Science > Physics > Military Threat from Alien ET Flying Saucer Debate & Physics
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2006 12:21:54 PM |
| Object: |
Military Threat from Alien ET Flying Saucer Debate & Physics |
On Mar 25, 2006, at 8:05 AM, wrote:
All:
Sorry for getting into this so late and not having basic info read
before hand.
My problem is that when you look at some of the E-M constants, they
are not constant but can in some cases vary as a function of field
strength. This is for extremely large electric and magnetic fields. By
the way, one would expect to have such strengths for going at
relativistic speeds. Moreover, if you look at Pharis Williams stuff,
the extra mathematical dimension is used to define these so-called
constants.
Sure, the statement is e/m must be such and such in the rest frame of
the particles. Of course
M = m/(1 - (v/c)^2)^1/2
etc.
We are talking of the locally Lorentz invariant quantities.
m^2 = (E/c^2)^2 - (p/c)^2
Now Hal seem to want to have his cake and eat it too?
i.e. Hal wants to
CHANGE INERTIAL MASS WITHOUT CHANGING INERTIAL MASS?
i.e. LOCALLY IN REST FRAME OF THE ALIEN FLYING SAUCER e/m is normal.
GLOBALLY for a distant "asymptotic observer" it APPEARS that e/m --->
infinity.
However, Hal has not shown HOW this happens in terms of the math.
Second, he has not shown HOW IT HELPS? What's the advantage?
He has not addressed the KEY ISSUE i.e. the SPLAT EFFECT! g-forces? Are
they felt on-board?
In any case Hal needs to write a PUBLIC paper explaining his concept
clearly. He has not done so.
BTW an alien ET craft in GEODESIC WARP DRIVE or WWD (WEIGHTLESS WARP
DRIVE) should be called a "FLOATING SAUCER" like those FLOATING Black
Triangles reported by NIDS, by Art Bell and many others.
Now James Woodward has a different idea I think. He really wants to
change e/m locally I think? That is dangerous. For example if he changes
mass of proton by a factor of 10 either way, we are in trouble!
With these considerations, and note that Einstein never went
supersonic which means he never went at light speed, one can argue that
the constants do not change or that the constants do indeed vary at
relativistic limits such as 'c'. What is the guiding principle for this?
Hal's example with the speed of light c' =/= c is misleading because all
actual local measurements in any frame LIF or LNIF of the speed of light
do give the normal c in vacuum when actual vacuum polarization effects
are small as they usually are. Hal is talking about how a flat
space-time DISTANT OBSERVER might interpret a process happening near a
large mass with a large space-time warp. I don't see how this helps
explain the UFO sightings done at close range, i.e. a SILENT FLOATING
BLACK TRIANGLE 200 feet above you the size of a football field with an
effective EMP field silencing all your countermeasures leaving our
nuclear missiles and all conventional military hardware impotent and
obsolete - leaving us completely defenseless. That's the problem here.
Let's not forget the problem why MASINT wants to know! I mean, I don't
know what you guys are doing, but that's THE PROBLEM I am working on.
I submit that there is none and that only by assuming these
constants are variables, can we obtain better understanding. For those
of you with a physicist's bent, these constants will be a function of
space-time curvature, then we need to look at limiting conditions of
singularities. These may be the descriminants needed to resolve this issue.
Just curious...
Ufoguy...
Paul, if you read Lenny Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape" he explains
what you are puzzled about in complete detail conceptually without too
much math.
In a message dated 3/25/2006 10:28:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jfwoodward@juno.com writes:
Hal's right about this. The values of "constants" often depend on who's
doing the measuring and where/when they happen to be located (see Taylor
and Wheeler, Spacetime Physics, pp. 208 - 209).
This is a Red Herring. Obviously, what is meant are the LORENTZ
INVARIANT values directly measured in local rest frames for the LOCAL
PHYSICS that determines if a LOCAL vacuum bubble will nucleate. Sidney
Coleman gave the basic equations in his Erice lectures.
In the case of the Alcubierre metric, the distinctive feature of the
material contents of the warp bubble is not that it is "weightless".
Everything in geodesic motion is weightless; and (almost?) none of it
travels at warp speed. It is that the material contents of the bubble,
FOR OBSERVERS EXTERIOR TO THE BUBBLE, appears INERTIALESS (especially as
it goes from < c to >>c speeds -- a physical impossibility for objects
with restmass without warp bubbles).
Well that much is already in ALL my books since 2002. That's, in simple
language
W = 0
W = Mg
g = 0
M =/= 0
So inertial = gravity mass M NOT CHANGED AT ALL! I mean LOCALLY INSIDE
THE SHIP and even GLOBALLY.
Now as I understand Jame's proposal
1. He wants to change M locally via some AC Mach Principle effect?
2. His propulsion is not GEODESIC like in the above Alcubierre example.
That is, he has a SPLAT, i.e. g-force for occupants even if his scheme
works.
