach suggests that gravity can be
represented as a LaPlacian function. Einstein did not feel that
gravity could be felt instantaneously and looked at a model which
could support wave phenomenon. He extended this into a model which
used space-curvature to predict orbital motion of a body where the
curve was a consequence of the gravity environment. His initial
approach of developing an equation capable of supporting waves was a
far better representation that would be easier to implement in lieu
of looking at soliton solutions.
The problem with relativistic speeds is that the relativity factor
now becomes a parameter where a singularity occurs when an object
reaches the speed of light. Mass becomes infinite as well as
certain magnetic and electric field components, electric and
magnetic charges also become infinite. Based upon previous efforts,
the point was raised that a space propulsor that incorporates these
electromagnetic effects is an ideal approach to treat the infinite
increase in mass that is a consequence at light speed.
These issues are complex by themselves. The issue remains regarding
the environment and what occurs to gravity at these conditions?
Newtonian potentials imply that there is no effect whatsoever and
one wonders why light is bent when it travels near a star.
Newtonian gravity offers no explanation. On this basis, the
Jefimenko gravity model offers a different approach. This model
based upon ideas from Heaviside, treats gravity as a function of
both position and velocity. Moreover, the relativity factor is
directly incorporated into this model and does not need to be
treated as a separate factor for relativistic conditions. The
interesting issue with Jefimenko's model is that as velocity
increases, the gravitational attraction also increases. For a
particle moving at the speed of light, the attraction becomes
infinite.
A useful test of the accuracy of a model is to extend the model over
different conditions of interest. For example, the model may appear
reasonable at relativistic conditions but is it suitable at other
conditions? This is the crux of this analysis. The problem will be
to investigate Jefimenko's gravity model to examine its effects upon
the classical two-body and restricted three-body problem of
celestial mechanics. This will be at nominal satellite conditions.
Moreover, the analysis will be extended to see if any dispersion can
occur to treat other problems such as the perihelion of Mercury.
After these results are created and assessed, problems involving sub-
and faster than light speed trajectories will also be treated? In
these last situations, the trajectories will look at an accelerating
spacecraft under electromagnetic power to reach these speeds as well
as a spacecraft having an initial light-speed velocity decelerating
by approaching either a single or two-body system.
One needs to ask the question about what is to be gained by
such an approach. Obviously, a more accurate model would be able
to better predict satellite trajectories but at what additional
expense in computational time or accuracy? From viewing Newtonian
gravitational theory, sufficient terms are included to account for
gravitational perturbations due to mountain ranges and the oceans.
Such a model could be expanded by hundreds of terms to account for
these effects which can hardly be viewed as Newtonian or an inverse
function of distance, but now such a gravity model is really in a
class all by itself. This particular effort is not to raise
questions about such an extension of the Newtonian model but to
address first-order questions. This includes looking toward a model
that could, for example, address the perihelion of Mercury problem
which was used to substantiate Einstein's Theory of Relativity as
well as provide a means for estimating the speed of gravitational
waves.

II. DISCUSSION

This section will present the Jefimenko model and the conventional
wisdom regarding some approaches for examining solutions to Kepler's
two-body problem and the restricted three-body problem of celestial
mechanics.

A. The Jefimenko Gravitation Model

Jefimenko20,21 provides some other very interesting insights
into this problem. He introduces a gravitation field as well as a
cogravitation field defined by the equation:

...

This equation resembles the Lorentz force acting on an
electromagnetic particle. This is a crucial analytical finding
based upon Heaviside's 1893 paper where equations are shown similar
to Maxwell's equations, to describe gravity. Jefimenko also
introduces cogravity to account for relativistic effects acting upon
a rest mass.

...

The propagation velocity, per Jefimenko, is less than light speed;
we shall modify this approach by assuming this velocity is actually
greater than light speed. Moreover, these expressions for steady-
state revert to Newtonian gravity. Interestingly these equations
include all pseudo-analytical or pseudo-wave relations necessary to
define unique vectors.

...

To decrease gravitational force acting on our light-speed
spacecraft, we should select a path that reduces the radius-velocity
and radius-acceleration vector cross-products. A test of this
gravity model would be to examine a photon passing a large body.
With Jefimenko's cross-product term, each photon's trajectory
depends upon grazing angle and closeness to the large body. Our
light-speed vehicle acts like a photon!

This includes an acceleration term. Gravity is a function of the
radius vector emanating from the larger body and as in previous
Jefimenko models, includes a term that accounts for relativistic
effects operating on a rest mass.
There is another point worth mentioning. With the gravity
gradient as an inverse function of distance, gravity acts as a
singularity at the origin. With the addition of radial terms, other
more pronounced effects take place. For example, a value of 1/r2
provides what Popescu calls a gravitovortex wave. Popescu also
indicates that such gravitational waves could cause spiral
trajectories. Dyatlov also calls this a gravispin wave. The reason
is that such a function admits the existences of vortices as
solutions to Laplace's equation. For the Jefimenko model, such terms
can be considered as a gravitational torque that force planets to
alter their spin motion about the rotation axis. For this reason
due to its attraction from the Earth, we see the same side of the
moon.
There is another point of interest. What physical evidence
is there that such a gravitational field may exist? How does one
measure the magnitude of the vortex strength or gravitational
circulation in a gravispin wave? One physical artifact of such an
effect is the arms that extend outward from a spiral galaxy. These
could be due to sudden rotational motion of the galactic mass which
is the approach outlined by the conventional wisdom. Such a vortex
induced gravity field would produce similar effects and induce the
rotation as well.
It is clear that the adequacy of these models requires
examining the uncertainty where gravity strongly depends upon a
light-speed vehicle's trajectory to define velocity, acceleration,
vector cross- and dot products as the vehicle approaches or egresses
near a larger body.

...

Also, travelling at the speed of light may blur the distinction
whether the satellite orbit is elliptical or hyperbolic because of
the large speeds involved. The major factor that is off concern is
that the gravity of the planet using Jefimenko's gravity model will
increase drastically as we approach the light speed singularity.

...

B. The Three-Body Problem

The question is how to implement Jefimenko's gravity model
in these equations. The issue is that the three-body problem at the
speed of light may become meaningless as both bodies may act as a
singular mass. If the gravitational forces become infinite and our
trajectory goes, say, in the middle of the two bodies, we may then
argue that the bodies act as a 'light' trap and a stable trajectory
may result where the vehicle decelerates under tremendous stress to
the point that with reduced velocity and the sudden decay in
gravitational attraction, the problem again becomes meaningful. A
consequence of such an analysis would be to use two nearby planets
as a means for decelerating or 'braking' the vehicle in lieu of
expending energy.

...

C. Mathematical Solution Behavior

Let us expand this point further to consider changes in the
solution where we operate on either side of the light speed
singularity.
It is not nature's fault a singularity occurs at the speed
of light, the fault is our inability to correctly model nature's
behavior. Moreover, what type of singularity should be expected?
Will this help explain the pseudo-transition that occurs with
changes in the canonical form? We do not want to gradually approach
the singularity and reside there before passing through but wish to
pursue passing through the singularity as rapidly as possible to
minimize residing at the speed of light as a segment of a light wave.
The problem posed by the light speed singularity was
previously discussed3-5. Recall our earlier statement about
punching through the singularity as being comparable to the problem
of an airplane passing through the singularity at transonic speed
from a physical context; it should be no different here. You have
similar singular behavior. In Asaro18 the problem was reduced to
complex variables with the definition of a complex velocity. The
singularity is treated in a similar fashion as passing through a
singularity in the complex plane. Although having mathematical
significance, there is no physical significance unless there is a
finite meaning to the term complex velocity. Thus there is no
magical tree but only a mathematical artifact. Moreover, the
singularity could be removed by multiplying by a factor moving the
term from the denominator to the numerator.
With these thoughts, one wonders what a crew would see inside of a
hyper-light spaceship. This is one reason to be concerned with the
speed of light in a coordinate system moving faster than light
speed. Either he sees no change if light moves at velocity c within
the ship or it will look as if water was poured over an object where
the water flows down distorting visible features. Light emitted
from an object in the spacecraft will appear as sheets formed by the
object and the angle they form with the body depends upon the
vehicle's velocity. If you look forward, you will only see objects
within the light cone that includes the observer. Likewise, if you
look rearward, you only see those objects within your own light cone.



References

1. I. N. Popescu: Gravitation, Pleading for a New Unified Theory of
Motion and Fields, Editrice Nagard, Foro Triano 1/A, Roma, Italia,
1988.
2. P.A. Murad: "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian
Trajectories", AIAA Paper No. 91-0678 presented at the AIAA 29th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada 7-10 Jan 1991.

3. P.A. Murad: "Tsien's Method for Generating Non-Keplerian
Trajectories, Part II- The Question of Thrust to Orbit a Sphere and
the Restricted Three-Body Problem", NASA Conference Publication
3186, Flight Mechanics/Estimation Theory Symposium 1992.
4. P.A. Murad: "A Mathematical Treatise on the Restricted Three-Body
Problem of Celestial Mechanics", AIAA Paper No. 75-8, presented at
the AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 1975.
5. P.A. Murad: "Hyper-Light Dynamics and the Effects of Relativity,
Gravity, Electricity and Magnetism", IAF Paper No. 99-S.6.02
presented at the 50th International Astronautical Congress in
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, Oct. 4-8, 1999.

6. P.A. Murad: "Hyper-Light Dynamics, Relativity, Gravity,
Electricity, and Magnetism", AIAA Paper No. 99-2696, to be presented
at the 35th AIAA/ASME/ SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference in Los
Angeles, Calif. 20-23 June 1997.

7. P.A. Murad: "An Extended Navier-Stokes Algorithm and The
Challenges of Relativistic Fluid Dynamics", AIAA Paper No. 99-0562,
presented at the 37th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan 11-14, 1999,
Reno, Nevada.

8. P.A. Murad: "Challenges Posed By Hyper-Light Trajectories", AAS
Paper No. 98-138 presented at the AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics
Meeting in Monterey, Calif. 9-11 February 1998.

9. P.A. Murad: "An Ansatz On Hyper-Light Travel", AIAA Paper No.
97-3213 presented at the 33rd AIAA/ASME/ SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference in Seattle, Wa., 6-9 July 1997.

10. P.A. Murad: "An Electromagnetic Rocket Hyper-Light Stellar
Drive", IAF Paper No. IAA-96-IAA.4.1.07 in the Proceedings of the
47th IAF Congress in Beijing, China 7-11 Oct. 1996.

11. P.A. Murad: "An Electromagnetic Rocket Stellar Drive....Myth or
Reality? Part I- Electromagnetic and Relativistic Phenomenon", AIAA
Paper No. 95-2602 presented at the 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference in San Diego, 8 July 1995.

12. P.A. Murad: "An Electromagnetic Rocket Stellar Drive....Myth or
Reality? Part II- Fluid Dynamic Interactions and an Engine Concept",
AIAA Paper No. 95-2894 presented at the 31st AIAA/ ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference in San Diego, 10 July 1995.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:02:56 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Classical electromagnetic devices to generate macroscopic Kerr-Newman singularit


The following paper seems at first view close to the work of Hans-
Georg Kuessner (book published after WWII in 1946 and 1976) from
Germany:


Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal
Philippe-Alexandre GAUGAIN

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/docs/Stargate-en.pdf




________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:24:31 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Re: Classical electromagnetic devices to generate macroscopic Kerr-Newman singularit


Now I find the time to read the "Open Letter from a group of French
scientists to the Initiator of the Disclosure Project."

Before we go into details.. please let me note the following..
several months ago I purchased two interesting books:

1. Luftwaffe - Secret Projects - Strategic Bombers 1935-1945
by Dieter Herwig and Heinz Rode

2. Luftwaffe - Secret Projects - Fighter 1939 - 1945
by Walter Schick and Ingolf Meyer

Look for those books at www.amazon.com

Now let me add that Prof. Kuessner was involved in many of those
projects.. he was the leading expert in aeroelasticity and unsteady
aerodynamics.. after WWII he was head of DLR (German NASA)
Aeroelasticity Section in Gottingen.. the same place where you can
find the Max-Planck-Institute for Fluiddynamics...

But Kuessner also worked on quaternion and Clifford algebra Maxwell
equations.. furthermore, please note that with Prof. Winfried-Otto
Schumann the Germans had a leading expert in EM-Plasma-
Interactions.. after WWII Prof. Schumann could keep his chair at TU
Munich and was member of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences.. years
later the earth resonance frequency was named after Schumann who
might be aware of Tesla's interesting ideas...

I do not want to speculate but I find it curious that the French
group writes:

"These technologies were directly derived from the analysis of the
wreck retrieved at Roswell, which was a hypersonic space shuttle and
not an interstellar vehicle. We deplore the fact that this reverse
engineering has only been applied to military ends, since these
techniques could have found better use, the one as a completely re-
reusable space launcher - much more efficient and cheaper than the
customary rockets - the other as a hypersonic commercial plane."

A hypersonic space shuttle?? Let's assume it was a secret German
spyplane.. maybe?? maybe not?? if not.. what else could it be? a
craft from old cilizations?? maybe?? maybe not??
maybe there was even nothing but only myths.. I do not know..

but after WWII the USA have got all those scientists via Paperclip..
also the now famous fusion expert Friedwart Winterberg... so I find
the French group's conclusions irritating..

Paul Murad sent the following abstract which is very interesting..
maybe he wanted to interest me.. Jack obviously overread this part..

please note that the idea of Inertial Electrostatic Confinement
(IEC) is decades old.. and it is said that it is a fusion technique
which really works..

---

Combining MHD Airbreathing and Fusion Rocket Propulsion
for Single Stage-to-Orbit Flight
Principal Author H.D. Froning, Jr. 1
Co-authors: G.H. Miley,2 J. Nadler, Y. Shaban, H. Momota,3 E. Burton4

1Flight Unlimited, 5450 Country Club Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86004, USA
2 Fusion Studies Lab, University of Illinois, 103 S. Goodwin Ave.,
Urbana, IL 61801, USA
3 NPL Associates, 912 W. Armory, Champaign, IL 61821, USA
4 Aeronautical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Illinois
206b Talbot Lab, 104 S. Wright, Urbana, IL 51801, USA

ABSTRACT

Studies in Russia, Europe, and the US have shown that Magneto-Hydro-
Dynamic (MHD) processes can extract electricity for vehicle and
propulsion power from slowed airflow within airbreathing engines,
while reducing propulsive losses and propellant consumption during
high-speed atmospheric flight. And the study reported in this paper
shows that: (1) further reduction in airbreathing propellant
consumption is possible by use of energies from aneutronic fusion
processes, that emit no harmful radiation; and (2) the aneutronic
fusion processes can also enable subsequent fusion rocket propulsion
to achieve, with minimal propellant expenditure, much higher speeds
in space.

For this Study, the aneutronic Inertial Electrostatic Confinement
(IEC) propulsion system design by Dr. Robert Bussard was used
because of its potential for high thrust-to-weight. Hydrogen
propellant is used as fuel in the MHD airbreathing system and as
working fluid in the fusion rocket system, and Boron 11 and protons
would be the aneutronic nuclear fuels used to accomplish fusion.
Both MHD airbreathing and aneutronic fusion propulsion systems share
common subsystems: flow channels, superconducting magnets, electron
beams (for flow ionization and flow heating), and power conditioning
to minimize total propulsion system mass. And use of electric power,
generated by MHD airbreathing, enables in-flight ignition of the
fusion system, while fusion system energy deposition into engine
airflow enables additional airbreathing thrust with no additional
propellant consumption.

The paper also describes some of the most critical issues associated
with accomplishment of aneutronic IEC fusion, together with critical
issues associated with integration of a fusion propulsion and power
system with MHD airbreathing propulsion and power. Some subsystem
performance and design requirements for the most critical elements
of the MHD and fusion systems are also identified.

Although accomplished work is not yet sufficient for confirming the
feasibility of MHD airbreathing and aneutronic fusion for future
flight, use of combining such propulsion was explored for single-
stage-to-orbit flight to low earth orbit. It was found that SSTO
vehicle takeoff and propellant mass for MHD airbreathing and IEC
fusion could be as much as 25 and 40 percent respectively less than
that of a SSTO vehicle with ordinary airbreathing and IEC fusion.
And SSTO vehicle takeoff and propellant mass for MHD airbreathing
and fusion rocket propulsion would be as much as 50 and 70 percent
respectively less that of a SSTO vehicle with MHD airbreathing and
chemical rocket propulsion.



--- In SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, "Berkant"
wrote:

The following paper seems at first view close to the work of Hans-
Georg Kuessner (book published after WWII in 1946 and 1976) from
Germany:


Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal
Philippe-Alexandre GAUGAIN

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/docs/Stargate-en.pdf



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 03:36:35 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
Subject: Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html
...
" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 : the
twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in
contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech,
which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on receiving
the Nobel Prize.

[Konkretny]
See "the strange end terms" of Sakharov's speech read by
his wife Elena Bonner-Sakharova:
http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1975/sakharov-acceptance.html
Quote:
"...I would like to end my speech expressing the hope
in a final victory of the principles of peace and
human rights. The best sign that such hope can come
true would be a general political amnesty in all
the world, liberation of all prisoners of conscience
everywhere. The struggle for a general political
amnesty is the struggle for the future of mankind.

I am deeply grateful to the Nobel Committee for awarding
me the Nobel Peace Prize for 1975, and I beg you
to remember that the honour which was thus granted
to me is shared by all prisoners of conscience in
the Soviet Union and in other Eastern European countries
as well as by all those who fight for their liberation."

SFW? What is so "strange" about Sakharov's words and what
do they have to do with UFOs?


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 13
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 23:38:14 -0000
From: "Berkant"
Subject: Father of Jet Engine Von Ohain - Expert in Electrofluidsystems


PS:

It is not widely known that the father of the jet engine Von Ohain
who after WWII worked for Wright-Patterson AFB was also an expert in
electrofluiddynamic generators..

this is something which should be considered..

with such a EFD generator you are able to generate high voltage
energy from your jet engine.. you need some modifications between
the combustion chamber and the turbine..

you may know those rumours regarding the B2-Bomber.. there are
claims that this craft also uses a EFD generator.. why not?? it is
nothing which could not be engineered.. furthermore a charged
exhaust doesn't generate contrails as it affects the vapor
condensation.. did you know that this was already shown by Helmholtz
in the end of the 19th century.. Helmholtz made experiments with hot
water vapor and used high voltage discharges and also sulfid acid
(again a stealthy mixture often mentioned to be used to remove
contrails).. you see it is nothing new.. and all mentioned in my
thesis works for years...

Furthermore, before Guenther Kappler founded BMW-Rolls-Royce
Deutschland he was aeronautics professor at TU Munich.. at his
institute he also had a section Electrofluiddynamics headed by Dr.
Wolfgang Dittrich.. a student of Prof. Schumann.. if I recall
correctly.. Dittrich published several reports in Germany..
but up-to-date I do not know who is applying those techniques.





________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 03:47:07 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
Subject: Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons

OK, I got it; they should have been more specific. What they
meant was obviously Sakharov's Nobel Lecture:
http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1975/sakharov-lecture.html

"...Thousands of years ago tribes of human beings suffered great privations in the struggle to survive. In this struggle it was important not only to be able to handle a club, but also to possess the ability to think reasonably, to take care of the knowledge and experience garnered by the tribe, and to develop the links that would provide cooperation with other tribes. Today the entire human race is faced with a similar test. In infinite space many civilizations are bound to exist, among them civilizations that are also wiser and more "successful" than ours. I support the cosmological hypothesis which states that the development of the universe is repeated in its basic features an infinite number of times. In accordance with this, other civilizations, including more "successful" ones, should exist an infinite number of times on the "preceding" and the "following" pages of the Book of the Universe. Yet this should not minimize our sacred endeavors in this world of ours, where, like faint glimmers of light in the dark, we have emerged for a moment from the nothingness of dark unconsciousness of material existence. We must make good the demands of reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and of the goals we only dimly perceive."

Anyway I fail to see in these words any indication of Sakharov's
being an alien contactee.

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html
...
" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 : the
twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in
contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech,
which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on receiving
the Nobel Prize.

[Konkretny]
See "the strange end terms" of Sakharov's speech read by
his wife Elena Bonner-Sakharova:
http://www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1975/sakharov-acceptance.html
Quote:
"...I would like to end my speech expressing the hope
in a final victory of the principles of peace and
human rights. The best sign that such hope can come
true would be a general political amnesty in all
the world, liberation of all prisoners of conscience
everywhere. The struggle for a general political
amnesty is the struggle for the future of mankind.

I am deeply grateful to the Nobel Committee for awarding
me the Nobel Peace Prize for 1975, and I beg you
to remember that the honour which was thus granted
to me is shared by all prisoners of conscience in
the Soviet Union and in other Eastern European countries
as well as by all those who fight for their liberation."

SFW? What is so "strange" about Sakharov's words and what
do they have to do with UFOs?


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 15
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:05:48 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Heim

I got one of the Heim papers.
It is too complicated. I get a lot more with a lot less.
However Heim cites Saul-Paul Sirag and Blackett Effect so I sent the
paper to Saul-Paul. Maybe he will have patience to wade through it.
Heim claims to compute particle masses.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 16
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 20:04:22 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons

I did not write that. The French guy Peit from CNRS allegedly wrote it.
On May 18, 2004, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Konkretny wrote:

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html
...


Message: 17
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:51:13 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
Subject: Richard Feynman on Cargo Cult Science Re: Rabbi Sarfatti introduces "Torsion Field Invocation"

http://www.leninism.org/stream/96/cargo_cult_science.htm

From Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman:

"That's just an example of the kind of things that overwhelm me. I also looked into extrasensory perception, and PSI phenomena, and the latest craze there was Uri Geller, a man who is supposed to be able to bend keys by rubbing them with his finger. So I went to his hotel room, on his invitation, to see a demonstration of both mindreading and bending keys. He didn't do any mindreading that succeeded... And my boy held a key and Geller rubbed it, and nothing happened. Then he told us it works better under water, and so you can picture all of us standing in the bathroom with the water turned on and the key under it, and him rubbing the key with his finger. Nothing happened...

But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down -- or hardly going up -- in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress -- lots of theory, but no progress -- in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals...

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work, and science that isn't science...

Another example is the ESP experiments of Mr. Rhine, and other people. As various people have made criticisms -- and they themselves have made criticisms of their own experiments -- they improve the techniques so that the effects are smaller, and smaller, and smaller until they gradually disappear. All the para-psychologists are looking for some experiment that can be repeated -- that you can do again and get the same effect -- statistically, even. They run a million rats -- no, it's people this time -- they do a lot of things are get a certain statistical effect. Next time they try it they don't get it any more. And now you find a man saying that is is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?"

Gennady I Shipov wrote:

The psychophysical phenomena constitute a part of reality, a part of the Nature. If traditional physics cannot explain them, it follows only that it is incomplete and that a new physical paradigm is required. The theories of Physical Vacuum and of the Ricci torsion fields, which are being actively developed today in Russia, provide precisely this new paradigm as a natural and logical continuation of the present science. They explain the Nature in its entirety and do not overlook the "inconvenient" phenomena.


________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:55:46 +0400 (MSD)
From: "Alexander Konkretny"
Subject: Re: PRAVDA & French "CNRS" on exotic "UFO" weapons

Sure, Jack, I did not write that you had written it. I was just
commenting on what the French guy had written.

I did not write that. The French guy Peit from CNRS allegedly wrote it.
On May 18, 2004, at 4:36 PM, Alexander Konkretny wrote:

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html
...
" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 :
the
twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in
contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech,
which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on
receiving
the Nobel Prize.

_____________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 19
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:59:06 -0700
From: Jack Sarfatti
Subject: Re: New data on dark energy Chandra: Thumbs up for w = -1.

Excellent news. They are saying w = -1 as I have said. This and CDMSII
refuting Italian false positives is thumbs up for my theory in "Super
Cosmos" thumbs down for phantom energy w < -1 and thumbs down for
quintessence -1 < w < -1/3. Also thumbs down for dark matter as
supersymmetry partners.

Let's see if the experiments continue to confirm this in next few years.

This is all explained in my book Super Cosmos soon out as well as in my
two previous books Destiny Matrix and Space-Time and Beyond II from
late 2002.

On May 18, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


NASA NEWS RELEASE:


http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy/


Chandra Discovery Sheds Light on Dark Energy
05.18.04

New data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is changing the way we
view the universe.

Astronomers using information from the orbiting observatory are
discovering the universe's expansion has been picking up speed. The
finding sheds light on a force known as "dark energy," which experts
believe will shape the fate of the universe.

Dark energy, which fills the space between galaxies and drives them
apart, is "perhaps the biggest mystery in physics," said Steve Allen
of the Institute of Astronomy (IoA) in Cambridge, England.

Image to left: In this still image from an animation, the universe has
just begun to expand after the Big Bang. Click image for animation.
Credit: NASA/Space Telescope Science Institute

Scientists have long wondered if the universe will collapse in on
itself billions of years from now in what many call the "Big Crunch."
Another theory states it will expand so rapidly that everything is
torn apart in the "Big Rip."

Fortunately, the Chandra findings indicate that these catastrophes
might be ruled out. The density of dark energy appears to be fairly
constant, or at least increasing slowly enough that the universe will
simply continue to expand forever. If this is the case, many billions
of years from now, only a few of the known galaxies we can see today
will be visible.

According to Chandra data, the expansion of the universe was gradually
slowing down until about 6 billion years ago, when it started to
accelerate, presumably because of the repulsive effect of dark energy.

Now, thanks to Chandra's unique capabilities, astronomers are
beginning to chip away at the wall of mystique surrounding dark
energy.

Image to right: This optical and X-ray composite image shows Abell
2029, one of 26 galaxy clusters studied by Chandra, located one
billion light years away. Click image for full size version. Credit:
Optical: National Optical Astronomy Observatory/Kitt Peak, X-ray:
NASA/Chandra X-ray Center/IoA

Allen and his colleagues at the IoA used Chandra to study 26 galaxy
clusters between 1 billion and 8 billion light years away.

Chandra's probe of dark energy relies on the unique ability of X-ray
observations to study the hot gas in galaxy clusters. By using Chandra
data to figure out the ratio of hot gas to dark matter, astronomers
determined how far away the clusters were and at what point in time
they were viewing them. They found the clusters were farther away than
expected, indicating an accelerated expansion.

Image to left: In this still image from an animation, a galaxy cluster
consists of galaxies (shown in white and yellow) and intergalactic gas
(shown in red). Click image for animation. Credit: NASA/Chandra X-ray
Center

Because galaxy clusters are the largest bound structures in the
universe, scientists consider them as scale models of the universe in
terms of matter content.

Einstein first proposed the concept of dark energy, calling it a
"cosmological constant" in his General Theory of Relativity. He
suggested that a repulsive force must be counteracting the pull of
gravity, creating a sort of equilibrium to maintain a static universe
that doesn't change in size. He later abandoned the idea, calling it
the biggest blunder of his life, when Edwin Hubble's observations
indicated the universe was expanding.

But it appears Einstein's idea had much more merit than he thought.

For now, astronomers still have many questions and dark energy is
keeping most of its secrets to itself. But more detailed studies with
NASA's Chandra, Hubble Space Telescope, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe and future missions such as Constellation X should continue
providing answers.

To view the press release, related images and animations, visit:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy

Anna Heiney, KSC Staff Writer
Chandra X-ray Center and NASA's John F. Kennedy Space Center




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________


** Slight name change, added another little 's'

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Memorandum for the Record

Military Intelligence information/disinformation/misinformation I am receiving in the wake of the article in PRAVDA http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

On May 18, 2004, at 6:50 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On May 17, 2004, at 9:47 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Interesting -- it also contains WW2 era photos with ground crews:
http://www.buforadio.com/ufofilespennsylvania/id22.html

I am skeptical. Nick is in a better position to judge.
No known propulsion system back in 20's & 30's not to mention dubious aerodynamics.

