## SPECULATIONS

& random notes

Half Baked Blue Sky

holding patterns -

what is intrinsic spin?

It's the wavelike properties of any elementary entity (photon, electron etc) seen from the angle of some operation we do to highlight the particle properties of the elementary entity in question. this is obvious when you diagram a radio wave (which is a photon)

.....so, it isnt intrinsic and it isnt spin, its an artifact of heisenberg's misunderstanding of special relativity which has never been cleaned up or dealt with properly (heisenberg changed paulis mind on spinning electrons - rube goldberg QM is result.

....that dispenses with the myriad ignorant slobberer versions of duality

a photon is a wave AND a particle, all the time, just like a radio "wave". it is not EITHER/ OR.

the magicians ARENT EVEN electricians

the angular momentum of the magnetic and electric vectors is the "intrinsic spin"

radio waves are big and you can walk around inside and find the intensities etc. - they never disappear- always there

also, the mathematics is long settled, in fact, i already sent it to you. theres no counterargument to be made

REBOOTING QM and GR, but not SR

how fast do the elements of intrinsic spin emerge from the vacuum?

SR can be left aside for the moment.

QM GR SR are modest extensions of maxwell

maxwell made a modest extension of Newton

theres no law, but a gradual arreement among some old guys who smoked smelly cigars , to kick the can down the road, that says we have to conform to maxwell down to the last slavish detail. we have to draw a reasonable limit somewhere.

relativity puts no speed limit on movements of space itself.

the elements of intrinsic spin can (and must) dimple space at many times "c"which implies the magnetic and electric vectors of elementary particles ARE twists of space that happen very fast.

that leads to a notion on the NON-intrinsic spin of the electron, that it must exceed the speed of light by a small amount at least.

both relativities are silent on this (after all the electron isnt going anywhere by its spinning)

relativistic brakes might not take hold until the object takes a direction and moves in a line.

indeed, it was just such a notion that explained zeeman splitting, so the old geezers agreed not to think or talk about the question. that did work out for a long time after the invention of intrinsic spin but the harm of that wallpapering is that it tends to point AWAY from the next logical , fruitful iterations and many useful discoveries could be forever dormant.

Higgs decay

the favired decay modes are bi-photon and any combination of weak force carriers, real or virtual (W and Z probably no N) all the other modes are expected to be rare and not significant. the 19.5 GEV was bi- lepton (2 photons) but only the one facility had the software for weeding through the many 2 photon events in the 19gev range. great way to waste time (arguing about ultra rare inconsrquential events)

Recently published work on polarization modulation

--in optical fibers adequately answers protests to previous email

(i lost track of the physotg reference on it

it uses phase vc group velocity. phase velocity is allowed to exceed "c". phase velocity can be alternately shown to be identical with fTL rotation of the photon's non-intrinsic AND intrinsic spin

ftl phase velocity

its a big part of radar and has been established since the 1930s.

QM has had to live with it.

rhe photon is derived from the electron.

if the rotation (viewed classically for clarity only) of the photon is stl then so it thr rotation of the electron. (the primary has to rotate faster than the secondaty)

that can be a hard proof; its just taking two odd leftovers from different specialties and putting them together - exactly how einstein got e=mc/2

......but that would mean we dont need QM as it presently exists. i guess thats nwhy the QM people get upset about it

key to computational biomechanics

KEEP IT ROUND !!!

Pi can be assumed to be "normal" in the narrow mathematical sense (pi IS assumed to be normal but no proof exists yet, its the same "normal" as in "renormalization")

using the disfavored model of atoms , particles, universes, QM vacuum as round billiard balls is adequate for first approximation (first iteration) AND since pi is everywhere in all the constants and everything else, you can set it to do "auotomatic renormalization, on-the-fly.

when suspect sequences show up in intermediate products, like would indicate less-than-perfect randomness, it pulls you back on target so errors dont compound and accumulate.

the connection of biology to little "round things" is obvious

what is space?

ironically, theres no pressing need to know the answer. it is only a concern because of the confusion caused by the thoroughly dishonest elevation of the idea of a space time contiuum , to furthur the petty, personal interests of a faction of the numerological priesthood.

a space-time notion is just a rephrasing of the question, not an answer. time is made the fourth dimension and is narrowed in definition to an indicator of the degree of curvature of space at any given point. the fourth dimension is , properly, a dimension of space with time-like properties

adopting space-time and adjourning the court precludes any future inquiry into "time", which cannot be a dimension, in any case.

so, WTF is "space"?i dont know or particularly care but there are possibilities. space could be a skeletal residue of the strong nuclear force left behind as it extruded the weak force; if the pixelation of space equals the Planck length - as seems likely, at present, that would be evidence for the above - but it doesnt matter; the deliberate crapping in the well is what matters.

to produce the present universe, space would have to have expanded at millions of times the speed of light in the early universe. so theres no limit on the expansion -or any other motion- of space itself.gravity curves space, or gravity IS curved space. either way, the disturbance generated has no practical speed limit and can carry information. dispense with the non-existent "graviton" and DeBroglie-Bohm answers Bells inequality - as anyone knows who experiments with parametric amplifiers and mixers for any length of time.

carbon parametric amplifiers existed in the 19th century (nathan stubblefield , edward hughes and many others) i didnt know that when , at age 7, i noted amplification from battery carbons and built a 2 way comm. gadget around it. it got put in the display -facing the hall at my grade school. when i went back at age 20, it was still there. everything was the same in many ways.

QM is an approximation using statistical analysis - somewhat blindly. GR would have agreed on entanglement, but without the grandiose and disqualifying witchcraft, but for the politics of appeasing the QM crowd at Solvay ,1927.

the present time would be a good one for ending the idiocy.

feynman showmanship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the

this quote is almost always shortened to, "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain " - semantical games

2 slit exp is very clear and straightforward but has been intense controversy generator since 1827 (thats right, EIGHTEEN twenty seven}---plenty of time for blind dogma to harden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the

this quote is almost always shortened to, "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain " - semantical games

2 slit exp is very clear and straightforward but has been intense controversy generator since 1827 (thats right, EIGHTEEN twenty seven}---plenty of time for blind dogma to harden

i reread the feynman comments for the 10 millionth time.

i dont disagree , i just reject the silliness of making it so mysterious

take a photon. it is a wave and particle ALL THE TIME. it doesnt change from one to the other

if the wavelength is large its more convenient to measure the wave characteristics.

if wavelength is small its usually easier to measure the particle characterisrics.

....so there is no mystery at all to the 2 slit experiment; if its set up to measure particles you get the result in particle currency. if its set up for detecting waves you get the result in wave currency. you can get both at once but its too hard to set an experiment that way for riny particles. its easier for extra long wavelength photons like radio waves. this is due entirely to the mechanical problems in constructimng the experiment

rhe experimental results are always equivilant

feynman was an amateut stage magician and tended to overdramatize all that stuff; anything said about QM by just about any guest on geotge noory would be greeted by incredulous laughter by anyone who actually knows anything about it

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34365659/The-Duality-of-Matter-and-Waves

this is fz on duality. it contradicts itself but the fz constant is stated in realistic terms and no longer a function of domain size tom valone is a pe like fz and is positive on him. its just very rough, not essentially wrong

its dead wrong to say particles and waves dont exist. they just dont exist SEPARATELY most of the time

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME THING, MEASURABLE ASPECTS OF A SINGLE DISCRETE ENTITY

matter exists, like it or not. its made of energy, its frozen energy, but thats a meaningless distinction and semantical game playing.

other than that and the necessary fine discrimination on phonons , fz is saying exactly what ive been telling you over last 2 months.

no surprise. valone is a jefimenko proponent and acquaintance of fz for a long time and is a bearden associate, bigtime

a PE is the next step in engineering beyond PhD but you can still get it by exam.

university of indiana was big on cold fusion , bearden stuff in 1990s when fz was there. this was partly due to eldon byrd's influence

jefimenko laboriously worked out the mathematical "proof" of the various gravities acting strongly at atomic size. QM is deliberately blind to all that, it contradicts idea of graviton which is their security blanket

the picture of gravity at atom scale is very much jefimenko's picture

princeton checked jefimenko in 2009 with supercomputer. (the only way it can be done) and , at MINIMUM his math is flawless

i remember this guy. he treats plancks constant as a particle - thats good; thats half of how you get 4TEV for direct excitation of near vacuum. he noticed anomalies at 1.01 mhz in nuclear magnetic resonance and wanted to promote that to a patent. i noticed the same anomalies at 1.01mhz. (a bowl of water occasionally acts like b-e condensate

hes trying to cram 1.094 mhz-meters in where it cant fit and claims a pedigree thats nonsense (multiply 1.094mhz times domain size) that doesnt matter. hes trying to establish legal priority and has to cram it in somewhere. his assessment of action of gravities at microsize is accurate and consistent with jefimenko

almost no work has ever been done on this because of QM bias against it ; thats why they still cling to the nonexistent graviton, which fouls up all the models

PS i already know wave particle duality. the reversal of the definition is the result of misinterpretation of 2 slit experiment beginning in 1827. you tube messes up my security and never says anything so i try to avoid it.

there is no reason to assume that gravity weakens at microscales

there is no reason to think that a photon can only be a particle or wave and not both at once; all experiment shows the reverse , you detedt what your detector can detect. its unrelated to state of photon. the gradual build up of a cult-like misunderstanding of it makes me ill, especially since its calculated and deliberate

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0003/0003011.pdf

most competing theories are mathematically equivilant or close to it. most physicists get the math for their papers from a standard form book.