F = dP/dt = d(MV)/dt = (dM/dt)V + M(dV/dt)
The usual NONGEODESIC rocket thrust term with SPLAT g-force felt inside
the ship comes from
dM/dt LOCALLY!
Now in a jet or rocket &M is ejected giving the dM/dt, but in Woodward's
PROPELLANTLESS PROPULSION the dM/dt some how comes from a dynamic action
at a distance MACH EFFECT of some kind.
In Shipov's 4D gyroscope it allegedly comes from a TORSION FIELD?
In Puthoff's case we have no idea at all because he never gives enough
information at all to tell.
In the matter of "knowing how the saucers fly", a theory of the vacuum by
itself doesn't cut it. The metric isn't modified by the vacuum. It is
modified by some material structure acted upon by fields.
Well James your physics is wrong. It's completely out of date by at
least 50 years. Also my paper shows differently, but even without my
paper it's already well known that changing the local zeropoint energy
density will strongly alter the metric field. Also the local Higgs
mechanism is a vacuum ODLRO field at the electroweak scale that
determined the matter content, i.e. gives rest masses of bare quarks and
leptons. The hadronic masses of bound quarks is mostly kinetic energy of
confinement as in QCD.
Technically
Guv + /\(ZERO POINT ENERGY)guv = - (8piG/c^4)Tuv("Material Sources)
You have to
specify the material substance used and how it is acted upon, presumably
by electromagnetic fields, to generate the bubble feature in the metric.
There is more than ONE way to SKIN SCHRODINGER'S CAT here.
James just described the quaint Victorian way to do it. That's a
sufficient condition, not necessary. James's error of imagination here
is to substitutes a sufficient condition for a necessary condition.
Using zero point energy is an alternative.
Technically the distinction is simple.
James is talking about varying Tuv("Material Sources) with huge amounts
impractical amounts of power
I am talking about varying /\(ZERO POINT ENERGY)guv with small amounts
practical amounts of power
The details of the electromagnetic field used to act on the specified
material need to be specified. And all of this must be sufficiently
realistic for experimental tests to be realistic too. Short of this, all
claims to knowledge of "saucer flight" are just a bunch of smoke.
RED HERRING. Completely irrelevant to what I propose because James sets
up a false premise as I showed in detail above. The fact of the UFO
observations here is paramount. This is not an idle theoretical
exercise. This is more than a gedankenexperiment.
Coming back to Hal's comments about constants and whether e/m gets
changed in effective inertia reduction schemes -- especially ones using
Mach effects -- note again that this is observer location dependent.
Moreover, in Mach effect systems it is not e/m for elementary particles
that gets changed. Mach effects only occur in extended bodies that are
capable of storing internal energy (particularly, in the elastic stresses
in deformable solid objects). e/m for elementary particles is
unaffected, notwithstanding that in principle the total
inertial/gravitational mass can be reduced to zero (or less).
This last sentence by James makes no sense. Can he give an example? It
seems to contradict his previous sentences. He is far from clear here.
In his previous sentences, James claims that only the material elastic
binding energies will change. Well that makes his scheme irrelevant
because those binding energies are only a small fraction of the total
energy. So what good is that?
In
principle this means that wormhole generation may be possible, which is a
matter of some concern as done foolishly this might have dramatic
consequences (if possible). This is all pretty clearly spelled out in
the peer reviewed literature on the subject.
Regards,
Jim Woodward
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:42:28 -0800 Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
writes:
On Mar 24, 2006, at 7:16 PM, wrote:
In a message dated 3/24/2006 8:55:52 P.M. Central Standard Time,
sarfatti@pacbell.net writes:
Suppose you change m, will you also change e? What about h & c?
It's not about changing the constants of nature throughout (which,
I agree with Rees et al., would be disastrous!). It's about
manipulating a local domain of spacetime so that (from an outside
frame viewpoint) values relative to the outside frame are
perturbed.
This is gobbledy gook. Say it in equations. Do you mean Alcubierre
warp drive? That's essentially what I am talking about. That has
nothing to do with changing masses in the saucer.
Think GR: As Einstein was the first to show, from an outside
frame
(e.g., earth) the velocity-of-light "constant" c near the sun
appears to take on the value c' ~ c[1-2GM/rc^2], while locally (at
the sun) the velocity of light, locally measured, is still c. And
with this change in the "constant" c in the spacetime domain near
the sun the "universe falls apart" disaster does not occur.
What does this have to do with metric engineering? Show us. I do not
see how the above example proves anything.
So you say if M is the mass of the saucer, M appears to us outsiders
to shrink to zero, but to the crew nothing changes? Even if you
could
do this SO WHAT? Is the saucer on a geodesic continuously when it
does this?
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
