Text Size

Stardrive

Tentatively

Black body thermal gravitons radiated from the black hole at the center of our galaxy should each have an energy equal to the electron rest energy 10 ^-6 ergs. There should be 10^21 of these gravitons passing through us each second per square centimeter. It has mass ~ 5 million Suns and is 26 000 light years away.

This assumes quantum foam of Planck mass zero point gravity field fluctuations converted to my new second high energy peak of the Hawking radiation.

f = c/(LA^1/2)^1/2

L = IR cutoff
A = area of horizon 

Details in a few days.

LIgo & lisa will not see them 
They only look for lfgw

If gravitons convert to photons efficiently that might explain the gamma rays at electron rest energy?


Also em radiation different numbers.

Sent from my iPad

I compute that black holes have much shorter evaporation times than Hawking et-al first computed. They computed surface vibrations and neglected thickness vibrations due to geometrodynamical field zero point vacuum fluctuations.

 
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2014 4:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future dark energy generated cosmological horizon is as real, as actualized as the cosmic blackbody radiation we measure in WMAP, Planck etc.

But doesn't its location depend on the position of the observer? How "real" is that?
 
Irrelevant, red herring.
 
Alice has to be very far away from Bob for their respective de Sitter horizons not to have enormous overlap.
 
We all have same future horizon here on Earth to incredible accuracy.

I assume by "dark energy generated" you simply mean that the FRWL metric expansion is due to /, and
/ registers the presence of dark energy.
 
What else? Obviously.

 
We have actually measured advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future horizon. It’s the anti-gravitating dark energy Einstein cosmological “constant” / accelerating the expansion of space.

OK so the recession of our future horizon produces Hawking-like radiation due to the acceleration of our frame of reference
wrt the horizon?
 
No, static LNIF hovering observers have huge proper accelerations at Lp from the horizon with redshifted Unruh temperature T at us
 
kBT ~ hc/(A^1/2Lp^1/2)^1/2
 
use black body law
 
energy density ~ T^4
 
to get hc/ALp^2
 
The static future metric is to good approximation
 
g00 = (1 - r^2/A)
 
we are at r = 0
 
future horizon is g00 = 0
 
imagine a static LNIF hovering observer at r = A^1/2 - Lp
 
his proper radial acceleration hovering within a Planck scale of the horizon is
 
g(r) ~ c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2 (A^1/2 - Lp)/A
 
= c^2(1 - (A^1/2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2(A^1/2 - Lp)/A
 
= c^2(1 - (1 - 2 Lp/A^1/2 + Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)
 
= c^2(2Lp/A^1/2 - Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)
 
~ c^2(2Lp^-1/2/A^-1/4 )A^-1/2(1 - Lp/A^1/2)
 
~ c^2(A^1/4/Lp^1/2)A^-1/2 ~ c^2/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
 
f(emit) = c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
 
 
 
1 + z = (1 - (A^1’2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2 = (A^1/4/Lp^1/2) 
 
f(obs) = f(emit)/(1 + z) = Lp^1/2/A^1/4c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4) = c/A^1/2
 
OK this is the standard low energy Hawking radiation formula from surface horizon modes
 
However, there is a second high energy quantum thickness radial mode
 
f'(emit) ~ c/Lp
 
f’(obs) = (Lp^1/2/A^1/4)c/Lp = c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)
 
This advanced Wheeler-Feynman de Sitter blackbody radiation is probably gravity waves not electromagnetic waves.
 

You seem to be drawing a direct physical analogy between cosmological horizons and black hole horizons.
 
Hawking Gibbins did so in 1977 i sent his paper several times.
 
This requires the anti-Feynman contour for advanced radiation in quantum field theory.
 
i.e. mirror image of this
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagator
 
so that w = + 1/3 blackbody advanced radiation anti-gravitates
 
 
 
It’s energy density is ~ hc/Lp^2A
 
A = area of future horizon where the future light cone of the detector intersects it.

 

 

I disagree

When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical 
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness 
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative. 
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events. 


From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com

Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400

Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon.  Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack.  So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well.  She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.

 

Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s.  Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed.  I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip.  I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true.  However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?

 

As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else.  The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.

 

Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along.  Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.

 

Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death.  This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.

 

From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall

Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

 

Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.

Remember?

On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

 

Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Ruth Kastner wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having
well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
_____________________________________________________________
 
 
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:
Every really wealthy person I know well personally has an uncanny talent to make good decisions financially.
I am not talking only about stock market.
For example, the Marshall Naify had extraordinary powers akin to Uri Geller’s and Ingo Swann. I personally experienced “mental time travel” with him (shared telepathic experience) to past events (Ancient Egypt, Middle Ages). He saw the potential of cable TV early and was one of the creators of what led to Comcast.
I have also noticed other evidence in them of paranormal talent.
I am not saying this as a scientific fact - only a subjective observation - folklore.
I am not saying that 100% of the 1% are precognitive but that a significant fraction are.
Even successful criminals and evil leaders are.
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:59 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:
 
Question, for Jack, et al...
Is it possible... or have you considered (seriously, with respect)... that what's in play here is a form of human perception perhaps located somewhere on the autism spectrum, even higher-functioning than Asperger's?
 
I am not a brain neuroscientist. I do not know.
 
If such a condition were to allow "tuning" to different signals from what "typical" receivers (people, brains) are capable of picking up. Not to imply "disability" or abnormality, per se, but a "stretch" in what most people are able to perceive... or perceive and retain in consciousness. Also, Jack's signal had to have a 'sender,' who quite likely would know about the "tuning" aspect of human perception, in the 1950s quite new to us.
 
Exactly my point! HIGH STRANGENESS - REALITY OF THE UNCANNY THAT MANY STRAIGHT SCIENTISTS OUT OF FEAR SUPPRESS.
 
Vallee and Davis Physics of High Strangeness ... - skinwalker ranch
www.skinwalkerranch.org/images/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf‎
by JF Vallee - ‎Cited by 6 - ‎Related articles
Oct 24, 2003 - clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by ... Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D.
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/1/14
High Strangeness by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczyk
www.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htm‎
The term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the ... French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:.
High strangeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_strangeness‎
Wikipedia
Within the domain of Ufology, high-strangeness is a term used to denote a ... It is perhaps of interest that Jacques Vallee, a close colleague of Hynek, has in a ...
 
 
This doesn't explain "contacts" by some kind of external source using conventional physical means (i.e., the telephone); could these have been an effort to "simulate extraordinary stimulation" by scientists studying such phenomena. I.e., if selected for programming, how to reach Jack (others?) without alarming them?
 
Well, the phone calls were real. Who made them is still a mystery.
 
Conversely, "extraordinary" ET or UT entities intending to contact and influence (this young scientist, retrocausally identified from the future) could have used the telephone because "supernatural" modalities of such "contact" might have triggered a psychotic break or other rejection reaction, by Jack's mother or any subsequently engaged psychiatrists brought in to "help" normalize their target, getting him locked away or chemically restrained, as quite obviously has happened to many other such "revelatees" over millennia?
 
That did not happen to me. But remember I was part of the USG superkids project out of Columbia University AFTER the phone calls throughout high-school with early admission into Ivy League Cornell with full scholarship for four years.
 
This project (also associated with Ayn Rand) was funded by born in Brooklyn (where I lived):
 
The Eugene McDermott Scholars Program - The University of Texas ...
www.utdallas.edu/mcdermott/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Feb 25, 2014 - Established by Mrs. Eugene McDermott in support of her husband's dream, the McDermott Scholars program provides select UT Dallas ...
‎Application Information - ‎The McDermott Award - ‎Meet the Scholars - ‎Contact Us
Eugene McDermott Library - The University of Texas at Dallas
www.utdallas.edu/library/‎
University of Texas at Dallas
Online catalog, list of newly acquired titles, and general information for the lecture series and the McDermott and Callier Libraries.
‎Databases - ‎Library Hours - ‎Journals - ‎eBooks Collections
Eugene McDermott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McDermott‎
Wikipedia
Eugene McDermott (1899-1973) was a geophysicist and co-founder first of Geophysical Service and later of Texas Instruments. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on ...
‎Early career - ‎Geophysical Service - ‎Texas Instruments - ‎Philanthropy
You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 11/25/13
 
"IT" used the phone because that approach would not necessarily provoke a panicked response the way a "Biblical" manifestion of revelatory experience likely would have, i.e., "messianic" distortion or psychic break.
 
Either way, the net effect was to recontextualize Jack's personality and "genius," providing direction (both overt and subliminally, likely) and opening his mind to a stream of ongoing but more subtle signals later on.
 
Credulity, post-exposure, would be interesting to some scientists contemporaneous to the experience?
 
http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdf
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cantril
 
 
On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:
 
So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities.
 
For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in an
eternal block universe.
 
For him, that is what "precognition" means.
 