the difficulty is in what the mathematics MEANS, how it applies to the real world. bose einstein condensate was never a mystery, just an extra twist of the iteration knob;

phonons are not considered particles because they are a manifestation of an acoustic pressure wave and arent ELEMENTARY; this is becoming blurred and introducing errors.

it has to work in the real world. most dont.

i will read the paper at scribner asap. quick look doesnt show it to be wrong

math is so imperfect that many correct theories can compete but , usually, only one marches what really happens

this has been hell week for me. all kinds of unlikely horrors. so far, situation is OK; (if a bloody standstill is OK)

lightning antimatter

lightning does smash atoms, the voltage goes very high anywhere theres a tiny point to reduce current/raise voltage

sounds like he might be seeing something like ball lightning

i was hit by lightning june 24, 2004. we had 24 hours of steady drizzle and no sign of lightning except the one that hit me. i was 2 blocks from the house, walking to walmart to get my camera that doesnt work any more. i didnt hear the sound but it must have been huge. ocie was half asleep and woke straight up , didnt know what had happened. people ran out of their houses. trees were stripped of leaves.

the spot where i was was not elevated and was berween 2 higher places .....but, that property belonged to my maternal gggfather who bought it from indians. (he bought it from federal gov-first owner but indians were squatting on it so he had to pay them too) his house was 150 feet away from that spot and it kept gettting destroyed by lightning so he (actually his son moved it) moved it and sold that spot to the gas company (ceo was one of his female cousins renata hattendorf)

i knew i was dead, didnt want to turn around and see my charred body. but i was ok, (temporarily almost deaf though. a red/orange ball went down my back and headed straight for the nearest storm drain and disappeared. then the pressure wave hit and knocked me down. my umbrella was melted and still smoking and my glove had a hole burned in it (as did my sock on that side.)

i postponed getting the camera because smoke was coming off me, and the loons at walmart woukd call cops so i turned around and went home where ocie told me all about the big "explosion"

what kaufman says about einstein is exactly the reverse of the fact. einstein left many written comments to this effect. i recently saved a bunch of them then deleted them as being no longer needed. the fourth dimension is "time-like" it isnt "time".. to measure velocity you need to know HOW LONG it takes a spaceship to cover a certain distance. thats the time-like dimension. gravity is an accelleration. it doesnt have or need an associated particle you can have waves without a particle as long as the waves arent transverse or debroglie. (debroglie waves are from an accellerated mass) gravitational waves can only be acoustic waves (phonons arent true particles) it has been shown repeatedly that relativistic effects occur only on accelleration and decelleration (usually protons travelling 99% "c") the spaceship ecperiences gravity distortion (which can be alternately defined as time distortion only when taking off and getting up to speed and slowing down to land)

welch's bowed to consumer pressure and now sells juice from red grapes . (resveratrol) you have to freeze it hard first to break the resveratrol loose from the pigment. very effective and especially improves potassium uptake and assimilation, (for 50 years i always knew who would be next to get cancer - the one who suddenly stopped eating baked potatos (they dont agree with me anymore, etc) baked potato potassium is high and assimilable - unless your potassium equipment is broken.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=119294

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=9&gs_id=ah&xhr=t&q=randall-sundrum&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=randall-s&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=21c0595ad86507f8&biw=939&bih=551

randall-sundrum was the dominant "theory" for about 5 years. its the result of shallow, monkeylike tinkering with no regard or comprehension of reality as it is thought to exist based on good evidence

the first time LHC fired up , the theory and its authors went down in a very ugly way cause they wouldnt give up gravitons. a geometrical framework of gravity where gravity is a particle? DUHHH!!!

so they made their key prediction that 5thD, near (near meaning "warped" as well as "near" ) vacuum was directly excited at 1TEV (based on added warp from graviton) - thats beardens "sparking the vacuum" , and its unrelated to zero-point or casimir attraction

the minimum v for direct excitation of 5th dimension is 4TEV (my prediction) a;though there are tunneling processes involving exotic elements like cesium that can bring down the v but they cause other problems

Message flagged Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:38 AM it can be more helpful if you know the history and biography. Diracs solution for the relativistic photon produced negative matter. there were many objections (a separate equation produced antimatter) because it required a mirror universe, which was in vogue via HG Wells et al. Dirac was the narrowiest of narrow mathematitiuons, his efforts to accommodate yielded magnetic monopoles which are a ridiculous idea because the magnetic force is not fundamental but is due to alignments of electric fields via spin. the spin is driven by the expansion of the universe. its like the starter rope on your lawnmower but the rope is very long.

i think it was weyl and pauli who persuaded dirac to postulate "holes" to make mirror universe compatible. these are the holes that are the basis of the semiconductor industry. they are like negative matter electrons.and MAY BE NEGATIVE MATTER ELECTRONS since they definitely carry negative "effective" mass when they are caged in a crystal lattice. rather than re-enstate the "ether" (highly modified) everybody just agreed (after famous speech by pauli) to rename the KK fifth dimension the "dirac sea" and to minimize it to the extent possible and hope a smarter generation will straighten everything out

quick and dirty renormalization

there is no difference whatsoever between a massless particle , like the photon, and a wave. they are exactly the same thing. the distinction was originally due to the scale of our measuring tools; if you were a giant, you would insist a LF radio wave is a particle. Its about the same with debroglie waves but all these are very short - too short to measure easily in early 1900's. the earth is a wave- particle but the wavelength is way in the hard gamma ray range so , you might as well consider it a particle. hard gamma rays are too hard to do anything WITH.

everything does try to be round. the reason is economy, minimalization, most volume per unit of surface material.

nobody ever considers that the unique quality of pi is that it is NORMAL as are its roots and exponents. yes, its the same NORMAL as in RENORMALIZATION. the old idea of atoms being little solar systems and of charged particles being pointlike is passe but not at all invalid. theQM<QED<QCD way is a tiny bit more precise in practice but that tiny bit never makes any significant difference.

you can balance roots of pi against the (integers only!) PERIODIC TABLE and cancel out the infinities.

the reciprocal of the fourth root of pi is 1.33-something, which is where 4d meets 5d and relates to the only stable isotope of cesium.

an 11d noncompact kaluza klein built this way relates to and describes the most ancient and primitive form of esp. and it fills in the oddments of the nature of matter that QM cant reach.

its all little round things if you chose to look at it that way. the only proscription is you cant change formats in mid-solution; that produces a big mess.

Message flagged Thursday, July 5, 2012 3:55 PM sheets, shells and mem(branes) are the flabby minded easy-way-out that creates superfluous complexities that have to be untangled by rebormalization etc. thtrs why the recently dominant theory of randall-sundrum went down in flames at LHC. extra dimensions are not highly compacted and theres no reason they should be; thats only if you hang on to space-time and gravitons. extra dimensions are tenuous, rarefied but not compacted. at most charitable, its(all sheet and shell notions) valley girl science.

when someone has to spit in your face to explain his "theory" , thats a big red flag

George wrote: "The Higgs boson means that everyhere you look (or exist) is an underlying energy field (the boson would merely be a fleeting quantum of same) that lends "mass" to all that we encounter. And such energy fields are always wave-like, meaning that if you cancel out the wave, you also cancel out mass, allowing for gravitic "flight." Doesn't that sound like scalars (also known as gravitics)?"

red herring

http://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-the-higgs-boson-and-why-is-it-important?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c0f2a1cf3-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email

What is the ‘Higgs Boson’ and why is it important? Articles and videos for non-physicistsJuly 5, 2012(Credit: PHD Comics)What It Means to Find ‘a Higgs’ —

beyond higgs

"...Now, not everybody buys our argument. Some of them prefer to focus on the aesthetic challenge of the Weak Hierarchy Problem, while others argue that we have no choice but to add quantum gravity to the Standard Model, inevitably resurrecting the Higgs Fine Tuning Problem...."

the reason the "alice" (after alice in wonderland) universe is suddenly in vogue again is that it restores symmetry without adding all the myriad particles and complexities of supersymmetry. there has always been good evidence for alice.

2 things not known by orthodoxy at present:

a higgs fragment at 125gev rules out the standard model because mass is too low.

hierarchy problem cant be resolved in supersymmetry (that is the OBJECT of supersymmetry! )

alice (iona) universe , first suggested by yukawa, restores symmetry by making the right handed weak force the key link to alice; not mentioned by yukawa is that it makes weak force the dominant force -- maybe the ONLY fundamental force (gravity is not strictly a force).

that eliminates hierarchy problem and solves the "insoluble" conflict between results of the 2 main dark matter probes.

better than 50/50 chance that the weak force is "THE force"

the prejudice against weak force is so strong that there is nothing to be lost by not-hurrying to publication

Message flagged Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:33 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Nelson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90648001/Buck-Nelson-My-Trip-to-Mars-the-Moon-and-Venus

no gluons, mr feynman.

if you could freeze a little block of space containing one atom, then cut it exactly in half, the weak force residing near the centers of the freshly exposed surfaces IS THE STRONG FORCE

take it to the bank

you can stump your science friends with this one.

the weak force separates charge from mass and usually attatches that charge to a different particle (transmutation)

all of TEB'S papers and hypotheses are about massless charge

sprinkle in a little eau de weak force and most of toms conjectures are not out of whack by very much at all

-but he still thinks the electron charge is separated by tesla coils and stuff and that doesnt happen. it takes much more than that

electrogravity that does anything useful absolutely requires weak interaction. fortunately, that isnt too hard to arrange by using ordinary electronic components in completely different ways

thats weak tronics as i see it. it will be called something else be thats what nu-era electronics will really be

and from what ive personally seen over 45 years it will be very exciting and will not blow up in our face like nuclear energy did

what is intrinsic spin?