STAIF leader Paul Murad has written that he too thinks the saucers are real and he works for DIA in the Pentagon. In that regard Murad agrees with the French chap below.

I received this. I have deleted many detailed images and designs from the original document of more than 2 megs. My comments are sparse and incomplete as I have not digested it nor really checked its authenticity as yet. Caveat, this document is probably disinformation. I am not endorsing it. Intelligent feedback welcome.

The document is mostly about MHD with copious images. There is some wrong physics about anti-gravity that I excerpt here at beginning

" About anti-gravitation.
Research in theoretical cosmology which we have published, inspired by information received through alien contacts, has led us to build a cosmological model based on two universes,"

This model was discussed by Phillipe Gaugain in our recent Ideas of March London Meeting March 17, 2004 described in my book "Super Cosmos"
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc 5 meg file FREE ONLINE COPY
Now in production in hard copy and soon to be available from http://amazon.com et-al

On May 18, 2004, at 7:38 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/docs/Stargate-en.pdf

Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal
Philippe-Alexandre GAUGAIN
mirror@europeanufosurvey.com


On May 18, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:


okay... now I have it... after looking at the homepage of the European Ufo Survey... interesting.. shall I contact them??!

are you member of this group??

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html

Mission Statement

We are an independant European team of about 28 scientists ( Physicists, Mathematicians, Astronomers, Biologists, Computering , Optics engineers, Free Energy researchers, Linguists, Archeologists...) and free Ufo researchers who have been silently involved in Ufological investigations for more than 20 years .

EUS is a diverse team from over 10 different European nationalities.
We share professional, respect and friendship links for a very long time.
Each one of us have is accurate research field and skills and individually deal with, and share his results when, and in the way they wish with the rest of the team.

The most important thing for EUS:

Is to work and continue the research without any waste of time.
As many of us are in university careers, or the like, for the moment we have decided to protect the private datas of the associate members of the team, and publish our statements, and conclusions as a joint voice of one accord, and thus the group EUS.



" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 : the twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech, which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on receiving the Nobel Prize. This model consists of a two-fold universe or double-universe. Australian researchers Foot and Volkas today follow a similar path, calling it "mirror-universes" (papers published in Physics Review). We have shown that the "apparent mass" of the "twin universe" was negative, i.e. twin matter repels ours while two particles of twin matter attract each other, in accordance with Newton's law. This repulsion explains the re-acceleration of the expansion of our universe, while it slows down the expansion of the twin."

I am skeptical of this particular model. It is not needed. See my book for details.

"When interstellar vessels cruise over huge distances, they use the twin as a sort of "express subway". In this universe, which is extremely rarefied in regions adjacent to ours, distances are shortened and the speed of light is high. This makes space travel possible, subject to the principle : "it is illegal to exceed the speed of light of the universe in which one is travelling."

The Alcubierre "FTL without ftl" weightless warp drive solution solves this problem without needing a huge Kerr-Newman black hole and with my /\zpf field for the exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point dark energy/matter we can implement that solution in principle.

"One American research team is working on an idea based on attempting locally to modify the value of the speed of light; the "warp driving concept"."

He probably means Hal Puthoff. I refute Hal's "PV" dielectric program in my book "Super Cosmos." It has no chance of working in my opinion. It has already been contradicted by experiment in the case of the pulsar data as shown by Michael Ibison who works with Hal. I call this NASA BPP where "BPP" means "Broken Propulsion Program." ;-)

Note "with the help of aliens"
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html :-)

"Our approach is different and far more advanced. With the help of aliens, it has taken us years just to begin understanding how it works and it would require pages to describe. In principle, the vehicle's mass must be transferred to the twin universe."

This whole idea of changing mass m is wrong-headed and muddled. Hal Puthoff has a version of it, and it is in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point."

Standard physics for rest mass of lepto-quarks is the "Higgs mechanism"

m ~ (coupling)(vacuum coherence) at scale ~ 10^-16 cm

You do not want to change e/m ratios and e^2/hc even if you could because that will blow up the matter so modified!

What you have on timelike worldlines that are NOT free float geodesic

W = mg

and it is the g you control with metric engineering! You leave m alone! Change it at your peril! Changing m is Mickey Mouse in Sorceror's Apprentice in Walt Disney's "Fantasia."

"When this operation takes place near the Earth, the latter becomes invisible to the craft but acts on it as a negative, repulsive mass. If the stations in our universe and in the adjacent region if the twin are rapidly alternated, this is not detected by an observer, however in one phase the vessel drops under the Earth's attraction, while in the other it rises under the Earth's repulsion. Globally this amounts to an apparent cancellation of the vessel's weight, whichever it's mass may be. This is our interpretation of what people call anti-gravitation. We do not know whether aliens have given earthlings the tip about those techniques."

The "French' are wrong here. One can cancel weight W, but that is a primitive way to put it. The idea is that the flying saucer can steer its only local timelike geodesic in which it is weightless! W = 0, m stays the same! You do this with a nano-mesh phase array of devices embedded in the fuselage of the saucers that controls the /\zpf field configuration in Einstein's exotic vacuum equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

With stress-energy density current flow conserved according to

Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

/\zpf is the source pump to metric engineer Guv as desired with small amounts of on-board power using delicate phase matching as in the Josephson effect. The weak link is between the control high Tc superconductor coherence in each node of the mesh and the vacuum coherence as shown in math detail in my book "Super Cosmos."

Obviously the French "CNRS" do not understand how anti-gravity zero point energy metric engineering works any better than Hal Puthoff, STAIF and NASA BPP. I show above how it really works.

The MHD stuff has nothing to do with anti-gravity and my remarks do not apply to the MHD information in this document.


"Open Letter from a group of French scientists to the Initiator of the Disclosure Project.

Introduction.
We are a group of French scientists. We have read Dr. Greer's text on the Disclosure Web site and have been impressed by his remarks. We are convinced, as he is, that certain nations, and chiefly the US, have been able to derive from the UFO files, from crashed UFO retrievals and from possible contacts with aliens, information which has led to entirely new scientific knowledge. We shall farther discuss the assessment of developments achieved on the basis of these information. The question is : "how far have they reached ?". We hold accurate information about the American black programs linked with hypersonic planes, be it the satellisable Aurora spy craft or a hypersonic long range bomber for which the B2 is but a cover-up. Technical data in our possession allow us, in this particular case, to sustain our assertions. These technologies were directly derived from the analysis of the wreck retrieved at Roswell, which was a hypersonic space shuttle and not an interstellar vehicle. We deplore the fact that this reverse engineering has only been applied to military ends, since these techniques could have found better use, the one as a completely re-reusable space launcher - much more efficient and cheaper than the customary rockets - the other as a hypersonic commercial plane.

Possible antimatter synthesis.
Besides the above, it is highly presumable that the Americans have mastered a massive antimatter production technique, this - and not the "void energy" - being the near magic, inexhaustible future energy coming out of nowhere; unless one considers the transformation of matter into antimatter by thermonuclear compression as a means of "extracting energy from the void". I shall add that once antimatter has been produced in this way, it can farther be used to produce more. No nuclear explosion is needed at every start. However this technology lays in the hands of humanity incredibly more destructive bombs than the most powerful thermonuclear weapons presently available. It also generates a potential straightforward war hazard through the fact that very small quantities of antimatter can be stocked in crystals under very stable electrostatic confinement; this allows the production of tiny bombs - "bucky balls" - , the size of an egg, thermal shield included, of 40 ton TNT power. Thanks to their relatively limited power and the fact that no waste is produced, these bombs could readily be used. Instead of dropping high power bombs on isolated targets, which would throw up great quantities of pulverulent matter into the high atmosphere and generate nuclear winter effects, it would be possible to scatter a great number of these mini antimatter bombs and cause equal damage, whilst avoiding that the dust should rise at high altitudes and generate a nuclear winter. We believe that the US already possess a considerable number of such weapons with which they would be capable of reducing whole countries to ashes, and we fear that these devices will soon be discreetly brought into action on more restricted scales. This takes us far out of sight of the positive applications of which Humanity could benefit from such a technology and thus produce, as Dr. Greer rightly puts it, "flowering deserts".

The raw material and waste problem.
We believe that the ET vehicles visiting us use antimatter, stocked on board or synthesised, as primary source of energy. This basic energy could be put to a wide range of uses. One of the most useful is to master the transmutation of materials and be thus able to synthesise at will any type of atom. Coupled with a very advanced nano-technology, this would allow the most complex systems to be synthesised without human intervention, i.e. without "work". Inversely, any system composed of atoms could be converted into neutral waste such as helium, the typically ideal waste. If we survive the next century, this is the picture of our future technology. If such a set of techniques were completed with a more comprehensive approach of biology then that which is practised on Earth today, the Human being would have the keys of a Golden Age within arm's reach.

Present state of technology on Earth.
We do not know how far these technologies may have been developed on Earth. To this date we may only strongly suspect that antimatter synthesis through thermonuclear compression has been obtained in the US towards the end of the sixties; we shall farther come back to this. Another problem raised by Dr. Greer is machine weight reduction, suppression or even inversion (anti-gravity). We consider this as feasible. This is the technique used by UFO's when they hover without any air displacement. In our opinion this can only be understood via an important paradigm shift, a different way of comprehending space and matter. But this is still speculative and we suggest also coming back to it farther on. Anti-gravity control could obviously be applied to civilian transportation, but far beyond this, we think it would open the way to outer space travel. Here again, we shall postpone the subject to the end of this paper.

Our comments on the Space Energy Access Systems.
However commendable the feeling from which this project arises, we are doubtful as to its chances of success. We think that its applications (unlimited energy production, anti-gravity), even though physically conceivable, would call for very expensive advanced technologies. By comparison one could imagine the Foundation offering men of the Antiquity a full purse of gold to whomever would fly a plane with three passengers over more than six miles. We are sceptical as to the compatibility of such techniques with soft technologies within reach of amateurs and moderately sized laboratories. Such developments may, to our mind, only be envisaged by large scale laboratories with considerable funds for which a million dollar prize would seem but a derisory sum compared with the cost of such research. Consequently, laboratories of that size would inevitably be part of the military-industrial lobbies. At best would the supporters of such a project be rewarded with interesting theoretical ideas, but no exploitable practical results. Such is our opinion, but of course we may be mistaken.

Our answer to the Disclosure Manifest.
Whilst we are not in a state to submit to Dr. Greer plans for an unlimited energy producing machine or one that could suppress the force of gravity, we are, on the other hand, able to present strong arguments in support of his campaign against the diversion of technologies by military-industrial complexes elusive to American political power and dedicated to serve a few who seek world domination by force. The elements we are in a state to produce are related to underwater high velocity propulsion and construction of very long range hypersonic planes, both these techniques being based on what is called magneto-hydro-dynamics, or MHD.

General remarks about MHD.
MHD has been the object of sustained research in the sixties, the civilian sector only having obviously been accessible to the public. The purpose at the time was to produce electricity through direct MHD conversion, using as primary energy either fossil fuels - so-called "open cycles" -, or energy produced by high temperature reactors (HTR). In both cases, research teams came up against the fact that gases at "technological" temperatures, even when seeded with low ionisation potential substances such as caesium, are not sufficiently electrically conductive. Below 3000°K, their electric conductivity is too low. The Russians have led this technique of MHD electricity production as far as possible with their U-25 generator, which burns a mixture of hydrocarbons and pure oxygen. But this civilian oriented research was finally abandoned. Another trial took place where two-temperature gases were used (in which the electron gas has a higher temperature than the atom gas). This was not possible in a molecular environment which contained a lot of carbon dioxide (as a result of combustion). Indeed, this molecule is readily excited by the chocks with electrons. The result was a great loss of energy through radiation (radiative un-excitation). This two-temperature system was thus limited to closed cycles where the conversion fluid was a rare gas : helium, seeded with caesium, used to cool down the heart of a reactor working at high temperature (1500°K). Let us point out that these reactors were neither built nor tested. Atomic scientists only thought they might be constructed and, thank God, they never were. This research came up against something which completely annihilated the generators' performances by making the plasma very non-homogeneous : it was an instability discovered in 1964 by the Russian Velikhov. These preliminaries may seem strange, but they explain why civilian MHD research was abandoned in many countries, except in the US and Russia, where military MHD was at the same time being developed in great secret. In Russia, the father of military MHD was Andrei Sakharov. His pupil was none other than Velikhov, innovator of the soviet style star war, and Poutine's chief consultant for leading edge weapons.

Description of high velocity US and Russian MHD torpedoes.
Since a long time ago, the USA and USSR possessed indubitable evidence that UFO's were of extraterrestrial origin. The US had retrieved at least one crashed hypersonic vehicle at Roswell and it is highly probable that the Russians also collected an equal supply. It was not until the seventies that the Americans understood that one of the key operating elements of the Roswell shuttle was MHD. They also grasped that military MHD was of prime strategic importance and they launched an intense disinformation campaign, at home and abroad, to lure researchers away from what they declared to be a dead end subject. I hold this information from the fact that I was closely implied , since 1965, in French civilian MHD projects. I built a Faraday linear generator, based on a combustion shock tube, producing a power of several megawatts during 200 microseconds; with a two tesla magnetic field. The Velikhov instability having been overcome, we succeeded in obtaining the first two-temperature stable running conditions, and this was presented at the 1967 Warsaw international colloquium. But notwithstanding this success, in the early seventies, in our own country as in others, this research was abandoned. It is worth mentioning that our team obtained a gas blast speed gain of 5,500 m/s over a distance of less than 4", with argon fluxes at 10,000°K input into a Faraday accelerator at 2,750 m/s under a one bar pressure. But at the time nobody in France realised the military implication of what was to become, elsewhere, an MHD propulsion with high specific impulse. If I remember correctly, I travelled to the United States in 1984, to take part in an international MHD meeting in Boston. The Russians presented their Pavlovsky generator, one of the various versions of the flux compression generators tested in the early 50's by Sakharov's team, which was later to become the typical feed system to their directed energy weapons (electron and laser beams). Besides this novelty, representatives of various countries, American researches included, (the colloquium had been organised by J.F. Louis of AVCO), deplored the loss of interest of their governments. And yet we were ignorant of the fact that, three years earlier, the Americans had operated their first MHD torpedoes at 1,000 knots; we got wind of this many years later. Today, in countries possessing leading technology, propeller torpedoes have been abandoned since exactly thirty years. The powder rocket propulsion was soon found to be more efficient and gave rise to such machines as the American Supercav or the Russian Sqwal.
The russian Sqwal rocket torpedo (250 knots)

image deleted

The British today possess a similar weapon, the Spearfish. In these torpedoes, hot gas is ejected from the machine's nose and vaporises the neighbouring sea water. The torpedo then moves in a sheath of water vapour; the resulting friction reduction allowing speeds of 200 to 250 kn. Course control is achieved through the protruding pole which telescopes out of the nose after launching. Steering is obtained by modulating the exhausts of nozzles which encircle the main propulsion nozzle and are fed by the forward situated gas generator. Today however are such machines quite out of date, even though countries such as France do not even have them yet. American and Russian MHD torpedoes also have a solid propellant rocket engine. The divergent works like an MHD convector, producing a large amount of electric energy. This energy feeds a wall accelerator of which, for the sake of lightness, the principle description is appended. Such a system sucks the water in very strongly; hence is the viscous drag concept no longer appropriate since the wake is not only suppressed, but even reversed; which opens the path to very high speeds. Such speeds, reckoned today to be able to reach about 1,600 to 1,900 kn., enable the torpedoes to reach the targets in matters of seconds. It is easy to see the major strategic asset brought to any nation possessing these torpedoes, since it would enable the destruction, in a few seconds, of the enemy's strategic nuclear submarines, which are the most dangerous of all weapons. They are generally positioned as close as possible to their potential targets in order to reduce the range of the ballistic flight, hence the chances of interception. In fact, the destruction of these missile loaded submarines would probably be the very first act of war of any nation with a high technological level of equipment. The Chinese do not possess such an equipment yet. In 1996, the Russians attempted to make a demonstration of their machine nicknamed "the Fat One", of a one meter calibre, because they were hoping to sell them the torpedoes. Such a technology transfer would, in the long run, have meant a great menace to world security and, informed of the transactions, the Americans boarded and sank the Koursk which was due, in presence of a Chinese general, to make the demonstration. Fearing this should be discovered, the Russians closed all of the submarine's hatches (by remote sonar order issued from the Peter the Great cruiser, flagship of the manoeuvres), letting the entire crew perish and recovering the wreck later.
The MHD torpedo and its parietal accelerator propulsion is thus one of the first applications of the military MHD derived from the close analysis of the Roswell wreck.

American hypersonic machines. Aurora and the antipodal hypersonic bomber.
Air travelling machines remained, from there on, to be designed. From Mach 3 up, the air compression aft of the chock wave generates an important heating. By shifting to stato it is possible to go up in Mach levels. One can then, around Mach 6, envisage a scramjet functioning (hypersonic combustion), where fuel and oxidiser (hydrogen and liquid oxygen) circulate in the leading edge to cool it down. But the examination of the Roswell vehicle was to yield a much better solution, which would lead to the Aurora machine, which took its first flight in 1990 at Groom Lake. This very clever craft can take off by its own means, pick up speed and altitude, reach 6,000 kn. at 180,000 ft., then become sattelised with conventional rockets. Two very different successive operating modes are then called upon. At the start, Aurora - of which Ajax, the Russian version designed by Fraistadt, was never built through lack of funding - looks like a conventional jet plane. Four turboreactors without post combustion are suspended under a very cambered wing with a completely flat top and a sharply lifted "duck tail" trailing edge.

image deleted

Aurora in subsonic and moderate Mach fligh
Aurora then reaches Mach 3 and the motor air feed changes. The bottom air intakes close up. The plane then flies in low pressure air which ionises more easily. An air inlet opens on the top side, in front of which a set of parallel electrodes form an MHD wall generator. Since this section works as a generator, the air is slowed down and re-compressed (by Lorenz forces). A continuous slowing down then takes place, without shock waves and with moderate heating, to such a point that the gas can be directed to the conventional turboreactor air intake, even though the plane flies at 6,000 kn. at about 180,000 ft altitude. Very high tensions are generated by the Hall effect. In these parietal converters, the Americans use superconductor systems developing 12 teslas. The Velikhov instability is mastered by magnetic confinement. The high voltage is used to create a plasma cushion which protects the leading edge. The electric power is next used to enhance the specific impulse thanks to a wall accelerator located aft of the nozzle outlets (MHD by-pass system). This is then of the "semiguided" type.

image deleted

Aurora, hypersonic flight
It is designed to function with a fixed expansion coefficient at a given altitude. At lower altitudes, the expansion of the jet is too strong and it then exhibits a succession of knots and bumps, typical of "over-depressed" jets.

image deleted

Classical over-depressed jet
This explains the mysterious photograph taken near Groom Lake, where the plane, seen exceptionally in daylight, had not yet reached its adaptation altitude.

image deleted

Photograph of Aurora jet
Aurora's lift is obtained through the generated shock wave on which the plane surfs; it is a wave rider. But Aurora is not meant to function that way a long time because the formation of this shock wave generates a drag which entails a waste of energy. Rockets enable the machine either to become sattelised at an altitude of 250,000 ft., i.e. the atmosphere's limit, or to execute ballistic leaps, like a pebble bouncing on a water pond. Under those condition it becomes a kind of pilotable semisattelite, such as the well known silver surfer. The total plasma envelope makes it also completely stealthy. Once sattelised at a speed of 15,000 kn. it can reenter at a very slight angle of incidence without the need of a degradable thermal shield; the whole surface then works as an MHD generator. The high tension produces a forward protecting plasma cushion; the energy being dissipated mainly through radiation. When the plane returns to its base, the whole process is gone through in reverse order; and when approaching it is propelled like a conventional plane and can land on a normal runway. This has all been kept secret. The Americans attempt to lull the awareness of other countries by rather gross misinformation. They lead Europeans into thinking that the adventure of hypersonic flight is near at hand, whilst in fact they have been mastering those techniques for the last twelve years. Aurora's lift is obtained through the generated shock wave on which the plane surfs; it is a wave rider. But Aurora is not meant to function that way a long time because the formation of this shock wave generates a drag which entails a waste of energy. Rockets enable the machine either to become sattelised at an altitude of 250,000 ft., i.e. the atmosphere's limit, or to execute ballistic leaps, like a pebble bouncing on a water pond. Under those condition it becomes a kind of pilotable semisattelite, such as the well known silver surfer. The total plasma envelope makes it also completely stealthy. Once sattelised at a speed of 15,000 kn. it can reenter at a very slight angle of incidence without the need of a degradable thermal shield; the whole surface then works as an MHD generator. The high tension produces a forward protecting plasma cushion; the energy being dissipated mainly through radiation. When the plane returns to its base, the whole process is gone through in reverse order; and when approaching it is propelled like a conventional plane and can land on a normal runway. This has all been kept secret. The Americans attempt to lull the awareness of other countries by rather gross misinformation. They lead Europeans into thinking that the adventure of hypersonic flight is near at hand, whilst in fact they have been mastering those techniques for the last twelve years.

image deleted

Model of Aurora X-43A slung under the wing of a B-52, and poised in front of a large powder booster

image deleted

In flight

image deleted

The "pseudo-Aurora" test model.
Notice that vertical tails contradicts stealthyness. But the cut nose corresponds to the real Aurora. This is a cover-up on technological progress. The civilian version of Aurora would not be a sattelisable spy plane, but a completely reusable launcher, much cheaper than the classical rockets which depend solely on the thrust of their motors to overcome the drag linked with the generation of a chock wave. What Occidentals ignore, and which I shall reveal in a book, is that Americans also have a hypersonic long range bomber which can fly at similar speeds and altitudes. Seen from above, these bombers look like a B2. The saw-tooth shape of their trailing edge is designed to give stability when landing. The shape causes eddies which prevent the wing tip loss of lift to creep up towards the leading edge (short after the war, this phenomenon caused the crash of the flying wing designed by Jack Northrop). The B2's based at Whitman, supposed to have cost $2 billion each, are just decoys. The real plane is not subsonic and has neither cockpit nor any hoods above the four motors. These are completely included in the wing, so as to avoid the turbine vanes from being detected by radar's.

US hypersonic bomber.
Wall convectors sit on the front parts of the wings ahead of the motors. These systems enable incident air to be re-compressed without shock wave generation and funnelled into the inlets of classical turboreactors. The machine is a subtle combination of regions where the MDH wall converter is used to slow down the gas (as an electrical power generator) and others where, on the contrary, the gas is accelerated. This system allows complete control over the gas flux and suppression of any shock wave and hence wave drag. If the latter were to remain, the plane could not fly a long time considering the energy wasted in creating it. This elimination of shock waves was obtained in 1997 and opened the path to the first antipodal flights. In fact, on more than one item this bomber is more sophisticated than the Aurora. For instance, the electrical discharge at the leading edge has a better mastered geometry which gives rise to a real "virtual" leading edge.

image deleted

Hypersonic long-range bomber
Thus the machine, which the B2 dissimulates, is able to take off from the US, reach any point on the globe, and come back and land again in the US all in one night and four hours, even if the target lies in the antipodes at 10,800 nautical miles. Bombing assignments have been enacted in Europe and Afghanistan, the latter being mentioned as subsonic 40 hour flights, necessitating six in-flight refuellings, most of which took place over Russia which the planes had to cross. Considering the vulnerability of a plane while refuelling, who would be gullible enough to believe such a version ? Notice also that the B2's which are shown have no bunk of any kind to allow crew members to take some rest. Could any pilot remain seated for forty hours on an ejector seat ? See on my web site http://www.jp-petit.com a file on the B2. In numerous realms, the US attempt to disguise their military technology progress. They possess a hypersonic drone whose air intake is controlled by a similar process. On the photographs they show, the stealth inducing air intakes could absolutely not function if the plane were to move at supersonic speeds.

image deleted

The X-47A
American documents are generally mute about the speeds of these planes, but even if they were stealthy, one can hardly imagine the Americans constructing subsonic combat drones! These few elements, (but there are many more, particularly concerning microwave weapons, crowd control systems, etc.), may attract the reader's attention to the fact that the US might indeed well have acquired a considerable lead in matters of weaponry by using information extracted from UFO observation and reverse engineering of retrieved wrecks. I agree with Dr. Greer. I think that as soon as the United States disposed of directed energy weapons, they deliberately shot down UFO's in order to analyse them.

Why the US are suspected to possess antimatter bombs.
The 'flux compression" generators, such as those tested by Sakharov in the early 50's, are now reaching public knowledge. They are the generators which equipped the E-bombs and cruise missiles used during the Gulf war. Specialists are aware that these generators (see annex &&&) can also be used to compress objects at very high pressures (25 megabars in 1952) and to accelerate them at very high speeds (50 km/s in 1952). Towards the end of the 60's, the Americans considered working these systems by using low power atom bombs (1kt of TNT) as explosive. The pressures reached were so considerable that they managed, in this kind of "laboratory", to reproduce conditions similar to the Big Bang, matter then muting into antimatter. The energy production turned out to be one hundred times greater than what was expected. This was kept secret. The Russians and the Chinese later tried to re-enact those experiences, but they failed because of lack of superconductors of adequate quality.

The Americans managed to separate the produced antimatter from matter and to confine it in magnetic bottles. They eventually used it for propulsion, for such as a disc shaped drone, operational since 2000, which can travel at Mach 10 in dense air, and which they attempt to keep secret. This object works along the lines described in annex &&&. If one excepts stationary flight without air blast, which comes under "antigravitation", and sharp angle turns, it appears that Americans have almost managed to reproduce, thanks to MHD, the behaviour of inter-atmospheric cruising UFO's. They are now attempting farther to develop this technology, which would give them access to star to star travel. We do not know if they have made any significant progress in that direction, though some believe they have. If such were the case, this would jeopardise the future of humanity because extraterrestrials would probably not tolerate that such barbarians as we are should go and give neighbouring civilisations a pain in the neck.

In the mean time, Americans use small quantities of antimatter to accelerate silicon vapour up to 500 km/s in MHD accelerators used for space propulsion. With such boosters, they have been able to accelerate space probes at speeds of up to 100 km/s and accomplish a survey of the Solar System, nearly complete since five years. They have been testing antimatter bombs in which very powerful charges were synthesised in situ, at the moment of impact. The first trials of these entirely oversized bombs, too powerful for Earth tests, were done by sending them off to the Sun. To do this, very high specific impulse MHD propelled bombs have been launched on trajectories at a wide angle to the Ecliptic plane in order to get merged with a known family of comets. Trials were continued with shots on Jupiter. There again, the bomb modules were directed in such a way as to be mistaken for cometary debris. Initially loaded on board the military Atlantis shuttle, the modules were conveyed on site by an MHD propelled cargo which was then self-destroyed. The modules created a magnetosphere which simulated cometary degassing. They penetrated Jupiter's high atmosphere at 100 km/s thanks to their MHD shield system. Thermonuclear compressed antimatter synthesis, followed by instantaneous explosion caused the impacts to be mistaken for comet fragments.
Later launches were aimed at Jupiter's satellites, such as Io and Europa. On each of those occasions, Galileo, which had been sent into orbit precisely to monitor the trials, failed to transmit the pictures to Earth, at least according to the official version. It suffered a number of failures depriving earthlings of close images of Jupiter's satellites.

An open question.
The purpose of such firings remains mysterious; are they meant to be anti-comet weapons ? Some astronomers believe that, when the Solar System was formed, a telluric planet has been ejected by tide effect on a very eccentric, long period orbit (2000 - 3000 years), at a wide angle to the Ecliptic. This planet would in addition have been reduced to a vast number of fragments while passing inside the Roche sphere of the object from which it was ejected. The periodic return of this swarm of fragments, the size of comets or asteroids and thus undetectable at any greater distance than that of Jupiter, might cause some problems. Would aliens have delivered to the Americans means of accelerating their scientific and technical know-how in order to enable them to master the destruction of such objects between 2020 and 2030 ? Would the Roswell wreck have been a fake, purposely abandoned to trigger off this acceleration ? Every hypothesis may be considered. One must bear in mind that if such a risk were to exist it would be necessary to launch on a collision course with an object moving at 40 km/s; a conventional propulsion would be useless because the shot would next have to turn around to travel in convoy with the target. It would then have to bore a pathway with an antimatter spurt of several kilometres to go and explode a payload of several thousand megatons at the centre of the object in order to transform it into debris each less than one meter in diameter, which would burn out in the atmosphere. Are the shots fired at Jupiter and Io and Europa part of such a plan ?

