Paul Zielinski is working on an update of all this based on ISEP/ISSO Workshop in late September 2001 in which Puthoff's theory and the Yilmaz controversy was examined. We, as a group are still working on this, and will be for next few months. Oct 2, 2001.

"The motivation is wrong. The result is wrong. The idea is wrong ... Anyone who looks for a magic formula for 'local gravitational energy-momentum' is looking for the right answer to the wrong question. Unhappily, enormous time and effort were devoted in the past to trying to answer this question before investigators realized the futility of the enterprise. Toward the end, above all mathematical arguments, one came to appreciate the quiet but rock-like strength of Einstein's equivalence principle." Wheeler, Thorne & Misner p. 467 on the Yilmaz idea Hal uses in PV. This is a pedagogical review (large file) to set the stage to see why the Big Guns of spacetime physics today do not take Hal Puthoff's PV theory, based on Yilmaz, at all seriously. We can then debate who is correct. First we have to understand what the problem is. I am not taking a position on this issue except to say that my instinct sides with Wheeler, Thorne, Misner, Penrose, Hawking et-al on this because I can understand what they say in contrast to the other side where there is obscurity, to my mind, in the physical foundations. Hal Puthoff, my old fellow student Daryl Leiter, Yilmaz, Schatzer, Eric Davis in http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/davis_mufon2001slides.pdf and http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/davis_mufon2001.pdf, et-al must FIRST come up with a clear explanation of what the physical foundations of their new theory really are. They have not yet done an adequate job up to the high standard of Wheeler and his students that we see set below. Extraordinary claims require extraordinarily clear explanations and justifications. The burden of proof is on them not on Wheeler & Co. Wheeler who taught Feynman and Thorne and Misner. Thorne, who is Richard Feynman Professor at Cal Tech. Roger Penrose who is Professor at Oxford. Hawking who holds Isaac Newton's chair at Cambridge. Are we to uncritically believe, on ideological grounds that "The Truth" is found, every upstart Tom, Dick and Harry who comes along saying "Einstein is wrong!" and that Wheeler & Co are fundamentally not understanding this point? Not likely!

This is the problem. Einstein's geometrodynamics says that the energy of the pure gravitational field of the vacuum is nonlocal. If it were local it could be used as a "vacuum propeller" for flying saucers. This is why Hal Puthoff likes the Yilmaz idea - I surmise. However, Wheeler says that a local vacuum gravity energy violates the equivalence principle, which is the cornerstone of the Temple of Geometrodynamics.

Time Travel, Star Gates and Flying Saucers?

Warning this is a large .pdf file > 1 megabyte.

These considerations lead me to reject Hal Puthoff's PV model, as currently formulated, as a viable theory of metric engineering of Star Gates and propellantless propulsion of UFOs. Therefore, Eric Davis's MUFON paper of July 2001 http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/davis_mufon2001.pdf on this topic is incorrect at the end for suggesting that the Puthoff PV theory is a viable explanation for the UFO facts. New computations suggesting exotic short range Salam G* antigravity from hyperspace somewhat analogous to Dirac's discovery of negative energy states of antimatter. Additonal notes on Kaluza-Klein hyperspace, S & T dualities and propellantless propulsion as the self-determined timelike geodesic beyond the test particle approximation of general relativity. The latter is made possible by the finite self-energy of superstrings. That is, the extra dimensions of hyperspace permit what appears to be a self-acceleration of the center of mass of the Unconventional Flying Object. See also http://stardrive.org/Jack/Hal1.pdf . New sections on detailed equations of time travel to the past and how to possibly evade Hawking's vacuum polarization instability disrupting time machines and killing the would be time travelers to the past with super gamma radiation.

To Hal Puthoff on July 20, 2001

But Hal here is my basic point - the BIG PICTURE. What we are both really after, of course, is some explanation for TRUFO data - and to reverse engineer and build our own! If not for TRUFO phenomenon there would be no NASA BPP effort at all. That is the simple truth even if Marc Millis tries to deny it - we both know what the truth is here from the inside.

The two fundamental obstacles that you, Eric Davis et-al are not really facing are that:

1. Space-time with Newton's G is simply too stiff to bend in a controllable way i.e.

G/c^4 = 1 fermi per 4 billion metric tons (Feynman's number) = 1 Planck length per Planck energy

Or equivalently, string tension of 4 billion metric tons per fermi is too stiff!

Ergo: Star Gate Metric Engineering is MISSION IMPOSSIBLE without hyperspace induced Salam G* >> G short range (e.g. f-gravity 1973).

2. Space-time, without hyperspace, does not leak! This comes from topodynamics that the boundary of a boundary vanishes! Nothing you can do about that. Therefore, no form of vacuum propeller will ever work if there is no hyperspace leakage. So, from where you start from with only 4 dimensions, curved or not, you will never get propellentless propulsion.

Ergo: NASA BPP http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ should start looking elsewhere.

Trying to evade 1 & 2 above is like trying to evade the Second Law of Thermodynamics with Baron Munchausen perpetual motion flying machines.