It's the wavelike properties of any elementary entity (photon, electron etc) seen from the angle of some operation we do to highlight the particle properties of the elementary entity in question. this is obvious when you diagram a radio wave (which is a photon)

.....so, it isnt intrinsic and it isnt spin, its an artifact of heisenberg's misunderstanding of special relativity which has never been cleaned up or dealt with properly (heisenberg changed paulis mind on spinning electrons - rube goldberg QM is result.

....that dispenses with the myriad ignorant slobberer versions of duality

a photon is a wave AND a particle, all the time, just like a radio "wave". it is not EITHER/ OR.

the magicians ARENT EVEN electricians

the angular momentum of the magnetic and electric vectors is the "intrinsic spin"

radio waves are big and you can walk around inside and find the intensities etc. - they never disappear- always there

also, the mathematics is long settled, in fact, i already sent it to you. theres no counterargument to be made

REBOOTING QM and GR, but not SR

how fast do the elements of intrinsic spin emerge from the vacuum?

SR can be left aside for the moment.

QM GR SR are modest extensions of maxwell

maxwell made a modest extension of Newton

theres no law, but a gradual arreement among some old guys who smoked smelly cigars , to kick the can down the road, that says we have to conform to maxwell down to the last slavish detail. we have to draw a reasonable limit somewhere.

relativity puts no speed limit on movements of space itself.

the elements of intrinsic spin can (and must) dimple space at many times "c"which implies the magnetic and electric vectors of elementary particles ARE twists of space that happen very fast.

that leads to a notion on the NON-intrinsic spin of the electron, that it must exceed the speed of light by a small amount at least.

both relativities are silent on this (after all the electron isnt going anywhere by its spinning)

relativistic brakes might not take hold until the object takes a direction and moves in a line.

indeed, it was just such a notion that explained zeeman splitting, so the old geezers agreed not to think or talk about the question. that did work out for a long time after the invention of intrinsic spin but the harm of that wallpapering is that it tends to point AWAY from the next logical , fruitful iterations and many useful discoveries could be forever dormant.

Higgs decay

the favired decay modes are bi-photon and any combination of weak force carriers, real or virtual (W and Z probably no N) all the other modes are expected to be rare and not significant. the 19.5 GEV was bi- lepton (2 photons) but only the one facility had the software for weeding through the many 2 photon events in the 19gev range. great way to waste time (arguing about ultra rare inconsrquential events)

Recently published work on polarization modulation

--in optical fibers adequately answers protests to previous email

(i lost track of the physotg reference on it

it uses phase vc group velocity. phase velocity is allowed to exceed "c". phase velocity can be alternately shown to be identical with fTL rotation of the photon's non-intrinsic AND intrinsic spin

ftl phase velocity

its a big part of radar and has been established since the 1930s.

QM has had to live with it.

rhe photon is derived from the electron.

if the rotation (viewed classically for clarity only) of the photon is stl then so it thr rotation of the electron. (the primary has to rotate faster than the secondaty)

that can be a hard proof; its just taking two odd leftovers from different specialties and putting them together - exactly how einstein got e=mc/2

......but that would mean we dont need QM as it presently exists. i guess thats nwhy the QM people get upset about it

key to computational biomechanics

KEEP IT ROUND !!!

Pi can be assumed to be "normal" in the narrow mathematical sense (pi IS assumed to be normal but no proof exists yet, its the same "normal" as in "renormalization")

using the disfavored model of atoms , particles, universes, QM vacuum as round billiard balls is adequate for first approximation (first iteration) AND since pi is everywhere in all the constants and everything else, you can set it to do "auotomatic renormalization, on-the-fly.

when suspect sequences show up in intermediate products, like would indicate less-than-perfect randomness, it pulls you back on target so errors dont compound and accumulate.

the connection of biology to little "round things" is obvious

what is space?

ironically, theres no pressing need to know the answer. it is only a concern because of the confusion caused by the thoroughly dishonest elevation of the idea of a space time contiuum , to furthur the petty, personal interests of a faction of the numerological priesthood.

a space-time notion is just a rephrasing of the question, not an answer. time is made the fourth dimension and is narrowed in definition to an indicator of the degree of curvature of space at any given point. the fourth dimension is , properly, a dimension of space with time-like properties

adopting space-time and adjourning the court precludes any future inquiry into "time", which cannot be a dimension, in any case.

so, WTF is "space"?i dont know or particularly care but there are possibilities. space could be a skeletal residue of the strong nuclear force left behind as it extruded the weak force; if the pixelation of space equals the Planck length - as seems likely, at present, that would be evidence for the above - but it doesnt matter; the deliberate crapping in the well is what matters.

to produce the present universe, space would have to have expanded at millions of times the speed of light in the early universe. so theres no limit on the expansion -or any other motion- of space itself.gravity curves space, or gravity IS curved space. either way, the disturbance generated has no practical speed limit and can carry information. dispense with the non-existent "graviton" and DeBroglie-Bohm answers Bells inequality - as anyone knows who experiments with parametric amplifiers and mixers for any length of time.

carbon parametric amplifiers existed in the 19th century (nathan stubblefield , edward hughes and many others) i didnt know that when , at age 7, i noted amplification from battery carbons and built a 2 way comm. gadget around it. it got put in the display -facing the hall at my grade school. when i went back at age 20, it was still there. everything was the same in many ways.

QM is an approximation using statistical analysis - somewhat blindly. GR would have agreed on entanglement, but without the grandiose and disqualifying witchcraft, but for the politics of appeasing the QM crowd at Solvay ,1927.

the present time would be a good one for ending the idiocy.

feynman showmanship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the

*only*mystery [of quantum mechanics]."[3], and was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment[4].this quote is almost always shortened to, "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain " - semantical games

2 slit exp is very clear and straightforward but has been intense controversy generator since 1827 (thats right, EIGHTEEN twenty seven}---plenty of time for blind dogma to harden

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the

*only*mystery [of quantum mechanics]."[3], and was fond of saying that all of quantum mechanics can be gleaned from carefully thinking through the implications of this single experiment[4].this quote is almost always shortened to, "a phenomenon which is impossible ... to explain " - semantical games

2 slit exp is very clear and straightforward but has been intense controversy generator since 1827 (thats right, EIGHTEEN twenty seven}---plenty of time for blind dogma to harden

i reread the feynman comments for the 10 millionth time.

i dont disagree , i just reject the silliness of making it so mysterious

take a photon. it is a wave and particle ALL THE TIME. it doesnt change from one to the other

if the wavelength is large its more convenient to measure the wave characteristics.

if wavelength is small its usually easier to measure the particle characterisrics.

....so there is no mystery at all to the 2 slit experiment; if its set up to measure particles you get the result in particle currency. if its set up for detecting waves you get the result in wave currency. you can get both at once but its too hard to set an experiment that way for riny particles. its easier for extra long wavelength photons like radio waves. this is due entirely to the mechanical problems in constructimng the experiment

rhe experimental results are always equivilant

feynman was an amateut stage magician and tended to overdramatize all that stuff; anything said about QM by just about any guest on geotge noory would be greeted by incredulous laughter by anyone who actually knows anything about it

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34365659/The-Duality-of-Matter-and-Waves

this is fz on duality. it contradicts itself but the fz constant is stated in realistic terms and no longer a function of domain size tom valone is a pe like fz and is positive on him. its just very rough, not essentially wrong

its dead wrong to say particles and waves dont exist. they just dont exist SEPARATELY most of the time

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME THING, MEASURABLE ASPECTS OF A SINGLE DISCRETE ENTITY

matter exists, like it or not. its made of energy, its frozen energy, but thats a meaningless distinction and semantical game playing.

other than that and the necessary fine discrimination on phonons , fz is saying exactly what ive been telling you over last 2 months.

no surprise. valone is a jefimenko proponent and acquaintance of fz for a long time and is a bearden associate, bigtime

a PE is the next step in engineering beyond PhD but you can still get it by exam.

university of indiana was big on cold fusion , bearden stuff in 1990s when fz was there. this was partly due to eldon byrd's influence

jefimenko laboriously worked out the mathematical "proof" of the various gravities acting strongly at atomic size. QM is deliberately blind to all that, it contradicts idea of graviton which is their security blanket

the picture of gravity at atom scale is very much jefimenko's picture

princeton checked jefimenko in 2009 with supercomputer. (the only way it can be done) and , at MINIMUM his math is flawless

i remember this guy. he treats plancks constant as a particle - thats good; thats half of how you get 4TEV for direct excitation of near vacuum. he noticed anomalies at 1.01 mhz in nuclear magnetic resonance and wanted to promote that to a patent. i noticed the same anomalies at 1.01mhz. (a bowl of water occasionally acts like b-e condensate

hes trying to cram 1.094 mhz-meters in where it cant fit and claims a pedigree thats nonsense (multiply 1.094mhz times domain size) that doesnt matter. hes trying to establish legal priority and has to cram it in somewhere. his assessment of action of gravities at microsize is accurate and consistent with jefimenko

almost no work has ever been done on this because of QM bias against it ; thats why they still cling to the nonexistent graviton, which fouls up all the models

PS i already know wave particle duality. the reversal of the definition is the result of misinterpretation of 2 slit experiment beginning in 1827. you tube messes up my security and never says anything so i try to avoid it.

there is no reason to assume that gravity weakens at microscales

there is no reason to think that a photon can only be a particle or wave and not both at once; all experiment shows the reverse , you detedt what your detector can detect. its unrelated to state of photon. the gradual build up of a cult-like misunderstanding of it makes me ill, especially since its calculated and deliberate

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0003/0003011.pdf

most competing theories are mathematically equivilant or close to it. most physicists get the math for their papers from a standard form book.