As a matter of fact, we know nothing about our Solar System and the future of our Earth. Here in France, our group has received more than one telephone call warning of approaching comets, the messages each time including accurate perihelion dates long before the objects could be detected by Earth-bound telescopes."

None of the above is warp drive anti-gravity.

" About anti-gravitation.
Research in theoretical cosmology which we have published, inspired by information received through alien contacts, has led us to build a cosmological model based on two universes,"

This model was discussed by Phillipe Gaugain in our recent Ideas of March London Meeting March 17, 2004 described in my book "Super Cosmos"
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc 5 meg file FREE ONLINE COPY
Now in production in hard copy and soon to be available from http://amazon.com et-al

On May 18, 2004, at 7:38 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/docs/Stargate-en.pdf

Unified Dirac-Maxwell field as space-time portal
Philippe-Alexandre GAUGAIN
mirror@europeanufosurvey.com


On May 18, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Berkant Goeksel wrote:


okay... now I have it... after looking at the homepage of the European Ufo Survey... interesting.. shall I contact them??!

are you member of this group??

http://www.europeanufosurvey.com/english.html

Mission Statement

We are an independant European team of about 28 scientists ( Physicists, Mathematicians, Astronomers, Biologists, Computering , Optics engineers, Free Energy researchers, Linguists, Archeologists...) and free Ufo researchers who have been silently involved in Ufological investigations for more than 20 years .

EUS is a diverse team from over 10 different European nationalities.
We share professional, respect and friendship links for a very long time.
Each one of us have is accurate research field and skills and individually deal with, and share his results when, and in the way they wish with the rest of the team.

The most important thing for EUS:

Is to work and continue the research without any waste of time.
As many of us are in university careers, or the like, for the moment we have decided to protect the private datas of the associate members of the team, and publish our statements, and conclusions as a joint voice of one accord, and thus the group EUS.



" ... which develops ideas put forward by Andrei Sakharov in 1976 : the twin universe cosmology. We believe the latter also to have been in contact with aliens. Just read the strange end terms of his speech, which was read by his lady friend Helena Bonaire in Sweden on receiving the Nobel Prize. This model consists of a two-fold universe or double-universe. Australian researchers Foot and Volkas today follow a similar path, calling it "mirror-universes" (papers published in Physics Review). We have shown that the "apparent mass" of the "twin universe" was negative, i.e. twin matter repels ours while two particles of twin matter attract each other, in accordance with Newton's law. This repulsion explains the re-acceleration of the expansion of our universe, while it slows down the expansion of the twin."

I am skeptical of this particular model. It is not needed. See my book for details.

"When interstellar vessels cruise over huge distances, they use the twin as a sort of "express subway". In this universe, which is extremely rarefied in regions adjacent to ours, distances are shortened and the speed of light is high. This makes space travel possible, subject to the principle : "it is illegal to exceed the speed of light of the universe in which one is travelling."

The Alcubierre "FTL without ftl" weightless warp drive solution solves this problem without needing a huge Kerr-Newman black hole and with my /\zpf field for the exotic vacuum w = -1 zero point dark energy/matter we can implement that solution in principle.

"One American research team is working on an idea based on attempting locally to modify the value of the speed of light; the "warp driving concept"."

He probably means Hal Puthoff. I refute Hal's "PV" dielectric program in my book "Super Cosmos." It has no chance of working in my opinion. It has already been contradicted by experiment in the case of the pulsar data as shown by Michael Ibison who works with Hal. I call this NASA BPP where "BPP" means "Broken Propulsion Program." ;-)

Note "with the help of aliens"
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html :-)

"Our approach is different and far more advanced. With the help of aliens, it has taken us years just to begin understanding how it works and it would require pages to describe. In principle, the vehicle's mass must be transferred to the twin universe."

This whole idea of changing mass m is wrong-headed and muddled. Hal Puthoff has a version of it, and it is in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point."

Standard physics for rest mass of lepto-quarks is the "Higgs mechanism"

m ~ (coupling)(vacuum coherence) at scale ~ 10^-16 cm

You do not want to change e/m ratios and e^2/hc even if you could because that will blow up the matter so modified!

What you have on timelike worldlines that are NOT free float geodesic

W = mg

and it is the g you control with metric engineering! You leave m alone! Change it at your peril! Changing m is Mickey Mouse in Sorceror's Apprentice in Walt Disney's "Fantasia."

"When this operation takes place near the Earth, the latter becomes invisible to the craft but acts on it as a negative, repulsive mass. If the stations in our universe and in the adjacent region if the twin are rapidly alternated, this is not detected by an observer, however in one phase the vessel drops under the Earth's attraction, while in the other it rises under the Earth's repulsion. Globally this amounts to an apparent cancellation of the vessel's weight, whichever it's mass may be. This is our interpretation of what people call anti-gravitation. We do not know whether aliens have given earthlings the tip about those techniques."

The "French' are wrong here. One can cancel weight W, but that is a primitive way to put it. The idea is that the flying saucer can steer its only local timelike geodesic in which it is weightless! W = 0, m stays the same! You do this with a nano-mesh phase array of devices embedded in the fuselage of the saucers that controls the /\zpf field configuration in Einstein's exotic vacuum equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

With stress-energy density current flow conserved according to

Guv^;v + /\zpf^,vguv = 0

/\zpf is the source pump to metric engineer Guv as desired with small amounts of on-board power using delicate phase matching as in the Josephson effect. The weak link is between the control high Tc superconductor coherence in each node of the mesh and the vacuum coherence as shown in math detail in my book "Super Cosmos."

Obviously the French "CNRS" do not understand how anti-gravity zero point energy metric engineering works any better than Hal Puthoff, STAIF and NASA BPP. I show above how it really works.

The MHD stuff has nothing to do with anti-gravity and my remarks do not apply to the MHD information in this document.

"Conclusion.
Let us stick to what we know already; we feel highly concerned with Dr. Greer's text. It seems clear that a group of humans are holders of elements of science and techniques which are far ahead of the rest of the world. How did they acquire this knowledge and why ? Is it just a consequence of the crash of an alien craft at Roswell ? Is there some much more complex plan behind all this ? Have there been contacts between aliens and this group ? What is the agenda of the ones and the others ? Is the hegemony and domination of this group of humans over the rest of the planet just the consequence of an attempt at helping Humanity to survive the next passage of a swarm of planet fragments ? We care to know. Becoming conscious, at last, that they are not alone, would men acquire some wisdom and, using the technology which makes it possible, turn their planet into an Eden ?
Whichever way, we think the time has come to bring those who hold the secrets to come clean and such is the meaning of our approach to the Disclosure Project.
December 2002
(1) J.P.Petit : "Is supersonic flight possible ?" Eigth Inter. Conf. on MHD Electr. Power Generation. Moscow 1983.
(2) J.P.Petit & B.Lebrun : "Shock wave cancellation in a gas by Lorentz force action". Ninth Inter. Conf. On MHD Electr. Power Generation Meeting. Tsukuba, Japan, 1986
(3) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Shock wave annihilation by MHD action in supersonic flows. Quasi-one dimensional steady analysis and thermal blockage". European Journal of Mechanics; B/Fluids, 8 , n°2, pp.163-178, 1989
(4) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Shock wave annihilation by MHD action in supersonic flows. Two-dimensional steady non-isentropic analysis. Anti-shock criterion, and shock tube simulations for isentropic flows". European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids, 8 , pp.307-326, 1989
(5) B.Lebrun : "Approche théorique de la suppression des ondes de choc se formant autour d'un obstacle effilé placé dans un écoulement d'argon ionisé. Phd n° 233. Université de Poitiers, France, 1990.
(6) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Theoretical analysis of shock wave anihilation by lorentz force field". International MHD symposium, Pékin 1990.

Annex 1 : MHD         Annex 2 (other weapons)        Annex 3 (MHD torpedo)
Annex 1 : MHD
- page 1 -
1 - Generality about the shock wave cancellation concept
This was introduced in the begining of the seventies. Then the US government understood that MHD could play an important role in future military projects. At the same time the US scientists undestood the MHD had something to do with hypersonic flight. They decided to desinform people. Officially, in USA, MHD was abandonned. Civil MHD got starving. Big industrial projects were abandonned. But, at the same time, an intensive effort began, in full secrecey, about military MHD. This was discovered very recently (2001). The reader if free to believe or not to believe this. We were told about what happenend in US between 1970 and the present days by top level American scientists involved in secret black programs, concentrated in area 51. The only argument about this is based on scientific grounds. Even now, people ignore many very important features about MHD applied to supersonic gas flows, which made possible a fantastic and fundamental breakthrough in USA in the middle of the seventies. Thirty years after American master the world with advanced technologies in many (military) fields, including long duration hypersonic flight, up to Mach 12.
I don't know who will read this annex, whose reading requires advanced knowledge in supersonic flui mechanics, characteristic theory and MHD. A very good book was published in 1967, entitled "Engineering Magnetohydrodynamics"; Sutton and Sherman, Mac Graw Hill Books Company.
Let us present some basic concepts.
In a supersonic flow we may consider "Mach Lines" :

image deleted

Mach lines (or Mach surfaces) in a superonic flow
The angle of such Mach line depends on the local value of the velocity.


image deleted

Impact of the velocity rising of the Mach angle
If we consider a supersonic flow, Mach lines, "characteristic lines" are real. They map the flow. Next, a 2d supersonic test nozzle (supersonic wind tunnel).

image deleted

In the convergent section the fluid is in subsonic condition. From a mathematical point of view the characheristic lines, (the Mach surfaces) are imaginary. The velocity of the sound is reached at the throat of the nozzle. Then the Mach surfaces become real. We can figure it :

image deleted

Evolution of Mach surfaces, or Mach lines in a supersonic nozzle.
In the nozzle the velocity grows continuously. At the same time the Mach angle decreases (it is equal to 90° at the throat section). It corresponds to the "natural variation" of the Mach surfaces system, due to the expansion of a supersonic flow.
Now, consider a 2d supersonic flow around a flat wing. We may compute the theoretical Mach lines system, through characteristic theory:

image deleted

Theoretical characteristic lines around a flat wing imbeded in a supersonic gas flow.
This is not physical. That's "pure mathematics" (a solution of a "characteristic system). It shows how the caracteristic surface collide, accumulate in some place. They are elementary pressure variation characteristic surfaces. In the middle of the flow we see a classical expansion fan, were the pressure gets lower and were the gaz is accelerated. But in another regions wee see how the Mach surfaces accumulate and tend to give attached shock waves. The next figure corresponds to really physical solution, with subsequent attached shock waves :

image deleted
Physical conditions with attached oblic plane shock waves.
Next : these flat attached shock waves.

image deleted

Next, these flat waves, plus flow lines.

image deleted

If the leading edge is sharp the front waves are attached. Se detail :

image deleted

Attached front shock wave at the vicinity of the leading edge of a flat wing
If the leading edge is blunt the situation is somewhat different. The shock looks like a bow.

image deleted

Shock wave at a blunt leading edge.
From a classical point of view these shock waves cannot be avoided. The corresopond to pressure en temperature jumps. When the Mach number becomes higher that 3 material cannot stand the heat flux and gets vaporised. In "scramjets" one cools the leading edge with liquid hydrogen and oxygen, which makes possible to achieve short duration Mach 5-6 flight.But hypersonic flight (Mach 12) is considered as impossible, on technological grounds. In 1947 the ufo phenomenon arose a stange question : is it possible to achieve such hight Mach number flights ? In Roswell Americans gor the crashed machine, which proved immediatly two things :
- Ufos were definitively real
- The came from othe planetary systems.
It was decided to keep a full secrecy about that. An intense and active policy of dinsinformation was build up in USA, which is still in action. Nasa, for example, in its official website explains that ufos are nothing but an illusion, almost 50 years after. It took time to American to undestand that MHD was the key, the master word of the hypersonic (and silent) flight. The silent flight of ufos showed that shock waves (and turbulence) were avoided. To illustrate that we shall refer to the author's personal works (extending during the sixties and seventies). This research was done with quite modest lab's equipment, compared to the huge US effort, hidden in underground area 51 plants. But this will be enough to show the basic ideas. On the newt figure a "Faraday MHD linear convertor' with its MHD channel and its two coils.

image deleted
Faraday MHD convertor
If we remove the two coils we get that :

image deleted


Faraday channel (the coils have been removed)

image deleted

Here the convertor acts as a MHD generator. The supersonic flow enters the channel at velocity V, which goes with an induced electric field E x B . This last produces an electric current in the gaz, which loops through external loads, showed. A part ot the kinetic energy of the gas can be converted into electricity. This goes with the slowing down of the gaz. The system of Velocity, Electric Field and subsequent Lorentz force is shown next :


image deleted

Electric field and Lorentz force field in a MHD generator.
The Lorentz force obeys the "three fingers' rule" :

image deleted

This first idea is very important. In effect we see that a MHD accelerator slows down a supersonic fluid. If conveniently managed we can imagine that the fluid parameters can be modified is a "soft way", without shock wave birth. That is the key idea of the hypersonic flight concept, as will be shown further. Next we shows the characteristic pattern of Mach lines in a MHD generator. The Mach angle changes continuously and no shock occurs.

image deleted

Shockless modification of the Mach lines system, due to Lorentz force action
This is a very simple idea, but it was considered as top secret during a very long time over all the world. On another hand, a MHD convertor can be used as an accelerator. To do that we just inject electric power in order to inverse the electric current ans get accelerating Lorentz forces. Then we can modify the local value of the Mach angle. In my lab, in 1967 we got very impressive accelerations along very small lenght.

image deleted

The gas enters the channel on the left and Lorentz forces accelerates it.
Let us show that this was not a dream. Next, my MHD lab in the sixties at the Instutut de Mécanique des Fluides de Mareseille, France. .

image deleted

My MHD lab in the sixties. Front : electrodes. Left, an old Tektronix vacuum lamps oscilloscope. Below : the Faraday convertor with hung coils. Besides, an "ignitron" used to commute the 50,000 amperes electric current produced by a capacitor bank.
If was a "short duraction wind tunnel" based on a "shock tube". A shock driven argon flow (200 microseconds) was pushed in a 6 meters long constant area wind tunnel. The gaz was moved and compressed (pressure after compression : one bar). The gaz was heated up to 10,000°K, whick provided a very good electrical conductivity (3000 mhos/m). The velocity of the gaz, at the entrance of the MHD channel was 2,750 m/s. This last was 10 cm long. When carrying up acceleration experiments the exhaust velocity reached 8,000 m/s, which demonstrated the extraordinary efficiency of Lorentz forces accelerating power with high magnetic field strenght (2 teslas) and high electrical current densities. Next, the classical MHD efficiency :

image deleted

MHD efficiency. J is the electric current density, B is the magnetic field, L is a characteristic lenght, below : the mass density and v the velocity.
At the begining of the eighties a French engineer, Betrand Lebrun, started a phd with me. I defined the basic idea of the shockless supersonic flight. This was a civilian research but we know that similat reasearch was carried in secrecey in the famous Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, California, at the same time. We have already presented the general pattern of Mach lines, associated to the theoretical supersonic flow around some flat wing. We have seen that we could change the local value of the Mach angle by a subsequent choice of a convenient Lorentz force Field. For example we can accelerate the flow around the leading edge, using a transverse magnetic field and two wall electrodes, as following :

image deleted
Accelerating electrodes, at the vicinity of the leading edge
Next, the subsequent Lorentz force field :

image deleted
Lorentz force field

image deleted

With such device it was possible to cancel the front shock wave at the vicinity ot a sharp leading edge which showed that a shock system could be avoided. This changed drastically the problem of the hypersonic flight. Now the goal was to cancel and shock around a flat wing, wich implied to keep the Mach lines parallel :

image deleted

Lebrun Phd : the goal
Three couples of wall electrodes were arranged od the flat wing model :

image deleted

Lebrun Phd thesis (1987)
Up : the idealiazed characteristic lines pattern (Mach lines of Mach surfaces). If a convenient Lorentz force field could be applied around the model it was expected that une characteristic line focussing phenomenon could be avoided. This was shown through computer calculations and presented at several international MHD meetings (Tsukuba, Japan, Pekin, China, see bibliography and mentioned papers). The general pattern of Mach lines becomes the following :

image deleted

Lebrun Phd thesis. Characteristic lines.
This work was done in a civilian laboratory but we know that at the same time american did the same stuff is high level of secrecy. In France the officials were deadly scared that such results could evidence the extraterrestrial nature of ufos and the became mad at it. All the civilian research was ended. The military tried to continue this research in their secret labs, for their own, bu they failed, due to their lack of knowledge. During thing time the US projects experienced a very strong acceleration. Parallel research was intensively carried, about torpedos and submarine propulsion. To avoid to confuse the mind of the reader we will talk about that further.
Bibliography :
(1) J.P.Petit : "Is supersonic flight possible ?" Eigth Inter. Conf. on MHD Electr. Power Generation. Moscow 1983.
(2) J.P.Petit & B.Lebrun : "Shock wave cancellation in a gas by Lorentz force action". Ninth Inter. Conf. On MHD Electr. Power Generation. Tsukuba, Japan, 1986
(3) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Shock wave annihilation by MHD action in supersonic flows. Quasi-one dimensional steady analysis and thermal blockage". European Journal of Mechanics; B/Fluids, 8 , n°2, pp.163-178, 1989
(4) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Shock wave annihilation by MHD action in supersonic flows. Two-dimensional steady non-isentropic analysis. Anti-shock criterion, and shock tube simulations for isentropic flows". European Journal of Mechanics, B/Fluids, 8 , pp.307-326, 1989
(5) B.Lebrun : "Approche théorique de la suppression des ondes de choc se formant autour d'un obstacle effilé placé dans un écoulement d'argon ionisé. Thèse d'Energétique n° 233. Université de Poitiers, France, 1990.
(6) B.Lebrun & J.P.Petit : "Theoretical analysis of shock wave anihilation by lorentz force field". International MHD symposium, Pékin 1990.
Annex1 (MHD), next page

Annex 1 : MHD
- page 2 -
The secret of hypersonic flight
The faster an airplane flies the higher it must climb and cruise. It is not possible to fly at ground level at high Mach number just for mechanical constrainst due to high pressure. Over Mach 3-3.5 flight is possible with turboreactors (up-left figure). At higher Mach numbers these rotating machines cannot be used any longer. One can shift to stato-reactor (right). At Mach number up to Mach 6.5 scramjets can be used (below). The leading edge is cooled by liquid hydrogen an oxygen circulations. The mixture burns in annular combustion chamber at supersonic velocity.

image deleted

Over Mach 6.5 it seems difficult to go faster, due to the very high temperature (caused by air recompression through a srong shock wave). Some years ago the Russian revealed that they had a project called "Ajax", designed for very high Mach numbers. Next, we find two images taken in an hypersonic wind tunnel showing Ajax tests. . We see than the general design looks like the drawings of what was supposed to be "Aurora" or the "Aurora project". As we can see the upper part of such models is flat.

image deleted
Ajax with statos

image deleted

Fraidstadt, the designer of Ajax, gave an interesting and surprising information. This machine was supposed to fly at hypersonic velocities with... conventional turbo-reactors. In addition the flight was possible if MHD system was operated. Ajax was never finished, due to the lack of money in Russia. Aurora was the "American Ajax", based on the same concepts. Starting from this it was not difficult, through discussions with American researchers involved in Aurora program to discover the secret of such flying machine. The reader will discover it on the next set of figures.

image deleted

On the first one you find the general design of the "wall convertor", invented in many places at the end of the sixties. I personnaly experienced wall convertors in my lab in the seventies. A set of linear electrical conductors creates a quite peculiar magnetic field geometry, shown on the right, "spatially periodic". This is couples to a set of linear electrodes. If we decide to use this wall MHD convertor as a wall MHD accelerator, one injects electric power. Then it is easy to see than the device produces a Lorentz force field parallel to the wall (acting, for example, in the boundary layer).
On another hand we can use it as a wall MHD generator. Then the Velocity V, combined to the magnetic field B produces an induced electric fiels E = V x B. At high altitude the density of the air is quite low and the electrical conductivity better than at ground level. The machine can produce electric power. At the same time the Lorentz force slows down the air. Its density can be raised high enough to make possible to burn a mixture air-fuel in an ordinary turbo-reactor. The ordinary inlet (2) is closed. The air is admited through a new inlet, located on the upper part of the airplane (4). We have figured the Mach lines, schematically. The Mach number decreases continuously from high value to subsonic regime. As the kinetic energy of the gas is partially converted into electricity its temperature remains low enough. The electric energy is used to increase the exhaust velocity in (5), using a wall MHD accelerator. The whole implies what people now calls "MHD by-pass"". Notice a conventional turbo-reactor implies some "mechanical bypass" for a part of the energy produced by the compubstion of fossil fuel is transfered to the front part of the machine, at the compressor.
This is just a schematic presentation of Aurora. Flying at 200,000 feet its MHD generator works in high Hall parameter conditions, so that the transverse Hall electric field is high and can be used to create an wide electric discharge at the leading edge of the machine. This plasma cushion protects the wing against tehermal effects associated to the shock wave. This phenomenon becomes to be known now. All this implies a great knowledge in two-temperatures plasma physics, a field that was completely abandonned in Europe at the begining of the seventies. Two-temperature plasmas, combined to high Hall parameters values experience violent Velikhov instability (which causde the complete failure ot the civil programs in many courntries, ended at the begining of the seventies). This had to be solved through original solutions (plasma stabilization by magnetic confinement effect) whose description is over the scope of the present paper.
Anyway, Aurora can take off using its four turboreactors. Then it climbs at supersonic regime. When it flies high enough its MHD system is operated. Lower air inlet are closed and MHD inlet opened. The lift is given by the shock wave which takes place below the machine, so that Aurora is a "wave-rider" at 6000 knots. But, as explained by americain specialists, when the machine flies at 2000,000 feet conventional rockets provide additional thrust, so that the aiplane becomes a low altitude orbiter (its range becomes .. infinite). It becomes a perfect spyplane, able to take very good pictures of the ground. If desired, the machine may turn like the "silver surfer". It a "pilotable orbiter". Completely surrounded by plasma it is fylly stealth.
It has no thermal shield. Its re-entry if operated in a completely different way. Aurora enters the atmosphere at small angle and dissipates its kinetic energy using a set of MHD short-circuited wall generators, so that the energy is dissipated mainly through radiative process. If enters the atmosphere like a "MHD glider".
Presently the americain military try to hide thos secret as long as they can. Pseudo-projects are shown to public. America is supposed to "think about hypersonic flight". In fact, US engineers master it since 12 years !
 
Civilian applications.
Presently, Aurora is a orbiter spyplane. It can take off from a base located in US and turns around the Earth in four hours. Its mission duration is shorter then the time of a night so that is is very rarely observed and pictures. Stealth, it is not detected by radars. Cruising alone in this portion of space it is a "battle station" for directed energy systems. It can attack both satellites and targets located on the ground.
Considered in a different way, Aurora is a better launcher than conventional rockets. If used to injecte space modules on orbit it would provide a much smaller cost per kilo. But USa prefer to devote such smart plane to military purposes.

A secret long-rang hypersonic bomber.
Everybody knows the B2-bomber. Twenty-one are base at Witheman, Missouri. Official say that their unit cost should be 2 billions dollars. When a specialist looks to the machine closely he cannot understands cost is so high. Moreover it is supposed to be ... subsonic. The US Airforce says that this bomber can operate from US at huge distances : 30,000 miles and go back home immediatly. Of cours this implies several refueling and a long, very long flight time. A specialits will notice that the B2 bomber has a crew limited to two pilots. There is no cabin to take rest in, as in the old B-52, designed for long duration missions. Remember that the crew of B-52 could be composed by 6 men. Over very long missions three took care of the plane, while the three others coul take place in the rest cabin.
A B2, flying near by Edwards base, was observed in october 1997. This is not a picture but a drawing made by a witness who is a journalist, specialized in aeronautics.


image deleted

These lights at the leading edge cannot correspond to watter condensation for the Mojave desert is very very dry. The three elliptic spots correspond to lamps attached to landing gear. We think that these white bars correspond to MHD controlled inlet at low altitude, as confirmed later by the specialists of the Edwards base.
As far as we can see the so-called B2 is not... the real one. This last has a similar design (see above). The peculiar shape of its wing has been designed to give the machine a better stability when landing. A godd specialist in fluids mechanics can guess why it is designed such way. But the upper part is different. The "real B2" has a thick wing, for its four (conventional) motors take place in. Before their inlet we refind the MHD wall generator, which slows down the air enough to make possible hypersonic flight in very rarefied air and high altitude (200,000 feet) with... conventional turboreactors. Velocity : 6,000 knots.
The "real B2 is more sophisticated than the spyplane Aurora. It is not designed to be sattelised. It must stand long range missions so thet it has been designed to operate complete shock wave cancellation. The surface of the bomber is fully coated by MHD wall convertors. Some parts work as generators, some as accelerators. The whole ensures the complete control of the flow in ant point. The strenght of the discharge modifies the local value of the velocity of the sound. The geometry of the two high voltage discharges, et the stagnation point and at the end of the profile modifies the flow, the drag and the relative width of the wing. There is no canopy, for it is non longer necessary. As shown on the figure the modern hypersonic US bomber is very flat, very stealth.

image deleted

It can take off from an airport based in USA, fly to Kabul and be back in a single night.
The hypersonic bomber represents also the future civial transport, able to take people from New York to Tokyo in two hours.
US own hypersonic stealth drones with similar air intake. Naive people still believe they are designed to be subsonic.

image deleted

Annex 1 (MHD) Precedent page          Annex 2 (other weapons)          Annex 3 (MHD torpedo)
 
Annex 2
Other weapons and speculations.
In the annex 1 we presented some ideas about hypersonic flight. Although it is not possible to bring the absolute proof we really think that American own hypersonic spy planes and hypersonic bombers. They do their best to keep secrecy as long as possible about it. Anyway the world begins to hear about many new weapons. Some are based on microwaves technics. Such weapons can be carried by cruise missiles and many people think they have been already tested during the Gulf War, in 1990. Many people, who discover these "new" pulsed generators, ingore that they were invented and tested in Russia half a century before. Hereafter the reader will find the system, that everybody can find in many websites today, which can provide very strong electric intensities, magnetic field and electrici field. The next figure, which refers to compressed magnetic flux system comes from the english edition of
A.Sakharov
Collected Scientific Papers
Marcel Dekker Inc.
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
1982 ISBN 0-8247-1714-7

image deleted

In such device a condensator creates a strong magnetic field inside the solenoid. Along the axis lies a tube of copper filled by an explosive.When fired this last expands the copper tube which short-circuites the spiral of the solenoid and reduces the inductance. The conservation of the energy implies an enormous rise of the intensity. 107 to 108 amperes were produced in the sixties with such a simple system.
A similar system produces the compression of a "magnetic flux". In high magnetic Reynolds number conditions the magnetic field behaves like a gas. On the figure, below, this tends to push the black ring on the right at large velocity. The strong induced electric current transforms this ring into a plasma.

image deleted

In the sixties pressures as large as 25 megabars were obtained, with velocities reaching 50 km/s. Such objects were called "plasmoids", plasma bullets. Military thaught to use it to destroy distant targets in what would called later "Starwar".
Presently developped countries continue to test this systems, using small A bombs in underground nuclear explosions. American use their classical test site of Nevada. Russian have their own near Semipalatinsk. British can use some places in Australia, or Nevada. As the French have stopped their underground experiments in Mururoa, south Pacific, une 1996, the French army continues this research in France, in different places. Officially France is supposed to develop nex nuclear weapons through "computations" and simulation, near Bordeaux, in a center where they are building a laser fusion system (with 260 lasers). This should begin to work in 2010. Only naive people believe that and very few people are able to imagine that the french army could have experienced more than 100 stealth underground nuclear expériments in the country. Sometimes the things are so big that people just cannot believe it.
Very soon Americans tried to see what pressure and velocity could be gained with such system, using nuclear explosive and supraconducting material. We believe (and we have also some informations from some "exotic source") thet the obtained pressures were so hich that the condition of the so-called Big Bang were locally achieved.

In 1967 Andrei Skaharov suggested that the singularity calles "Big Bang" could link two universes, one made of matter and the second one of antimatter. As a consequence the fantastic compression acting on the ring of matter transformed it into an equivalent amount of antomatter. That is the schema of antimatter synthesis through nuclear compression.

If it is true, and we think it is, American master massive antimatter synthesis. The know how separate and stor it, in magnetic bottles. Later, small amounts of anti matter (anti-hydrogen) can be extracted from these bottles and sent on peculair cristals. The anti electron annihilates with an electron of the cristal lattice. Then the antiproton becomes the prisoneer on the cristal, kept in place by electrostatic confinement. It is then possible to "seed" cristals of matter with very small amounts of antimatter and to get very small power bombs ( 40 kT) called "Bucky balls", egg's like. We think that US would like to test such new weapons against underground irakian facilities.

American store enormous number of such "nuclear eggs", very simple. Very easy to store. They stand almost anything exept a violent shock. A shuttle can drop thousands of such eggs, surrounded by a thermal shield, over a country. They juste explode by contact or after the explosion of a near by egg.

Stored in magnetic bottles the antimetter can be used to feed MHD accelerator with very high specific impulse. Ejection velocity : 500 km/s. With such propellers space probes can reach velocities as large as 100 km/s. They can carry 10,000 megatons antimatter bombs. Such bombs could not be tested on the Earth. The antimatter is produced by thermonuclear compression, just when the probes gets the target. Such weapons and very fast probes could correspond to a project of destruction of asteroids and comets. If this project is real, who runs it ?

A possible hypothesis corresponds to a collaboration between American and aliens, these last having accelerated the technological progress of the most developped country, at the end of the fourties. Following this idea the machines "crashed" in Roswell in 1947 could have been conceived to bring the necessary knowledge, but no more.

Earth lives very important moment of its history. Men have gained new technologies, with which they can do the better or the worse. The worse is ... evident. As shown in this report the main activity of people, when interested into ufos has been to build new weapons. The imagination of men looks very limited. Another idea could be to say :

- Aliens visit us since half a century, and prbably more. Why ain't we already their slaves, working for them ? Why did these people do not tried to get our mines, materials, territories ?

It must be an explanation. A possible one is that they are not interested in. Why ? Because they master unlimited energy production. With atomic bombs we can produce amounts of antimatter. But with this antimatter we can pilot new plants and produce more au more. This energy is free.

Furthermore who masters antimatter mass production can use it to make transmutations, change any atom into another one. This arises two consequences.
- We can produce anything we want : nickel, gold, carbon, and so on, from.... anything.
- With energy wastes can be converted into helium, released in open air.
Annex 1 ( MHD)     Annex 3 ( MHD torpedo )
Annex 3 : MHD US torpedo
The study of this torpedo started at the begining of the seventies. It became operational in 1980. Then its velocity was 1000 knots. Now it must be close to 1500-1800 knots. The principle is very simple.

image deleted

In water the skin drag is 1000 times higher than in a gas like air. This limits the velocity of torpedos using classical propellers to 65 knots. During the sixties advanced marines developped rocket propelled torpedos. In addition a generator injected hot gas at the stagnation point. This transformed immediatly water into vapour. Then the torpedo could move inside this sort of gazeous bubble. The corresponding US torpedon, named "Supercav", is able to reach 300 knots. Similar performance for the equivalent torpedo built at the same epoch by Russian, called "Sdqwal". But a MHD torpedo can go much faster. The electric power is produced by a wall generator, coupled to the nozzle of a solid propellant rocket. This electric power feeds a MHD wall accelerator which covers all the surface of this one meter large machine and sucks water very efficiently. Russia and America are the only countries in the world to own MHD torpedos, which gives them a great strategic advantage. Chinese would like to own such weapon. They tried to buy it to Russia. A demonstration was planned, using the russian submarine "Koursk"', where a chinese general, carried abord by an helicopter took place. American, warned by their secret services, sunk the Koursk, using a british submarine which went to close contact and fired a special temporized weapon. Two minues after the Koursk lied on the ground 107 meters deep. The admiral nuclear ship "Pierre the Great" sent an ultrasonic message to the Koursk, closing all its doors so that all the crew members wer locked in.
In effect it is very surprising that none of the crew members tried to escape by himself, using his individual standard equipment. Next, the standard European equipment, produced by a British company :

image deletes

This equipment is very complete. A rubber boat is located in a bag fixed on the left leg of the man. After inflation the man can take place in and easily stand cold.

image deleted
If nobody used such equipment, from such moderate depth, it confirms that the russian submarine Koursk was locked. A small submarine tried to pick the Chinese general and the captain from the Russian submarine. But a mutiny occured, which caused many deaths. The evacuation of the Chinese VIP was abandoned. The admiral ship Pierre the Great warned all ships present in the zone that nyone which would like to get close to the Koursk would be immediatly sunk. Putin let the hundred guys die.

Later the Russian took the submarine back to a harbour. Its torpedo room was cut and destroyed in order to hide the large size of the MHD torpedo tubes (one meter large). They removed all sophisticated equipments like anto-torpedos systems and, obviously the famous Granit missiles :


Annex 1 ( MHD)       Annex 2 (other weapons)


Sunday, May 16, 2004

On May 15, 2004, at 9:17 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

American Military Investigated Anti-gravity Weapons

“Government Budget Document evidence that the United States Department of Defense actively pursued reports of anti-gravity effects The United States Government Official Website, http://www.firstgov.gov/ allows a rapid search of official government documents available over the internet. A quick search for Dr. Ning Li, the physicist that predicted an anti-gravity effect from her theory, and the key word "contract" leads to an official US Government Department of Defense budget document:

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

The document describes contract number DAAH01-01-9-R001, titled "Gravito-Electro Magnetic Superconductivity Experiment", awarded by the US Army Aviation and Missile Command, to Dr. Ning Li's company AC Gravity, LLD”

My theory of this is at http://qedcorp.com/destiny/Podkletnov.pdf

“New means of propulsion, ways of controlling missiles and gun launched munitions, lowering of the effective weight of tanks and heavy vehicles, deflecting incoming missiles, including ICBM's, are listed as among the military applications for this technology. This document supports Jane's Defence Weekly contributor Nick Cook's exposure of a similar project at the American aerospace contractor Boeing. Previously Nick Cook showed the BBC and Jane's documents as proof that Boeings' Phantom Works facility were investigating the Russian scientist Evgeny Podkletnov's reports of repulsive antigravity from spinning superconducting disks.”

Gary S. Bekkum
Starstream Research
USA


On May 15, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

PS

re:http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html

Good point Gary. One way to make a "sub-quantum bomb" is to change m, i.e. change e/m as Hal Puthoff proposes not realizing the implications! The rest mass m is a function of vacuum coherence. However, one must consider a "power spectrum" of the local macro-quantum vacuum coherence field that depends on the scale s in the sense of a conformal group continuous wavelet transform generalization of the rigid Fourier transform with zoom-in/zoom-out adaptive windowing. Einstein's gravity guv field of smooth curved space-time is essentially a holographic image of the coherent phase information in the vacuum coherence field left over from the Big Bang, i.e. the vacuum coherence field on large scales s > 102 megaparsecs is simply the post-inflation field in the FRW metric of "precision cosmology" models of the accelerating universe based on WMAP, Type 1a supernovae, gravity lensing and other data.

Changing vacuum coherence on nano-scale ~ 10-7 cm should not change m on the fermi scale 10-13 cm - otherwise the saucers we are allegedly seeing now over Mexico, Iran et-al could not fly. The saucer data is very important in seeing how to formulate the theory in the "reverse gendanken-engineering" sense, which is what I am doing. A phased array of tiny high Tc superconducting mesh of identical nanodevices, perhaps rotating nano-high Tc rings whose axis of rotation is the symmetry axis of nano-solenoids, imbedded in the thin saucer smart skin fuselage is how they fly I suspect -educated guess. The relative phase between the superconducting control solenoid coherence and the vacuum coherence controls Alcubierre's Tr(K) for the weightless warp drive field configuration.


http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/relativity/papers/abstracts/miguel94a.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/polyvalens/clemens/wavelets/wavelets.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/polyvalens/clemens/wavelets/wavelets.html#section2



My /\zpf ~ Tr(K)

Note the "reverse Doppler shift" (Bruce Cornet) positive ZPE pressure in nose of UFO makes a gravity redshift, negative ZPE pressure in the tail makes a gravity blueshift. The effective G is G* >> G(Newton) on relevant scale s ~ 10^-6 cm probably.

Once that general idea is put into the mix, other people who are engineers will come up with details. Or I will after I have had enough time to focus on that detail. The idea here is the control the relative phase "Theta" between a "control knob" superconductor coherence and the vacuum coherence in the common element of space that they share. Alcubierre's Tr(K) is then proportional to the cosine of Theta and from there using Einstein's general relativity we can have the warp drive as shown by Alcubierre in his toy model by shaping the Tr(K) field configuration in accord with Einstein's exotic vacuum field equation

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0

Where essentially

/\zpf ~ Tr(K)

I mean some yet-to-be-designed "superconducting nano-circuit" as the identical nodes in the mesh to control the local phase field of the vacuum coherence. The existence of the saucers is a "dot" a "data point" an "iron post of observation" (J.A. Wheeler) in our reverse gedanken-engineering telling us that such nano-circuit elements of the control mesh imbedded in the thin smart skin fuselage is not only thinkable and possible in principle, but has actually been built by a superior technological intelligence and is currently in control of our airspace. When Alan Turing, John Von Neumann and Eugene Wigner were inventing the concept of the universal programmable computer and the self-reproducing automaton they did not have every engineering detail at the beginning. They did not have Intel designs of the Pentium or Motorola G5 back then. Right now my only purpose is to get everyone into the right ball park away from the Puthoff PV/ZPE way of thinking into something that is closer to what will actually work. First one needs to formulate the Question.

"The Question is: What is The Question?" J.A. Wheeler

I am still working on formulating "The Question." Like those statues of Michelangelo only partly out of the marble.

Friday, May 14, 2004

“...the subquantum potential Vsq can take on both positive and negative values, the associated field theory can lead to positive or negative pressure, respectively...the subquantum potential is interpreted as that potential associated to the hidden dynamics of the particles which are homogenously and isotropically distributed in the universe... dark energy appears to at least partly correspond to the overall work which is done by all of the particles along their hidden trajectories associated through the Bohm's interpretation with the essential quantum indeterminancy of the observable matter in the universe...non gravitational components, i.e. dark matter and dark energy are both unitarily described by just the scalar field ...”

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311244

OK in last sentence of the abstract Diaz has both dark energy and dark matter consistent with my own original theory done before his. Paul Ginsparg removed my Cornell archive paper of a year ago with essentially the same idea that is in my 2 books from 2002. So I can prove priority from Library of Congress.
Gary, I took a first quick look at the Diaz paper. It looks good! It is consistent with my idea. It has w = -1 eq. (2.7) p. 3. Excellent. Of course we already knew from Bohmian NRQM theory that the quantum potential Q is a way of representing zero point energy,
e.g. Bohm's solution of the hydrogen atom ground state.

Yes, I will reference this paper from now on. Good find! A+!
Looks like you are learning something. That's the right paper at the right time. God is subtle, but not malicious. He is describing I think only the random residual micro-quantum ZPE "noise" or "normal fluid" part. I don't see any "vacuum coherence" yet in his model or any connection to "dark matter" with positive pressure and the stability of the single electron. I will study all these papers after I get the book out the door.

Keep me posted on spin off from those two PRAVDA articles. They should stir things up a bit. Awaken The Pundits from their dogmatic slumbers from the hallowed Halls of Ivy to the dark corridors of Power at Langley and The Kremlin. ;-) The Russians and Ukranians may not have a lot of money, but they still have superior intellects and this sort of stuff does not need expensive machines with huge energy outputs. Eric Davis is wrong about that. It's all micro-nanotech with a fine mesh-phase array of LC oscillators with really high Tc coils on micron to nanoscale imbedded all over the thin smart computing material of the fuselage. Each little solenoid current controls the local Josephson phase difference between the high Tc SC coil and the vacuum it occupies. Hence, the coherent phased array Theta(x)
controls induced /\zpf, i.e.

Induced /\zpf(s) ~ (Effective Area)^-1(Effective Volume)(virtual electron-positron vacuum condensate density)^1/2(real electron-pair control superconductor density)^1/2 cos[Theta(x)]

Where gauge invariant Theta(x) is sensitive to magnetic fluxes,, rotations and other Berry phase effects in the usual well known ways.

The local zero point stress-energy density tensor at scale s is

tuv (ZPF) =[ c^4/8piG*(s)]/\zpf(s)guv(x,s)

where we want s-regions such that G*(s) >> G(Newton) i.e. increasing Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity."



On May 14, 2004, at 5:11 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Interesting if true. If he means off-mass shell virtual particles inside vacuum off mass shell then maybe. Seems to fit with Valentini?
I haven't read it yet. His scalar field should be my vacuum coherence. Remember I have a local nonrandom signal c-number ODLRO macro-quantum order parameter controlling the residual random micro-quantum zero point noise whose pressure, positive or negative, is gravitating dark matter or antigravitating dark energy phases of exotic vacuum respectively.

Non-equilbrium of the virtual particles gives signal nonlocality (Valentini).

On May 13, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Hi Jack,

Before I respond to your comments, I am wondering if you might comment on your theory vs Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz theory of "subquantum dark energy"; specifically:

"...the subquantum potential Vsq can take on both positive and negative values, the associated field theory can lead to positive or negative pressure, respectively...the subquantum potential is interpreted as that potential associated to the hidden dynamics of the particles which are homogenously and isotropically distributed in the universe...dark energy appears to at least partly correspond to the overall work which is done by all of the particles along their hidden trajectories associated through the Bohm's interpretation with the essential quantum indeterminancy of the observable matter in the universe...non gravitational components, i.e. dark matter and dark energy are both unitarily described by just the scalar field ..."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311244


Sub-Quantum Dark Energy
Authors: Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz (IMAFF, CSIC, Madrid)
Comments: 7 pages, RevTex, some minor changes and references added, to appear in Phys. Rev. D
Report-no: IMAFF-RCA-03-03

A procedure is considered which upgrades the Lagrangian description of quantum relativistic particles to the Lagrangian of a proper field theory in the case that the Klein-Gordon wave equation is classically interpreted in terms of a relativistic sub-quantum potential. We apply the resulting field theory to cosmology and show that the relativistic version of the Bohm's subquantum potential which can be associated with a homogeneous and isotropic distribution of particles behaves like though it was a cosmological constant responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe, at least in the limit where the field potential vanishes.



Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com


From: gaoshan.iqm@263.net
To: garysbekkum@hotmail.com
Subject: my new homepage
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:40:21 +0800

Dear Gary,

How are you! Recently I set up my new homepage 'Institute of Quantum' (http://www.ioq.cn). You may browse it now and give me some suggestions and comments. If possible, please tell those people who may be interested in my work the foundation of the new institute. Many thanks!

Best wishes,

Gao Shan

Gary, I took a first quick look at the Diaz paper. It looks good! It is consistent with my idea. It has w = -1 eq. (2.7) p. 3. Excellent. Of course we already knew from Bohmian NRQM theory that the quantum potential Q is a way of representing zero point energy,
e.g. Bohm's solution of the hydrogen atom ground state.

Yes, I will reference this paper from now on. Good find! A+!
Looks like you are learning something. That's the right paper at the right time. God is subtle, but not malicious. He is describing I think only the random residual micro-quantum ZPE "noise" or "normal fluid" part. I don't see any "vacuum coherence" yet in his model or any connection to "dark matter" with positive pressure and the stability of the single electron. I will study all these papers after I get the book out the door.

Keep me posted on spin off from those two PRAVDA articles. They should stir things up a bit. Awaken The Pundits from their dogmatic slumbers from the hallowed Halls of Ivy to the dark corridors of Power at Langley and The Kremlin. ;-) The Russians and Ukranians may not have a lot of money, but they still have superior intellects and this sort of stuff does not need expensive machines with huge energy outputs. Eric Davis is wrong about that. It's all micro-nanotech with a fine mesh-phase array of LC oscillators with really high Tc coils on micron to nanoscale imbedded all over the thin smart computing material of the fuselage. Each little solenoid current controls the local Josephson phase difference between the high Tc SC coil and the vacuum it occupies. Hence, the coherent phased array Theta(x)
controls induced /\zpf, i.e.

Induced /\zpf(s) ~ (Effective Area)^-1(Effective Volume)(virtual electron-positron vacuum condensate density)^1/2(real electron-pair control superconductor density)^1/2 cos[Theta(x)]

Where gauge invariant Theta(x) is sensitive to magnetic fluxes,, rotations and other Berry phase effects in the usual well known ways.

The local zero point stress-energy density tensor at scale s is

tuv (ZPF) =[ c^4/8piG*(s)]/\zpf(s)guv(x,s)

where we want s-regions such that G*(s) >> G(Newton) i.e. increasing Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity."



On May 14, 2004, at 5:11 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Interesting if true. If he means off-mass shell virtual particles inside vacuum off mass shell then maybe. Seems to fit with Valentini?
I haven't read it yet. His scalar field should be my vacuum coherence. Remember I have a local nonrandom signal c-number ODLRO macro-quantum order parameter controlling the residual random micro-quantum zero point noise whose pressure, positive or negative, is gravitating dark matter or antigravitating dark energy phases of exotic vacuum respectively.

Non-equilbrium of the virtual particles gives signal nonlocality (Valentini).

On May 13, 2004, at 10:19 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Hi Jack,

Before I respond to your comments, I am wondering if you might comment on your theory vs Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz theory of "subquantum dark energy"; specifically:

"...the subquantum potential Vsq can take on both positive and negative values, the associated field theory can lead to positive or negative pressure, respectively...the subquantum potential is interpreted as that potential associated to the hidden dynamics of the particles which are homogenously and isotropically distributed in the universe...dark energy appears to at least partly correspond to the overall work which is done by all of the particles along their hidden trajectories associated through the Bohm's interpretation with the essential quantum indeterminancy of the observable matter in the universe...non gravitational components, i.e. dark matter and dark energy are both unitarily described by just the scalar field ..."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311244


Sub-Quantum Dark Energy
Authors: Pedro F. Gonzalez-Diaz (IMAFF, CSIC, Madrid)
Comments: 7 pages, RevTex, some minor changes and references added, to appear in Phys. Rev. D
Report-no: IMAFF-RCA-03-03

A procedure is considered which upgrades the Lagrangian description of quantum relativistic particles to the Lagrangian of a proper field theory in the case that the Klein-Gordon wave equation is classically interpreted in terms of a relativistic sub-quantum potential. We apply the resulting field theory to cosmology and show that the relativistic version of the Bohm's subquantum potential which can be associated with a homogeneous and isotropic distribution of particles behaves like though it was a cosmological constant responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe, at least in the limit where the field potential vanishes.



Gary S. Bekkum
garysbekkum@hotmail.com


From: gaoshan.iqm@263.net
To: garysbekkum@hotmail.com
Subject: my new homepage
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:40:21 +0800

Dear Gary,

How are you! Recently I set up my new homepage 'Institute of Quantum' (http://www.ioq.cn). You may browse it now and give me some suggestions and comments. If possible, please tell those people who may be interested in my work the foundation of the new institute. Many thanks!

Best wishes,

Gao Shan

Thursday, May 13, 2004

bcc
On May 13, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Hi Guys --
 
I'm no physicist, but one of the things that I have been wondering about is this:
 
Could the Quantum Foam in PV include the previously unseen-forces and/or particles said to reside within the Planck radius in string theory?
 

Your question is meaningless - not well posed. There is no quantum theory in PV. There is no Planck quantum h in any equation of his PV model Hence no quantum foam. PV as published now is strictly a classical phenomenological model. It lacks GCT local symmetry as agreed by Mike Ibison who works with Hal in Austin and who agrees that PV is not as good as Einstein's GR in terms of agreement with observed facts like the pulsar data.

Hal appears to have no understanding of group theory of symmetries in theoretical physics. He never seems to have heard of the Klein Erlangen Program of 1872 that the group of reference frame transformations determines geometry!

http://www.math.mcgill.ca/~malkoun/Erlangen_Program/Erlangen_Program.html

http://www.fact-index.com/e/er/erlangen_program.html

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erlangen%20program

Hal's PV dynamical action is that of global special relativity of 1905 with the adhoc insertion of a locally variable speed of light in the gamma factors. This itself is at best a very crude approximation, very dubious.

The space-time continuous symmetry of global special relativity is the 10 parameter Poincare group if you include rest mass m as an adoc parameter. If you set m = 0 you get the larger 15 parameter conformal group keeping the causal light cone invariant.

Look at the 6 parameter subgroup of the Poincare group, the Lorentz group. Look at the 3-parameter set of boosts. They connect GIFs to each other. GIF = Global Inertial Frame, i.e. a special class of "inertial observers" moving in globally flat 4D space-time along straight lines in sense of Euclid's 3D geometry at constant speed with zero acceleration! Therefore, this symmetry group cannot answer the question of how to transform the theory between two observers in arbitrary accelerated motion, i.e. in non-inertial frames of reference, who are comparing their measurements on the same phenomena. That is what the new GCT (General Coordinate Transformations) local symmetry group is all about! In addition there is the equivalence principle that an observer at rest in an accelerating (non-inertial frame) feels an "inertial force" that cannot be locally distinguished from a "gravity force" or "g-force." Note that this "g-force" has nothing to do with tidal curvature which is detected by a different operational procedure entirely. You can have two neighboring weightless geodesic observers who detect a local curvature field. The curvature tensor measurement is operationally distinct from g-force measurements!

When I ask Hal what is the full symmetry group of his PV theory of gravity? He is mute. Hal cannot say because he seems not to understand what I am asking him. He falls back on the lame excuse that I am stupid and simply do not understand his theory and that every one else who has written to him privately understands it. Of course, Hal never produces one example of these alleged private notes. He can do it removing the ID so that we can all see what the idea is. Of course, I may be in error, but Hal does not obey the standard rules of engagement in my peer review of his theory. At this point Hal should list all my actual statements that he thinks is in error and misrepresent his theory, and give explanations that we all can look at. If indeed, he makes a good argument and is correct I would say so. He has never done that not even once to my satisfaction at least. Nor have any of the people he alludes to who are obviously following the debate offered a critical defense of his theories. This is a strange silence indeed.

Special Relativity 1905 works only with GIFs in globally flat 4D space-time with the Poincare group. You need the additional local GCT group to describe the relationships of the measurement data on the same objective events between momentarily approximately coincident non-inertial LNIF observers. This is true even if the space-time region is flat with a zero tensor curvature field! GCT can be used, indeed must be used, even in a 4D globally flat spacetime in order to be able to answer a whole class of physical questions. This is an example of Godel's incompleteness theorem in physics! Questions that have no answer in Special Relativity have an answer even in globally flat spacetime when you add the GCT group! This is why any physical theory of spacetime must include GCT whether or not there is curvature. Hal and Mike do not understand this deep physical idea and it is no wonder that ALL alternative theories of "gravity", like Hal's version of PV, that do not have GCT + local equivalence principle fail experimentally.


Define "metric." My understanding of "metric theory" was simply

ds^2 = guv(x)dx^udx^v (eq. I)

where guv(x) is a GCT tensor.

What is your more general formal definition that allows a distinction?

Be precise and detailed so I can see what you mean.

On May 13, 2004, at 4:49 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Your definition of 'metric theory' disagrees with that in MTW and in the book by Will.

No it does not.

The formal definition of a metric theory is probably given by Schiff and by Dicke. Roughly, it is a theory in which some quantity guv(x) is sandwiched in between all products of vectors and (other) tensors which go in to making the scalar action. In such a theory, the effective line element is then ds^2 = g_{uv}(x)dx^udx^v as you have given. For example, if in a g-free theory the EM interaction (in the action) is A^u j_u, then in a metric theory it must appear as A^u g_{uv} j^v

That does not contradict what I said.

Satisfaction of the above ('metric theory requirement') is necessary but not sufficient for a theory to be GCTI. In the last email I sent a list of metric theories that are not GCTI.

And all those theories are wrong experimentally!

BTW you left out my two other equations

gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P) (eq. II)

i.e. the basic "GCT" equation.

+ the local equivalence principle expressed as

guv(P) = Xu^a(P)Xv^b(P)nab (eq. III)

where nab is the FLAT 4D Minkowski metric in the geodesic LIF at P

guv(P) is the CURVED 4D metric in the LNIF at P

I am not sure that your statement that g_{uv}(x) is a GCT tensor means anything. 

It means the two equations I just wrote. I do not see how any of this fancy dancing helps Hal's case for PV? Do you?

A theory as a whole may be GCTI, but each tensor in in the theory guv, Fuv, ... may be changed under a coordinate transformation, whether or not the theory as a whole is GCTI.
 

Huh? In any case, what's your point? How does this help justify Hal's PV as a viable contender for metric engineering?

You seemed to agree with me before that all theories without GCT as I mean in context of the three above LOCAL equations I, II, III disagree with experiment including Hal's PV. Hal's PV without GCT is physically incomplete in a Godelian sense as I explained above.


In a message dated 5/13/04 6:32:39 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

Jack: If you were to list my errors of understanding of your PV and ZPE theories I would publish them and subject them to honest open debate. ... Show us.

On May 13, 2004, at 4:45 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

OK, let's start with this.  It's a global issue in your arguments:

In a message dated 5/13/04 6:19:08 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:

JS: By "metric theory" I mean a theory with a "metric tensor" therefore GCT is implied.

HP: Your definition is just incorrect.  There is a standard definition in GR theory, and what you say is not it.  Yes, metric theory means a metric tensor is involved, but it does not necessarily imply GCT.

JS: Define the math you mean for "GCT." When I say "GCT" I mean the local equation II above. I mean this:

gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P) (eq. II)

What do you mean? Show us with the math. Even if my definition were in some way incorrect. How does that help your PV theory, which Ibison says lacks GCT?

HP: For starters, in Clifford Will's article, Ch. 2, p. 48 of Hawking's and Israels's book "General Relativity,"  Will discusses Rosen's bimetric theory.  It is a metric theory, it has a metric tensor, but it also has a background metric and so does not satisfy GCT.  So a metric theory with a metric tensor does not automatically imply GCT; only in special cases (e.g., Einsteinian GR is one) is that the case.

JS: So what's your point here? How does this help establish your PV as a plausible model for metric engineering. Who says Rosen's bimetric theory is any good? Does it explain the observations? Is it a hot topic in the key physics journals on relativity? No. I gave you my meaning for GCT in eq II,

HP: Ibison gave you all the references about this issue.  Check them out.  I now see why you have had so much confusion over this issue, and have said the (incorrect) things you have said in attempting to assess much of my work.

JS: Your logic here is bogus. Show us explicitly how any of the references you just gave above justifies your PV? Since I am sure that every one is now confused let me ask:

Q1. Does your PV have GCT or not?

My understanding is that it does not.

Suppose your PV is a metric theory without GCT.

Q2. How does this help your argument?

Q3. What is the complete symmetry group of your PV theory?

Remember tensors are defined relative to a given symmetry group.

Q4. Remember, I say the physical meaning of GCT is that it shows us how to compare local observations on the same events made by two coincident observers looking at same events in their neighborhood of coincidence. Do you agree with that or not?

Therefore, if you agree, that means PV is physically incomplete in the operational sense of PW Bridgman.

Q5. Suppose for the sake of argument, I was wrong about metric theories and GCT, how does that help your argument for PV?

Q6. Do you agree that a theory that makes wrong predictions should be abandoned?

Q7. If yes on Q6, why do you still cling to PV that gives a wrong prediction on the pulsar data as shown by Ibison?

Q8. How many fudge factors will you add before giving up?

BTW, now that I have coaxed you into a rational substantive discussion with the PRAVDA articles, I will include this in Super Cosmos to give a fair representation of your position on PV. :-)

However, even if I granted you this point. I do not see how it helps your case? Please explain.

Wednesday, May 12, 2004

Hal

You may want to rebut what I wrote in PRAVDA?
STAIF may not be interested in knowing The Truth, but the Russian Security Service and Army clearly are.
Heads up! :-)
Watch the skies.
First Iran, now Mexico?
Looks like an optical stealth cloak, but why do they not cloak the IR and the microwave? Just to jerk our chains I suppose. ;-)

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: May 13, 2004 1:50:57 PM PDT
To: post@pravda.ru
Subject: typo corrections to weapons article

Editors of PRAVDA

Your reply is now on PRAVDA:

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12778_weapons.html



Here is a typo-corrected copy. If you can replace what is up there now with this, it would be better for your readers :-)

I also added a new part on refuting Hal Puthoff's theory of how to make the exotic metric engineering weaponry work.

Gary Bekkum mentions my name and ideas extensively in your article. Much of his material is taken from previous documents I have shared with him over the past years that are collected in the open public directories:
http://stardrive.org/
http://stardrive.org/Jack/
http://qedcorp.com/APS/
http://qedcorp.com/London/
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/
the latter directory includes a free online copy of my latest book
"Super Cosmos" soon to be published
Two previous books from 2002 "Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" give many background details to Gary Bekkum's article.
They are available from http://amazon.com et-al

Some key comments on Gary's article:

As far as I know I am the only physicist so far to claim:

" that the invisible gravitating dark matter could be the other side of the invisible dark energy coin, and that suggests the possibility of manipulating the vacuum for energy release. If a controllable parameter could be found to mediate the balance between the invisible dark forces, the result would unleash the vacuum energy of creation in all of its awful power and majesty. If it were possible to control the dark sides of the force then spacetime, the arena where everything we know takes place, could be bent and twisted with infinitely greater ease than was ever suspected. This would open Pandora's box to everything from vacuum energy weapons of mass destruction (capable of destroying the universe!) to spacetime warp drives and time machines."

Gary claims "some physicists." That's news to me. Who are the others?

My unique and original claim, documented in my two books from 2002, is that both anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter are forms of exotic quantum vacuum of differing degrees of coherence of negative and positive zero point pressure respectively. Control of the quantum pressure field distribution permits "Alcubierre" time-like geodesic zero g-force "acceleration field" (Paul Hill's book "Unconventional Flying Objects") "G-Engine" (George Trimble, 1956 described in Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point"), "negative matter propulsion" of Herman Bondi and Stalin's WWII physics spy master Yakov Petrovich Terletsky. Note that I am interviewed on Niels Bohr and Terletsky in Pavel and Anatoli Sudoplatov's "Special Tasks" - the later "Updated Edition” with "New Foreword” by Robert Conquest of the Stanford Hoover Institution pp. 483-4

My theory of dark matter as a virtual process, unlike all the competing theories of exotic super symmetry partner particles, predicts that no dark matter detector will "click" with the right stuff, only with false positives as recently described in http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-7.html showing that recent Italian claims of detecting dark matter particles are wrong. The dark matter detectors will show a null result just as the Michelson-Morley interferometer failed to show the motion of the Earth through the "aether." See also "The Waiting Game" by Geoff Brumfiel, Nature, 6 May 2004, pp.10-11

"The ... Cryogenic Dark Matter Search has run for 14 years, the latest detector ... have found no new particles."

They never will if my unique original theory is correct. I am not aware of any other physicist making that strong falsifiable prediction based on a coherent picture of the emergent origin of Einstein's gravitational field.

Also, I am, to my knowledge the first to suggest the possibility of exotic gamma ray weapons using nuclear isomer transitions way back in 1962-64 from my work with George Parrent, Jr at Tech/Ops in Lexington, Mass in same building with Mitre Corporation back then. I worked on the concept with Hans Bethe at Cornell on the third floor of the Newman Laboratory for Nuclear Studies in that time period as well. Bethe discouraged my idea of making a "gamma ray laser" saying that the "cross section numbers were not good enough." I had previously worked with Bethe in my senior year at Cornell 1960 on fixing an error in Schwinger's calculation of the polarization of synchrotron radiation off the plane of the electron orbits. I discovered the error as part of Bethe's senior honors seminar in experimental tests of special relativity. Peter Goldreich was also in that small seminar of maybe six students. Also I should add that George Chapline, Jr. and I knew each other in La Jolla, CA in 1966-67. We were part of the group that Greg Benford describes in his sci-fi book "Timescape" dealing with the physics of “signal nonlocality” from future to past that is very much a part of my post-quantum physics of Dick Bierman’s “presponse” beyond orthodox micro-quantum theory. Post-quantum (AKA “macro-quantum”) theory is a covering theory of micro-quantum theory. Covering theories are like the New Testament compared to the Old Testament – new wine in new bottles. What is not possible in the theory, may be possible in the covering theory and vice versa. Einstein’s general relativity of gravity from 1915 is a covering theory of his special relativity from 1905. It is not possible to describe gravity only with special relativity. That is why Hal Puthoff’s “PV” theory of metric engineering is wrong. It is possible to have global inertial frames (GIF) in special relativity, but they are not possible in general relativity where they are replaced by local inertial frames (LIF) that do not rotate and move along free float weightless zero g-force “timelike geodesics,” which are the straightest paths in curved space-time inside the local light cone at each point and moment on the path. This is the significant difference that curvature makes. Similarly, micro-quantum theory obeys “signal locality” so that you, for example, cannot clone a photon. You cannot use the nonlocal entanglement of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect for a stand-alone untappable command-control-communication (C^3) system. You always need a second classical signal as the “key” to unlock the coded message hidden and stored in the nonlocal entanglement beyond space-time. You can code the message nonlocally but you cannot decode it locally. This quantum cryptography/teleportation game changes dramatically when we leave the domain of validity of micro-quantum theory and go to the broader domain of macro or post-quantum theory where we now get stand-alone “signal nonlocality” necessary for our own inner consciousness as well as the paranormal phenomena like the CIA study of “remote viewing” by Puthoff and Targ at SRI in the 1970’s. Antony Valentini has shown that the domain of post-quantum theory is that of “sub-quantum nonequilibrium” in the sense of Bohm’s hidden variable pilot wave theory extended by J.P. Vigier. This new development also may mean that Lenny Susskind loses his debate with Stephen Hawking on information loss down a black hole real or imaginary? Hawking says “real”, Susskind says “imaginary,” i.e. the information is not really lost.

I was the senior physicist at Joe Firmage's ISSO that Bekkum mentions and I introduced Creon Levit to Joe and encouraged him to take a leave from NASA to direct ISSO Science for Joe.

Both of Puthoff's theories are simply wrong and do not agree with experiments. Maybe he will come up with something experimentally, but they will not be based on HRP ZPE or PV! Basically Hal, as of May 2004, has no concept of controllable nonrandom "vacuum coherence" therefore he cannot derive rest mass m and he cannot metric engineer. All HRP has is uncontrollable random EM ZPF, they do not even have random virtual e+e- PV ZPF! Puthoff's “inhomogeneous” solution of cosmological constant paradox is wrong and no one at GR 17 in Dublin, Ireland July 2004 would accept it. The idea of changing m for NASA BPP is not only is dangerous if it could be done if e/m ratios change! The discussion with Ibison clearly shows that PV is a globally 4D flat theory not consistent with GCT symmetry. Hence not acceptable period. Besides it conflicts with experiment - no big surprise. To hype Hal's obviously wrong ideas as the "key" to the future advanced military space weapons is irresponsible.

Finally Bekkum writes:

"Some French, Serbian and Ukrainian physicists have been working on new theories of extended electrons and solitons, so perhaps a sub-quantum bomb is not entirely out of the question."

Bekkum fails to acknowledge J.P. Vigier as the leader of this project. Vigier, long time assistant to Louis DeBroglie and Hero of The French Resistance and member of the French Communist Party, died in Paris only a few days ago. The idea of "tight atomic electron states" from a spatially extended electron "Bohm hidden variable" is Vigier's. Serbian physicists in Beograd were testing Vigier's idea 1999-2000. I am not sure if the Ukranians were in touch with Vigier? Vigier came to ISSO here in San Francisco several times. There are photos of those visits in my autobiography "Destiny Matrix." I am still actively working on Vigier's ideas and I suspect there is something to it. More details are in my book "Super Cosmos" on the idea G* ~ 1040G on scale of 1 fermi explaining the unsolved problem of the stability of the electron. In my theory of the dark matter as gravitating exotic vacuum with positive zero point pressure, the single spatially extended electron of Vigier’s theory of tight atomic states is stable against its self-electric charge for the same reason that the stars in our galaxy do not fly off into space - from the fall of Newton's apple to Kepler’s elliptical motion of the planets round the Sun out beyond to the Galactic Halo and then zoom in with a wavelet transform to the interior of a single electron whose positive zero point pressure prevents the electric charge from exploding. As the Techgnostic Hermetic Alchemist Kabbalists say "As Above, So Below."

I am not savvy on the stuff you report below, but I am passing it on to some of "the others" who are.
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

On May 12, 2004, at 8:51 AM, antigray@cs.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/12/04 9:06:53 AM !!!First Boot!!!, Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com writes:

On May 11, 2004, at 8:16 AM, antigray wrote:

Hi Jack,
I'm not supporting a "position." I'm just reporting the facts that a media with an anti-freedom agenda has not been reporting. I'm not promoting any "us versus them" agendas of any description because the bottom line in all of the senseless violence, politics, religious wars, Jihads, wars, etc., is that they are not caused by "us." I really didn't want to distract you from your work getting you interested/involved in this subject because I know it can be mind-boggling. My mind is quite boggled. LOL The only good that can come out of you knowing the full story is that it may motivate you to work harder and smarter, since we need all the help we can get developing propulsion systems that are more advanced than what the ETs have.

I have made rapid progress in the theory and explanation of saucer/NASA BPP propulsion that will soon be published and available on Amazon et-al
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc
under construction - changing daily 24/7

Isn't it a shame that the great technological leaps are usually spurred by war? Necessity is the mother of invention. Yada yada yada. So here's some historical type motivation.

The periodic major wars every 50 years are meat harvesting operations instigated by our migrating Repto Sapien cousins to restock meat supplies on their passing fleet of large mother ships. Every major war and plague in history has been accompanied by major recorded saucer flaps.

Yeah, I just got a message from one at
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
who is masquerading as a human in the Harvard Physics Department under the name of "Lubos Motl"
Abbe Hyupsing Qong AKA "Abbe Normal" for short
http://www.ladyofthecake.com/mel/frank/sounds/abby.wav

On May 11, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Abbe Hyupsing Qong (allegedly AKA Lubos Motl at Harvard Physics Dept) wrote:

Dear Dr. Savage,

I would like to assure you that I am Abbe Hyupsing Qong, the same extraterrestrial citizen who contacted a person called Jack Sarfatti when he was 13 years old. Unfortunately I have not met Sarfatti for many years; do you know where can I find him? Incidentally, my name is not Asian - but I will forgive you your
politically incorrect comment. During my last visit on Earth, I joined Lubos Motl Ltd., a U.S. company whose goal is to create fictitious humans with a rather high Galactic imaginative superpotential (or even pre-potential). Because of extrasensorial perception based on non-carbonic quantum music, I am also in touch with Brian Josephson.

Sincerely Yours
Abbe Hyupsing Qong


Cannon fodder = Reptoid fodder. We are not wanting for evidence that the Repto Sapiens use us as a food resource. Talk about rock solid evidence, this is just some of it. There is worldwide archaeological evidence of their program.

This is about the site found in Peru with many stone slab carvings depicting a massive human slaughtering operation, where bodies were dismantled and the various parts and pieces were separated into piles. "Human sacrifice" there involved the methodical butchering and sectioning of many thousands of people. There are websites where you can see the photos of the stone slabs with the piles of body pieces. Here it is:
There is a pyramid complex at Sechin Alto, Peru that was built 3000 years ago by a people whose name we do not know because they had not gotten to a stage of development where they had developed a written language. In fact, they were just learning to make pottery when they suddenly became expert pyramid builders for no obvious reason. They moved about 60 million stone blocks to build many pyramids. There is evidence that shows exactly what they were doing. There are hundreds of stone slabs with carvings on them located in a rectangular courtyard. The carvings show the processing of humans like cattle into sections, much like it is done in a meat packing plant. They show the bodies being cut in half across the waist, legs and arms being cut off, eyes being removed, and all of the parts being stacked in neat sorted piles. There are piles of heads, separated vertebrae, limbs, and eyeballs. That eyeball pile is what caught my eye, so to speak. Very recently it was reported in the news that several dozen eyeballs (probably from mutilated cows whose eyes are almost always missing) had been found dropped out of the sky into someone's backyard in the Midwest. It seems someone has a taste for eyeballs to this very day. I believe stuffed goat eyeballs are still a delicacy in the Middle East. There is no accounting for taste. What seems to make this meat processing operation fit into the repeating pattern of harvesting humans for food, is that the archeologists working the site can find no burial grounds for the people that lived there and built the pyramids, or any trace of the many people that they routinely and methodically butchered. All of the evidence has vanished. The fact that there are no bones in evidence, is evidence that they were taken out of the area. So there was a need for the end product (food) that caused it to be taken and eaten elsewhere. If this isn't food to go, I don't know what is.

I think they come from the Alpha Chi Eta galaxy in the Universe Next Door. ;-)
http://qedcorp.com/book/psi/hitweapon.html

Photo of carvings at:

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~frogel/Peru98/Peru98_Sechin/0Peru98_Sechin_home.html

Warrior with severed heads, legs, and plucked eyeballs - mosaic wall at Cerro Sechín (click on the small pictures to see them full-size)

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~frogel/Peru98/Peru98_Sechin/peru98_09.html

Severed Legs

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~frogel/Peru98/Peru98_Sechin/peru98_11.html

Guide points to severed backbones, heads stacked up behind him.

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~frogel/Peru98/Peru98_Sechin/peru98_12.html

View of slaughterhouse complex and plaza.
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~frogel/Peru98/Peru98_Sechin/peru98_08.html

<>
From:
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:kotkUoPSpuYJ:www.truthseekers.freeserve.co.uk/truth/tr7roswell.html+Marcahuasi+Plateau+is+4000+metres+high+and+can+be+found&hl=en
<>
From: http://www.karinya.com/door1a.htm
< Shown above is an artists drawing of "The Face of Humanity" - A single 3 story tall bolder shaped into the form of a mans head. What's remarkable about this (beyond the obvious) is that as the sun travels westerly, the face ages into that of an old man.
While these scholarly assessments tell us of the surprising degree of skill and observational powers possessed by the builders of this citadel, they say nothing of who these people were, where the figures were made or quite possibly more important -- where were they from. Yet still an extraordinary energy pervades this sanctuary cloaked in the clouds for untold centuries, having only recently been discovered by the outside world. Incredible reports of UFO's being seen, as well as strange beings who reportedly walk around the place day and night. Many of the local villagers are afraid and believe these beings come from inside the earth or are materializing from other dimensions. The archaeological community is at a loss to explain some of the more unfathomable images carved in the stone. In addition to toads, dogs and condors which are all indigenous to the area, there are also 25-foot tall carvings of a walrus, camel, lion, polar bear, alligator, turtle and what can only be described as a prehistoric stegosaurus dinosaur!
Picture of a stegosaurus:
http://www.action-forms.com/games/carnivores2/creatures/stegosaurus.gif

These and other creatures haunt this mist shrouded plateau from a lost world. There is a 3-story tall human head carved from a single bolder and faces carved on a cliffs that drop thousands of feet representing all the different races of the world, speaking in muted silence of the many questions that permeate these stones resting upon the plateau of Marca Huasi.>>

While we are in this anthropological area, there is another example of alien influence that shows up in skulls that were found. There is a huge collection of skulls in the Cranium Room at the National Museum of Anthropology in Lima, Peru. They are skulls of the Nazca of, "Nazca Lines" fame. The skulls resemble the big heads of the Gray aliens. Also found with these archeological treasures was the skull binding equipment used to shape the skulls of infants into the Gray-like elongated and bulbous form. So the Grays did not genetically alter the Nazca to resemble themselves, which was confirmed by DNA testing. The Nazca were not the only people on Earth to copy Gray head looks. It was done by Mallacca Islanders in the Pacific, Chinook Indians in the Pacific Northwest in North America, and by the ancient Egyptians too. Much like the Cargo Cult natives of the 20th. Century, those ancient people found imitation to be the sincerest form of flattery.
http://www.archaeology.org/0401/abstracts/cerro.html


Volume 57 Number 1, January/February 2004

Battles of Cerro Sechín
by Erica Hill

Do carvings in northern Peru reflect ancient warfare or an Andean
ritual practiced to this day?

Since they were first uncovered almost 70 years ago, the gruesome
monoliths of Cerro Sechín in northern Peru have puzzled
archaeologists, who have attempted to tease meaning from the carvings
of fierce warriors surrounded by severed heads streaming blood,
eyeballs lined up in tidy rows, and neatly stacked piles of vertebrae.

Some have suggested bizarre interpretations, such as the notion that
the 3,500-year-old site was a center of medical learning, where
anatomical drawings of disembodied limbs and ruptured intestines were
carved for study.

But Cerro Sechín also has its share of straightforward
interpretations. The site may commemorate a great victory in warfare--
the problem is that there are no battlefields or mass graves in Peru
that can be directly associated with the conflict represented at
Cerro Sechín. An alternate theory suggests that the early inhabitants
of Cerro Sechín were raiding their neighbors. Unlike all-out war,
small-scale conflict would leave only minimal archaeological evidence.

In 2001, I visited Cerro Sechín for the first time. Despite spending
several years poring over images of the site and its monoliths, I was
stunned by the monumental size of the four-walled complex. Some of
the stones used to construct the walls are more than three feet wide,
and one stands more than thirteen feet tall.

As other scholars have previously observed, many of the monoliths are
paired. From the two stones representing banners that flank a double
staircase to the two warriors facing in opposite directions along the
back wall, most of the human figures and many of the monoliths
depicting body parts appear in pairs on opposite sides of the
complex. Was this an ancient Peruvian desire for symmetry, or was it
something more?


* Erica Hill is a research associate at the
* University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks.


© 2004 by the Archaeological Institute of America
www.archaeology.org/0401/abstracts/cerro.html
Additional links (pictorial and text):

Egypt, Babylon, and America:
The Similarities Of Ancient Cultures...
http://members.tripod.com/~kon_artz/cultures/egyptame.htm

Pre-Colombian History in South America...
http://berclo.net/page94/94en-hist-sam-pc.html

Early Andean Cities...
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/readings/andean_cit
ies.html

Pre-Columbian Art...
http://www.peru-travel.net/peru_travel_center/art.htm

Hepmonaland:
Nahuatl, Mazticaa, The Nazca Empire...
http://my.voyager.net/~marck/Hepmonaland.htm

The Ancient City Of Caral...
http://www.aracari.com/aracari/articles/caral_todo.htm

Sacred Sites Of Peru...
http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/peru/peru.html

Early Central Andean Cultures...
http://infinity.sequoias.cc.ca.us/art/strong/pc5dl/precol5a/cenandes/d
efault.html

There is more informatiuon in my book:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/1417.html
and on my book website:
http://antigray.tripod.com/
Art

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who still have swords."
Thomas Jefferson 



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT



Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars/
 
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

On May 12, 2004, at 2:58 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

--On Tuesday, May 11, 2004 16:28 -0700 Doc Savage wrote:

Apology to Bias? Nah! He probably agrees with LM on that anyway.

Looks to me he is on our side, but I've not had time to study it very carefully.

=b=

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

I have not seen anything from my old nemesis John Bias about this. But no matter I like to have fun at his expense. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. :-)

His Quantum Gravity as Category Theory paper won the Sokal Hoax Prize of 2004 for saying nothing of value in a most erudite and entertaining way.

I guess Lubos Motl likes to attack John Bias because Lubos is a string theorist and Bias is a loopy theorist? Sort of like a turf war between the Sopranos and the Tenors on the meaningless streets of North Jersey. BTW listen to me strut the boards in 1964 at Oberlin Conservatory
http://qedcorp.com/destiny/royalqueen.mov
And at Cornell http://qedcorp.com/destiny/lifeaboon.mov

Quite a surprise that Lubos Motl is none other than the notorious ET Abbe Hyupsing Qong of the Qong Show obviously. ;-)
i.e. links on Abbe Normal's page
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/
go directly to the SPS's moderator's page at Harvard

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

Is the SPS Moderator "Lubos Motl" a Crackpot and an ET to boot? ;-)

This is getting really hilarious. Someone from Rutgers is claiming to be an Asian "Qong" pretending to be Lubos Motl who is in reality an ET alien! http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/ Is this ID theft? The "ET" claims to have translated Brian Greene into Czech same as the SPS moderator at Harvard! Robert Anton Wilson and P.K. Dick could not have written this any better!

Did Brian already know this when he counseled "patience"?

I found on http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~sps/

From: Daniel (ensabah6@yahoo.com)
Subject: John Baez on string theory

 

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.physics.strings
Date: 2004-05-09 08:00:08 PST
Daniel's note: this post was originally posted on sci.physics.research,
however, his criticisms include string theory.

For the record whenever I post straight stuff to s.p.r. they almost always reject it as "too speculative." Same guys who run s.p.s.

[Moderator's note: and because some statements may sound original - or at
least silly in an original way - John Baez's text appears on this
newsgroup. Please understand this posting as a beginning of a
discussion. I personally don't plan to insert many comments to
submissions that will be on-topic; John Baez's text is highly
controversial and political, and therefore I used the opportunity
to reply directly. Lubos Motl]

John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias
=======================================

"Theoretical physics today is splintered into ideological factions
reminiscent of the neoconservatives morphed from the old Trotskyites,
essentially gangs of mathematicians in physicist's clothing with little
regard or knowledge of experimental physics."

I wrote that. John Bias did not write it. [Jack Sarfatti]


[LM: Some parts of the theoretical physics community might be viewed
as ideological factions, but some physicists and even groups
of physicists go on and (also, or primarily) make physics
research more than politics. Many theoreticians not only know the
basics of experimental physics, but they also interact with the
phenomenologists (or less frequently even with experimentalists).

Well, yes, some other physicists are interested purely in ideology,
confirming pre-determined prejudices, and analogies with Trotsky.

These physicists believe that the final revolution in physics (and
politics) has been finished before 1917, and it is called GR
(Great (October?) Revolution). They insist they they know
everything - the Universe must be four-dimensional and no extra
excited particles or new non-trivial dynamics can exist - and
they want to use loops to execute all participants of the
counter-revolution - those who actually believe that the new
ideas should be looked for according to the old-fashioned
scientific standards.]

Above by LM "moderator", Loony Toon, and ET Alien? ;-)

"The members of each gang scratch each other's backs in fierce competition for vanishing government grants, especially in the G.W. Bush administration."

I wrote that. John Bias did not write it. [Jack Sarfatti]

[LM: The U.S. physics continues to be THE superpower in
high-energy-like physics, despite the fact that it is slowly losing
its dominance - see the recent article in the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/03/science/03RESE.html

However it would be incorrect to say that the situation of
physics as a field of science only depends on the administration
of one country. The funding of fundamental physics reflects the
amount of progress that we are making. There are simply so many
new things in life sciences, genetics, biology etc. to be
investigated that the funding of these sciences naturally goes
up. On the other hand, the Standard Model - that describes
(together with General Relativity) all the known phenomena
- has been known for 30 years.

It has been known for decades
that the Standard Model is not the final word, and it has been
quite generally accepted at least for 20 years that string theory
is by far the most promising route to go beyond SM. It has had
its revolutions, and it has experienced depressions, too. The
optimists continue to say that we still live in the Second
Superstring Revolution, but whatever we say, it is clear that e.g.
the amount of citations referring to newly published papers is
smaller than the number of citations to the papers published
during the peaks - e.g. 1995-97. The activity in some
"alternative" fields of theoretical physics - such as loop
quantum gravity - disappeared almost completely. This is simply
not a situation in which one can expect the funding to double
every year. Some people seem to think that if they work in
physics, they should always have funding priority over others,
independently of whether they do good and interesting physics and
whether they do much. Well, I don't share this viewpoint.

Any human activity may become overfunded, and if a scientist is
unable to follow the development in the new hot directions and
he or she insists that what he or she learned as a student must
be the most important thing forever, it should not be surprising
if he or she becomes less interesting for others and the funding
decreases. Others can take over. Maybe others turn out to be smarter.

John Baez enjoys to politicize science in virtually every
sentence he writes - in this text, he relates the physicists to
Trotsky, Stalin, Lysenko, George W. Bush, Orwell, McCarthy,
Carlos Castro, Tony Smith, and others. To balance
his position, let me also say that a major part of the
crisis in particle physics is the limited supply of new
experimental data. Had the SSC been built, we would have probably
known for more than 10 years whether supersymmetry exists at the
TeV scale etc. The SSC was supported especially by Reagan and also
by Bush Sr., but not so much by Clinton and the Congress during
his presidency.]

OK, that's by Loony Toon. ;-)

"Occasionally some of them are candid:"

I wrote that. John Bias did not write it. [Jack Sarfatti]

"There is not one whit of experimental evidence for either string theory
or loop quantum gravity, and both theories have some serious problems, so
it might seem premature for philosophers to consider their implications."

John Bias did write the above.


[LM: Although loop quantum gravity has serious problems, this
statement does not apply to string theory. String theorISTS
may have problems to derive what they want and need to derive
and calculate, but these are *their* problems - for example
the neverending problems with vacuum selection. However, there
exists no evidence that string theory suffers from any
inconsistencies of the type that torture loop quantum gravity,
and there is no known evidence that string theory could be
incompatible with a feature of reality, at least with the level
of accuracy that reflects our current understanding of the
theory. There is a lot of uncertainty about how much progress
in predicting the actual values of the parameters we will be
able to make.]

"It indeed makes little sense for philosophers to spend time chasing every
short-lived fad in these fast-moving subjects. Instead, what is worthy of
reflection is that these two approaches to quantum gravity, while
disagreeing heatedly on so many issues, have so much in common. It
suggests that in our attempts to reconcile the quantum-theoretic notions
of state and process with the relativistic notions of space and spacetime,
we have a limited supply of promising ideas."

John Bias wrote this one too.


[LM: Yes, we have a limited supply of promising ideas. Generally
speaking, we have exactly one promising package of ideas, and it
is called string theory. Unlike John Baez, I don't think that
this limited supply should cause us headaches. On the contrary,
the observation that the supply of ideas is limited shows us that
we should treat this idea (string theory) very seriously. And we do.
We have one Universe to explain, and therefore we want one
package of ideas. The correct package.

Yes, loop quantum gravity suffers not only from a lack of good
ideas, but from a lack of any ideas, and therefore the
publications about it converge to zero, but this is (so far?) not
the case of string theory.

I think that the main problem today is that we have *too many*
ideas, even within string theory. We have now many very different
scenarios that could reproduce the real world - intersecting
brane models (with fluxes?); M-theory on G2 manifolds; some other
flux vacua; M-theory on a domain wall times the Calabi-Yau space;
F-theory on Calabi-Yau four-folds. Warped geometry, fluxes and
branes can appear anywhere, and many ways to combine these
ingredients are capable to reproduce the Standard Model plus
gravity plus physics beyond them. What we need is to acquire a
better understanding of the organizing principles relating these
different vacua - and a part of this organizing mechanism is
almost definitely in cosmology. This is why (together with the
desire to explain the cosmological constant) so many people study
try to study string cosmology and time-dependent backgrounds - at
least in the simplified context of two-dimensional string theory.

The dream to find a solid description of string theory that would
also work for the early "Planckian" evolution of the Universe can
also be credited for Cumrun Vafa's attack on quantum foam (so
far, in topological string theory).

Once again, there are many ideas, but all of the correct ideas
seem to be compactible. They seem to be parts of string/M-theory,
even though the large supply of the ideas is forcing us to think
that the "landscape" of stringy possibilities is huge.
Nevertheless it would be much more frustrating if we had many
*incompatible* ideas how to go beyond the Standard Model plus GR.
In that case, our research would resemble a random walk in an
infinite desert. There would be no point to study theory *before*
the experiments actually decide which theory is correct. We must
be grateful to the ability of mathematics to actually derive
something new and unambiguous, given some assumptions. It turned
out to be extremely nontrivial to reconcile gravity in d>4 with
the principles of quantum mechanics - so non-trivial that the
solution of this problem seems to lead to string theory as the
only solution. Despite the peaks and recessions in string
theory, this statement seems to remain true.]

"It is an open question whether these ideas will be up to the task of
describing nature. But this actually makes it more urgent, not less, for
philosophers to clarify and question these ideas and the implicit
assumptions upon which they rest."

I think Bias wrote this too. I did not.

[LM: Although Sheldon Glashow would often like to suggest
otherwise, string theory is not philosophy but physics. Anyone
who wants to understand and analyze the assumptions of string
theory - or a more specific model or conjecture within string
theory - must first of all study all physics from the basics of
classical physics to the basics of string theory, including its
mathematical tools. She must be very careful to know why she
believes or knows this idea or another, and what is the relation
between all of them. A degree from philosophy will be pretty
much useless for her, I think. Well, yes, I agree that the
abilities that are necessary to defend a thesis about some sort
of alternative philosophy or religion are not too different from the
abilities that allow people to join the loop quantum gravity
community. In both cases, the answers are determined in advance
(four dimensions, Einstein's equations valid exactly and
everywhere, the Pope makes no mistakes, etc.), and the goal of
the priests or the scientists is to look for evidence (or
"representations") for these pre-determined answers.

But it would be very incorrect to think that these are the same
procedures or skills that are useful to do particle physics or
string theory (or any natural science, for that matter).

The gap between string theory and loop quantum
gravity can be described as a gap between physics and philosophy:
two intellectual fields that used to be unified, but they split
millenia ago. Let me re-iterate that John Baez and philosophers
won't be able to say anything useful about the relation between
the ideas undelying string theory until they start to learn what
this theory really says and why does it say. String theory
cannot be ruled out by any sort of "a priori" philosophical
arguments, without looking to the scientific essence.]

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404040 v2 14 Apr 2004
Quantum Quandaries: A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C. Baez

[Moderator's note: the title of Sokal's hoax in "Social Text" was
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity". Aren't they similar? Actually
I think that Sokal's title is better for the type of article that
John Baez wanted to write. Why does John Baez exactly think that
this sort of philosophical or even ideological junk should be
read by physicists? Whom does it help? It reminds me of the
approach of socialist (and national socialist) politicians who
wanted to associate every theory with a political flavor, and
use this flavor to make decisions (c.f. Jewish pseudoscience
and the imperialistic string theory). It is against everything
I believe about the way how the truth should be looked for.

It applies to mathematical-philosophical arguments, too. Category
theory is not a theory of physics (rather mathematics), and therefore
its perspective and conclusions are not guaranteed to have any
relevance for physics.]

I agree that Bias's paper on QM Gravity and Category Theory is very close to the level or levity of Sokal's hoax.

"Neither string theory nor loop quantum gravity has made any hard
predictions of any facts, nor have they provided compelling explanations
of the several observational mysteries of precision cosmology and particle
physics."

Bias wrote that too.

[LM: It depends how "hard" is "hard". String theory has predicted
gravity - gravity has become a consequence of a specific, low-lying
vibrational mode of a string. String theory led to the discovery
of supersymmetry - which remains to be one of the essential parts
of string theory - and supersymmetry is still the number one
solution of the hierarchy problem (the puzzle why is the
electroweak scale so much lighter than the Planck scale).

Thousands of papers describe detailed predictions of stringy
scenarios for the future accelerators - they describe the spectra
of superpartners; Kaluza-Klein particles moving in extra
dimensions; some of them even excited stringy modes that could be
seen. Supersymmetry that originated in string theory - at least
in the West - allowed the people to improve the gauge coupling
unification at the GUT scale, and once/if the relevance of the GUT
scale will be showed experimentally, we will know that the GUT
scenarios also correctly predicted the rough magnitude of the
neutrino masses. I could continue, but the most important
conclusion is that it is not fair to compare loop quantum gravity
with string theory, as far as their abilities to predict are
concerned.

String theory has become a part of the phenomenological cannon
and its tools - although in a simplified edition - are being used
by most phenomenologists, those who directly and primarily want to
deal with experimental predictions.

Loop quantum gravity has only made the (wrong) prediction for
quantization of areas - that are not measurable with Planckian
accuracy anyway, not even in principle - and then it made the
prediction that the Universe can't work. It must crumple into
a Planckian piece of foamy spin dirt. If one believes in
miracles without any justification, she can imagine that the
smooth space (or spacetime) can exist, but then she can derive
that special relativity can't work and the Lorentz symmetry must
be violated. If she believes in another miracle that saves
the Lorentz symmetry well enough so that LQG is compatible with
the experiment, she can prove that all particles must be added by
hand and the scalar Higgs particles can't exist and therefore the
electroweak symmetry can't be broken. If she believes in another
miracle that allows her to forget about the interior of the black
hole and only consider its surface, she can "surprisingly" prove that
the entropy is proportional to the surface area. Unfortunately the
proportionality factor comes out incorrectly, unless she
believes in another miracle that log(2) morally equals sqrt(3).pi.

Come on guys, according to any standards in physics - even very
mild ones - loop quantum gravity has already been ruled out. OK,
let's return to the world of John Baez and his way of thinking about
physics. Well, is it physics or politics? I ask you.]

"Yet some of the self-appointed guardians of respectability and ideological
purity, reminiscent of Stalinist Lysenkoist pseudo-science in the Soviet
Union on the LANL Cornell Archive, as we see, for example, in the shocking
Orwellian McCarthyite blacklisting of dissident visionary physicists like
Carlos Castro and Tony Smith, Siddarth from India and Gao Shan from
Beijing by MacArthur Fellow Paul Ginsparg."

I, Jack Sarfatti, wrote the above.

[LM: I guess that virtually every reader will agree that comparing
the preprint archive with Lysenko is a sign of Baez's very limited
intelligence and self-control, and therefore we don't need to
join this game. Paul Ginsparg has written papers; he has written
TeX macros; he has been independent as far as the opinions about
physics go. Most people agree that his preprint arXiv is his
most precious gift to theoretical physics. Although tens of
classical refereed printed journals - which are not controlled
by Paul Ginsparg - still exist and anyone can read them, it is
just almost generally accepted by the community that the arXiv has
become a much more useful source of scientific information, and
the fast Ginsparg-driven filter removing the crackpots is
probably more efficient than the peer reviews. These virtues
allowed the community to choose Ginsparg's arXiv as the number
one source. Ginsparg is as self-appointed as anyone else who is
running a journal, newsgroup or anything of that type. The difference
with Ginsparg is that he is a clear winner: the community chose
his server to be the most important tool to exchange the scientific
ideas, even more important than sci.physics.strings (so far
by several orders of magnitude). ;-)]

I note that someone calling himself Lubos Motl also wrote on
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

" My name is Abbe Hyupsing Qong and I came from the planet called Zetor here. My specialization is the terrestrial biology and the new theory replacing Einstein's relativity by Prof. Vlcek, based on quasicircular inertial motion and the time common in all the rest frames. This theory by Prof. Vlcek is a monumental achievement of the human race at your planet.
Anyone working at the Service for a Convenient Aliens' Life must learn two languages and adopt a nationality. I adopted the Czech nationality and learned English and Czech even though I have never been to Europe. The reason is that I liked books by Havel and Kundera a lot. Now I can speak Czech better than English and our native language. Incidentally, my adopted name is Lubos Motl. You can also see a picture of my older brother who has unfortunately passed away during the last flight.
 
I hope that you are not distracted by the animated picture of myself. All of us had to prepare special masks to look just as the people living on the Earth. So whenever you meet me at the Department of Physics and Astronomy in New Jersey or at NASA or our spaceship, you will see a person looking precisely as the terresterial human beings. My mask is able to change its gender so I can look both as a girl and as a boy. You can see my mask here.
I like to chat via computers at the UFO.ORG. But sometimes I also chat or mail with some terresterial human beings, especially from the Czech Republic which is my specialization as I have already said.
This page and all the organizations by aliens are secret so far. But there are some efforts against the UFO and Alien secrecy. I tend to sympathize with them and sometimes I uncover part of our mystery to human beings.
 Many human beings ask me about the physical principles of our spaceships. Shortly, the presentation is easy. We use magnetic monopoles to catalyze a complete annihilation of the latent energy" written by Lubos Motl.


"Oddly enough, mass media like Scientific American and NOVA's "The Elegant Universe" are quick to embrace speculations much more radical than Carlo Castro's." written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: String/M-theory is not just a speculation. It is at least
a magnificent and amazing mathematical structure which shockingly
well reproduces the real world, at least at the qualitative
level. There have been some clear speculative models - e.g. the
ekpyrotic universe - in the NOVA's program, but I think that it
has been clearly explained that they were speculative proposals.
Again, comparisons with Carlo Castro are beyond my abilities,
especially because I don't know which Carlo Castro JB is talking
about (I only know that he is probably a crackpot/visionary that
had a problem in McCarthy's era).

Moreover, I think that it is healthy and necessary for these
media to inform the public about the developments in theoretical
physics. One reason is that physics is exciting for the broader
scientific community and the laymen. Another reason is that
the taxpayer is paying money that are also used for research, and
she should have an idea what is being paid. The third reason is
that the layman can sometimes have an idea that could help
science - well, one might say that this was the case of Einstein
in 1905. I just don't understand how can a physicist criticize
the very fact that physics is being communicated to a broader
public. It is a great service to the community. Finally, I think
that a well-informed laymen should have some power to form the
decisions about funding - to prevent narrow-minded, slowed down,
dogmaticized, and overspecialized scientists to be overpaid.
Well, I guess that John Baez will strongly disagree.]

"These speculations called "M-Theory" and "Loop Quantum Gravity" are of extreme interest no doubt." written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: At least one of them. Scientific American was very
democratic: it published one article about a probably correct
theory, and one article by Lee Smolin about an incorrect theory.]

"However, they are, in fact, little more than admittedly seductive sexy mathematical vaporware." written by Jack Sarfatti


[LM: The reason for this statement is that John Baez does not want
to learn anything about string theory. If he learned at least
some basics, he would know that his statement only applies to
loop quantum gravity. Even if string theory turned out to be a
wrong description of Nature, it has lead to so many insights even
about the theories that are *clearly* of experimental interests
- such as gauge theories - that one can say that the string
theorists were not quite wasting their time.]

"George Dvali's interesting remarks on extra space dimensions in February
2004 Scientific American discussed below are a good example. Just as
there are a few innocent victims on "Death Row", so too are there good
physicists falsely labeled as "crackpots" without due process by a new
generation of over-zealous "Grand Inquisitors" with personal axes to
grind."

Written by Jack Sarfatti.

[LM: Yes, I agree with this description. There are many crackpots
around, and occassionally some of them turn out to have a point,
and they become geniuses. But this conversion of a crackpot to
a genius only happens once her point is understood by the
scientific community. But the scientific establishment works,
and the (paid) scientists are usually much faster in
understanding and accepting new correct ideas. They have been
trained, and you can see that virtually all Nobel prizes go to
the professional scientists.]

Takes one to know one.

"Sure, there are real "crackpots", even they should be allowed to
publish as well on the tax-supported LANL/Cornell e-print archive, or else
all tax-money should be withdrawn from it."

written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: I hope that the crackpots are not deciding about the funding
of Ginsparg's arXiv (so far), and therefore these tax threats
can be ignored. The arXiv is useful exactly because it is able
to increase the average quality of the articles. I think that
more or less anyone who has a really good idea today has many tools
to inform the scientific community about it. The people from the
scientifically isolated places, of course, face a more difficult
task. Also, their ideas are a bit mixed with the crackpot
culture. Science works if it has some sort of hierarchy, and
allows the people to move within this hierarchy, depending on
their contributions. Currently the number of crackpot submissions
to hep-th is not very large because they know that they would be
rejected anyway - and the new endorsement system will make it
even more difficult for them. But I am sure that if the crackpots
were not regulated at all, the hep-th archive would become
another sci.physics.research - a discussion forum for crackpots
whose majority have very strange ideas - and usually identical
ideas - about how physics works. The serious scientists would
simply disappear from these places.]

"Let the crackpots be exposed by refutations on the archive in the free
market place of ideas." written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: The physicists would be doing almost nothing else if they had
to respond to every crackpot submission. I know very well that it
is the case because I was not too far from this goal. ;-) Once again,
the arXiv only works because it is moderated according to the right
criteria, by the right people. Note that no good physicists,
maybe with two or three exceptions, have every attended
sci.physics.research. It is because this newsgroup is controlled
by a different type of people than the arXiv, and therefore the
crackpots dominate. Their ideas are usually not original: they
copy them from each other (often from a/the central crackpot).
A certain degree of regulation can help to increase the average
quality as well as diversity.]

"Nobel Prize physicist Brian Josephson from Cambridge has taken an active
role against this creeping suppression of freedom of scientific inquiry in
the dominant mode of communication between physicists in the age of the
Internet." written by Jack Sarfatti

Now comes the "smoking gun."

[LM: Brian Josephson's brain is not quite healthy. He believes
that he has encountered/proved telepathy, telekinesis, and ghosts,
and his group has unified mind, matter, and music (and M-theory?).
He kept arguing with Nature that did not want to accept his paper w/
an endorsement of supernatural phenomena. He is an example how
can you end up if you receive a Nobel prize for something that
you had done as a graduate student. See the link below. It is
not clear whether John Baez seriously wanted to use Brian
Josephson as a good example which things should be published and
how, but I personally consider this proposal to be a joke.]

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

Pol Pot calling Kettle black http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

"Publication in paper journals takes too long and is too expensive. They
are obsolete. Paul Ginsparg and a few of his associates have too much
monopolistic power and control over what the majority of physicists will
be allowed to see." written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: That's just nonsense. Everyone can publish in printed
journals, everyone can read them, and everyone can also submit to
(and read) the other, mostly un-filtered Ginsparg's archives.
I think that if someone writes a philosophical papers that is
viewed as a crackpot paper by Ginsparg (and probably most other
physicists), he can still submit it e.g. to the quant-ph archive,
and sometimes he can even get a beautiful preprint number, for
example quant-ph/0404040. However, other physicists are free to
decide whether they will read the papers on these other archives
or not. Occassionally, someone finds out that the papers
elsewhere are interesting, and people start to switch. But the
very principle of scientific work does not allow to organize this
switch "centrally". You should live up with the idea that the
good physicists read hep-th (and few others) because the free
market of ideas showed that it is the most useful forum. The
mainstream ideas can turn out to be twisted in the future, but
one can't predict in which way. The ideas of the community are
the best ones that the humankind can offer today. J.B. believes
that loop quantum gravity will be more important in the future,
I believe the contrary.]

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Better that a
dozen crackpots publish, then one mis-identified paper not get published.
The logic here is the same as in capital punishment lest even one innocent
man be executed - and many have been in fact. Crackpot papers should be
refuted as such in open discussion. One could always make a special
category on the archive perhaps "Fringe Topics" or "Controversial Papers." written by Jack Sarfatti

[LM: This would give the moderators even more power than before,
and I am sure that it would make the crackpots even more unhappy.
For example, it is likely that all papers on loop quantum gravity
would have to be labeled as "Frings Topics" or "Controversial
Papers", and I guess that their authors would not like it. It is
probably more healthy for the atmosphere in the field if these
papers can be almost freely submitted to gr-qc, for example.

Although most of the "quantum gravity" papers there are far from
reasonable, anyone can pretend that gr-qc is just "another"
approach to theoretical physics. Yes, I agree that people should
know about all approaches to the questions similar to those that
they study, but I don't think that they should be forced to waste
their time with directions that they simply believe are
uninteresting or incorrect. Even the highly interesting
directions in physics had to die when it seemed that the theory
was not working for whatever purpose it was designed. For
instance, string theory almost died in the early 1970s when
QCD became accepted as the right theory of the strong force.

I think that this death was correct, and if there is something
interesting about a forgotten idea, the idea will experience
a comeback, soon or later. John Baez is however very wrong if
he thinks that these comebacks should be socially engineered,
without the idea giving a new air. Such an engineering,
based on a pre-determined decision which class (or which theory)
should be supported forever, can never be a pillar of a
sustainable progress, and it is true both in science as well
as in politics.]

Post a follow-up to this message



Message 2 in thread
From: Matthew Nobes (manobes@freeshell.org)
Subject: Re: John Baez on string theory

 

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.physics.strings
Date: 2004-05-09 17:00:08 PST
Daniel wrote in message news:...

> ... John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias
> =======================================

This seemed out of character for John Baez, so I did a little
digging. I don't think these comments are his, apart from the
direct quote from his quant-ph preprint. The orginal post appears
to be

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Theoretical+physics+today+is+splintered+into+ideological+factions%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=Ifbnc.65221%24ps5.5518%40newssvr25.news.prodigy.com&rnum=1

which is authored by Jack Sarfatti, a bit of a crackpot.
[snip much stuff from Sarfatti and Lubos]

Matthew

[Lubos: My bet is that Jack Sarfatti obtained the text directly from
John Baez, but I have no proof, of course, and the conjecture
that Jack Sarfatti simply pretended to be John Baez is totally
conceivable.]

No, goofy. You simply did not read carefully enough.


Post a follow-up to this message



Message 3 in thread
From: Serg (serg271@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: John Baez on string theory

 

View this article only
Newsgroups: sci.physics.strings, sci.physics.research
Date: 2004-05-10 04:00:06 PST
It seems John Baez was framed :

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/viewtopic.php?t=34306

Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Quote:
>From my new book Super Cosmos:

John Baez on the String and Loop Mafias
[snip]

If there were a God, jacko, you'd be a burned spot for besmirching the
name of a decent, expert, and creative man.
--
Uncle Al

I did nothing of the kind. There is a God and you are talking to him. ;-)

===================
[Moderator's note: Jack Sarfatti's book is available at

http://qedcorp.com/destiny/SUPERCOSMOS.doc

The current understanding is that the part of Daniel's text up to
the words "Quantum Quandaries:A Category-Theoretic Perspective John C.
Baez" was written by John Baez, while the second half was written by
Jack Sarfatti himself, who was not mentioned by Daniel. We will always
try to correct such errors, but it is important keep in mind the sentence
from the second paragraph of the SPS charter:

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~sps/

"Moderators will however not be responsible for the technical correctness
of accepted posts, though they may reject posts or send the posting back
suggesting revision when they note errors."

This rule is very important in the case of political statements of
Jack Sarfatti and John Baez. We do not have resources to verify
every detail in the postings with such statements.

As far as my reply goes, one sentence of it should also be corrected.
The sentence

"John Baez enjoys to politicize science in virtually every
sentence he writes - in this text, he relates..."

should be replaced by

"John Baez and Jack Sarfatti enjoy to politicize science in virtually every
sentence they write - in this text, they relate..."

The comments about the relation of string theory to the Bush administration
come from John Baez, the comments about McCarthy's era were probably written
by Sarfatti, and my qualitative conclusions are unchanged. LM]

Post a follow-up to this message


©2004 Google


On May 11, 2004, at 4:32 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, my apologies: I said to you
"... I don't want to act as a repository of sps postings,
or postings to any other newsgroup.
You can easily find them yourself. ...".

Since I just received a message from you saying
"... I just looked for something by "Daniel" I can't find it.
... Was it posted in a public part of the Web or only in e-mail? ...",
it is clear to me that my statement
"... You can easily find them yourself. ..."
is incorrect and wrong.

You can also look at other messages,
look at other material by clicking on links within messages,
which might lead you to see that all this mess may have
started with a post by you to unmoderated newsgroups
such as sci.physics, sci.skeptic, sci.physics.relativity,
sci.math,sci.education
and aggravated
by Daniel's false attribution of your post
to the moderated newsgroup sci.physics.research
and by
Lubos's apparent inability to read and understand
material written by one person (you, Jack) that
also contains quotes of material written by another
person (John Baez).

Although your initial post seems to me to be an
accurate expression of your views with a quote
from John contained therein,
it may be that you are grossly overestimating the
intelligence and reading ability of at least two
members of your audience, Daniel and Lubos.

If they are anything like a representative sample
of your audience, perhaps you should follow the example
of pillars of intellectual discourse such as TV news,
and greatly reduce the complexity of your compositions,
perhaps to paragraphs of no more than two sentences,
and absolutely no compound or complex sentence constructions,
and nothing requiring a continuous train of thought for more
than 20 seconds or so.

Tony



On May 11, 2004, at 5:22 PM, Physics Group wrote:

correction

On May 11, 2004, at 5:20 PM, Doc Savage wrote:

Try a Google search on Lubos Motl

The Plot thickens

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/brian/#bez

the above URL is linked from an alleged ET alien at

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/

Click on the above URL and it takes you to

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~motl/brian/#bez

This website above is from someone who also used "Lubo Motl" who claims to have translated Brian Greene's book into Czech the same as the Lubos Motl from Harvard

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/sf/panel.html


Monday, May 10, 2004

On May 9, 2004, at 9:44 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Look, if your position is simply that anything that is not isomorphic with GR is wrong then you are entitled to that opinion.

JS: Yes, I think experiment has shown that within the same domain of empirical testing that PV as given by Hal purports to describe. I think Hal's version of PV as published to this date is rightly considered as a false theory or a wrong theory. Therefore, it should not be puffed up in pop articles like Nick Cook's book or Willam Austin's Aviation Week article, or at STAIF meetings and similar venues as a plausible viable theory for the next generations of aerospace advanced flight systems that use "metric engineering" in the sense of George Trimble's "G-Engine" (see Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" with the panache of Jane's Defence Weekly giving it credibility in the corridors of defense planning). That is my large purpose here - not some small pedantic detail of academia. Remember Churchill in the 1930's arguing for the Spitfire.

MI: If in addition you believe that such theories are not worthy of discussion or investigation then let us come to a close on this topic. Please say which is the case.


JS: I certainly think your paper should have been published. That is another form of vile censorship like we see with what is happening on the Cornell archive. It is important to publish papers on wrong theories so that we can appreciate the correct ones that survive this Darwinian process of natural selection of continually filtering out noise from the signal - error correcting.


On May 9, 2004, at 9:38 PM, michael ibison wrote:

Jack, I am not addressing Hal’s claims about PV, I am leaving that up to him The waters are getting unnecessarily muddied because you are not making this distinction. Please ask him about his claims.


I have. He refuses to answer them adequately.


On May 9, 2004, at 9:25 AM, michael ibison wrote:

JS: 1. Hal says PV is a contender for metric engineering.
2. Prove it. Start with the 2 problems I suggest that are obviously relevant to the issue of metric engineering. I am doing it for GR. Now you show how to do it for PV. Then we can compare. Capische?

Mike: I’ll let Hal handle that claim. I was not addressing that; the purpose of my note was to clarify the differences between de Felice GR and PV.

JS: The main issue is Hal's claims about metric engineering in Nick Cook's book from Jane's, in March 1 2004 Aviation Week W. Austin's article "To The Stars" in STAIF and similar venues that influence big money decisions in Aerospace and Pentagon. Hal's claims based entirely on fringe HRP ZPE and PV ideas are way out of the mainstream, but are presented as inside the mainstream and my challenges based much closer to mainstream theory and observed facts go ignored. Indeed, I just had a STAIF person question me on well-known empirical results "space is flat" (in large-scale 3D FRW k = 0 inflation confirmed by NASA WMAP ) and "dark matter in the Galactic Halo." This aerospace engineer has not kept up with what's well known in modern astronomy and cosmology - yet Hal's PV has no trouble getting into those STAIF sessions - so much for "peer review"!

JS: Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong

i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff

MI: That analogy isn’t so bad.


JS: Then you do not understand either.

Kirchoff is a limiting case of Maxwell.

GR is a limiting case of PV at least in the SSS example.

MI: That’s not how I understood Hal’s analogy. I believe he meant it in the sense of an approximation, not as a limiting case.


JS: What's the difference?

MI: On the issue of a limiting case, one can regard an exponential e^x as a limiting case of 1+x+x^2/2 just as easily as the other way around. Either tends to the other as x->0. And from the position that GR is correct, one must take the view that PV is a limiting case of GR.


JS: No, I say you are wrong in your logic here.

Hal says K = e^2GM/c^2r holds in the limit

Therefore, Hal's real claim, if done conceptually consistently is that GR is wrong, i.e. it is only approximately correct in the weak field limit and that PV is the correct strong field theory with NO event horizons!
Therefore, PV covers GR just as GR covers SR, with global SR as limiting case of GR as curvature field -> 0.

 


What I said above is relevant. I did not bring up event horizons in this discussion. That issue is only relevant if there is a discussion of PV holding in the strong field limit.


That's what I am talking about and more. Let's not whittle down the focus so narrowly that it becomes irrelevant to the key issue:

Is PV a viable model for metric engineering? ALL relevant things considered.



JS: PV is the covering theory of GR there. GR emerges from PV only in weak field limit of PV.

MI: That is not correct. See above.


JS: Your argument above is wrong. It makes no sense to me at all.
The decisive factor is Hal claims NO BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZONS …

Again, this conversation will go nowhere if you cannot distinguish between what I said in the last 2 emails with conversations you have had with Hal.


Your focus here is too narrow as explained above.



Hal says no event horizon.

MI: That is a strong field consequence of PV, and therefore outside the domain of the ‘limiting case’ comparison above.

No, as I explained in earlier messages. The issue is which is the correct theory PV or GR? This means, which has the larger domain of validity? That will be settled by the strong field case, assuming that PV and GR give the same weak field results, which also may not be so.

In any case, the theory with the larger domain of empirical validity covers the remaining one. Maxwell covers Kirchoff etc.


JS: No point arguing further. You do not understand what I mean by a "covering theory" or the "more general theory." Hal claims for PV a larger domain of empirical validity than for GR and that is what is important here. According to Hal:

PV domain of validity = weak field + strong field

GR domain of validity = weak field



Again, same point.


 


Look, I joined in this discussion because of possible misconceptions about de Felice versus PV. I am not getting drawn into a conversation that you and Hal are having about which is the covering theory.


I don't care about some minor pedantic detail. My interest is in blowing the whistle on inaccurate information in influential media on metric engineering that can cause bad decisions down the line like we see now in our bungled Iraqi policy based on false intelligence and the neocon's waging the dog in the Pentagon's OSP and at MI6 in Charing Cross and at 10 Downing set up by Wolfowitz. Of course that is much more serious than the present issue here. I am looking at the Big Picture here in context of Nick Cook's book from Jane's Defence Weekly and William Austin's article in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week and similar pieces.

MI: Although one describe the behavior of matter & radiation as if in a curved space-time with metric g_PV, that metric is not a tensor, it does not transform as you have given.

JS: Good we got that straight and that is enough to explain why your PV cosmology paper was rejected by a mainstream journal. PV is not real physics for that reason alone.

MI: Well that was not the reason given. It was that PV predicts the wrong decay rate for binary pulsars.

JS: Which you said in your paper. So then they should have published it?

MI: But in any case, I am not trying to sell PV. My write up of it was for the benefit of setting the record straight on its predictions. If that means the theory has shortcomings, I think that is a useful story to tell, and that science should be informed. The editors (after much thought) thought otherwise.

JS: I agree with you 100% there.

MI: You appear to mistake my motives

JS: No, not at all.

MI: and my understanding of PV’s status.


JS: Yes, on the covering issue Maxwell -> Kirchoff analogy.


MI: g_PV is constructed from a single scalar field, and therefore has just one functional DOF. That field (call it K) transforms as a relativistic scalar field K(x) ->K(Lx) where L is a Lorentz transformation.


JS: Not good enough. You must be able to explain what Alice and Bob in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other momentarily coincident in neighborhood of event P see for same events in the neighborhood of P at their momentary near collision or crossing. You cannot do that ONLY with the Lorentz group and THAT'S THE POINT!

 


MI: Anyone can write an action that is Lorentz invariant and has fields that allegedly describe the action of gravity. GCT invariance may or may not be a necessary property required to accurately describe nature. But nonetheless, such actions exist, can be explored, and can be tested. If they are wrong, then let nature decide. GCT invariance is not a religion.


JS: Sure. But nature has already decided. It's a done deal. There is plenty of evidence for GCT. As Wheeler said "GR is battle tested." That's why I said PV is not viable in 2004 for that reason alone.



2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors

MI: This is not a property of PV.


JS: Sufficient grounds to reject PV as a viable physical theory in 2004 along with philogiston, epicycles etc.


Exactly, so you just contradicted yourself above in 1 & 2.

MI: No I do not think I have. GCT invariance is not a necessary property of a metric theory and therefore of a weak-equivalence theory. See the above.

JS: You cannot limit physics to weak gravity fields on a globally flat space-time back ground. Again you need GCT to compare measurements of same processes by local observers in arbitrary motion not only in geodesic "inertial" motion with "geodesics" limited to the globally flat background metric of say quantum field theory.

MI: Then PV is not an acceptable theory. To some that is automatically true if there is no GCT invariance.


JS: Exactly my point. By your own admission, PV is indefensible by modern standards of minimal requirements for a theory of space-time.
You cannot answer the following question.

Alice and Bob are two local observers momentarily very close to space-time event P, but in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other. How do they compare there measurements of the same events in the neighborhood of P?

MI: I can. The answer is that the 4-vectors (eg velocities) and 2-tensors (e.g. EM force-tensor) get transformed in the usual way and the K-field gets transformed as a relativistic scalar field. The physics still satisfies weak equivalence in the new frame because one can still describe the behavior of matter and radiation in g-fields through a metric tensor, which still has the PV-mandated form of g=diag{K,-1/K,-1/K ,-1/K}. i.e. g-> diag{K’,-1/K’,-1/K’ ,-1/K’} under a Lorentz transformation, where


K’(x)=K(L^-1(x)).


JS: Lorentz transformations cannot describe transformations to arbitrary frames. That's why Einstein had to invoke GCT after ten years of hard work from 1905 to 1915. You cannot have a viable theory of gravity based only on the 10 parameter Poincare group used in quantum field theory of the standard model of particle physics. You need to locally gauge the 4-parameter translation sub-group of Poincare group and that gives you GCT!

If you also, go beyond Einstein 1915, and locally gauge the 6-parameter Lorentz group you get the torsion field coupled to spinning matter and also maybe to some vacuum modes?

You may even want to locally gauge the entire 15 parameter conformal group, which I think is what Tony Smith is doing?

 
JS: The equation

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

is the answer to that question in GR.

MI: You say you have no answer in PV.I don’t know what Hal said, but I didn’t say that at all. My answer is given above.

JS: Yes, but it is a wrong answer. Lorentz group only connects a special class of globally flat space-time timelike geodesic observers and does not begin to answer the physical operational question I posed to you.


JS: Your answer is wrong because you have not answered my question at all. The use of global Lorentz transformations only works for a privileged class of inertial observers Eve and Ted in relative UNIFORM MOTION to each other in a globally flat 4D space-time free of any gravitation effect. You cannot use the Lorentz transformations to connect the observations of Alice and Bob as defined above. Indeed, this incompleteness in global SR from 1905 is what it took Einstein 10 years to 1915 to correct with GR. What you have above is a fundamentally incomplete description of the physical world. All this was settled by Einstein by 1915 and to claim otherwise is devolution not progress. It's like Usama Bin Ladin wanting to take civilization back to the 11th Century! (Maybe a wee bit too strong, but it makes the point. ;-)) This is, perhaps, the fundamental issue in regard to my refutation of Hal's whole paradigm for metric engineering which is having undue influence in the mass media without any healthy debate on these issues.

 
MI: You don’t understand what I am saying. I am not making a claim about PV being right or wrong, only how it describes gravity and how it transforms. It may be wrong, but that is what it does, K is a scalar field and gets transformed accordingly. Bob and Alice use the same physics in both frames. It is not GR Jack. It is a scalar field, like temperature.


JS: You do not appear to understand the question I asked. You are stretching the domain of validity of the 6-parameter Lorentz group to a region of physical procedures where it cannot go. To answer my physical question you need to locally gauge the 4-parameter translation group to get GCT. Only GCT is equipped to answer the question. It took Einstein 10 years to realize that, although he did not use the modern idea of local gauge invariance with local compensating fields that lead effectively to pseudo-Riemannian geometry with tensor fields and GCT as the local symmetry group replacing the rigid translation group of Fourier transforms. Indeed, I think GCT has a natural CWT (Continuous Wavelet Transform) description - I am working on that idea, where the scale s of the adaptive windows of the CWT for zoom in and zoom out are enslaved to the local radii of curvature of the Riemann-Christoffel curvature tensor. This is in response to Wheeler's remark in "Geometrodynamics" that you cannot use Fourier transforms in GR.
He said that in the 1950's before the Gabor transform leading to modern ideas of wavelet transforms that should also replace the Schwinger-Feynman Green's function/Propagators in momentum space to do quantum field theory on a curved space-time background that emerges Sakharov style NOT out of the random ZPE (spin 1 and spin 1/2 PV), but out of the vacuum coherence missing in all the mainstream ideas.

 

On May 9, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

clarification

MI: “That’s not how I understood Hal’s analogy. I believe he meant it in the sense of an approximation, not as a limiting case.”

JS: What's the difference?

MI: “ On the issue of a limiting case, one can regard an exponential e^x as a limiting case of 1+x+x^2/2 just as easily as the other way around. Either tends to the other as x-> 0. And from the position that GR is correct, one must take the view that PV is a limiting case of GR.”

JS: No, I say you are wrong in your logic here. From the position of GR one must take the view that PV is fundamentally wrong as a strong field theory!

Sunday, May 09, 2004

On May 9, 2004, at 9:25 AM, michael ibison wrote:

1. Hal says PV is a contender for metric engineering.
2. Prove it. Start with the 2 problems I suggest that are obviously relevant to the issue of metric engineering. I am doing it for GR. Now you show how to do it for PV. Then we can compare. Capische?

Mike: I’ll let Hal handle that claim. I was not addressing that; the purpose of my note was to clarify the differences between de Felice GR and PV.

The main issue is Hal's claims about metric engineering in Nick Cook's book from Jane's, in March 1 2004 Aviation Week W. Austin's article "To The Stars" in STAIF and similar venues that influence big money decisions in Aerospace and Pentagon. Hal's claims based entirely on fringe HRP ZPE and PV ideas are way out of the mainstream, but are presented as inside the mainstream and my challenges based much closer to mainstream theory and observed facts go ignored. Indeed, I just had a STAIF person question me on well-known empirical results "space is flat" (in large-scale 3D FRW k = 0 inflation confirmed by NASA WMAP ) and "dark matter in the Galactic Halo." This aerospace engineer has not kept up with what's well known in modern astronomy and cosmology - yet Hal's PV has no trouble getting into those STAIF sessions - so much for "peer review"!


JS: Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong

i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff

MI: That analogy isn’t so bad.


JS: Then you do not understand either.

Kirchoff is a limiting case of Maxwell.

GR is a limiting case of PV at least in the SSS example.

MI: That’s not how I understood Hal’s analogy. I believe he meant it in the sense of an approximation, not as a limiting case.

JS: What's the difference?

MI: On the issue of a limiting case, one can regard an exponential e^x as a limiting case of 1+x+x^2/2 just as easily as the other way around. Either tends to the other as x->0. And from the position that GR is correct, one must take the view that PV is a limiting case of GR.

JS: No, I say you are wrong in your logic here.

Hal says K = e^2GM/c^2r holds in the limit

2GM/c^2r -> infinity

i.e. strong field case!

Hal says NO event horizons physically.

That contradicts GR and ALL of modern black hole physics.

PV and GR only agree in the weak field case

2GM/c^2r -> zero

Therefore, Hal's real claim, if done conceptually consistently is that GR is wrong, i.e. it is only approximately correct in the weak field limit and that PV is the correct strong field theory with NO event horizons!
Therefore, PV covers GR just as GR covers SR, with global SR as limiting case of GR as curvature field -> 0.

JS: PV is the covering theory of GR there. GR emerges from PV only in weak field limit of PV.

MI: That is not correct. See above.

JS: Your argument above is wrong. It makes no sense to me at all.
The decisive factor is Hal claims NO BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZONS - this is a physical claim about the strong field region beyond the math you cited in isolation as a conceptual fragment. The physical heuristic picture is a vital part of PV. If it were confirmed by experiment, it would mean PV is the more general theory! That is, PV is to GR as Maxwell is to Kirchoff. Now I studied this sort of stuff with Max Black at Cornell. You are thinking too narrowly looking at only the formal part forgetting about the informal language in Bohm's sense - the physical interpretation is an essential part of the physical theory.


Hal says no event horizon.

MI: That is a strong field consequence of PV, and therefore outside the domain of the ‘limiting case’ comparison above.

JS: No point arguing further. You do not understand what I mean by a "covering theory" or the "more general theory." Hal claims for PV a larger domain of empirical validity than for GR and that is what is important here. According to Hal:

PV domain of validity = weak field + strong field

GR domain of validity = weak field

Think of a Venn diagram in set theory logic.

The GR Venn diagram lies inside the PV Venn diagram according to Hal's professing of the meaning of PV relative to GR.

QED



Hal's clear error in making the analogy was to compare PV with Kirchoff, when it should be compared with Maxwell.

This seems elementary and obvious to my mind. I am surprised that you do not get it?

MI: Hopefully the above sorts this out.

JS: No, with all respect Mike, I perceive your thinking here on this particular issue as muddled. Hal's even more so.

Also make clear exactly how PV treats:

1. Local principle of equivalence in sense of MTW
 

MI: The fact that gravitational action on matter & EM can be cast in terms of a metric seems to be sufficient for this.


JS: Where does Hal do that explicitly? I know he writes

goo = K^-1 etc.

But he is never clear really how literally he means that.

I never see him write anything like

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

at fixed event P

MI: I think we are talking about two different things here. I answered your question about local equivalence by pointing out that PV is a metric theory.


JS: As I recall from earlier e-mails with Hal and Zielinski, Hal waffles on that issue. He eschews tensors (hence metric theory) on Saturdays, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and pays pious lip service to it on Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays! :-)
Indeed, my rejection of his Tables I & II is that besides being epistemologically obscure in terms of an operational theory of what it means to measure anything in PV, it is inconsistent with the equivalence principle and leads to wrong concepts like changing m for warp drive, a serious confusion that permeates Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" based on his discussions with Hal in Austin.

Digression into politics:
Indeed all the engineers at NASA BPP have bought into this serious conceptual delusion that I compare in analogy to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz's belief that Saddam was actively working with Usama Bin Laden and had operational WMD that posed an imminent threat to US National Security. See Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" for a real eye opener on how false information leads to disaster! Our entire foreign policy since 911 has been based on ideological fantasies of a small group of neocon fanatics out of touch with the facts. Pardon my digression - but I know some of them.

MI: I show that to be the case in my lanl review of PV Cosmology, as does Dicke in his papers. The invariance of the theory under GCTs that I think you are referring to here is not a property of PV.

JS: Well I am glad you admit that. Therefore, the PV theory is dead in the water. It is not acceptable as a viable physical theory because it cannot in principle even address objective physical questions that any good theory must be able to address (even if wrong).

MI: Although one describe the behavior of matter & radiation as if in a curved space-time with metric g_PV, that metric is not a tensor, it does not transform as you have given.

JS: Good we got that straight and that is enough to explain why your PV cosmology paper was rejected by a mainstream journal. PV is not real physics for that reason alone.

MI: g_PV is constructed from a single scalar field, and therefore has just one functional DOF. That field (call it K) transforms as a relativistic scalar field K(x) ->K(Lx) where L is a Lorentz transformation.

JS: Not good enough. You must be able to explain what Alice and Bob in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other momentarily coincident in neighborhood of event P see for same events in the neighborhood of P at their momentary near collision or crossing. You cannot do that ONLY with the Lorentz group and THAT'S THE POINT!


2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors

MI: This is not a property of PV.

JS: Sufficient grounds to reject PV as a viable physical theory in 2004 along with philogiston, epicycles etc.

Exactly, so you just contradicted yourself above in 1 & 2.
No I do not think I have. GCT invariance is not a necessary property of a metric theory and therefore of a weak-equivalence theory. See the above.

MI: Then PV is not an acceptable theory. To some that is automatically true if there is no GCT invariance.

JS: Exactly my point. By your own admission, PV is indefensible by modern standards of minimal requirements for a theory of space-time.

You cannot answer the following question.

Alice and Bob are two local observers momentarily very close to space-time event P, but in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other. How do they compare there measurements of the same events in the neighborhood of P?

MI: I can. The answer is that the 4-vectors (eg velocities) and 2-tensors (e.g. EM force-tensor) get transformed in the usual way and the K-field gets transformed as a relativistic scalar field. The physics still satisfies weak equivalence in the new frame because one can still describe the behavior of matter and radiation in g-fields through a metric tensor, which still has the PV-mandated form of g=diag{K,-1/K,-1/K ,-1/K}. i.e. g-> diag{K’,-1/K’,-1/K’ ,-1/K’} under a Lorentz transformation, where


K’(x)=K(L^-1(x)).


 
JS: The equation

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

is the answer to that question in GR.

MI: You say you have no answer in PV. I don’t know what Hal said, but I didn’t say that at all. My answer is given above.

JS: Your answer is wrong because you have not answered my question at all. The use of global Lorentz transformations only works for a privileged class of inertial observers Eve and Ted in relative UNIFORM MOTION to each other in a globally flat 4D space-time free of any gravitation effect. You cannot use the Lorentz transformations to connect the observations of Alice and Bob as defined above. Indeed, this incompleteness in global SR from 1905 is what it took Einstein 10 years to 1915 to correct with GR. What you have above is a fundamentally incomplete description of the physical world. All this was settled by Einstein by 1915 and to claim otherwise is devolution not progress. It's like Usama Bin Ladin wanting to take civilization back to the 11th Century! (Maybe a wee bit too strong, but it makes the point. ;-)) This is, perhaps, the fundamental issue in regard to my refutation of Hal's whole paradigm for metric engineering which is having undue influence in the mass media without any healthy debate on these issues.

JS; This seems to be a fatal flaw in Hal's whole program?

MI: I don’t know what you mean by ‘Hal’s program’. EM origin of mass is of great interest to Hal and me, but neither have published anything decisive. I am quietly optimistic though. Do you have an objection to an EM origin of mass?

JS: Depends what you mean by that. Basically yes. I have objection if you mean HRP origin of rest mass from Lorentz EM RANDOM ZPE drag. At best that will be a tiny effect.

MI: I don’t mean that.

JS: I opt for the NONRANDOM Higgs mechanism of vacuum coherence. Hum. My picture is vacuum coherence gives Einstein's guv field as the smooth ODLRO emergent c-number effective field theory but with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi quickly dropping to Newton's G by the time we get to angstroms. The lepto-quark masses are then from little wormholes exactly as Wheeler proposed in 1950's in "Geometrodynamics" as "Einstein's Vision" "Mass without mass." His "geons" were too big only because his G was too small. You need Bohm's "extra variables" surfing on the the qubit pilot wave to make it work as well. Again this gets back to my point that problems easy in Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical picture using local tensor fields are hard in the PV dielectric picture? Do you agree?


MI: I don’t feel qualified to answer that question because of lack of experience with GR. But its hard to see how it could be more difficult with PV, since the machinery in PV is essentially the same, but with only one functional degree of freedom in the metric, rather than 10-4=6 in GR.

JS: ?? You just said above no tensors. Also, Hal cannot solve the problem of the guv field of a spinning top. He only hand waves.

MI: I did not say no tensors. Please read the above.

JS: I did and so what did you mean by "This is not a property of PV."

JS: Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors

MI: This is not a property of PV.

JS: You should read Lorentz's book on the electron and the old text of Abraham and Becker.

The basic problem is simple. Never solved until today.

Picture the electron as a sphere of electric charge of radius e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi. …

MI: I will re-read what you say on this when I have more time. I have ideas of my own about electron stability. Must go now …

Michael

Saturday, May 08, 2004

"It was as if Usama bin Laden hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'" p. 246 "Against All Enemies", Richard A. Clarke.

On May 8, 2004, at 6:28 PM, michael ibison wrote:

-----Original Message-----

Subject: Ibison on STAIF & Puthoff's PV for metric engineering NASA BPP


 


On May 8, 2004, at 1:18 PM, michael ibison wrote:

The de Felice work is a re-casting of GR action on EM via a vacuum tensor polarizability (‘generalized constitutive relations’, involving time components as well as space components in a generalized permittivity).


Jack: Good start. However, what you and Hal need to do at this point is to write a clear pedagogical review of all that and apply it to rotating superconducting disks (Podkletnov & Ning Li) and gravimagnetic frame drag as I suggested.

Ibision: Why? The GR folk can do that themselves can’t they? Is there some reason to suppose they are applying GR incorrectly?

Jack: You did not understand what I meant apparently.

1. Hal says PV is a contender for metric engineering.

2. Prove it. Start with the 2 problems I suggest that are obviously relevant to the issue of metric engineering. I am doing it for GR. Now you show how to do it for PV. Then we can compare. Capische?

 
Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong

i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff

That analogy isn’t so bad.

Then you do not understand either.

Kirchoff is a limiting case of Maxwell.

GR is a limiting case of PV at least in the SSS example.

PV is the covering theory of GR there. GR emerges from PV only in weak field limit of PV. Hal says no event horizon.

Hal's clear error in making the analogy was to compare PV with Kirchoff, when it should be compared with Maxwell.

This seems elementary and obvious to my mind. I am surprised that you do not get it?


But there is another point here, it COULD be the case that the correct metric for a singular point mass is exponential and not the ratio of two polynomials. If so, then that analogy wouldn’t work. This seems to me to be a separate issue from the other failings of PV (sign (da/dt)^2 and only one polarization for the radiation.

Don't evade my point here.

 

Also make clear exactly how PV treats:

1. Local principle of equivalence in sense of MTW

The fact that gravitational action on matter & EM can be cast in terms of a metric seems to be sufficient for this.

Where does Hal do that explicitly? I know he writes

goo = K^-1 etc.

But he is never clear really how literally he means that.

I never see him write anything like

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

at fixed event P


2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors

This is not a property of PV.

Exactly, so you just contradicted yourself above in 1 & 2.

Then PV is not an acceptable theory. You cannot answer the following question.

Alice and Bob are two local observers momentarily very close to space-time event P, but in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other. How do they compare there measurements of the same events in the neighborhood of P?

The equation

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

is the answer to that question in GR.

You say you have no answer in PV.

Also the local equivalence principle means there exist Y such that

nab = Ya^u(P)Yb^v(P)guv(P)

nab is the SR metric.


3. Issue of active diffeomorphisms

Don’t know what that is.

OK let that one pass. It's subtle and is one of the key problems in mainstream "quantum gravity." But it would take too long to develop it now - and there is no consensus among the Pundits anyway.

4. Acknowledge my heads up priority on relevance of dark energy observations to the metric engineering issue - as of 2002 in two books. You have no publications on that connection prior to that.

I have no publications on PV period.

I meant that more for Hal.

Despite my honest appraisal, after much shuffling of editorial feet, the PV cosmological review was rejected.

Why am I not surprised? I think it was rejected for the sorts of reasons I cite above. Frankly I do not think any of the big shots would even understand what you guys mean because the foundations of PV informal language are very murky. John Baez indicated he thought PV was wrong but could not pin it down exactly why. He did not obviously want to spend too much time trying to shoot it down. It was his gut reaction.

There appears to be no interest in publishing shortcomings of a theory differing from GR.

Yes, exactly! If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The problem is that because of Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" and because of March 1, 2004 Aviation Week "To The Stars" by William Austin, Aerospace execs, engineers and Pentagon planners think Hal's PV is The Right Stuff and somehow GR is wrong when it comes to long-range planning like the strategic objectives of NASA BPP. I compare that kind of PR to the kind of false Iraq WMD intelligence that caused us to drop the ball on Al Qaeda and to actually strengthen it by attacking Iraq - read "Against All Enemies" by Richard A. Clarke to see how dangerous false knowledge is.


(It should be pointed out that neither the de Felice epistemology of Einstein nor PV attempt to describe the gravitational action on matter by these means: there is no explanation for the geodesics of matter in terms of a modified vacuum polarization. To achieve this would require a description of mass as based upon / originating from EM interactions.)


This seems to be a fatal flaw in Hal's whole program?

I don’t know what you mean by ‘Hal’s program’. EM origin of mass is of great interest to Hal and me, but neither have published anything decisive. I am quietly optimistic though. Do you have an objection to an EM origin of mass?

Depends what you mean by that. Basically yes. I have objection if you mean HRP origin of rest mass from Lorentz EM RANDOM ZPE drag. At best that will be a tiny effect. I opt for the NONRANDOM Higgs mechanism of vacuum coherence.

My picture is vacuum coherence gives Einstein's guv field as the smooth ODLRO emergent c-number effective field theory but with G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi quickly dropping to Newton's G by the time we get to angstroms.

The lepto-quark masses are then from little wormholes exactly as Wheeler proposed in 1950's in "Geometrodynamics" as "Einstein's Vision" "Mass without mass." His "geons" were too big only because his G was too small. You need Bohm's "extra variables" surfing on the the qubit pilot wave to make it work as well.

Again this gets back to my point that problems easy in Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical picture using local tensor fields are hard in the PV dielectric picture? Do you agree?


I don’t feel qualified to answer that question because of lack of experience with GR. But its hard to see how it could be more difficult with PV, since the machinery in PV is essentially the same, but with only one functional degree of freedom in the metric, rather than 10-4=6 in GR.

?? You just said above no tensors. Also, Hal cannot solve the problem of the guv field of a spinning top. He only hand waves.


Apart from the generalization from scalar refractive index to tensor permittivity, there are two important properties that distinguish the de Felice approach from scalar PV:


i)                     The permittivity tensor is reverse engineered so that it guarantees the agreement with Einstein GR in its predictions.


Yes, and this is why I call it "PV without PV" (alluding of course to Wheeler's "Mass without mass." Hal should not even use "PV" until he makes a clear mathematical connection with QED! There is no h in any PV paper, not even a connection to his previous attempt at a EM ZPE Sakharov derivation of G/c^4.

BTW None of you mention G* as a running coupling like in renormalization group flows allowing

G* ~ 10^40 G on scale of 1 fermi, which BTW solves a lot of problems like stability of a spatially extended electron!

I don’t know what this means.

You should read Lorentz's book on the electron and the old text of Abraham and Becker.

The basic problem is simple. Never solved until today.

Picture the electron as a sphere of electric charge of radius e^2/mc^2 ~ 1 fermi. What prevents the electron from exploding from its own self-charge?

The answer is very simple, ignore the spin rotation for a moment.
The exotic vacuum zero point energy of positive pressure is the attractive glue that holds the charge.

G*m^2 - e^2 ~ 0

There will be a correction for rotation of course.

Now this is also the Blackett effect!

G*(effective mass density of the zero point energy) = c^2/\zpf

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

Where Vacuum Coherence -> 0 inside electron like in a vortex core.

Therefore

|G*(effective mass density of the zero point energy)| = |c^2/\zpf|

~ |c^2(Quantum of Area)^-1|

(effective mass density of the zero point energy) ~ m/(e^2/mc^2)^3

G*m/(G*m/c^2)^3 ~ c^2(Quantum of Area)^-1

(Quantum of Area) ~ (G*m/c^2)^2

This is a very crude toy model of course.

The mass spectrum of the bare lepto-quarks will be from Vacuum Coherence not really dropping to zero - but stationary states in a well sort of thing from its nonlinear local Landau-Ginzburg equation.


e.g. my papers of 1973 & Abdus Salam's f-gravity -> new hyperspace versions (G. Dvali et-al) giving same physical idea we had 30 years ago for gravity origin of universal Regge slope (1Gev)^-2 of hadronic resonances - the only contact of string theory with facts BTW.

Hence, for example, for a singular point mass, the effective metric (induced by the permittivity on light) agrees with Schwarzschild.

But this means little unless it is connected to QED. Adler does that in 1982 RMP for example. It plays no role in Hal's PV and it should.

I agree that a polarizable vacuum theory needs to make contact with QED to be plausible. The electron mass has to come in somehow, since apparently it is a fundamental constant in the vacuum!

I am beginning to suggest how that might work above. However, Hal says nothing about it in his PV papers. Hence "PV without PV>"

This is one reason that the de Felice presentation cannot be considered a generalization of PV. Dicke made a choice in his papers that culminated in an exponential metric in this case. He need not have done so – his choice was based on aesthetics, given that the action on EM fields was via the vacuum polarizability. By contrast, in GR (hence de Felice) the expression for grr and the g00 in terms of the refractive index of the vacuum is extremely cumbersome, suggesting that it is a force-fit.


Very nice. Develop that more in a review paper.

Why? Who would be interested?

People who read Nick Cook's book and William Austin's article. People to go to STAIF on the exotic stuff. Black Ops, MJ 12 - MIB obviously. ;-)


ii)                   PV differs from GR in the gravitational action of the field itself as a differential function of the metric. That is, if one computes the Ricci scalar from the PV metric one gets a different gravitational field action from that proposed by Dicke. The difference is not small: in the case of the Friedmann equation, the (da/dt)^2 term appears with a different sign. Hence the completely different PV cosmology.


Ditto. All this must be spelled out with all the math.

Must it?

Only if Hal still wants PV to be considered a contender in metric engineering. Of course, if he is throwing in the towel - a wise decision. ;-)


Again what about local general coordinate transformations in the PV paradigm?

See above. J

Michael

 
Subject:STAIFF & Puthoff's PV for metric engineering NASA BPP

On May 8, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 5/8/04 11:51:02 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


< really. Why is this such a hard problem for you to solve?>>


Who says it's hard?  It just takes the inclusion of off-diagonal terms in the vacuum dielectric tensor (i.e., go from scalar PV to tensor PV).  It's essentially done in other publications, both for standard Einsteinian GR metrics and for more general metrics.  See, e.g.,

F. de Felice, "On the gravitational field acting as an optical medium," Gen. Rel. and Grav., vol. 2, pp. 347-357 (1971)

A. M. Volkov, A. A. Izmest'ev, and G. V. Skrotskiy, "The propagation of electromagnetic waves in a Riemannian space," Sov. Phys. JETP, vol. 32, pp. 686-689 (1971).

Hal Puthoff

Then spell it out in detail in your terms if it's so easy.
Solve the Podkletnov/Ning Li problem of rotating superconducting disks in terms of PV.

Also show PV prediction of NASA EINSTEIN for gravimagnetic inertial frame drag in terms of PV vs GR.

PV is a covering theory for GR not other way round as you claimed.

Those are real experiments right?

What are you waiting for?

You have redone Dicke's original 1961 work a jillion times in very similar papers all over the place, so why are you so reluctant to write a relevant PV paper on rotating disks now if the above authors already have done the hard part for you?

Clearly the Podkletnov and Ning Li allegations are relevant to metric engineering right? In that case what does PV say about that?
Spell it out in detail and soon, say from the next STAIFF meeting?

I have shown my theory for this Podkletnov stuff. Now let's see yours.
Let us not forget whoever controls dark energy controls the universe!
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today prematurely said it is not possible to "bottle dark energy." I suspect he is wrong. There is evidence out there that someone has already bottled it.

On May 8, 2004, at 2:47 PM, carlos castro wrote:


I forgot to give you the references in gr-qc about an interesting paper about the Black-Hole Bomb and super-radiancy. I cannot find it. But perhaps you could.

Do try to look at the paper hep-th/0404118 = no cosmological constant, no dark matter, no quintessence.... etc......only Gauss-Bonnet Gravity to have expansion. Higher derivatives is what you have in Conformal Weyl Gravity. I think you will be curious to look at those two papers.

Best wishes

Carlos

Yes, thanks. I think the paper is not correct in it's basic idea. However it's good to see alternatives.

They must also explain the dark matter. It's not enough to explain only the dark energy. Also my explanation for both is simpler and uses only standard physics and is testable very close to experiment. Also my model has immediate implications for exotic propulsion in sense of NASA BPP. So far the null results of the CDMSII experiment shooting down the false positives of the Italian measurements in
http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-7.html is very good for my idea.

The "null" CDMSII is my "Michelson-Morley experiment."
No motion of Earth through ether, no clicks of dark matter detectors with the right stuff.

There are recent claims of a 30 km/sec (if I remember number right) effect in Michelson-Morely, however that may be a Hubble flow GR correction to SR?
On May 8, 2004, at 1:18 PM, michael ibison wrote:

The de Felice work is a re-casting of GR action on EM via a vacuum tensor polarizability (‘generalized constitutive relations’, involving time components as well as space components in a generalized permittivity).


Good start. However, what you and Hal need to do at this point is to write a clear pedagogical review of all that and apply it to rotating superconducting disks (Podkletnov & Ning Li) and gravimagnetic frame drag as I suggested.

Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong

i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff

Also make clear exactly how PV treats:

1. Local principle of equivalence in sense of MTW

2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors

3. Issue of active diffeomorphisms

4. Acknowledge my heads up priority on relevance of dark energy observations to the metric engineering issue - as of 2002 in two books. You have no publications on that connection prior to that.

 


(It should be pointed out that neither the de Felice epistemology of Einstein nor PV attempt to describe the gravitational action on matter by these means: there is no explanation for the geodesics of matter in terms of a modified vacuum polarization. To achieve this would require a description of mass as based upon / originating from EM interactions.)


This seems to be a fatal flaw in Hal's whole program? Again this gets back to my point that problems easy in Einstein's orthodox geometrodynamical picture using local tensor fields are hard in the PV dielectric picture? Do you agree?

 


Apart from the generalization from scalar refractive index to tensor permittivity, there are two important properties that distinguish the de Felice approach from scalar PV:


i)                     The permittivity tensor is reverse engineered so that it guarantees the agreement with Einstein GR in its predictions.


Yes, and this is why I call it "PV without PV" (alluding of course to Wheeler's "Mass without mass." Hal should not even use "PV" until he makes a clear mathematical connection with QED! There is no h in any PV paper, not even a connection to his previous attempt at a EM ZPE Sakharov derivation of G/c^4.

BTW None of you mention G* as a running coupling like in renormalization group flows allowing

G* ~ 10^40 G on scale of 1 fermi, which BTW solves a lot of problems like stability of a spatially extended electron!

e.g. my papers of 1973 & Abdus Salam's f-gravity -> new hyperspace versions (G. Dvali et-al) giving same physical idea we had 30 years ago for gravity origin of universal Regge slope (1Gev)^-2 of hadronic resonances - the only contact of string theory with facts BTW.

Hence, for example, for a singular point mass, the effective metric (induced by the permittivity on light) agrees with Schwarzschild.

But this means little unless it is connected to QED. Adler does that in 1982 RMP for example. It plays no role in Hal's PV and it should.

This is one reason that the de Felice presentation cannot be considered a generalization of PV. Dicke made a choice in his papers that culminated in an exponential metric in this case. He need not have done so – his choice was based on aesthetics, given that the action on EM fields was via the vacuum polarizability. By contrast, in GR (hence de Felice) the expression for grr and the g00 in terms of the refractive index of the vacuum is extremely cumbersome, suggesting that it is a force-fit.


Very nice. Develop that more in a review paper.


ii)                   PV differs from GR in the gravitational action of the field itself as a differential function of the metric. That is, if one computes the Ricci scalar from the PV metric one gets a different gravitational field action from that proposed by Dicke. The difference is not small: in the case of the Friedmann equation, the (da/dt)^2 term appears with a different sign. Hence the completely different PV cosmology.


Ditto. All this must be spelled out with all the math.

Again what about local general coordinate transformations in the PV paradigm?

 


Michael Ibison


 


On May 8, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 5/8/04 11:51:02 AM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:


< really. Why is this such a hard problem for you to solve?>>


Who says it's hard?  It just takes the inclusion of off-diagonal terms in the vacuum dielectric tensor (i.e., go from scalar PV to tensor PV).  It's essentially done in other publications, both for standard Einsteinian GR metrics and for more general metrics.  See, e.g.,

F. de Felice, "On the gravitational field acting as an optical medium," Gen. Rel. and Grav., vol. 2, pp. 347-357 (1971)

A. M. Volkov, A. A. Izmest'ev, and G. V. Skrotskiy, "The propagation of electromagnetic waves in a Riemannian space," Sov. Phys. JETP, vol. 32, pp. 686-689 (1971).

Hal Puthoff

Then spell it out in detail in your terms if it's so easy.
Solve the Podkletnov/Ning Li problem of rotating superconducting disks in terms of PV.

Also show PV prediction of NASA EINSTEIN for gravimagnetic inertial frame drag in terms of PV vs GR.

PV is a covering theory for GR not other way round as you claimed.

Those are real experiments right?

What are you waiting for?

You have redone Dicke's original 1961 work a jillion times in very similar papers all over the place, so why are you so reluctant to write a relevant PV paper on rotating disks now if the above authors already have done the hard part for you?

Clearly the Podkletnov and Ning Li allegations are relevant to metric engineering right? In that case what does PV say about that?
Spell it out in detail and soon, say from the next STAIFF meeting?

I have shown my theory for this Podkletnov stuff. Now let's see yours.
I have asked Saul-Paul Sirag if he has the time to do it.
Actually, now I remember, Gary Bekkum is doing it. Ask him to put together the list of all the URLS he has collected.

On May 8, 2004, at 9:55 AM, David M wrote:

I've got the books.

In my spare time in the coming weeks I'll scratch together a list from Physics Today, Rev Mod Physics and this list.

Thanks

Dave

At 08:48 AM 5/8/04 -0700, you wrote:

I don't have time to do that. Someone should. April 2003 Physics Today, 
recent Rev Mod Phys - stuff on e-print archive.
No one but me understands nature of dark matter as yet.

If the recent CDMSII data holds up, showing false positives in the Italian data, that is a triumph for my idea that DM is w = -1 ZPF with positive pressure and that dark energy is the same but with negative pressure and that together they are 96% of large-scale stuff of universe. This number can change as scale decreases. We have a "CWT power spectrum" instead of usual FT power spectrum.
The WMAP, Type 1a data is only for scales > 10^2 megaparsecs.


So lots of 
speculative papers grasping at straws.
Start with my two books from 2002 on Amazon.

On May 7, 2004, at 10:17 PM, David wrote:

> Jack,
>
> The essense of genius is in knowing what to ignore. I wish I had time
> to go through the 900 plus messages in this groups.
>
> Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Universes Accelerating (DM/DE/UA)
> certainly have changed how we look at the universe, and how we will
> look at physics in the future.
>
> Could you provide a Required Reading and/or Recommended Reading list
> of books, articles and pdfs?
>
> Ok, so the list will probably require a Bachelors in Physics along
> with Tensor analysis and Engineering Mathematics.
>
> You have already recommended Cosmological Physics by Peacock. And even
> after 30 years, GRAVITATION by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is a
> standard.
>
> But the DM/DE/UA discovery of 1999 seems to have changed alot. Perhaps
> confining the bibliography to 1999 to present might be helpful.
>
> Put another way, what would the syllabus for Sarfatti Physics look
> like?
>
> Thanks
>
Hal
Most important you have yet to admit your error claiming that PV was a limiting case of GR, when in fact it is other way around.

You wrongly said:

GR is to PV as Maxwell is to Kirchoff.

The correct statement is

PV is to GR as Maxwell is to Kirchoff.

Therefore, you are making a claim that PV is a replacement for GR not simply a useful "engineer's rule of thumb."


On May 8, 2004, at 9:50 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On May 8, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:


In a message dated 5/7/04 9:36:29 PM, sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:



.... paper from France.... gets Yilmaz-Dicke-Puthoff

exponential solution very unexpectedly. .... Of course it's wrong experimentally, but curious how
isotropic e^2GM/c^2r pops up in the most unexpected context!


(1) There is no evidence that it's wrong experimentally because no experiment is yet able to differentiate between the Schwarzschild and exponential metrics. 

I will be at GR 17 this summer. Everyone will be there. I will ask Martin Rees, Kip Thorne et-al on their opinion on this. It's my impression that the accretion disk radiation signatures pretty much establish the reality of the event horizons. I could be wrong. I will find out. We will know mainstream opinion from people actively doing the work by end of July. If you are right then the House of Cards of Bekenstein -> Susskind falls down. I mean holographic universe and all that. However, I bet you are wrong - also on your 2/3 prediction etc.

Meantime unless you have PV version of Kerr solution you got nothing really. Why is this such a hard problem for you to solve? It's easy in GR, so that tells you/us something.




(Claims for observation of "black holes" don't count, as the "dark gray" solutions of the exponential metric are nearly indistinguishable unless actual evidence for an event horizon is found, not yet seen.)

I will check all that out at GR 17 - one of main reasons I am going. You should go!

(2) In his early writings on the extension of relativity to gravity Einstein himself thought that the final version of GR would yield an exponential solution, and considered the Schwarzschild-type solution, though convenient, to be an approximation to maintain a linear dependence on the spatial coordinate (instead of a linear dependence on the potential, as in Yilmaz) in the spirit of the linear Lorentz transformations:

"From the fact that the choice of the coordinate origin must not affect the relation, one must conclude that, strictly speaking, equation (30) [Schwarzschild metric solution] should be replaced by the equation [exponential metric solution].  Nevertheless we shall maintain formula (30)."


A. Einstein, "On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it," Jahrbuch der Radioactivitat und Elektronic vol. 4, p. 411 (1907); Translation in "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 2, The Swiss Years: Writings 1900-1909," p. 305, Princeton University Press (1989).


Hal

It can't be "1907" - recheck that. Is that "1927"?

Did you read the French paper? Grist for your mill. What do you think?

Thursday, May 06, 2004

"Don't ask and I know. Ask and I am dumb." paraphrase of Saint Augustine on the nature of time.

On May 5, 2004, at 7:43 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Looks like a must read paper:

IS THERE MORE TO T?
Why Time's Description in Modern Physics is Still Incomplete
A. C. ELITZUR and S. DOLEV
The Program for History and Philosophy of Science
Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel
Abstract. We present some novel results indicating that time's descrip


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0207/0207029.pdf

1. Can we time travel?

1.1 Can we travel back in time?

1.2 Can we travel back to a time before the time machine was built?
No, if we use conventional GR Star Gates.
Maybe, if we use Aharonov's quantum time machine based on weak measurements. But probably not. The universe may be full of many ancient time machines so this may not be a big problem.
"What time does the next Swan leave?" Lauritz Melchior at the Met.

1.3 How do we avoid paradoxes?

1.3.1 We fail to make the paradox? (Novikov's consistent time loops)

1.3.2 We switch to an alternate timeline in the universe next door in hyperspace.

1.4.1 Time "moves" in our stream of consciousness (Arrow of time).
1.4.2 Time cannot move. All movement is with respect to time. Block universe of Einstein's relativity.

1.4 Second Law of Thermodynamics "Arrow of Time".
1.4.1. The micro-laws of physics are time-symmetric.
1.4.2 The macro-laws of physics are time-asymmetric.
1.4.3 Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
(So did Lucifer in Milton's "Paradise Lost.")
All The King's Horses
And All The King's Men
Could not put Iraq together again.
Spilled milk does not spontaneously shoot back into the glass.
Cracked pots do not fix themselves unless you are in John Hutchison's laboratory with John and Ogden Nash and Lewis Carroll.

"it was like a bad day on the set of Poltergeist: objects rising slowly from the area of influence in the center of the equipment and looping back somewhere else; or shooting skyward in a powerful ballistic arc and striking the ceiling ... or simply levitating and hovering, continuously, for ages ...[George] Hathaway said it had been captured on hours of film and videotape..." p. 261
"The Hunt for Zero Point", Nick Cook, Jane's Defence Weekly

1.5.1 Is it all a matter of initial conditions as Stephen Hawking says?
1.5.2 Maybe the micro-laws are not really time-symmetric as Roger Penrose says?

1.5.3 Elitzur & Dolev say that Hawking contradicts himself on the loss of information down a black hole where he also disagrees with Lenny Susskind's complementarity conjecture trying to save micro-quantum linear unitarity at all costs. I think that is a mistake because "More is different" (P.W. Anderson). Macro-quantum physics is nonlinear and non-unitary. Does that contradict the hologram principle? I hope not. I mean are Lenny's "complementarity" and "hologram" conjectures logically independent i.e. conceptually orthogonal non-overlapping in content?

1.5.4 Computer simulations show that "Entropy increasing processes do not require any special initial conditions, while entropy decreasing processes do.

1.5.5 True micro-quantum randomness implies entropy increase independent of initial conditions.

1.6 Fig 1 Entangling two atoms in the past from their future!
1.6.1. Ignorance about "which path" is not epistemological, but is ontological. Qubits are physical non-classical "things."
1.6.2 Objective ignorance causes entanglement.
1.6.3 Each present quantum interaction is the result of two interactions one advanced back from the future detection to the present, one retarded from present emission to the future detection in a time loop or "transaction" (J. Cramer).
1.6.4 EPR as Feynman zig-zag (Costa de Beauregard)
1.6.5 Wheeler's delayed choice.
1.6.6 All of above obey "signal locality" AKA "no cloning" AKA "impossibility of quantum xerox machine."
1.7 "Signal nonlocality" is a "More is different" qualitative change in the effective laws of physics from micro -> macro, from time symmetry to time asymmetry, from nonlocal linear unitarity entanglement of fragile phases to local nonlinear non-unitary loss of entanglement with robust "rigid" long-range coherent hologram phases. Smooth curved space-time gravity emerges from the rigid coherent vacuum hologram phase of the post-inflation field made mostly from a superfluid "PV condensate" of virtual electron-positron pairs. The normal fluid residue is exotic vacuum either dark energy of negative pressure or dark matter of positive pressure. Both play vital roles. (my ideas here not in Elitzur)
1.8 Inconsistent histories, i.e. #5 - shoots down Gell-Mann/Hartle?
Those calculations by Ed Harris I bet assume Newton's G at small scale when in fact G may be G* ~ 10^40 times larger than Newton's G on the relevant micro-scale! Note that 10^20 is square root of 10^40 so that a quantum gravity effect of order (Lp*/L) scales as (G*/G)^1/2

Therefore, if the experiments are correct, I don't know that they are, they show G* ~ 10^40G on the relevant microscales. I have shown why the effect is hard to reproduce because of phase noise. Phase stability between the vorticity circulation flow of the control Bose-Einstein condensate and the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson flux through it is the key to practical low energy metric engineering the fabric of space-time. This is a macro-quantum magneto-hydrodynamic effect not a gravimagnetic effect. The control rotating superconductor (or equivalent) is like the scattered beam with the substratum vacuum coherence of condensed virtual electron-positron pairs as post-inflation field like the reference beam in the reconstruction of a hologram image. The hologram image is the induced exotic vacuum zero point field /\zpf ~ Trace (K) in Alcubierre's warp drive formula.


On May 6, 2004, at 9:05 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote to James Woodward:

Thanks James
But my calculations have nothing at all to do with their theory. They have no concept of the /\zpf field. The recent CDMII data is good for my theory.

Indeed, I have been explicit that my idea is even independent of their experiments. I do not know if their experiments are correct or not and have said so and will make that clear in the paper. I am talking about what may be done in the future with the
/\zpf field.

Grant please forward to Podkletnov.

On May 6, 2004, at 7:42 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Jack,

Before you get too fired up about the rotating superconductor business,
you might want to take a look at a little paper by Ed Harris in the 1999
volume of Found. Phys. Lett. He identifies a 20 order of magnitude error
in the calculation of the effects claimed.

Best,

Jim Woodward

URL for that?


Memorandum for the Record
Subject: Relation of Podkletnov & Ning Li experiments on alleged anti-gravity of rotating superconductors to recent CDMII null dark matter measurements and to my vacuum coherence theory.

Grant - please forward to Podkletnov

On May 6, 2004, at 8:58 AM, Tim Ventura wrote:

Hi Jack --

You wrote:

"the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect with rotating superconductors (E. Podkletnov & Ning Li)"

On that reference note for the record:

On May 6, 2004, at 7:42 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Jack,

Before you get too fired up about the rotating superconductor business, you might want to take a look at a little paper by Ed Harris in the 1999 volume of Found. Phys. Lett. He identifies a 20 order of magnitude error in the calculation of the effects claimed.

Best,

Jim Woodward

URL for that?

Those calculations I bet assume Newton's G at small scale when in fact G may be G* ~ 10^40 times larger than Newton's G on the relevant micro-scale! Note that 10^20 is square root of 10^40 so that a quantum gravity effect of order (Lp*/L) scales as (G*/G)^1/2

On May 6, 2004, at 9:05 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Thanks
But my calculations have nothing at all to do with their theory. They have no concept of the /\zpf field. The recent CDMII data is good for my theory.

Indeed, I have been explicit that my idea is even independent of their experiments. I do not know if their experiments are correct or not and have said so and will make that clear in the paper. I am talking about what may be done in the future with the /\zpf field.

Grant please forward to Podkletnov.


Tim Ventura wrote:

Firstly, from what I can gather its been difficult to replicate the
gravity-shielding effect that Podkletnov has talked about (and Ning Li isn't talking about her modifications). Any thoughts on what the unknown variable is that makes it work sometimes but not others?

JS: Yes! I showed the formula for it in my paper!
http://qedcorp.com/APS/NEWPodkletnov.pdf
It's relative phase instability between the vacuum coherence and the control superconductor coherence. They do not have vacuum coherence in their theories! That's what is missing from them, from Puthoff's and from every competing theory in the field of metric engineering the fabric of space-time for NASA BPP Mission Objectives. Capische?

My theory has nothing to do with the Modanese-Podkletnov or Ning Li's theory. It is a completely different deeper approach - much deeper. I show how both gravity and dark energy/matter emerge from the inflation field and how that inflation field comes into being to begin with! None of them have that. They start with Einstein's gravity to begin with (or Hal's wrong PV alternative) and therefore throw the baby out with the bath water. They can never get to the key idea although Modanese got the closest to it.

TV:
Secondly, there have been rumors about a UFO using a mercury-plasma toroid that also utilizes a gravity-shielding effect (the TR3-B). Do you think that the Podkletnov Effect could be replicated on a larger-scale using a toroidally-shaped chamber filled with mercury plasma?

That sounds to me like the Victor Schauberger Nazi "Bell Experiment" in Nick Cook's book. Only if that plasma could sustain a stable atomic Bose-Einstein condensate being, in effect, a high Tc superconductor whose macro-quantum coherent phase can lock with the deep substratum vacuum coherence phase in the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect! You never see Puthoff & Co use these deep ideas in the context of metric engineering of stargates and warp drives. All they have is random semi-classical SED, from random comes random. From nothing comes nothing.


TV: Third, from what I've read the general understanding is that Cooper-Pairs are what makes the device function -- does your analysis support gravitomagnetic coupling in Cooper-paired electrons, or do you have an alternative explanation?

You clearly do not know much physics if you cannot answer that question for yourself. The answer is roughly YES! But depends what you mean by "gravimagnetic". I have the precise equation for all this in my paper.

The picture is VERY SIMPLE independent of what everyone else has written on the subject.

The rotating control superconducting disk or plasma ring with a stable atomic or ionized plasma condensate as the case may be has a huge number of "effective bosons" (their precise nature does not matter as shown in PW Anderson's "More is different" - another term not in the Puthoff & Co lexicon BTW) are circulating in a loop so that they have a hydrodynamic vorticity flux field. This is where the connection to Victor Schauberger's primitive explanation comes in. In addition these circulating bosons must carry a charge so that they feel the nonlocal Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson magnetic flux field.
The vorticity and magnetic pseudo-vectors are oriented anti-parallel in space to get the vacuum coherence/control superconductor coherence phase-match resonances to work. If there is too much phase noise the effect washes out, which is why it is so difficult to reproduce.

So, in summary, we have the virtual electron-positron pair macro-quantum condensate as the "background reference beam". You can think of the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect as the reconstruction of a hologram image - the basic formal equations are very similar to the archetypal "2 slit experiment" of quantum theory!
The magneto-hydrodynamic flow (not geo-magnetic) of the control charged boson condensate (on mass shell real electron-pairs will do, but you can use other real on mass shell charged bosons as well) beats against the substratum vacuum coherence of the off-mass-shell virtual electron positron pairs, to induce the anti-gravity zero point dark energy field /\zpf > 0 that provides the zero g force warp drive lift in the sense of the "acceleration field G-Engine" of the Bondi-Hill-Trimble-Alcubierre class. That in a nutshell is how it all works. That's how the saucers fly. That's the next step in the evolution of man. That's what metric engineering in Super Cosmos is really all about.

Thanks & best wishes!

Tim Ventura

Precision cosmology data from 1999 - 2004 on Type 1a supernovae, gravity lensing and the NASA WMAP space probe have shown that our universe is spatially flat and is accelerating in its expansion rate from an anti-gravity "dark energy" field that is 73% of the large-scale stuff of the world. Recent experiments (CDMSII) show that very sensitive dark matter detectors do not click as I predicted they would not. Ordinary matter made from electrons, neutrinos, nucleons and photons in gas clouds, stars, planets, black holes et-al are at most only 4% of all the stuff in the universe. I have shown that both dark energy and dark matter accounting for 96% of the stuff of the universe are different phases of exotic vacuum with negative and positive quantum pressures respectively in accord with standard results of Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum theory. Elementary particles like the electron have a strongly gravitating zero point energy inner core of positive quantum pressure that prevents the self-electric charge from exploding just as the invisible galactic halo, also a sphere of zero point energy of positive quantum pressure, prevents the stars in our galaxy from escaping willy nilly. As Above, So Below. I have also shown how, in principle, using the Bohm-Aharonov-Josephson effect with rotating superconductors (E. Podkletnov & Ning Li), we can manipulate the relative amounts of anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter to make stable traversable wormhole star gates for fast space travel and even time travel within our universe and the parallel universes next door in the hyperspace of super cosmos. The dark energy is what Herman Bondi called "negative matter" and can, therefore, be used for "acceleration field" (Paul Hill) weightless warp drive propulsion in Alcubierre's sense with zero g-force and small tidal curvature stretch-squeeze even in high speed hairpin turns. This implements George Trimble's 1956 concept of the "G-Engine" for Unconventional Flying Objects discussed in Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" from Jane's Defence Weekly and William Austin's article "To The Stars" in Aviation Week and Space Technology March 1, 2004. The military implications for air and space defence and WMD of these new physics concepts are obvious.

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

So far so good. Of course Paul Ginsparg did not let this prediction of mine on the Cornell archive - that dark matter, like dark energy, is a virtual zero point energy effect with w = -1 of positive quantum pressure in contrast to dark energy with negative quantum pressure. The clicking of a dark matter detector is forbidden in my theory - apart from errors with false positives. However, my prediction is in my book "Space-Time and Beyond II" copyrighted in Library of Congress and on Amazon. Let's see if my prediction stands the test of time with more experiments down the line.

I have repeatedly written that the dark matter detectors will show a null effect as a matter of principle analogous to the null effect of the Michelson-Morely experiment.


On May 5, 2004, at 8:47 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:



Hi Jack,

Sorry to hear about Vigier.

On a better note, thought this was good news for your idea:

http://www.nature.com/nsu/040503/040503-7.html

Particle no-show pans former find
Physicists unbowed as fail to detect dark matter.
6 May 2004
GEOFF BRUMFIEL


If a dark matter particle strikes the detector, it would cause it to ring like a bell.
© Fermilab



The most powerful search yet for the Universe's missing matter has come up empty handed, contradicting an earlier study that claimed to have seen new particles.

Researchers from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search II (CDMSII) say they are pleased with their first results, which show that their detector is working and set new constraints on how the so-far undetected matter can behave, if it exists.

For decades, physicists and astronomers have known that conventional particles of the type that make up atoms, stars and people only account for a tiny fraction of the Universe's mass. The rest of the mass is referred to as dark matter, as its identity is unknown. It is thought to come from a variety of heavy particles that rarely interact with regular matter and can pass through conventional objects unseen.

CDMSII has been looking for a type of theoretical particles called weakly interactive massive particles, or WIMPs. If they are detected, this would not only shed light on the mystery of dark matter, but would also be good evidence for supersymmetry, a theory of physics that goes beyond today's standard model.

Chilled out

The new detector is four times more sensitive than any previous experiment. To shield it from high-energy particles from outer space, the machine is based 700 metres underground in an abandoned iron mine in Soudan, Minnesota. The detector is also chilled to within a tenth of a degree of absolute zero to reduce vibrations from surrounding molecules.

The detector itself consists of sensors attached to six germanium and silicon crystals. If a particle strikes one of the crystals, it causes the crystal to ring like a bell, and the sensors detect the vibrations.

However since it started running in November last year, the detector has not seen a single WIMP. The negative result puts an upper limit on the number of interactions that can be occurring over a certain period of time, says Harry Nelson, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He presented the results at the American Physical Society's annual meeting in Denver, Colorado, on 3 May.

Elusive effect

That effectively contradicts the findings of DAMA, a less sensitive experiment based at the National Laboratory of Gran Sasso, Italy, that has been collecting data since 1996. Researchers there thought they might have detected WIMPs. And they saw more particles in the summer than in the winter, an effect that could have been caused by the Earth travelling with or against the flow of cosmic dark particles.

But Nelson says that if those events were real, then the more sensitive CDMSII should have seen 50 events for each one detected by DAMA. "If the particles had been present, we are sure we would have seen them," he says.

Other results have cast doubt on DAMA's finding, but the data from CDMSII are likely to be seen as conclusive evidence that the Italian experiment did not spot a new particle. "[DAMA's finding] is essentially dead," says Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

Physicists with the CDMSII experiment say they will now add another 24 crystals to the detector, increasing its sensitivity tenfold. If they still fail to find something, then theorists who believe in supersymmetry may have to rethink their ideas. "CDMSII isn't exerting an annoying pressure on theorists yet," says Nelson. "But they're starting to feel it."


© Nature News Service / Macmillan Magazines Ltd 2004

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

A major flaw in Puthoff's whole program for NASA BPP described in Aviation Week March 1, 2004 "To The Stars" is that you cannot solve interesting problems with it like you can do in Einstein's GR.

Diaz's paper solves some important problems using GR that Hal is not even able to formulate in PV.

In particular, we can easily compute the /\zpf field configuration in

Guv + /\zpfguv = 0 for w = -1 exotic vacuum using Diaz's equations in IV that simplify significantly when w = -1.

Note that w < -1 is phantom energy with a Big Rip destr