Text Size

Stardrive

Suppose we could make a very high Tc superconducting meta-material.

The effective speed of light is then c/n where n < 0 and |n| >> 1. Of course there will be dispersion, i.e. n(k,w) including virtual photons.
Let's be naive and look what happens to the Planck units.
LP* = (hGn^3/c^3)^1/2 >> LP ~ 10^-33 cm
TP* = LP*/c = (hGn^5/c^5)^1/2 >> TP ~ 10^-43sec
P*P = h/LP = h/(hGn^3/c^3)^1/2 << PP
does the "i" have any physical meaning?
The Planck energy is 
EP* = (hc^5/n^5G)^1/2 << EP ~ 10^19 Gev
again all of these parameters get an i because n is negative
The Action Cartan 1-form is 
S = Et - Px ---> -S
So the Feynman amplitudes go to their complex conjugates.
The gravity coupling of matter to curvature is now n^4G/c^4 = 1/G-string tension
suppose n ~ 10^10

EP* ~ 10^-2510^19Gev ~ 10^-6Gev ~ 1Kev

Furthermore the classical coherent electromagnetic field energy density is negative - for classical fields this should produce antigravity for non-radiative near fields (coherent states of virtual photons) trapped inside the superconducting meta-material as confined quantized magnetic vortices (Abrikosov lattice) under Type II conditions.

The coupling of these magnetic vortices to the geometrodynamic field will be 10^40 times stronger than normal.

This amazing material in my imagination at the moment would also have stealth cloaking functionality.

 

On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:51 PM, COLIN BENNET wrote:

 


Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Ed
Who is honest? Who is guilty in your opinion? Frankly I am not following these details and only consider it a humorous opera buffa side show in the sense defined by Colin Bennett. I am only interested in hard evidence like in the excellent documentary I Know What I Saw
Colin Bennett wrote:

The Thinking Man's Crumpet

 

Yes well "I Know What I Saw" represents credible Ufology. This quite in contrast to Exopolitics, which is a post-modern meme-based prototypal entertainment system. Facts and fictions do not relate to such virtual superliminal  constructs as SERPO and Project Camelot, any more than this kind of plasma relates to the Yellow Brick Road of OZ or Bob Hope's Road to Morocco. If anything good could be said about Exopoliticians, it is that they represent cerebral Pop Art of a very high standard. This is a relatively new genre of highly wrought modern social comedy: it was born between the burgeoning games systems of web virtuality, and got caught between cyber culture, science fiction hallucinations, and countless elitist conspiracies of many a kidney. Having said that, I accept that Exopolitics is an authentic form of post-modern expression, and I rank it with Thunderbirds, Mission Impossible, and the UK Dr. Who.

In that it contains techno and futurist elements Exopolitics is far superior to broad-ass TV sitcoms. Once one accepts Exopolitical culture as a form of multimedia expressionism, it becomes interesting in itself. Most of these Exopolitical people are well educated, highly intelligent, powerfully motivated, quite different to the usual Pippin-style foil-hat okies from Muskokie. That they are all most probably quite sane is an interesting psychological mystery in itself. That they do not turn into script writers is another mystery. Conventional media may be too small and conventional a form of expression for them.

Like the aliens of Dr. Boylan, Exopolitical  aliens are always engaged in some form of Flash-Gordon daring-do adventures against various Men In Black cabals. Such  do not appear near gasworks or sewage treatment farms. They always appear in glamorous hi-tech inspirational backgrounds environment and appear to be complete functions of the techno world of image, symbol and metaphor rather than alien flesh.

 

Undoubtedly Exopolitics is Ufology as Art Form. Warhol would have loved these sculpted multimedia manifestations and their do-anything say-anything claims for human habitations on Mars and Aliens in the White House.

 

Exopolitics also has the purely erotic nature of instant throw-away consumerism. Let's face it - Exopolitics gives  give good intellectual sex. It represents the thinking person's Lady GaGa in the manner (in Britain) that "arts" TV woman Joan Bakewell once was said to represent "the thinking man's crumpet."