the difficulty is in what the mathematics MEANS, how it applies to the real world. bose einstein condensate was never a mystery, just an extra twist of the iteration knob;

phonons are not considered particles because they are a manifestation of an acoustic pressure wave and arent ELEMENTARY; this is becoming blurred and introducing errors.

it has to work in the real world. most dont.

i will read the paper at scribner asap. quick look doesnt show it to be wrong

math is so imperfect that many correct theories can compete but , usually, only one marches what really happens

this has been hell week for me. all kinds of unlikely horrors. so far, situation is OK; (if a bloody standstill is OK)

lightning antimatter

lightning does smash atoms, the voltage goes very high anywhere theres a tiny point to reduce current/raise voltage

sounds like he might be seeing something like ball lightning

i was hit by lightning june 24, 2004. we had 24 hours of steady drizzle and no sign of lightning except the one that hit me. i was 2 blocks from the house, walking to walmart to get my camera that doesnt work any more. i didnt hear the sound but it must have been huge. ocie was half asleep and woke straight up , didnt know what had happened. people ran out of their houses. trees were stripped of leaves.

the spot where i was was not elevated and was berween 2 higher places .....but, that property belonged to my maternal gggfather who bought it from indians. (he bought it from federal gov-first owner but indians were squatting on it so he had to pay them too) his house was 150 feet away from that spot and it kept gettting destroyed by lightning so he (actually his son moved it) moved it and sold that spot to the gas company (ceo was one of his female cousins renata hattendorf)

i knew i was dead, didnt want to turn around and see my charred body. but i was ok, (temporarily almost deaf though. a red/orange ball went down my back and headed straight for the nearest storm drain and disappeared. then the pressure wave hit and knocked me down. my umbrella was melted and still smoking and my glove had a hole burned in it (as did my sock on that side.)

i postponed getting the camera because smoke was coming off me, and the loons at walmart woukd call cops so i turned around and went home where ocie told me all about the big "explosion"

what kaufman says about einstein is exactly the reverse of the fact. einstein left many written comments to this effect. i recently saved a bunch of them then deleted them as being no longer needed. the fourth dimension is "time-like" it isnt "time".. to measure velocity you need to know HOW LONG it takes a spaceship to cover a certain distance. thats the time-like dimension. gravity is an accelleration. it doesnt have or need an associated particle you can have waves without a particle as long as the waves arent transverse or debroglie. (debroglie waves are from an accellerated mass) gravitational waves can only be acoustic waves (phonons arent true particles) it has been shown repeatedly that relativistic effects occur only on accelleration and decelleration (usually protons travelling 99% "c") the spaceship ecperiences gravity distortion (which can be alternately defined as time distortion only when taking off and getting up to speed and slowing down to land)

welch's bowed to consumer pressure and now sells juice from red grapes . (resveratrol) you have to freeze it hard first to break the resveratrol loose from the pigment. very effective and especially improves potassium uptake and assimilation, (for 50 years i always knew who would be next to get cancer - the one who suddenly stopped eating baked potatos (they dont agree with me anymore, etc) baked potato potassium is high and assimilable - unless your potassium equipment is broken.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=119294

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&cp=9&gs_id=ah&xhr=t&q=randall-sundrum&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=randall-s&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=21c0595ad86507f8&biw=939&bih=551

randall-sundrum was the dominant "theory" for about 5 years. its the result of shallow, monkeylike tinkering with no regard or comprehension of reality as it is thought to exist based on good evidence

the first time LHC fired up , the theory and its authors went down in a very ugly way cause they wouldnt give up gravitons. a geometrical framework of gravity where gravity is a particle? DUHHH!!!

so they made their key prediction that 5thD, near (near meaning "warped" as well as "near" ) vacuum was directly excited at 1TEV (based on added warp from graviton) - thats beardens "sparking the vacuum" , and its unrelated to zero-point or casimir attraction

the minimum v for direct excitation of 5th dimension is 4TEV (my prediction) a;though there are tunneling processes involving exotic elements like cesium that can bring down the v but they cause other problems

Message flagged Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:38 AM it can be more helpful if you know the history and biography. Diracs solution for the relativistic photon produced negative matter. there were many objections (a separate equation produced antimatter) because it required a mirror universe, which was in vogue via HG Wells et al. Dirac was the narrowiest of narrow mathematitiuons, his efforts to accommodate yielded magnetic monopoles which are a ridiculous idea because the magnetic force is not fundamental but is due to alignments of electric fields via spin. the spin is driven by the expansion of the universe. its like the starter rope on your lawnmower but the rope is very long.

i think it was weyl and pauli who persuaded dirac to postulate "holes" to make mirror universe compatible. these are the holes that are the basis of the semiconductor industry. they are like negative matter electrons.and MAY BE NEGATIVE MATTER ELECTRONS since they definitely carry negative "effective" mass when they are caged in a crystal lattice. rather than re-enstate the "ether" (highly modified) everybody just agreed (after famous speech by pauli) to rename the KK fifth dimension the "dirac sea" and to minimize it to the extent possible and hope a smarter generation will straighten everything out

quick and dirty renormalization

there is no difference whatsoever between a massless particle , like the photon, and a wave. they are exactly the same thing. the distinction was originally due to the scale of our measuring tools; if you were a giant, you would insist a LF radio wave is a particle. Its about the same with debroglie waves but all these are very short - too short to measure easily in early 1900's. the earth is a wave- particle but the wavelength is way in the hard gamma ray range so , you might as well consider it a particle. hard gamma rays are too hard to do anything WITH.

everything does try to be round. the reason is economy, minimalization, most volume per unit of surface material.

nobody ever considers that the unique quality of pi is that it is NORMAL as are its roots and exponents. yes, its the same NORMAL as in RENORMALIZATION. the old idea of atoms being little solar systems and of charged particles being pointlike is passe but not at all invalid. theQM<QED<QCD way is a tiny bit more precise in practice but that tiny bit never makes any significant difference.

you can balance roots of pi against the (integers only!) PERIODIC TABLE and cancel out the infinities.

the reciprocal of the fourth root of pi is 1.33-something, which is where 4d meets 5d and relates to the only stable isotope of cesium.

an 11d noncompact kaluza klein built this way relates to and describes the most ancient and primitive form of esp. and it fills in the oddments of the nature of matter that QM cant reach.

its all little round things if you chose to look at it that way. the only proscription is you cant change formats in mid-solution; that produces a big mess.

Message flagged Thursday, July 5, 2012 3:55 PM sheets, shells and mem(branes) are the flabby minded easy-way-out that creates superfluous complexities that have to be untangled by rebormalization etc. thtrs why the recently dominant theory of randall-sundrum went down in flames at LHC. extra dimensions are not highly compacted and theres no reason they should be; thats only if you hang on to space-time and gravitons. extra dimensions are tenuous, rarefied but not compacted. at most charitable, its(all sheet and shell notions) valley girl science.

when someone has to spit in your face to explain his "theory" , thats a big red flag

George wrote: "The Higgs boson means that everyhere you look (or exist) is an underlying energy field (the boson would merely be a fleeting quantum of same) that lends "mass" to all that we encounter. And such energy fields are always wave-like, meaning that if you cancel out the wave, you also cancel out mass, allowing for gravitic "flight." Doesn't that sound like scalars (also known as gravitics)?"

red herring

http://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-the-higgs-boson-and-why-is-it-important?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c0f2a1cf3-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email

What is the ‘Higgs Boson’ and why is it important? Articles and videos for non-physicistsJuly 5, 2012(Credit: PHD Comics)What It Means to Find ‘a Higgs’ —

*Scientific American*Physicists Find Elusive Particle Seen as Key to Universe —*The New York Times*Howard Bloom, author of the forthcoming book,*The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates,*comments: “The god particle, the Higgs boson, is a bit of a red herring. It’s an infinite regress. Once upon a time, god believers had a problem: if everything that exists must be the product of a creator, then who created the creator? Now physicists are running into the same problem. If every force acting at a distance must be explained by a particle, what explains how particles seduce and repel each other? What explains the propulsive powers of force at a distance? There may or may not be a Higgs boson and it may or may not be hooked to mass. But even if it is, how do mere particles pull off force at a distance? How do they move things to and away from each other? how do mere particles seduce, kidnap, and recruit?”beyond higgs

"...Now, not everybody buys our argument. Some of them prefer to focus on the aesthetic challenge of the Weak Hierarchy Problem, while others argue that we have no choice but to add quantum gravity to the Standard Model, inevitably resurrecting the Higgs Fine Tuning Problem...."

the reason the "alice" (after alice in wonderland) universe is suddenly in vogue again is that it restores symmetry without adding all the myriad particles and complexities of supersymmetry. there has always been good evidence for alice.

2 things not known by orthodoxy at present:

a higgs fragment at 125gev rules out the standard model because mass is too low.

hierarchy problem cant be resolved in supersymmetry (that is the OBJECT of supersymmetry! )

alice (iona) universe , first suggested by yukawa, restores symmetry by making the right handed weak force the key link to alice; not mentioned by yukawa is that it makes weak force the dominant force -- maybe the ONLY fundamental force (gravity is not strictly a force).

that eliminates hierarchy problem and solves the "insoluble" conflict between results of the 2 main dark matter probes.

better than 50/50 chance that the weak force is "THE force"

the prejudice against weak force is so strong that there is nothing to be lost by not-hurrying to publication

Message flagged Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:33 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_Nelson

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90648001/Buck-Nelson-My-Trip-to-Mars-the-Moon-and-Venus

no gluons, mr feynman.

if you could freeze a little block of space containing one atom, then cut it exactly in half, the weak force residing near the centers of the freshly exposed surfaces IS THE STRONG FORCE

take it to the bank

you can stump your science friends with this one.

the weak force separates charge from mass and usually attatches that charge to a different particle (transmutation)

all of TEB'S papers and hypotheses are about massless charge

sprinkle in a little eau de weak force and most of toms conjectures are not out of whack by very much at all

-but he still thinks the electron charge is separated by tesla coils and stuff and that doesnt happen. it takes much more than that

electrogravity that does anything useful absolutely requires weak interaction. fortunately, that isnt too hard to arrange by using ordinary electronic components in completely different ways

thats weak tronics as i see it. it will be called something else be thats what nu-era electronics will really be

and from what ive personally seen over 45 years it will be very exciting and will not blow up in our face like nuclear energy did

Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

Eldon Byrd wrote:

> This proves the point about the different languages of physicists and

> engineers.

