Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

BTW See Frank Wilczek's latest Op Ed on F = ma in Oct 2004 Physics
Today in regard to Carlos's comment on non-inertial frames earlier today.

From my book Super Cosmos

Force without force

“There is no necessity for the introduction of the word ‘force’.”Peter
G. Tait, “Dynamics” (1895)[i]

“Force is a flexible construct in a high level language, which by
shielding us from irrelevant details, allows us to do elaborate
applications relatively painlessly. … When we hold up a weight – we
definitely feel we are doing something, even though no [real]
mechanical work is performed. Force is an abstraction of this sensory
experience of exertion. D’Alembert’s … virtual work done in response
to small displacements … is a sort of virtual work, continually made
real, that explains our experience. When we hold a weight steady,
individual muscle fibers contract in response to feedback signals they
get from spindles; the spindles sense small displacements, which must
get compensated before they grow…” 2004 Nobel Laureate, Frank
Wilczek, Physics Today, Oct 2004 “Reference Frame.”


[i] One day as an undergrad at Cornell in the late 1950’s I got into
the attic of Rockefeller Hall, the old physics building and came upon
a vast array of discarded Victorian scientific instruments. While
rummaging in a desk I found a large leather volume of Tait’s writings.

With regard to the Pioneer 10/11 Space Craft Anomaly, Carlos tries to
explain the pointing of the anomalous acceleration ~ cH back to the
Sun as some kind of inertial force effect. However, the center of mass
of the space craft is locally inertial so that cannot be the
explanation. Our holding up the weight in the above example, is an
example of a non-inertial frame force of constraint. We would not feel
the exertion in the Pioneer some 70 AU from Earth in free float on a
geodesic. Of course the Doppler shift detector is non-inertial not on
a geodesic, but I doubt that can explain the directionality.

My guess here is that the fact that the magnitude of the effect is ~
cH is a weird coincidence. Also it should be possible to do
experiments on slowly moving Doppler sources to see if ~ 3 x 10^-18
sec^-1 ~ 10^-7 cm/sec^2 ~ cH is the smallest Doppler drift rate that
can be measured in principle as I think Carlos would claim? Carlos -
Yes? No?

My explanation, remember, is not cosmological, but is a local
smaller-scale exotic vacuum halo surrounding the Sun similar to the
Galactic Halo on a larger scale. Whether this w = -1 conjectured zero
point energy density halo is dark energy or dark matter can be decided
by looking for time variations in the Doppler drift rate that, in my
testable model should not be "constant". Future experiments will be
10^2 more precise. The current error bars are more than 10% so there
is plenty of room for improvement.

In my Super Cosmos our local universe is lumpy on small scale with
globs of exotic vacua of both positive and negative pressures
controlled by the local Higgs Ocean vacuum coherence. Our tweaking of
the Higgs Ocean intensity is what metric engineering of warp, wormhole
and WMD is all about mind you. We must be careful not to do it on the
wrong scale that would change e^2/mc^2 and h/mc ratios of real
electrons and nucleons. That would be a Doomsday WMD like what Sir
Martin Rees writes about in "Our Final Hour". We must be careful not
to go there. The data at the NIDS Website shows it is possible to
avoid such destruction of our local universe in the parallel worlds of
the multiverse of Super Cosmos.

I wonder if this field has
something to do with it?
*Note* the Interplanetary Magnetic Field

*at a different rate* that the Sun which
is at its center
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/magfield.gif
Also read the writing under the picture to discover
what made the measurements to show us this field.
What deductions can you make?
John