 

Asking Exopoliticians for "evidence" of their claims and belief is rather asking Alf or Yogi bear what kind of ice-cream they like. "Fact" in the strictest sense cannot be applied to Big Media any more than it can be applied to Webre & Co. Their a much deeper game being played in terms of the movement and change within image, symbol, and metaphor. The liminal memes which make up the body of  Exopolitics just don't work the "factual" way; they are performers in a comic metaphysical drama. We must remember that in our burgeoning Global Village there is no such thing as Cartesian distance.

 

Exopolitics is now at a stage in the Web Petri dish where they are about to mutate and transform themselves into at least imitation toy political systems relating to whole new systems of experience which relate minimally to the politics and economies old industrial world.

 

In that these things are  are political, they are new forms of existential control. where old industrial facts and evidence are no more relevant than the horse-drawn carriage.

 

Here we have a completely new stage of story technology (see my feature for UFO magazine "Did a Fishmonger Do It?").

 

Colin Bennett M.A. (oxon)
Author, London
Editor, The New Fortean Times

 

Mar 30

I know what I saw.

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

I would like to see how UFO debunkers react to this James Fox documentary.

I will check Google to see if there are any intelligent rebuttals of the data presented here.
This is better video quality - broken in parts.

On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:45 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


Clearly UFOs are real material spacecraft coming through Star Gate time machines - scenario of high probability.
Clearly also these advanced intelligences can control our minds as well as our electronic counter-measures in jet fighters etc.

If the hologram theory is correct we are all computed 3D images in a Destiny Matrix Reality anyway as in


details at http://stardrive.org
On Mar 30, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Jake Reason wrote:

Yes Jack.  Thanks for the reminder
 
How do you think this evidence squares with Dan's hypothesis that these objects are ethereal mind projections of UTs /spirits/ ghosts?
Dan often implies this is Ron Pandolfi's hypothesis as well.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:57 PM
 

Absolutely A+ this is good observational data for the most part.
The Belgian Air Force General, the Iranian fighter pilot, the three airmen at Rendlesham, one who actually touched the craft - maybe it was a drone? -
On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:10 AM, caryn anscomb wrote:

Just watched it – well put together and worth viewing. 

Date: March 30, 2010 8:30:34 PM PDT
To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Starfleet Command] Re: I know what I saw - Bruce Maccabee
Reply-To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com

The most complete report on JAL is also at my website. (Based on gov't 
documents given to me by RP.)

At an earlier UFO-related press conference (2003?) I gave Kaku a copy 
of my book, The UFO-FBI Connection. Don't know whether or not he read it.

>Subject: [Starfleet Command] Re: I know what I saw - Bruce Maccabee

>On Mar 30, 2010, at 7:52 PM, 
brumac@compuserve.com wrote:

>I've had the Iranian Jet Case (Parvis Jafari) on my web site for many 
>years before I met Jafari in 2007 at the press conference put on by 
>James Fox.
.>www.brumac.
 8k.com/IranJetCase/
>And don't forget the Chilean pilot who chased one in a Russian jet in 
>1980(?)(not sure of the year)

JACK WROTE:

Yes, the Chile case is also in the film as I recall. Michio Kaku told 
me in Santa Fe that he accepts the JAL close encounter as true.

__._,_.___
RECENT ACTIVITY:
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

 

 

 

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Mar 29, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

So, is this what t'Hooft had in mind when he wrote,

"They find some support from ancient publications by famous physicists; in the first decades of 
the 20th century, indeed, Karl Schwarzschild, Hermann Weyl, and even Albert Einstein, had 
misconceptions about the theory, which at that time was brand new, and these pioneers indeed 
had not yet grasped the full implications. They can be excused for that, but today's professional 
scientists know better
."

Ironically, in the above t'Hooft appears to agree with my position that Einstein's original version
of the EP (below) is not in fact supported by the modern version of GR.
On your particular point I have seen Einstein write explicitly he meant in the small! You are caught in a semantic quibble of no importance - in my opinion.

Which has been my position all along. What t'Hooft doesn't explicitly acknowledge here is 
that among Einstein's "misconceptions" about his 1916 theory of gravity was his entire concept 
of what he called "general relativity"!

