| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jack Sarfatti" |
| Date: |
25 Apr 2004 10:52:29 AM |
| Object: |
The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
I spent yesterday reviewing some of the papers by
Modanese & Podkletnov
G. Volovik
also a Russian paper on Soviet torsion field research that disagrees
with Western views on torsion as unimportant experimentally.
in context of thinking about the strange alleged Nazi "Bell" device that
Nick Cook describes at end of
his provocative book "The Hunt for Zero Point."
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
case, though admittedly he makes serious mistakes of estimating
probabilities of different explanatory scenarios because of his limited
knowledge of physics and what the term "antigravity" really means in
physics today now at the forefront because of the 1999 discovery of dark
energy as the dominant stuff of the universe. Even Hal Puthoff has not
formulated the problem correctly in his "PV without PV" model of "metric
engineering without metric" since Hal eschews covariance, the local
equivalence principle, and tensors in his purely classical dielectric
action principle formulation.
Basically all Hal does in PV is to write down the dynamical action (S =
Integral of Lagrangian over test particle path) of a point test particle
using globally flat special relativity, but with the very dubious
assumption that the gamma factor is a local variable, i.e.
gamma = [1 - (Kv/c)^2]^-1/2
Using the calculus of variations Hal also gets a local partial
differential field equation for the scalar dielectric vacuum response
function K that in the spherically symmetric static approximation for a
source mass M he claims is
K = e^2GM/c^2r
where he treats r like a radial coordinate in ordinary Euclidean high
school geometry.
Hal calls "r" the isotropic radial coordinate but he does not follow the
GR use of that same terms in contrast to the "curvature radial coordinate.".
Hal says no black hole event horizons in his PV SSS solution.
This already contradicts observations and the whole thrust of modern
relativity including Susskind's hologram from Bekenstein's black hole
thermodynamics leading to
Lp* = Lp^2/3L^1/3
For effective Planck scale in a measurement of length L
This formula also comes from Wigner's "Bohr Rosenfeld" analysis of
quantum gravity metric fluctuations reviewed in a recent paper by Ng.
Hal blithely neglects all this as well as shrugging off the fact that
his PV predictions disagree with experiment in the case of binary
pulsars as shown by Mike Ibison. The hope is that further evolution of
the model will bring it into an agreement with data that GR already has
in a much easier way.
Hal is able to treat a charged test particle, but is not able to solve
the problem when a source mass M rotates.
Hal also makes a false analogy that his PV model is to GR as Kirchoff's
lumped parameter circuit theory is to Maxwell's field equations.
Unfortunately Hal got it backwards because in his SSS case it's the
other way around, i.e. GR is only a weak field limit of his SSS PV
exponential K solution that he incorrectly takes to the limit GM/c^2r >>
1 - in my opinion.
OK next to Volovik:
Volovik has many good insights that agree with my model in spirit,
though there are important formal differences and what I say is much
simpler and in closer contact with observations.
Volovik has a problem getting dark energy. In fact it appears he cannot.
He apparently can only get an attractive /\ field not a repulsive one.
This is tentative.
However, he agrees that Einstein's GR is a low energy effective field
theory as is also the standard model U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) from a deeper
level like spin foams although he does not use that explicitly. Even
Lorentz invariance is emergent from Galilean relativity near a
topological "Fermi surface" fixed point using renormalization group
running coupling constant flow ideas.
I have a much simpler way of getting Volovik's result that Einstein's
cosmological constant /\ = 0 in "equilibrium".
Part of Volovik's problem is that he associates "normal fluid" with the
on-mass-shell quasi-particles rather than the off-mass-shell zero point
fluctuations of these same quasi-particles from the deeper world crystal
lattice/spin foam pre-geometry level. That's why, I suspect, he is not
able to get anti-gravitating dark energy with negative quantum pressure.
In my model start with a pre-geometry spin foam with a "quantum of
area", a "quantum of volume".
Also start with Poincare group quantum field theory as an emergent low
energy effective field theory out of the pre-geometry pretty much as
Volovik would do it.