On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I disagree
When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical
New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness
When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.
Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.
The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.
More is different
Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.
 
Sent from my iPad
 
On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.
 
From: beowulfr@interlog.com
To: iksnileiz@gmail.com
 
Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400
 
Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.
 
 
Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?
 
 
As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.
 
 
Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.
 
 
Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.
 
 
From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]
Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PM
To: Robert Addinall
 
Subject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM
 
 
Except that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which
doesn't agree with Jack's.
 
Remember?
 
On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:
 
 
Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.
 
 
 

 

 

On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Paul Zelinsky  wrote:

"Also, what do you think the Minkowski fiber bundle represents in modern formulations of GR? It represents a local mapping of the curved base space inner products determine by g_uv onto the Minkowski fibers defined by the globally flat Minkowski metric n_uv."
To which I replied:
 
That’s precisely what I mean by LNIF <—> LIF (both local frames COINCIDENT)
 
frame field for LNIF is eu(LNIF) with curvilinear metric guv(LNIF).
 
One can always find LNIFs where in Taylor series about origin 
 
g^u^v(LNIF) ~ n^u^v(Minkowski) + {Levi-Civita Connection}^u^vw&x^w + {Riemann Curvature Tensor}^u^vwl&x^w&x^l + ….
 
ds^2 = guv(LNIF)e^u(LNIF)e^v(LNIF)
 
frame field for LIF (Cartesian coordinates a must as Einstein stipulates in his papers) eI(LIF)  tangent bundle fiber metric Taylor expansion is
 
n^I^J(LIF) = n^I^J(Minkowsk) + {Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL&x^K&x^L + ….
 
ds^2 = nIJ(LIF)e^I(LIF)e^J(LIF)
 
Small font indices u,v ... are in the LNIF base space
 
Caps I,J are in the LIF fiber
 
The tetrad transformation is
 
e^u(LNIF) = e^uIe^I(LIF) etc.
 
EEP means that
 
{Levi-Civita Connection}^I^JK = 0
 
though in general
 
{Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JK =/= 0
 
ARTIFICAL (FIRST ORDER NON-TIDAL) GRAVITY FIELDS IN SENSE OF EINSTEIN AND NEWTON CORRESPOND TO
 
{Levi-Civita Connection}^u^vw =/= 0
 
Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL = 0
 
REAL GRAVITY FIELDS IN THE SENSE OF MISNER, THORNE AND WHEELER (SECOND ORDER WEYL TIDAL VACUUM + RICCI MATTER COMPRESSION) CORRESPOND TO
 
Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL =/= 0
 
Note that e^I(LIF) is a set of 4-vectors with components e^Iu
 
e^u(LNIF) is a set of 4-vectors with components e^uI
 
e^uIe^Iv = kronecker delta uv etc. ORTHOGONAL GROUP O(1,3)
 
ds^2 = nIJ(LIF)e^Ie^J = guv(LNIF)e^ue^v
 
LIF Alice and LNIF Bob are COINCIDENT
 
LIF Alice has zero proper acceleration
 
LNIF Bob has non-zero proper acceleration
 
ds is invariant space interval between 2 neighboring events measured simultaneously by both Alice and Bob.
 
Since we impose COINCIDENCE no problem with simultaneity.
 
Also clock postulate that proper acceleration of clocks in LNIF can be synchronized to clocks in LIF if they are coincident.

 

On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:23 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" wrote:

For those of you who are trying to figure out what Jack and Paul are arguing about, sometimes on this list again, the basic issue, put simply, is whether gravitational fields are present in spatially flat spacetimes.  Jack says no.  That non-vanishing spatial curvature must be present if gravity is present.


JS: Jim is muddling my position.

1) Real gravity fields must have curvature.

2) Artificial gravity fields exist without curvature.

3) Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) is: imagine you are inside an elevator with no windows.

Situation A: Elevator is standing still on surface of Earth. The reaction force (radially inward) of your body down on the scale is your weight

W = (your inertia in kg)10 meters per sec^2

Your inertia is

m = E/c^2

E is your total energy in Joules

c = 3 x 10^8 meters/sec^2

In Einstein's GR you have an upward net non-zero off-geodesic proper tensor acceleration (radially outward) g = DV/dt = 10 meters per sec^2 in order to stand still (hovering static LNIF) in the Earth's curvature field. Your world line is not a geodesic of the Earth's curvature field.