The critical point here is that the modern version of EP, unlike Einstein's classic version below, is 
not a generalized relativity principle. It is merely a GR <-> SR correspondence principle, which is 
only strictly valid (and need only be strictly valid) inside an infinitesimal spacetime region, and
even then only with respect to a restricted subclass of "local" measurements.
The onus, the burden of proof is on you to prove that your imagined difference here makes a significant difference to the foundations of physics. I think not. Prove me wrong.

 

#1


Well Stephen, my theory about all this  is a theory of multiple cultural confusions (including mine own!).


The UFO is but one anomaly amongst many. Basically, almost all of the questions raised in the frenetic discussions of the past  week concern the general function of anomaly sets within a techno-scientific culture. The problem is how we manage the framework of cerebral cognition with respect to the  psycho-social structure of explanations, see my two features "Management of Mysteries" and "Chemtrails and UFOs"  in UFO magazines (Volume 21, Issue 6 and Vol 22 Issue 6 - both these two works are available as downloadable pdf from UFO Store). "Chemtrails and UFOs" was translated into German by Nexus, as was "Putting the Noise Back Into the System," which also originated in UFO magazine. Translations into French are following.

 

Basically the main theme is how we as a culture construct and manage explanations in order to get some sleep at night. I can't show the mathematics here, but I am making  some  progress with set theory as a mathematical approach concerning overlapping rejection and acceptance scales with regard to how we structure the so-called "mechanical real" as a measure of experience. "Putting the Noise Back Into the System" is now available in English on my web site. It is a post-modern discussion and analysis of Cargo Cult tribalism which is the only area fully validated as an analogue to UFO contact. What was (is) given  and taken in the flow of goods and ideas between cultural level 1 and cultural level 2 is a good model for "contact" whether with Little Green Men or the ghost of Old Mother Riley.

Here is some of it:

 

The Film Crews Arrive

"Consider:  a cargo-cult believer wakes up one morning in 2008 to see a film company on a beach shooting a dogfight between an F-51 Mustang fighter and a F-47 Thunderbolt. Such aircraft would inevitably be re-builds, fashioned from many parts of wrecked World War II aircraft plus modern parts built from original blueprints. These classic planes would be on hire either from private owners or from the equally private Confederate Air Force of the United States. Now let us suppose this combat represents a fight between a Japanese Zero and a Douglas Avenger, simply because now there are very few actual Zeros or Avengers in flying condition. Already, without metaphysics or theology, the situation as described is becoming symbolically rather complicated for an observer who has not yet invented the wheel, never mind agriculture or primitive navigation. This simple dog-fight situation becomes symbolically rather complex with regard to how we structure the real. Here are imitations within imitations fighting yet other imitations. The four aircraft mentioned are already subliminal filmstrips within the Western imagination. We cannot rid ourselves of such flying machines and their background any more than we can rid ourselves of James Bond or Charlie Chaplin, whose adventures are still running in our heads as we read and speak. Each young child, whether he or she likes it not, is going to have such aircraft in the head as operational software from countless games, commix, TV shows and films; kits will be sold, models made, dreams will be dreamed indeed of battles long ago way before almost a spoon is lifted to the mouth.

As well as being finite things, such machines are therefore major historical elements. They trail social psychology, science, and technology, as well as vales of tears and grief regarding the living and the dead. These shapes and sounds are therefore direct routes back to the almost-past of Western technological culture. Our holistic life threads right back through these aircraft and their mighty struggles, back to the Industrial Revolution via the development of engines, carburettors, propellers, rudders, and undercarriages. Can we be objective  before the ghosts of such machines and men?

Fractal Aeroplanes: the Forms of Time

How would our native conceive of such socio-historical-technological scaling, with all its complex history and its many dimensions? How could we explain that though the aircraft mentioned are now static in one form of time, in another form of time they represent ever-evolving adventures in the head? Further possible confusions abound as the fractals of perception open. Suppose our islander knows of a long-forgotten B-29 buried deep in the bush, and suppose the film-company carpenters built parts of a fuselage of a mock B-29 for this supposed war film before his very eyes, indeed? Mentally, his mind would be like a smashed telephone exchange. What would he make of our concepts of fact and fiction and infinite scaling of Sartre’s "being and nothingness" in between? Supposing one of our mock-mock aeroplanes were to develop engine trouble and crash to the ground, killing the pilot whose ancestors might well have happened to have flown the original planes in the original situation over the very same island? What measurements are possible here? What time, what clocks, and what measuring rods? Next, let us imagine that as part of our film a great naval task force appears offshore to land Marines. Let us suppose that blanks of varying dramatic power are fired, and the dead fall to the beach, only to get up again and head for the refreshment tent!