So I now have globally flat point particle renormalizable quantum field
theory of the standard model (lepto-quarks & gauge force bosons) but
without gravity and only in its vacuum without on mass shell quanta -
without the Higgs so all quanta are massless!
I then notice that this globally flat false vacuum with purely random
zero point fluctuations is unstable. It immediately makes a Higgs
inflationary phase transition to a true vacuum with macro-quantum
coherence out of which Einstein's classical c-number GR emerges from the
ODLRO phase of the coherence with the dark energy/matter from the
intensity of the coherence.
Only then do the lepto-quarks acquire BCS mass as on-mass-shell
quasi-particles as shown by Nambu.
This agrees with Wheeler's "Mass without mass" of "Einstein's Vision"
("Geometrodynamics") provided that G* ~ 10^40G on scale of 1 fermi.
Gravity is not renormalizable because it should not be quantized.
Quantizing gravity is like quantizing temperature or elasticity in a
crystal.
You do not quantize emergent ODLRO collective modes - that is redundant
and leads to confusion. The micro-quantum zero point energy is still
there as a residual and you of course can quantize the quasi-particles
e.g. electrons that obey second-quantized Dirac eq but with rest mass m.
This also shows that the Haisch-Puthoff-Rueda "origin of inertia" from
random EM ZPF friction is wrong. The origin of inertia is from the
vacuum coherence of the inflation in accord with precision cosmology and
Einstein's Vision. They have the wrong picture.
What about Mach's Principle as in James Woodward's theory? The stars and
gas clouds are only 4% of the stuff of the universe. The rest is w = -1
exotic vacuum that anti-gravitates with Omega ~ 0.73 and that gravitates
with Omega ~ 0.23. That is Omega (matter & radiation) ~ 0.04 with space
flat on scales > 10^2 megaparsecs.
However Mach's principle probably can be formulated in terms of the new
exotic vacuum field
/\zpf = (Spin Foam Quantum of Area)^-1[(Volume Factor)|Vacuum
Coherence|^2 - 1]
with Einstein's smooth c-number ODLRO metric field of curved space-time
guv(x) as the elastic strain tensor of distortion field
du(x) = (Spin Foam Quantum of Area)(Partial derivative of the
Macro-Quantum Goldstone Phase of the Vacuum Coherence)
Where the quantum of area is like h/m in the Bohm pilot wave theory.
Note that |Vacuum Coherence|^2 = Higgs Intensity of Inflation Field
G/c^4 is the P.W. Anderson "generalized phase rigidity" ~ (Sakharov's
metric elasticity)^-1 ~ Witten's alpha'
G*h/c^3 = Quantum of Area (a variable)
G*(l) is a running coupling constant
G*(10^-13 cm) ~ 10^40G
G* on macroscale is G.
Modanese correctly intuits that metric engineering (e.g. alleged
Podkletnov effects) is due to an interference of the superconductor
coherence with the dark energy. But he does not understand Vacuum
Coherence, hence he does not get it right, though he is close on the
right track.
Modanese seems to think there is a major error in Ning Li's theory?
He also thinks (implicitly) Soviet era claims of Akimov and Shipov of
strong torsion field couplings to quantum spin of electron and proton
are wrong.
Now as to Nick Cook's description of the "Bell" - the Nazis would have
had to have come upon a form of liquid mercury or some liquid stuff that
was a high Tc superconductor that they had flowing in a ring pattern of
some kind. More on this later.
The coupling to the vacuum coherence, needing a "Chiao impedance match"
for near fields not far fields, if it made a strong /\zpf > 0 field
would cause an anti-gravity blue shift explaining the "blue glow" and
why people and plants got sick from a kind of gamma ray poisoning. This
is like the "reverse Doppler effect" that NIDS scientist Bruce Cornet
reports from flying saucers.
On Apr 24, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Memorandum for the Record
Technological Surprise in The Age of Terror (both human and alien ET)
re: Department of Defense
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc
Todd
Andrew Palfreyman claims to understand your idea.