Hal Puthoff is a much better engineer than a theoretical physicist and I am the

world's worst engineer for sure, however, I think Hal agrees with me that

Bearden's stuff is a complete fraud foisted on the gullible public. I hope I am

wrong, but alas, I fear not. ;-)

> I was only refering to the difference between fields and waves a

> la an antenna. Proper antennas radiate planar, circularly, or spherically

> polarized waves, depending on their construction. Appropriately constructed

> radiators will produce fields that are not waves (the field has no energy of

> it's own) that are planar, circularly polarized, or spherically polarized (I

> think I invented the spherically polarized concept, because no one seems to

> know what I am talking about when I mention it.).

Creon Levit and I were discussing something like this only moments ago in

Mario's Bohemian at Union & Columbus! He just left my place.

This is difference between non-propagating near induction fields of coherent

states of virtual off light cone photons including longitudinal polarizations

and propagating far fields with only transverse polarizations. Frequency and

wave number are decoupled in former but not in latter. QED books promote the

fairy tale that one can forget near fields. This is not as bad as the Bohr

fairy tale of the "Smoky Dragon" (Wheeler) with Bohm as "Dragon Slayer".

>

> An antenna has a 'near field' where the real part of the equation vanishes

> (that's why you get no radio signal near an antenna tower) and only the

> imaginary part circulates. However, get one wavelength away, and the wave

> is fully formed and the real part is detected by the appropriately tuned

> receiver, with the imaginary part now causing the phase shifts in the

> signal.

Fine, but how do you get quantum vacuum energy from that argument?

Disinformation is an intentional mixture of true things with wrong things and

not even wrong things. Because of our limited competencies we are all full of

true, wrong, and not even wrong ideas. The real scientist however constanting

monitors his or her stream of consciousness with an error correction code that

is evolving and hopefully improving.

See http://stardrive.org/Jack/open.pdf

>

> I agree that Bearden has no where near the depth of understanding you have

> re: the physics of his 'device'. It will be interesting to see if it works

> as advertised.

I will send money to Arafat if it works! ;-)

> Many theories have fallen when demonstrations proved the

> theory flawed. I remember when the NSA and all the scientists at the lab

> where I worked said that they could shield against an ELF magnetic field,

> because they could calculate the attenuation to expect. You should have

> seen the looks on their face when we showed there was NO measureable

> attenuation. An elf magnetic field will go through anything except liquid

> helium (although there are some clever flux cancellation techniqes that will

> attenuate elf fields). The only problem with magnetic fields is that they

> roll off at the rate of 1/r^3; whereas electric fields roll off at 1/r^2.

> I encouraged the Navy to junk the Sanguine-Seafayer antenna in Clam Lake

> Wisc.--they were trying to force an elf electric field into sea water that

> wants to short it out. The magnetic field is easier to detect and would not

> have been attenuated by the salt water. They didn't listen to me and ended

> up with a marginal expensive communications system. I can detect a 10Hz

> magnetic signal anywhere on the earth with a $700 magnetometer, provided I

> have a 10 microguass field strength at the magnetometer--not much.

> I asked Schieffer (sp?--of BCS fame; the Nobel Laureate) years ago, what

> would happen if an electromagnetic soliton was launched into the vacuum. He

> said that symmetry would be broken and mass created. I don't remember if he

> was refering to SU(2) or not. It is not my area of expertise. That's your

> baliwick.

Schrieffer? I do not understand what you say he said.

>

> Re: superluminal communications.

Read Antony Valentini on that!

> Information has no rest mass and therefore

> is not bound by the speed of light limitation.

No, this is not a correct argument. Photons have no rest mass and for that

reason must move at speed of light when they are real i.e. propagating on the

light cone. Zero rest mass must, classically, move at speed of light for all

observers!

> There are several ways to

> effect superluminal communications. One way is to set up a standing wave

> and encode the information as phase shifts of the wave. The information in

> the shift encoding appears simultaneously everywhere along the wave.

I need to see the math.

>

> Another is to stress the vacuum. Because the vacuum can be polarized, a

> charge modualtion will be felt throughout the field. Information can be

> transmitted with zero power by turning off a signal (although it requires

> power to maintain the signal that is being turned off). E.g, if you

> interupt a 1KHz tone once per second, you can hear the interuption, even

> though there is no energy during the time the signal is off and no one can

> hear 1Hz.

I don't understand that.

> Another way of getting information to travel at nc, where n is an

> arbitrary number and c=speed of light, is to cast a shadow that has no rest

> mass, from a light source and rotate whatever is casting the shadow at, say,

> 1/2 the speed of light. The radial velocity of the shadow can be nc,

> depending on how far away it is from the light source. Of course you

> couldn't see it. though.

> Eldon

It's not communication if you cannot detect and decode the message that was

sent and encoded.

>

> -----

> Original Message -----

> From: "Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@...>

>

> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:25 PM

> Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

>

> > Eldad wrote:

> >

> > >"......One problem is that engineers and physicists speak a different

> > >language."

> > >

> > >I have noticed that, Eldon, but it happens to be the one I understand,

> > >and am too old to learn a new one.

> > >Also, I grew up on the (maybe old fashioned) notion, that language

> > >represents/describes what there is, not what there is not.

> > >

> > >...

> > >

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Eldon Byrd" <tuc@...>

> > >...

> > >Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:56 PM

> > >Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >

> > >

> > >As I have mentioned in the past, there is no such thing BUT the near

> > >field at extremely low frequencies. The near field extends hundreds of

> > >miles for 60 Hz power signals. Also, it is possible to ride a

> longitudinal

> > >signal on a transverse wave.

> > >

> >

> > What does that mean exactly? The photon, real or virtual, has 4 states

> > of polarization in flat Fourier space relative to

> > wave 3-vector k. One polarization for each component Au, u = 0,1,2,3 of

> > the 4-potential (connection field for parallel transport in U(1) fiber

> > space along a world line in 4-D base flat spacetime. However, U(1)

> > internal gauge symmetry imposes a constraint

> >

> > kuA^u = 0

> >

> > so only 3 polarizations are independent.

> >

> > Furthermore, in the far field, if the photon has zero rest mass only the

> > two transverse (to 3-vector k ) survive with the 1/r dependence from a

> > point charg source to field point of test charge at distance r.

> >

> > Note all classical influences are along the classical light cones, i.e.

> > zero spacetime separation between the source and test charges - both

> > directions in time (retarded and advanced). The seemingly instant action

> > of the static Coulomb force (also Newtonian gravity) is an artifact of

> > advanced and retarded time delays along light cones giving a near

> > electric induction field that is dependent on the velocity of the source

> > point charge. For a uniformly moving point source charge the total

> > static electric field does point along the instantaneous spacelike

> > direction from test charge to source charge in all special relativity

> > inertial frames precisely because of these time delays and the velocity

> > dependence. There is no real faster than light classical gauge and

> > gravity force! Tom Van Flandern is completely wrong here, and all these

> > silly shadow models of gravity are completely crackpot and not at all

> > needed for anything.

> >

> > Let k point along the 3 space direction

> >

> > kuA^u = k0A^0 - k3A^3 - k1A^1 - k2A^2

> >

> > but, by construction,

> >

> > k1 = k2 = 0

> >

> > Hence,

> >

> > k0A^o - k3A^3 = 0

> >

> > Is the constraint between the timelike or "scalar" polarization A^0 and

> > the longitudinal polarization A^3.

> >

> > For a real massless photon on the classical light cone

> >

> > k0 = k3 in wave language

> >

> > E = pc

> >

> > E = hcko

> >

> > p3 = hk3

> >

> > For a virtual photon either inside or outside the classical light cone,

> > these are quantum fluctuations around the classical EM field average,

> >

> > k0 =/= k3

> >

> > i.e. E = pc in the dual particle language

> >

> > All coherent near EM fields are Glauber coherent macroscopic quantum

> > states (also squeezed are possible) of these virtual photons. This is

> > analogous to a very weakly interacting Bose Einstein condensate.

> >

> > PS Even when one gets beyond all the bogus 0(3) or SU(2)

> > electrodynamics, refuted by Waldyr Rodrigues Jr. of UNICAMP in Brasil,

> > Bearden does not have any quantum theory of the zero point fluctuations

> > that make any sense, does he?

> >

> > > That's how you can modulate a low frequency with a

> > >high frequency. One problem is that engineers and physicists speak a

> > >different language.

> > >Eldon Byrd

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Jack Sarfatti" <jsarfatti@...>

> > >To: "Fred Alan Wolf" <fawolf@...>

> > >

> > >Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:34 PM

> > >Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >

> > >

> > >>Maybe I will have to eat the bacon after all. No, I have not read

> > >>

> > >Bearden's

> > >

> > >>latest since I have never been able to understand him since 1974

> > >>

> > >when he

> > >

> > >>was working with Ira Einhorn.

> > >>

> > >>If you can explain what you think Bearden's idea is here we would

> > >>

> > >all be

> > >

> > >>most grateful. I have no problem retracting wrong opinions, if they

> > >>

> > >are,

> > >in

> > >

> > >>fact, wrong - or not even wrong.