What a pickle out native philosopher would be in! He would hear radios, he would see women, he would smell fuel, and he would see many men as black indeed as himself comfortably involved in the entire order of things. However, he would not know that the whole dimension was a stage set. He would not know that what he was seeing was part of a system organized to produce and supply a series of artificial images without which almost all image-fed human beings in the Westwould suffer withdrawal symptoms.

Supposing now a UFO flies overhead, as has happened. The film crew are now in the position of our native, who won’t be bothered much, because in all likelihood he will equate the UFO with the Mustang and the Thunderbolt. The double trick is that the film crew themselves do not understand such paths in any case, due to internal differences of class, education, and intelligence.

If we build further into our model a theory of fallibilities and mistakes, then we have a reasonable degree of sophistication emerging involving a model of alien/human interaction...."

 

Colin Bennett M.A. (Oxon)

Author, London

Editor The New  Fortean Times

www.combat-diaries.co.uk

 

We see in Tamara Davis's Fig 5.1 that the 2D horizon entropy of our observer universe is bounded asymptotically by a constant value ~ 10^123 BITs.

This is actually the upper bound of the thermodynamic entropy of all quantum fields in the interior 3D bulk that are merely retro-causal hologram image projections in this crazy theory that 't Hooft invented in 1993, perhaps not realizing how crazy it really is - is it crazy enough to be true?
Therefore, as clock time progresses for the ideal immortal observer (central world line in Fig 1.1) there is an effective cold death of sorts since the entropy cannot increase indefinitely. Or, alternatively, if intelligence requires negative entropy, then everything must become reversible in the far future so that every act of consciousness there is balanced by an equal increase in entropy without any irreversibility. This seems odd.
Of course matter flows beyond the event horizon, which would normally increase the area of it like matter in-falling into a black hole. Actually to us inside the horizon the in-falling matter is nonlocally smeared all over the horizon. The only way this can happen consistently is for compensating negative entropy in the bulk - looks like perhaps the creation of Tielhard de Chardin's cosmic VALIS cosmic conscious intelligence?
Remember, I said the theory is crazy. I am just beginning to see how crazy it really is. ;-)

 

On Mar 28, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Paul Murad wrote:

Jack:
 
This is a useful function you are performing.  However, I have some problems with the approach used by physicists in general.
 
This is like going to church, temple or a synogogue. That is you really do not understand except if you have an annointed individual there to lead you through the steps.  What this does here is it puts blinders on the use of these equations and the broader implication of what these equations really mean is sacrificed because of misunderstandings. If I look at a modification of the conventional wisdom and use it as such but it falls outside of the guidelines suggested by the annointed one, then I must be incorrect.  If there is no experimental data available, who is to say who is correct and who is incorrect? If that happens then the possibility of my seriously reexamining the use of these equations would be greatly hindered.
 
This is serious "don't touch, don't tell." 
 
Now obviously if there is an error in the intrepretation, it is useful to point it out.  However, the main objective is to widen the use and applicability of these equations such that its use spreads not only to the physicists but to the engineer as well.  Physicists in general do not build things whereas engineers do.  We have a choice to either contemplate our navel or get serious and share the knowledge base to build something that could be real serious.  In other words, one group has to mentor the other group and remember that these are not equations that cover a very narrow perspective but a far broader view of the physical phenomenon that may reveal the secrets of mother nature... and maybe even God.
Paul...

 

Read more carefully what 't Hooft says. He clearly addresses your methodological qualms expressed below.

Anything that contradicts battle-tested mainstream physics must be rejected - certainly when it comes to funding decisions by USG - and rightly so.
Sure, anomalous data is always of extreme importance - we all agree on that. All physics theories are incomplete in principle subject to extension, but the extension must always contain the previous theory as a limiting case. The objection to string theory was that there was no way to test it experimentally - that situation seems to be changing.