Write it up in proper math and clear diagrams and I will look at it
after Andrew explains to me what his understanding
of your idea is.
One must be clear that "anti-gravity" AKA "AG" has a precise meaning in
physics today and must obey both Einstein's local equivalence principle
and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
references
"Cosmological Physics" John Peacock Ch 1 esp pp 25-26
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf
AG demands internal stress-strain zero g-forces on the fuselage and
occupants of the saucer all are in weightless free float timelike
geodesic paths even though that self-controlled path looks like a
hairpin turn at a jillion g to the outside observer. This is the
Alcubierre warp drive Paul Hill "acceleration field" criterion for a
true AG warp drive like we allegedly see real nuts and bolts saucers doing.
Anything else is "conventional" or "impulse drive" with internal
stress-strain g-forces and is simply not good enough.
AG also allows wormhole travel and most likely time travel to past under
certain special conditions.
Wormholes or "star gates" connecting different places and times inside
our universe and also to parallel universes in the sense of Max
Tegmark's May 2003 "Scientific American" article.
You do not understand what AG means to mainstream physicists like at GR
17 in Dublin this July.
Mike Turner in April 2003 Physics Today defines the term.
In Einstein's GR in Newtonian limit, Poisson's eq. is
Laplacian of gravity potential ~ G(mass density)(1 + 3w)
w = pressure/energy density
the 3w term is a GR correction not found in Newtons
w = 1/3 for radiation giving the gravity lensing bending of light
w = -1 for any zero point energy ZPE from any quantum field.
w = 0 for ordinary NR matter
A positive ZPE density anti-gravitates that's what "AG" means to the
top physicists today.
Dark energy 73% of universe anti-gravitates accelerating the expansion
of the universe.
Manipulating dark energy on a small scale is how saucers fly.
Metric engineering is the manipulation of exotic vacuum dark energy
density.
Kip Thorne called "dark energy" "exotic matter" in 1986 before he knew
that it was 73% of our universe.
That discovery came in 1999 in the Type 1a Supernova data now
supplemented by WMAP data.
.
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
25 Apr 2004 08:13:29 PM |
|
|
In article <19Ric.56013$jH4.35343@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
....
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
Ever notice the amazing heights of science and technology reached by
people who are no longer alive, working on secret projects for regimes
that no longer exist?
--
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
.
|
|
|
| User: "TMG" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
25 Apr 2004 08:23:38 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <19Ric.56013$jH4.35343@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
...
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
Ever notice the amazing heights of science and technology reached by
people who are no longer alive, working on secret projects for regimes
that no longer exist?
Whoa! - careful there, some of those dead people are the *sole*
supporters of George Hammond's GOD-G_uv=<insert crank theory here>.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darren Garrison" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
25 Apr 2004 09:24:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:13:29 +0000 (UTC), (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
In article <19Ric.56013$jH4.35343@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
...
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
Ever notice the amazing heights of science and technology reached by
people who are no longer alive, working on secret projects for regimes
that no longer exist?
Damn those Weapons Of Mass Destruction!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
25 Apr 2004 08:23:46 PM |
|
|
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
case, though admittedly he makes serious mistakes of estimating
probabilities of different explanatory scenarios because of his limited
knowledge of physics and what the term "antigravity" really means in
How come the Nazis lost, Jack?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: The Hunt for Zero Point Nazi Exotic Weapons? |
26 Apr 2004 04:26:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:23:46 GMT, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "Robert J. Kolker"
<robert_kolker@hotmail.com>:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Contrary to skeptics like Eric Krieg, a knee-jerk debunking of the Nazi
secret weapons program is not wise. Nick Cook makes a very plausible
case, though admittedly he makes serious mistakes of estimating
probabilities of different explanatory scenarios because of his limited
knowledge of physics and what the term "antigravity" really means in
How come the Nazis lost, Jack?
Maybe they listened to...naaah, he isn't old enough.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