> > >>

> > >>Fred Alan Wolf wrote:

> > >>

> > >>>Jack,

> > >>>

> > >>> I looked at Bearden's proposal and it does not sound crazy. Have

> > >>>

> > >you

> > >

> > >>>seen his patent? Yes the patent office granted him a patent for

> > >>>

> > >this

> > >

> > >>>machine.

> > >>>

> > >>>See http://www.help4all.de/energy/MEGpaper.pdf,

> > >>>http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm, After you look it over, let

> > >>>

> > >me

> > >

> > >>>know if you see anything obviously wrong. I didn't. It's all

> > >>>

> > >fairly

> > >

> > >>>straight forward based on a longitudinal A vector. Usually only

> > >>>

> > >the

> > >

> > >>>curling tangential A vector is used to make a B field. He adds

> > >>>

> > >this

> > >

> > >>>longitudinal A in claiming something about Aharonov-Bohm. This

> > >>>

> > >may be

> > >

> > >>>important regardless of Haisch and Puthoff.

> > >>>

> > >>>Fred

> > >>>

> > >>Of course nonradiating near EM induction electric fields have

> > >>

> > >longitudinal

> > >

> > >>components. Only radiating far fields do not. So if he is sticking

> > >>

> > >to near

> > >

> > >>fields that would not be an objection. Classical near EM fields are

> > >>coherent quantum states of off mass shell (light cone for zero rest

> > >>

> > >mass)

> > >

> > >>virtual photons in which frequency f and wave number k are not

> > >>

> > >constrained

> > >

> > >>by f = kc like far fields are.

> > >>

> > >>Note in Fourier flat space

> > >>

> > >>B(k) ~ k x A(k)

> > >>

> > >>A(k)longitudinal || k so that a longitudinal B magnetic field is

> > >>

> > >always

> > >

> > >>impossible by definition. I think they are claiming a longitudinal

> > >>

> > >electric

> > >

> > >>far field. i.e.

> > >>

> > >>E(radiation)far field ~ f A(k)longitudinal

> > >>

> > >>of course inside a superconductor you have that sort of thing

> > >>

> > >expelling

> > >

> > >>interior magnetic fields or confining them in vortex cores with

> > >>

> > >quantized

> > >

> > >>magnetic flux depending on ratio of coherence length for the

> > >>

> > >Bose-Einstein

> > >

> > >>condensate to the EM field penetration length (Typle I & Type II

> > >>

> > >etc).

> > >

> > >>Obviously a longitudinal E field along the electron's path in a

> > >>Bohm-Aharonov effect would cause a shift in fringes, but I think it

> > >>

> > >would

> > >

> > >>be an additional shift to the one observed experimentally? I could

> > >>

> > >be

> > >

> > >>wrong. I have not studied this in detail. Just my seat of the pants

> > >>intuition.

> > >>

> > >>But I think he claims longitudinal far fields. That would be like an

> > >>electrically charged superconducting quantum vacuum. Bo Lehnert did

> > >>

> > >claim

> > >

> > >>that empirically in limited regions. My vacuum is electrically

> > >>

> > >neutral,

> > >

> > >>i.e. Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs

> > >>

> > >primarily.

> > >

> > >>I have been too busy with my book galleys and with

> > >>

> > >>http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

> > >>

> > >>to pay attention in detail to Bearden's "mishagos" (Yiddish).

> > >>

> > >>Hey Fred, "A Beautiful Mind" getting Oscars should make our books

> > >>

> > >sell,

> > >

> > >>donchya think? I mean "Space-Time and Beyond" - talk about a nutty

> > >>

> > >book.

> > >

> > >>Time we rewrote the sequel to catch up with Fritjof and Gary! ;-)

> > >>

> > >>>

> > >>>>-----Original Message-----

> > >>>>From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@...]

> > >>>>Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:33 PM

> > >>>>To: sarfatti@...

> > >>>>Subject: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >>>>

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Jack Sarfatti wrote:

> > >>>>

> > >>>>>Marcello Truzzi wrote:

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>>>http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_560851.html

> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>He is not a nut. I tentatively take his proposal seriously,

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>but I have

> > >>>>

> > >>>>>not yet read his detailed paper.

> > >>>>>I do not have it.

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>Tom Bearden's claims are not kosher. I will eat bacon if they

> > >>>>

> > >are.

> > >

> > >>>>Hal Puthoff's and Bernie Haisch's theory claims on both zero

> > >>>>

> > >point

> > >

> > >>>>origin of inertia and zero point origin of gravity are also

> > >>>>

> > >wrong but

> > >

> > >>>>they are

> > >>>>a notch up from Bearden's claims that are not even wrong.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The basic reason the theory claims of Bernie and Hal are

> > >>>>wrong is that

> > >>>>they have a false picture of a completely uncontrollably

> > >>>>locally random

> > >>>>zero point quantum vacuum. Such a vacuum has a huge

> > >>>>

> > >anti-gravitating

> > >

> > >>>>cosmological constant /\, which means it is not possible for

> > >>>>

> > >ordinary

> > >

> > >>>>classical gravity to even come into being in the sense of Andre

> > >>>>Sakharov's great intuition of 1967. Bernie and Hal pay lip

> > >>>>

> > >service to

> > >

> > >>>>Sakharov but essentially do not understand the key physics

> > >>>>

> > >concept

> > >

> > >>>>needed here, i.e. spontaneous broken symmetry (Goldstone

> > >>>>theorem) that

> > >>>>coheres the lepto-quark vacuum polarization into a virtual

> > >>>>particle-antiparticle paired Bose-Einstein condensate with a

> > >>>>

> > >local

> > >

> > >>>>complex number order parameter

> > >>>>

> > >>>>psi(x) = R(x)e^iS(x)

> > >>>>

> > >>>>using Bohm's realist notation for this giant local macroquantum

> > >>>>

> > >phase

> > >

> > >>>>coherent qubit "pilot wave" that is intrinsically a

> > >>>>"thoughtlike" object

> > >>>>in Stapp's sense.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Einstein's classical curved spacetime gravity metric field

> > >>>>

> > >guv(x) of

> > >

> > >>>>1915 GR with /\ = 0 needs both a large R(x) and a long range

> > >>>>

> > >coherent

> > >

> > >>>>S(x) field.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The false vacuum of Hal and Bernie has R(x) = 0, i.e. complete

> > >>>>

> > >local

> > >

> > >>>>random zero point fluctuations of all the relevant quantum

> > >>>>

> > >fields.

> > >

> > >>>>Phase modulation of S(x) gives Einstein's classical guv(x)

> > >>>>which never

> > >>>>should be directly quantized as it is an emergent macroscopic

> > >>>>

> > >quantum

> > >

> > >>>>collective mode of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" of

> > >>>>

> > >scale

> > >

> > >>>>Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1 Bekenstein quantum gravity BIT with guv(x)

> > >>>>as IT as in

> > >>>>Wheeler's

> > >>>>

> > >>>>IT FROM BIT.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The local quintessent field /\(x) comes from modulating R(x).

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Both R(x) and S(x) are implicit functions of theYang-Mills

> > >>>>U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) electroweak-strong gauge force connection

> > >>>>fields as in

> > >>>>

> > >>>>http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The quantum corrected local Einstein field equation is

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Guv(x) + /\(x)guv(x) = - (G/c^4)Tuv(x)

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) = (1/Lp^2)[1 - Lp^3R(x)^2]

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Lp^3R(x)^2 is a pure dimensionless number, a control

> > >>>>parameter that is

> > >>>>an implicit function of the Yang-Mills U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)

> > >>>>electroweak-strong gauge force connection fields.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) = 0 is ordinary classical vacuum of Einstein's 1915 local

> > >>>>geometrodynamics.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Classical locality rests on a substratum of macroscopic quantum

> > >>>>

> > >phase

> > >

> > >>>>coherence quieting down the random Heisenberg uncertainty

> > >>>>principle zero

> > >>>>point vacuum fluctuations.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) > 0 on large scale (infrared) explains observed

> > >>>>

> > >acceleration of

> > >

> > >>>>the universe.

/\(x) > 0 on shorter scales (ultraviolet) is Kip Thorne's

> > >>>>antigravitating exotic matter needed for his traversable

> > >>>>wormhole star

> > >>>>gate to other worlds (Magonia), for Igor Novikov's time

> > >>>>machine to the

> > >>>>past, and for Alcubierre's free float warp drive without body

> > >>>>squashing

> > >>>>lethal g-forces in seemingly high acceleration dogfight

> > >>>>acrobatics like

> > >>>>in the urban legends of flying saucers knocking our fighters

> > >>>>out of the sky.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) < 0 is the gravitating "dark energy" that is more than

> > >>>>90% of the

> > >>>>effective mass of the universe on the shorter UV scales.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>A light signal emitted in a /\ (x) > 0 region of exotic

> > >>>>quantum vacuum

> > >>>>that is received in a normal /\ = 0 vacuum will look blue

> > >>>>

> > >shifted.

> > >

> > >>>>A light signal emitted in a /\ (x) < 0 region of exotic

> > >>>>quantum vacuum

> > >>>>that is received in a normal /\ = 0 vacuum will look red

> > >>>>

> > >shifted.

> > >

> > >>>>The alleged flying saucer "vacuum propeller" using a pulsating

> > >>>>quintessent field generator oscillating around /\ = 0 will show

> > >>>>alternating red and blue shifts as described in the sci fi book

> > >>>>"Fastwalker" by Jacques Vallee and Tracy Torme.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>--

> > >>>>"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman

> > >>>>

>

> >

> > --

> > "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman

> > http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg

> > http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf

> > http://stardrive.org/

> >

Eldon Byrd wrote:

> This proves the point about the different languages of physicists and

> engineers.

Hal Puthoff is a much better engineer than a theoretical physicist and I am the

world's worst engineer for sure, however, I think Hal agrees with me that

Bearden's stuff is a complete fraud foisted on the gullible public. I hope I am

wrong, but alas, I fear not. ;-)

> I was only refering to the difference between fields and waves a

> la an antenna. Proper antennas radiate planar, circularly, or spherically

> polarized waves, depending on their construction. Appropriately constructed

> radiators will produce fields that are not waves (the field has no energy of

> it's own) that are planar, circularly polarized, or spherically polarized (I

> think I invented the spherically polarized concept, because no one seems to

> know what I am talking about when I mention it.).

Creon Levit and I were discussing something like this only moments ago in

Mario's Bohemian at Union & Columbus! He just left my place.

This is difference between non-propagating near induction fields of coherent

states of virtual off light cone photons including longitudinal polarizations

and propagating far fields with only transverse polarizations. Frequency and

wave number are decoupled in former but not in latter. QED books promote the

fairy tale that one can forget near fields. This is not as bad as the Bohr

fairy tale of the "Smoky Dragon" (Wheeler) with Bohm as "Dragon Slayer".

>

> An antenna has a 'near field' where the real part of the equation vanishes

> (that's why you get no radio signal near an antenna tower) and only the

> imaginary part circulates. However, get one wavelength away, and the wave

> is fully formed and the real part is detected by the appropriately tuned

> receiver, with the imaginary part now causing the phase shifts in the

> signal.

Fine, but how do you get quantum vacuum energy from that argument?

Disinformation is an intentional mixture of true things with wrong things and

not even wrong things. Because of our limited competencies we are all full of

true, wrong, and not even wrong ideas. The real scientist however constanting

monitors his or her stream of consciousness with an error correction code that

is evolving and hopefully improving.

See http://stardrive.org/Jack/open.pdf

>

> I agree that Bearden has no where near the depth of understanding you have

> re: the physics of his 'device'. It will be interesting to see if it works

> as advertised.

I will send money to Arafat if it works! ;-)

> Many theories have fallen when demonstrations proved the

> theory flawed. I remember when the NSA and all the scientists at the lab

> where I worked said that they could shield against an ELF magnetic field,

> because they could calculate the attenuation to expect. You should have

> seen the looks on their face when we showed there was NO measureable

> attenuation. An elf magnetic field will go through anything except liquid

> helium (although there are some clever flux cancellation techniqes that will

> attenuate elf fields). The only problem with magnetic fields is that they

> roll off at the rate of 1/r^3; whereas electric fields roll off at 1/r^2.

> I encouraged the Navy to junk the Sanguine-Seafayer antenna in Clam Lake

> Wisc.--they were trying to force an elf electric field into sea water that

> wants to short it out. The magnetic field is easier to detect and would not

> have been attenuated by the salt water. They didn't listen to me and ended

> up with a marginal expensive communications system. I can detect a 10Hz

> magnetic signal anywhere on the earth with a $700 magnetometer, provided I

> have a 10 microguass field strength at the magnetometer--not much.

> I asked Schieffer (sp?--of BCS fame; the Nobel Laureate) years ago, what

> would happen if an electromagnetic soliton was launched into the vacuum. He

> said that symmetry would be broken and mass created. I don't remember if he

> was refering to SU(2) or not. It is not my area of expertise. That's your

> baliwick.

Schrieffer? I do not understand what you say he said.

>

> Re: superluminal communications.

Read Antony Valentini on that!

> Information has no rest mass and therefore

> is not bound by the speed of light limitation.

No, this is not a correct argument. Photons have no rest mass and for that

reason must move at speed of light when they are real i.e. propagating on the

light cone. Zero rest mass must, classically, move at speed of light for all

observers!

> There are several ways to

> effect superluminal communications. One way is to set up a standing wave

> and encode the information as phase shifts of the wave. The information in

> the shift encoding appears simultaneously everywhere along the wave.

I need to see the math.

>

> Another is to stress the vacuum. Because the vacuum can be polarized, a

> charge modualtion will be felt throughout the field. Information can be

> transmitted with zero power by turning off a signal (although it requires

> power to maintain the signal that is being turned off). E.g, if you

> interupt a 1KHz tone once per second, you can hear the interuption, even

> though there is no energy during the time the signal is off and no one can

> hear 1Hz.

I don't understand that.

> Another way of getting information to travel at nc, where n is an

> arbitrary number and c=speed of light, is to cast a shadow that has no rest

> mass, from a light source and rotate whatever is casting the shadow at, say,

> 1/2 the speed of light. The radial velocity of the shadow can be nc,

> depending on how far away it is from the light source. Of course you

> couldn't see it. though.

> Eldon

It's not communication if you cannot detect and decode the message that was

sent and encoded.

>

> -----

> Original Message -----

> From: "Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@...>

>

> Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:25 PM

> Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

>

> > Eldad wrote:

> >

> > >"......One problem is that engineers and physicists speak a different

> > >language."

> > >

> > >I have noticed that, Eldon, but it happens to be the one I understand,

> > >and am too old to learn a new one.

> > >Also, I grew up on the (maybe old fashioned) notion, that language

> > >represents/describes what there is, not what there is not.

> > >

> > >...

> > >

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Eldon Byrd" <tuc@...>

> > >...

> > >Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:56 PM

> > >Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >

> > >

> > >As I have mentioned in the past, there is no such thing BUT the near

> > >field at extremely low frequencies. The near field extends hundreds of

> > >miles for 60 Hz power signals. Also, it is possible to ride a

> longitudinal

> > >signal on a transverse wave.

> > >

> >

> > What does that mean exactly? The photon, real or virtual, has 4 states

> > of polarization in flat Fourier space relative to

> > wave 3-vector k. One polarization for each component Au, u = 0,1,2,3 of

> > the 4-potential (connection field for parallel transport in U(1) fiber

> > space along a world line in 4-D base flat spacetime. However, U(1)

> > internal gauge symmetry imposes a constraint

> >

> > kuA^u = 0

> >

> > so only 3 polarizations are independent.

> >

> > Furthermore, in the far field, if the photon has zero rest mass only the

> > two transverse (to 3-vector k ) survive with the 1/r dependence from a

> > point charg source to field point of test charge at distance r.

> >

> > Note all classical influences are along the classical light cones, i.e.

> > zero spacetime separation between the source and test charges - both

> > directions in time (retarded and advanced). The seemingly instant action

> > of the static Coulomb force (also Newtonian gravity) is an artifact of

> > advanced and retarded time delays along light cones giving a near

> > electric induction field that is dependent on the velocity of the source

> > point charge. For a uniformly moving point source charge the total

> > static electric field does point along the instantaneous spacelike

> > direction from test charge to source charge in all special relativity

> > inertial frames precisely because of these time delays and the velocity

> > dependence. There is no real faster than light classical gauge and

> > gravity force! Tom Van Flandern is completely wrong here, and all these

> > silly shadow models of gravity are completely crackpot and not at all

> > needed for anything.

> >

> > Let k point along the 3 space direction

> >

> > kuA^u = k0A^0 - k3A^3 - k1A^1 - k2A^2

> >

> > but, by construction,

> >

> > k1 = k2 = 0

> >

> > Hence,

> >

> > k0A^o - k3A^3 = 0

> >

> > Is the constraint between the timelike or "scalar" polarization A^0 and

> > the longitudinal polarization A^3.

> >

> > For a real massless photon on the classical light cone

> >

> > k0 = k3 in wave language

> >

> > E = pc

> >

> > E = hcko

> >

> > p3 = hk3

> >

> > For a virtual photon either inside or outside the classical light cone,

> > these are quantum fluctuations around the classical EM field average,

> >

> > k0 =/= k3

> >

> > i.e. E = pc in the dual particle language

> >

> > All coherent near EM fields are Glauber coherent macroscopic quantum

> > states (also squeezed are possible) of these virtual photons. This is

> > analogous to a very weakly interacting Bose Einstein condensate.

> >

> > PS Even when one gets beyond all the bogus 0(3) or SU(2)

> > electrodynamics, refuted by Waldyr Rodrigues Jr. of UNICAMP in Brasil,

> > Bearden does not have any quantum theory of the zero point fluctuations

> > that make any sense, does he?

> >

> > > That's how you can modulate a low frequency with a

> > >high frequency. One problem is that engineers and physicists speak a

> > >different language.

> > >Eldon Byrd

> > >

> > >----- Original Message -----

> > >From: "Jack Sarfatti" <jsarfatti@...>

> > >To: "Fred Alan Wolf" <fawolf@...>

> > >

> > >Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:34 PM

> > >Subject: Re: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >

> > >

> > >>Maybe I will have to eat the bacon after all. No, I have not read

> > >>

> > >Bearden's

> > >

> > >>latest since I have never been able to understand him since 1974

> > >>

> > >when he

> > >

> > >>was working with Ira Einhorn.

> > >>

> > >>If you can explain what you think Bearden's idea is here we would

> > >>

> > >all be

> > >

> > >>most grateful. I have no problem retracting wrong opinions, if they

> > >>

> > >are,

> > >in

> > >

> > >>fact, wrong - or not even wrong.

> > >>

> > >>Fred Alan Wolf wrote:

> > >>

> > >>>Jack,

> > >>>

> > >>> I looked at Bearden's proposal and it does not sound crazy. Have

> > >>>

> > >you

> > >

> > >>>seen his patent? Yes the patent office granted him a patent for

> > >>>

> > >this

> > >

> > >>>machine.