Where Brian Josephson and I may disagree with 't Hooft is on the truth of anomalous data in the paranormal and UFO areas - but we do not disagree with his theoretical opinions on quantum theory and relativity in essentials. I think Brian will agree with that? As we saw in the JASON meeting evaluating the HFGW data is tricky and I could not even get them to look at Ray Chiao's work on electro-gravitic superconductor transduction. I think Ron was out of the room when I brought that up, but you and Mark Pesses were there as I recall.


"As for my "stupidity", my own knowledge of the theory does not come from blindly accepting wisdom from text books; text books do contain mistakes, so I only accept scientific facts when I fully understand the arguments on which they are based. I feel no need whatsoever to defend standard scientific wisdom; I only defend the findings of which I have irrefutable evidence, and it so happens that most of these are indeed agreed upon by practically all experts in the field."



From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, March 28, 2010 5:07:15 PM
Subject: My comments on Gerard 't Hooft on misconceptions of Einstein's theory of Gravity

Read the complete article by 't Hooft at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html

excerpts - my comments in [ ... ] unless I say to the contrary, I agree with the quoted excerpts. I want it to be clear that I am a "radical conservative" in John Archibald Wheeler's sense. I think mainstream quantum theory and relativity are correct. All physical theories have limited domains of validity in David Bohm's sense, but all extensions of mainstream physics theories must limit to them, e.g. Antony Valentini's post-quantum theory with "signal nonlocality" violating "no-cloning" "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony) in sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the particle trajectories and classical field configuration "hidden variables" http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini

As should be clear from my past discussions with Z, I definitely agree with 't Hooft's:

"These self proclaimed scientists in turn blame me of "not understanding functional analysis". Indeed, L maintains that there is a difference between a  mathematical calculation and its physical interpretation, which I do not understand. He makes a big point about Einstein's "equivalence principle" being different from the "correspondence principle", and everyone, like me, who says that they in essence amount to being the same thing, if you want physical reality to be described by mathematical models, doesn't understand a thing or two. True. Nonsensical statements I often do not understand. What I do understand is that both ways of phrasing this principle require that one focuses on infinitesimally tiny space-time volume elements."

&

"I emphasize that any modification of Einstein's equations into something like  R μν  - 1/2 R gμν κ(Tμν + t μν (grav))   where  t μν (grav)   would be something like a "gravitational contribution" to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, is blatantly wrong.   Writing such a proposal betrays a complete misunderstanding of what General Relativity is about. The energy and momentum of the gravitational field is completely taken into account by the non-linear parts of the original equation. This can be understood and proven easily, as I explained in the main text.  Note that a freely falling observer experiences no gravitational field and no energy-momentum transfer; hence there cannot be a covariant tensor such as  t μν (grav) ."

__._,_.___

 

Mar 28

Just woke up with this thought

If dark energy is thermal Hawking radiation (noting that thermal photons for one observer are virtual zero point photons for another - unitarily non-equivalent vacua) then what about the cosmological frequency shifts?
However, the fact is that the observed dark energy density does empirically fit
dark energy density = (entropy/area of future horizon)^-1
(h = G = c = kB = 1)
and this area is asymptotically constant

The derivation from the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be taken too literally since we cannot focus radiation into a space much smaller than its peak wavelength.

A ~ NLP^2 = area of our future horizon hologram computer spherical shell screen pixelated in Planck area BITs

the Hawking-Unruh horizon temperature is

T ~ hc/kBN^1/2L

T^4 ~ 1/N^2

Stefan-Boltzmann law

Poynting vector (power per unit cross-section area) ~ T^4

P ~ hc^2/NLP^2 ~ 10^-27 10^21 10^66/10^123 ~ 10^60/10^123 ~ 10^-63 ergs/sec

pretty damn small - the peak frequency of this advanced black body radiation is f ~ 1/N^1/2Lp

This power P from the future is focused into a single quantum of volume N^1/2 LP^3 over a cosmological time period of N^1/2LP/c giving the dark energy density

N ~ 10^123

(hc/NLP^2N^1/2LP^3)N^1/2LP/c ~ hc/NLP^4 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc