On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Memorandum for the record.

Subject: Russian, American, Brasilian Exotic Propulsion Physics Compared

http://qedcorp.com/SDI/RussianTorsion2.pdf

is now a 1 meg file still under construction - Poltorak's, Shipov's &
Brasilian's approaches all under study in relation to exotic propulsion
objective of ISSO Science & CIPA 1999-2000. R. Hammond's work in Fargo SD
will also be considered.

On Jan 18, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote from Moscow:


----- Original Message -----
From: Gennady Shipov
To: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:50 PM

Dear colleagues!

I congratulate you on the New 2005 declared by the United Nations as the
Year of Physics.

Hundred years ago A.Einstein has finished creation of the Special Theory
of Relativity which was the first generalization of Newton's mechanics.
Then the second has followed (the general theory of a relativity 1915) and
the third (quantum mechanics 1928) generalizations in which A.Einstein
took a part.

I suggest to count 2005 as the beginning of return to Descartes's ideas
which proved, that any movement is rotation. Comes the fourth
generalizations of Newton mechanics. The main post-Descartes now are
three researchers:

1. Roger Penrose (Oxford, England), put forward the Twistor Program. This
scientific program continues works of Heisenberg, considering particles as
rotating objects - Twistors.

2. Moshe Carmeli (Ben Gurion,Israel) which the first has introduced the
rotational metrics on the angular coordinates and has suggested to
introduce the Rotational Relativity.

3.Gennady Shipov (Moscow university, Russia), continuing work of A.
Einstein, R.Penrose and M.Carmeli. It has been shown, that the fourth
generalization of mechanics of Newton is achieved by localization [of the
gauge] of the group of Lorentz O(3,1) and allows to reduce all movements
to rotation. In the new mechanics named mechanics of Descartes, the
important roles of Torsion and Ricci fields are displayed. For example,
they can be used for vacuum teleportation.

Dear colleagues!

There are many experiments which specify necessity creations and
acceptance of a new scientific picture of the world. We shall make it in
2005.

Always yours,
Shipov Gennady.
Moscow

Earlier today on the American side:

I do agree with Hal Puthoff's statement today:

"My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as
providing the binding force, but the implications are the same. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 ."

Hal says Casimir force is the right idea. I say dark energy is the right
idea.

On Jan 18, 2005, at 12:06 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Hal Puthoff today responded to

In a message dated 1/18/2005 9:01:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
garysbekkum@hotmail.com writes:

"The immediate issue that must be addressed is a "proof of concept" for
the use of clusters of electron charge held together by the dark energy,
as Rambaut's paper suggests the release of nuclear energy, perhaps even an
electronic nuclear device scaled to catastrophic thermonuclear energy
release. Such a "proof of concept" should also be considered highly
sensitive or even secret given the potential for proliferation should such
concepts come to fruition. This was the case, as I recall, for the proof
of concept of the original fission device."

"My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as
providing the binding force, but the implications are the same. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 .

Collegially,

Hal"

This proliferation of Hal's fundamental misunderstanding of the real
problem here by journalists like Nick Cook and others is dangerous. I am
not attacking Hal here. He is not alone in making this error. Clarity of
thinking is my goal here.

The Casimir force is much too weak. FORGET IT! The dark energy is zero
point energy! The zero point energy's electrical effect in the Casimir
force ~ hcA/d^4 is really tapping only the mutual induced electric dipole
energy. The gravity influence of this zero point energy is a completely
different physics coming from Einstein's battle-tested

Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0

on a much more powerful scale.

Hal & Co have completely mis-identified the qualitative nature of the
phenomenon.

On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:

Hi, Jack!
...
In the previous email, I gently expressed some worry about your theory of
gravity. If you require that the electron have a radius of 10**-13 cm, and
if the scattering data put an upper limit of 10**-18, this suggests a need
either to restructure the model or parameters -- or else a whole lot of
explaining, a lot more than that last email you sent us. I understand that
the mainstream 10**-18 view is not sancrosanct... but I wouldn't throw it
out just on faith or personal authority.

No I am not doing anything of the kind. You (and probably others not just
you :-)) do not understand my really NOVEL basic physical idea
(conjecture) here of MICRO space warping. The "size" of the electron is
not FIXED. It depends on how it is observed. It SHRINKS from variable
space warping that is a function of the momentum transfer of the virtual
photon probe. At low energy of chemistry and atomic physics it is 10^-13
cm with a plasma cloud reaching out to 10^-11 cm. But as you kick it with
higher energy it SHRINKS down to 10^-18 cm! This is explained by Kip
Thorne in his "Black Holes and Space Warps". The ratio of circumference C
to physical Bohm hidden variable radius e^2/mc^2 ~ 10^-13 cm shrinks with
increasing scattering momentum transfer p. The effective size of the
electron to the virtual photon probe is (neglecting spin & charge - really
need to use A. Burinski's Kerr-Newman micro-geon model) is roughly

C ~ (1 - (8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h))^1/2(e^2/mc^2)

Note, that to get apparent measured scattering size = 0,

i.e. a "point"

(8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h) = 1

i.e. ~ 10/\zpf 10^-39 10^18 ~ 10^-22/\zpf = 1

/\zpf = (h/mc)^-2 ~ 10^22 cm^-2

That is, we have the beautifully consistent result that the plasma cloud
of virtual electron-positron pairs (e+e-) at h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm is precisely
what is needed to make the electron (also the quark) look like a "point
particle" at scattering momentum transfers p ~ h/10^-18 cm, where the
negative zero point energy density of the virtual e+e- plasma cloud is ~
(string tension)/\zpf ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf ~ 10^19Gev 1033 cm^-1 10^22 cm^-2
~ -10^74 ergs/cc. But w = -1, there is equal and opposite positive quantum
pressure. However the gravity influence of the ZPF is (energy density)(1 +
3w)
So this is

c^4/\zpf = G*(energy density)

10^42 10^22 10^-74 ~ 10^-10 ~ G* ~ G in cgs units.

That is G stays invariant, but the zero point energy density is large
enough to stabilize the extended electron Bohm hidden variable Wheeler
micro-geon "Mass without mass". Of course, if G* >> G from extra space
dimensions, then the required zero point energy density is reduced.