> > >>>

> > >>>See http://www.help4all.de/energy/MEGpaper.pdf,

> > >>>http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/meg.htm, After you look it over, let

> > >>>

> > >me

> > >

> > >>>know if you see anything obviously wrong. I didn't. It's all

> > >>>

> > >fairly

> > >

> > >>>straight forward based on a longitudinal A vector. Usually only

> > >>>

> > >the

> > >

> > >>>curling tangential A vector is used to make a B field. He adds

> > >>>

> > >this

> > >

> > >>>longitudinal A in claiming something about Aharonov-Bohm. This

> > >>>

> > >may be

> > >

> > >>>important regardless of Haisch and Puthoff.

> > >>>

> > >>>Fred

> > >>>

> > >>Of course nonradiating near EM induction electric fields have

> > >>

> > >longitudinal

> > >

> > >>components. Only radiating far fields do not. So if he is sticking

> > >>

> > >to near

> > >

> > >>fields that would not be an objection. Classical near EM fields are

> > >>coherent quantum states of off mass shell (light cone for zero rest

> > >>

> > >mass)

> > >

> > >>virtual photons in which frequency f and wave number k are not

> > >>

> > >constrained

> > >

> > >>by f = kc like far fields are.

> > >>

> > >>Note in Fourier flat space

> > >>

> > >>B(k) ~ k x A(k)

> > >>

> > >>A(k)longitudinal || k so that a longitudinal B magnetic field is

> > >>

> > >always

> > >

> > >>impossible by definition. I think they are claiming a longitudinal

> > >>

> > >electric

> > >

> > >>far field. i.e.

> > >>

> > >>E(radiation)far field ~ f A(k)longitudinal

> > >>

> > >>of course inside a superconductor you have that sort of thing

> > >>

> > >expelling

> > >

> > >>interior magnetic fields or confining them in vortex cores with

> > >>

> > >quantized

> > >

> > >>magnetic flux depending on ratio of coherence length for the

> > >>

> > >Bose-Einstein

> > >

> > >>condensate to the EM field penetration length (Typle I & Type II

> > >>

> > >etc).

> > >

> > >>Obviously a longitudinal E field along the electron's path in a

> > >>Bohm-Aharonov effect would cause a shift in fringes, but I think it

> > >>

> > >would

> > >

> > >>be an additional shift to the one observed experimentally? I could

> > >>

> > >be

> > >

> > >>wrong. I have not studied this in detail. Just my seat of the pants

> > >>intuition.

> > >>

> > >>But I think he claims longitudinal far fields. That would be like an

> > >>electrically charged superconducting quantum vacuum. Bo Lehnert did

> > >>

> > >claim

> > >

> > >>that empirically in limited regions. My vacuum is electrically

> > >>

> > >neutral,

> > >

> > >>i.e. Bose-Einstein condensate of virtual electron-positron pairs

> > >>

> > >primarily.

> > >

> > >>I have been too busy with my book galleys and with

> > >>

> > >>http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

> > >>

> > >>to pay attention in detail to Bearden's "mishagos" (Yiddish).

> > >>

> > >>Hey Fred, "A Beautiful Mind" getting Oscars should make our books

> > >>

> > >sell,

> > >

> > >>donchya think? I mean "Space-Time and Beyond" - talk about a nutty

> > >>

> > >book.

> > >

> > >>Time we rewrote the sequel to catch up with Fritjof and Gary! ;-)

> > >>

> > >>>

> > >>>>-----Original Message-----

> > >>>>From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarfatti@...]

> > >>>>Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 1:33 PM

> > >>>>To: sarfatti@...

> > >>>>Subject: Ronald Mallett's Time Machine Proposal is Kosher

> > >>>>

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Jack Sarfatti wrote:

> > >>>>

> > >>>>>Marcello Truzzi wrote:

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>>>http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_560851.html

> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>>

> > >>>>>He is not a nut. I tentatively take his proposal seriously,

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>but I have

> > >>>>

> > >>>>>not yet read his detailed paper.

> > >>>>>I do not have it.

> > >>>>>

> > >>>>Tom Bearden's claims are not kosher. I will eat bacon if they

> > >>>>

> > >are.

> > >

> > >>>>Hal Puthoff's and Bernie Haisch's theory claims on both zero

> > >>>>

> > >point

> > >

> > >>>>origin of inertia and zero point origin of gravity are also

> > >>>>

> > >wrong but

> > >

> > >>>>they are

> > >>>>a notch up from Bearden's claims that are not even wrong.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The basic reason the theory claims of Bernie and Hal are

> > >>>>wrong is that

> > >>>>they have a false picture of a completely uncontrollably

> > >>>>locally random

> > >>>>zero point quantum vacuum. Such a vacuum has a huge

> > >>>>

> > >anti-gravitating

> > >

> > >>>>cosmological constant /\, which means it is not possible for

> > >>>>

> > >ordinary

> > >

> > >>>>classical gravity to even come into being in the sense of Andre

> > >>>>Sakharov's great intuition of 1967. Bernie and Hal pay lip

> > >>>>

> > >service to

> > >

> > >>>>Sakharov but essentially do not understand the key physics

> > >>>>

> > >concept

> > >

> > >>>>needed here, i.e. spontaneous broken symmetry (Goldstone

> > >>>>theorem) that

> > >>>>coheres the lepto-quark vacuum polarization into a virtual

> > >>>>particle-antiparticle paired Bose-Einstein condensate with a

> > >>>>

> > >local

> > >

> > >>>>complex number order parameter

> > >>>>

> > >>>>psi(x) = R(x)e^iS(x)

> > >>>>

> > >>>>using Bohm's realist notation for this giant local macroquantum

> > >>>>

> > >phase

> > >

> > >>>>coherent qubit "pilot wave" that is intrinsically a

> > >>>>"thoughtlike" object

> > >>>>in Stapp's sense.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Einstein's classical curved spacetime gravity metric field

> > >>>>

> > >guv(x) of

> > >

> > >>>>1915 GR with /\ = 0 needs both a large R(x) and a long range

> > >>>>

> > >coherent

> > >

> > >>>>S(x) field.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The false vacuum of Hal and Bernie has R(x) = 0, i.e. complete

> > >>>>

> > >local

> > >

> > >>>>random zero point fluctuations of all the relevant quantum

> > >>>>

> > >fields.

> > >

> > >>>>Phase modulation of S(x) gives Einstein's classical guv(x)

> > >>>>which never

> > >>>>should be directly quantized as it is an emergent macroscopic

> > >>>>

> > >quantum

> > >

> > >>>>collective mode of Hagen Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" of

> > >>>>

> > >scale

> > >

> > >>>>Lp^2 = hG/c^3 = 1 Bekenstein quantum gravity BIT with guv(x)

> > >>>>as IT as in

> > >>>>Wheeler's

> > >>>>

> > >>>>IT FROM BIT.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The local quintessent field /\(x) comes from modulating R(x).

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Both R(x) and S(x) are implicit functions of theYang-Mills

> > >>>>U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) electroweak-strong gauge force connection

> > >>>>fields as in

> > >>>>

> > >>>>http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf

> > >>>>

> > >>>>The quantum corrected local Einstein field equation is

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Guv(x) + /\(x)guv(x) = - (G/c^4)Tuv(x)

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) = (1/Lp^2)[1 - Lp^3R(x)^2]

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Lp^3R(x)^2 is a pure dimensionless number, a control

> > >>>>parameter that is

> > >>>>an implicit function of the Yang-Mills U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3)

> > >>>>electroweak-strong gauge force connection fields.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) = 0 is ordinary classical vacuum of Einstein's 1915 local

> > >>>>geometrodynamics.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>Classical locality rests on a substratum of macroscopic quantum

> > >>>>

> > >phase

> > >

> > >>>>coherence quieting down the random Heisenberg uncertainty

> > >>>>principle zero

> > >>>>point vacuum fluctuations.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) > 0 on large scale (infrared) explains observed

> > >>>>

> > >acceleration of

> > >

> > >>>>the universe.

/\(x) > 0 on shorter scales (ultraviolet) is Kip Thorne's

> > >>>>antigravitating exotic matter needed for his traversable

> > >>>>wormhole star

> > >>>>gate to other worlds (Magonia), for Igor Novikov's time

> > >>>>machine to the

> > >>>>past, and for Alcubierre's free float warp drive without body

> > >>>>squashing

> > >>>>lethal g-forces in seemingly high acceleration dogfight

> > >>>>acrobatics like

> > >>>>in the urban legends of flying saucers knocking our fighters

> > >>>>out of the sky.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>/\(x) < 0 is the gravitating "dark energy" that is more than

> > >>>>90% of the

> > >>>>effective mass of the universe on the shorter UV scales.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>A light signal emitted in a /\ (x) > 0 region of exotic

> > >>>>quantum vacuum

> > >>>>that is received in a normal /\ = 0 vacuum will look blue

> > >>>>

> > >shifted.

> > >

> > >>>>A light signal emitted in a /\ (x) < 0 region of exotic

> > >>>>quantum vacuum

> > >>>>that is received in a normal /\ = 0 vacuum will look red

> > >>>>

> > >shifted.

> > >

> > >>>>The alleged flying saucer "vacuum propeller" using a pulsating

> > >>>>quintessent field generator oscillating around /\ = 0 will show

> > >>>>alternating red and blue shifts as described in the sci fi book

> > >>>>"Fastwalker" by Jacques Vallee and Tracy Torme.

> > >>>>

> > >>>>--

> > >>>>"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman

> > >>>>

>

> >

> > --

> > "What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman

> > http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg

> > http://stardrive.org/Jack/Ohm.pdf

> > http://stardrive.org/

> >