V = 0 and dV/dt = 0 in the hovering static LNIF

g = - {LNIF}V0^2 = + GMEarthr/r^3 radially outward

The action-reaction pair of electrical contact forces of Newton's third law is LOCAL having no astrological magic influence from the distant stars. It is caused by local U1 electromagnetic gauge invariance + quantum field theory.

WHEELER-FEYNMAN RADIATION REACTION IS NOT IN PLAY HERE - THERE IS NO RADIATION.

dP/dt = 0 P = total charge momentum + EM field momentum

= mV + (e/c)A

From quantum field theory, the local U1 gauge transformation is simply mostly the exchange of a near field spacelike virtual photon between the charge e of inertia m and the EM field A coincident with the charge.

The dominating Feynman diagram is >---|

> = electron world line

--- = virtual spacelike photon world line

| = Glauber macro-quantum coherent state of virtual photons order parameter describing the near field A

A is exactly like the Bose-Einstein condensate reservoir in superfluid helium it is also analogous to the Higgs vacuum field - these are all examples of spontaneous broken continuous symmetry groups of the dynamical action.

note subject of my PhD was "Local Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superfluids" 1969 UCR

Formally the internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation is

mV -> mV' = mV + hGradS

S = quantum phase of the charge's information BIT field.

A -> A' = A - (hc/e)GradS

Therefore, the total canonical momentum P of the Hamiltonian for minimal QED coupling is GAUGE INVARIANT

P -> P' = mV + hGradS + (e/c)A - hGradS = P

dP/dt = 0

The formal U1 internal symmetry local gauge transformation actually describes the transfer of a virtual photon from the classical near EM field to the charge and vice versa! It's a quantum field virtual dynamical process in space-time and it obviously implements Newton's 3rd Law that the total momentum of the system of interest is LOCALLY CONSERVED.

Change in momentum of charge + change in momentum of near field = 0

The radially outward real force pushing the charge off a timelike geodesic is

F = hGradS/&t

The radially inward real reaction force of the charge back on the source of the near field A is

- F = -hGradS/&t

this radially inward reaction force causes the pointer of the scale to show weight.


&E&t < h for virtual photon (Heisenberg uncertainty principle)

Situation B: the elevator is properly accelerating at 10 meters per sec^2 in any direction in flat empty spacetime.

The observer inside the elevator cannot tell whether he is out in empty space or sitting still on surface of Earth.

We assume of course that he has no windows and no tidal curvature measuring capability.

Therefore, subject to these conditions one cannot distinguish artificial non-tidal gravity defined as the Levi-Civita connection from the non-tidal gravity field associated with tidal curvature.
 

JW: Paul says yes.  That spatially flat spacetime does not preclude the presence of gravity.  That Paul is right should be obvious from the fact that general relativity is predicated on the assumption that in sufficiently small regions of spacetime, the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies.


JS: Jim, you have totally muddled two different meanings of the ambiguous term "gravitational field". Also you are dead wrong. You have made a very elementary error.

Your "the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies"

The Minkowski metric is flat in the 4D sense, not only in the 3D sense.

Your argument here is a non sequitur

"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies." wiki


JW: It is also the boundary condition in the Schwartschild solution of Einstein's equations.

JS: Schwarzschild, also it's another non sequitur red herring.

JW:  And in critical cosmic matter density cosmologies, spatial flatness obtains in the presence of black hole horizon strength gravity.  The problem for Jack (and other "modernists") is that if you allow that, the WMAP results give back Mach's principle as a simple prediction of general relativity.  

JS: I challenge you to give a mathematical model that WMAP proves Mach's Principle.
You do not need Mach to have k = 0 in the FRW metric.

JW: Do not expect closure on this any time soon.  :-)

Subject: Particle fever a fork in the road the movie

 

Don't miss it I just saw it

If the Higgs mass was 115 GeV it would be strong evidence for super symmetry connecting fermions to bosons
And that case there is still room for an intelligent designer acting back from the future dark energy DeSitter cosmic horizon programming a virtual hologram universe simulation

10^120 ~ 1/ / qubits

IT From BIT
+
BIT From IT
=
Entanglement Signal Nonlocality

If the Higgs mass was 140 GeV it would be strong evidence for Tegmark's multi-verse levels one and two in that case the mass of the electron etc. is a random coincidence in the cosmic landscape of string theory

In fact the Higgs mass is 125 GeV smack in the middle pretty much

Therefore God is subtle but not malicious as Einstein said

I do predict they will never find a dark matter particle however because dark matter is made from virtual particles inside the quantum vacuum in my opinion

Sent from my iPad