You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

May
28

Tagged in:

I suppose the 10^-17 cm inference from the raw data comes from only looking at the elastic scattering piece of the amplitude so that no real electron-positron pairs are created in that sub-sample?

On May 28, 2011, at 12:43 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:* That doesn't sound right. The dressing virtual e/p pairs do not have a diameter of 10^-11 cm (the Compton wavelength). If they did, the charge distribution would show up in lepton-lepton scattering experiments. But they show no charge distribution down to about 10^-17 cm as I recall. Electrons are very much smaller than the Compton wavelength.*

I put in 10^-11cm only because momentum transfers in inelastic scattering > h/10^-11 cm excite real e+-e- pairs out of the virtual plasma cloud. Of course you are correct about the form-factor measurements at the 10^-17 cm scale. Therefore, a very careful look at how Imperial is interpreting their data is in order. I have not done so of course - major job for others. We also need to bear in mind how the Bohm interpretation would apply to the new data. Also remember if my picture of strong short range gravity applies there are severe space distortions so that a large extended Bohm hidden variable sphere of charge will "shrink" in a high energy scattering!

e.g. dR = dr(1 - rs/r)^-1/2

whilst circumference C = 2pir

hence ratio of C/R ---> 0 as r --> rs in a scattering.

From: JACK SARFATTI To: "jfwoodward@juno.com woodward" Cc:

Subject: Re: Electron is near perfect sphere? Good news for Bohmians from Imperial College, London? (Dr. Quantum)

Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 23:39:30 -0700

From: JACK SARFATTI Date: May 27, 2011 11:39:30 PM PDT

To:

Subject: Re: Electron is near perfect sphere? Good news for Bohmians from Imperial College, London? (Dr. Quantum)

PS the work at Imperial is trying to find an electric dipole moment of the electron viewed as a distortion in the virtual electron-positron-photon plasma ball of order h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm.

On May 27, 2011, at 9:52 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 26, 2011, at 11:34 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Ah! At last. Yes, getting semi-classical electrons right is pivotal in exotic physics. . . . :-)

Yes, however I need to fix my sloppy algebra yesterday done in haste, I think I switch sign conventions mid-way and it's not correct at the "stability" part, but the conclusion is.

Basically, if you use convention force = - Grad potential

+ e^2/r has Grad = -e^2/r^2 and the force is +e^2/r^2 repulsive pointing away from r = 0.

forgetting factors of m, c etc for now

If we also use - / ^2 for the potential

then its Grad is - 2/ so the force ~ + 2/ repulsive for / > 0 i.e. as in de Sitter metric g00 = 1 - / ^2 with a future event horizon at / ^2 = 1 in this static LNIF rep where we are at r = 0.

this is also the interior of George Chapline's dark star that I independently thought of BTW

attractive for / < 0 as in anti de Sitter metric without an event horizon.

it's the anti de Sitter case that is the Poincare stress strong zero point energy induced gravity glue opposing the self-repulsion of the extended hollow shell of electric charge.

v2 corrected!

PS a simple classical model

Old classical model

The self-energy electrical potential energy of the extended electron of radius a is

Vself = +xe^2/a > 0

x is a model-dependent dimensionless number of order unity

This is obviously unstable.

Add the virtual particle interior to the shell of charge e and rest mass m, this is a dimensionless effective potential per unit test mass energy

We now have a quantum corrected semi-classical effective potential

V(r) = Vself + VQM = +xe^2/mc^2r - / ^2

(note we can also consider a |/|^1/2 r term with a constant "force" as in the accelerating universe, but it has a vanishing 2nd derivative)

the critical point is

dV/dr = 0

-xe^2/mc^2r^2 - 2/ = 0

i.e. using the classical electron radius

re = e^2/mc^2

-xre /r^2 - 2/ = 0

-xre - 2/a^3 = 0

2/ = -xre /a^3

a^3 = -xre /2/

check the stability

d^2V/dr^2 = 2xre/a^3 + 2/ = -4/ + 2/ = -2/

stability requires / < 0, i.e. second derivative must be positive for stability in this function of a single real variable r

we can also put in "spin" as a dimensionless centrifugal potential in the rotating frame ~ (J/mc^2)^2r^-2 etc.

Reinforcing the Murphys' accounts of their adventures in the Soviet Union, cultural scholar Birgit Menzel, from Mainz, Germany. shared her own research on Russian folk culture, focusing on the Russian mystical tradition of shamans, wandering monks and holy fools as well as describing her studies of contemporary upwellings of esoteric spiritual practices in Russia since the fall of the communist state.

my books Destiny Matrix and the new one Star Gate have considerable material on Esalen, Michael, Spy Games - tied in with what happened to us in Europe, Dennis Bardens et-al Have you seen Puthoff's video on this?

On May 27, 2011, at 10:26 AM, nick herbert wrote:

hippies was just the sideshow

superpowers was the main event.

On May 27, 2011, at 9:18 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

it would have been appropriate to have invited me and Fred Alan Wolf for the Hippies meeting I think

however, I was in Paris & London then

tell Michael maybe next time

;-)

On May 26, 2011, at 11:21 PM, nick herbert wrote:

============================================================

http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com/2011/05/esalen-supersymposium-iv.html

May
27

Tagged in:

http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2011/05/hal-puthoff-on-remote-viewing-and.html

Much is still classified. This is a very important video. Further info is in MIT Physics Professor David Kaiser's book

"How The Hippies Saved Physics."

Note that my paper allegedly vetted by Roger Penrose explains the physical basis for remote viewing, i.e., signal nonlocality.

http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf

May
27

Susskind writes in

SU-ITP-93-15

June 1993

hep-th/9306069

The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity

Leonard Susskind, L´arus Thorlacius,† and John Uglum*"We argue that a phenomenological description of black holes, based on the idea of a “stretched horizon,' which can absorb, thermalize, and re-emit information, is consistent with these postulates."*

Note word "absorb." In the case of our future event horizon the re-emission must be Wheeler-Feynman advanced waves in the sense of the Cramer transaction.

Note in this case there is an "infinite" blueshift at the future event horizon absorber for the retarded wave that redshifts back to the emitter frequency in the advanced wave in a self-consistent time loop.*"Although we shall not introduce specific postulates about observers who fall through the global event horizon, there is a widespread belief which we fully share. The belief is based on the equivalence principle and the fact that the global event horizon of a very massive black hole does not have large curvature, energy density, pressure, or any other invariant signal of its presence. For this reason, it seems certain that a freely falling observer experiences nothing out of the ordinary when crossing the horizon."*

This belief becomes questionable if there is an actual plasma at the horizon induced by the interaction of photons on null geodesics with the virtual particles stuck to the horizon. Same would apply to massive particles on timelike geodesics. The existence of a real plasma would be locally frame invariant. A similar issue arises in George Chapline's dark star model that looks like a black hole to the exterior observers.

May
27

Tagged in:

Subject: Re: Electron is near perfect sphere? Good news for Bohmians from Imperial College, London? (Dr. Quantum)

On May 26, 2011, at 11:34 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Ah! At last. Yes, getting semi-classical electrons right is pivotal in exotic physics. . . . :-)

Yes, however I need to fix my sloppy algebra yesterday done in haste, I think I switch sign conventions mid-way and it's not correct at the "stability" part, but the conclusion is.

Basically, if you use convention force = - Grad potential

+ e^2/r has Grad = -e^2/r^2 and the force is +e^2/r^2 repulsive pointing away from r = 0.

forgetting factors of m, c etc for now

If we also use - /
^2 for the potential

then its Grad is - 2/
so the force ~ + 2/

repulsive for / > 0 i.e. as in de Sitter metric g00 = 1 - /
^2 with a future event horizon at /
^2 = 1 in this static LNIF rep where we are at r = 0.

this is also the interior of George Chapline's dark star that I independently thought of BTW

attractive for / < 0 as in anti de Sitter metric without an event horizon.

it's the anti de Sitter case that is the Poincare stress strong zero point energy induced gravity glue opposing the self-repulsion of the extended hollow shell of electric charge.

v2 corrected!

PS a simple classical model

Old classical model

The self-energy electrical potential energy of the extended electron of radius a is

Vself = +xe^2/a > 0

x is a model-dependent dimensionless number of order unity

This is obviously unstable.

Add the virtual particle interior to the shell of charge e and rest mass m, this is a dimensionless effective potential per unit test mass energy

We now have a quantum corrected semi-classical effective potential

V(r) = Vself + VQM = +xe^2/mc^2r - /
^2

(note we can also consider a |/|^1/2 r term with a constant "force" as in the accelerating universe, but it has a vanishing 2nd derivative)

the critical point is

dV/dr = 0

-xe^2/mc^2r^2 - 2/
= 0

i.e. using the classical electron radius

re = e^2/mc^2

-xre /r^2 - 2/
= 0

-xre - 2/a^3 = 0

2/ = -xre /a^3

a^3 = -xre /2/

check the stability

d^2V/dr^2 = 2xre/a^3 + 2/ = -4/ + 2/ = -2/

stability requires / < 0, i.e. second derivative must be positive for stability in this function of a single real variable r

we can also put in "spin" as a dimensionless centrifugal potential in the rotating frame ~ (J/mc^2)^2r^-2 etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxima_and_minima

Please note: message attached

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

To: Jonathan Post <jvospost3@gmail.com>

Cc:
Subject: Re: Electron is near perfect sphere? Good news for Bohmians from Imperial College, London?

Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 17:15:35 -0700

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

Date: May 26, 2011 5:15:35 PM PDT

To: Jonathan Post <jvospost3@gmail.com>

Cc: david kaiser <dikaiser@MIT.EDU>, "jfwoodward@juno.com woodward" <jfwoodward@juno.com>, Hal Puthoff <Puthoff@aol.com>, Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@mindspring.com>, Creon Levit <creon.levit@nasa.gov>, Bernard J Carr <b.j.Carr@qmul.ac.uk>, Basil Hiley <b.hiley@bbk.ac.uk>, Sharon Weinberger <sharonweinberger@gmail.com>, Gary Bekkum <garybekkum@yahoo.com>, Sinziana Paduroiu <sinziana.paduroiu@unige.ch>

Subject: Re: Electron is near perfect sphere? Good news for Bohmians from Imperial College, London?

On May 26, 2011, at 3:47 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

No that is no longer true once quantum gravity effects are included. I talk about it in my Journal of Cosmology article that Penrose allegedly vetted. Sure what you say was the case CLASSICALLY that's the famous problem that I claim I have solved.

Virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate strongly enough on the Compton scale to counter-act the self-repulsion of the classical shell of electric charge.

Of course virtual bosons will anti-gravitate so in order for this scheme to work the density of virtual fermion pairs must exceed the density of the virtual bosons.

My model is similar to George Chapline's dark star on the macro-scale. He has repulsive dark energy (virtual bosons dominate) interior to the event horizon. In contrast, I have attractive dark matter (virtual fermion-antifermion pairs dominate) interior to the classical shell of charge.

On May 26, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:

I've published a refereed paper about why spherical shells or spherical cloud electrons don't work, as was well known early in the 20th century. To be blunt:

(1) each negative part repels each other negative part, and they explode;

well known - that's the classical Abraham-Lorentz-Poincare stress problem.

(2) when you use classical electromagnetism to see what happens when the shell or cloud is accelerated by a force, you get a differential equation that forces you to "pre-accelerate" the electron before t=0 just to be able to get displacement, velocity, and acceleration to agree with F=mA. That is, you get a mess that required a third derivative of displacement with respect to time. More terms just make things worse.

Yes of course, this is well known from Dirac e.g. Hoyle-Narlikar papers.

(3) It is a dirty little secret that vexed Schrodinger, Dirac, Einstein et al,. -- there is no workable semiclassical theory of the electron.

There is now.

Then Feynman invented QED and, as I say, the problem vanished. But the electrons must be true points. Zero radius.

Not any more. That's the conventional wisdom that is wrong.

May
26

Tagged in:

Begin forwarded message:

On May 26, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On 5/25/2011 8:09 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 25, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On 5/25/2011 6:02 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

If the measuring rod really contracted in the direction of zero g-force uniform motion this would cause asymmetric strains in the material of the rod and cause tidal distortions in the uniformly moving observer relative to the absolute global rest frame - clearly this is complete nonsense.

Well then so much for John Bell's "Lorentzian pedagogy"!

Exactly, it may have been his greatest blunder!

Well maybe you do have a point here.

But inertially moving clocks could be regarded as physically slowing down, according to the Lorentz transformations, and then length

contraction could be derived from the apparent changes in physical simultaneity (i.e. simultaneity defined by synchronization of the

actual readings shown by moving physical clocks) from end to end of an inertially moving measuring rod, in manner analogous to

orthodox SR, right?

I don't see how the relativity of simultaneity suffices to justify the Lorentzian-Fitzgerald-Bell approach. If you say the rod really shrinks or the clock really slows down relative to some global Galilean frame of absolute rest, then unless there is some way to measure that contraction/dilation intrinsically in the rest frame of the moving detector - the theory is baloney.is

Of course we can measure clock retardation.

We measure time dilation in the half-life of cosmic ray muons for example. Sure. But that is a frame-covariant effect. It's perfectly symmetrical. That is, detectors moving with the cosmic ray shower would show the same time dilation for muons at rest in the Earth frame. There is no way to locally intrinsically measure the absolute velocity of an object in its rest frame relative to the alleged global rest frame. This is unlike locally measuring curvature in an LIF for example. However, we can measure the "absolute", more precisely the "peculiar velocity" relative to the Hubble flow using the CMB anisotropy and the absolute time using the CMB BB temperature in cosmology - a spontaneous breakdown of Poincare group symmetry in the vacuum solution - the field equations are still locally Lorentz sub-group invariant.

The *physical model* that we have adopted tells us what we are measuring. In the Einstein model,

we are measuring kinematical time dilation. In Poincare-Lorentz, we are measuring physical clock retardation. Either way, the *appearance* of length

contraction results from *observed* shifts in simultaneity as you go from one inertial frame to another.

In the Poincare-Lorentz model, we are simply judging simultaneity using uncorrected physically retarded clock readings, but that is enough to get

agreement with the observations. If you correct the clock readings for the objective physical effects of inertial motion, then you recover Galilean

*kinematical* simultaneity in this model. Of course that doesn't apply to the Einstein model, where the kinematics directly reflects the readings of

the moving clocks (assuming the clocks are otherwise "good").

It's not good physics because there is no operational procedure to falsify "the rod really contracts in its direction of absolute uniform zero g-force motion" or, similarly "the clock really slows down"

.

But neither is there any operational procedure to falsify the proposition "space contracts" or, similarly, the proposition "time slows down", in

the observer's inertial frame of reference. So the choice between models cannot be decided on such operational grounds alone.

Again, I'm not arguing this as a fundamental theory, just as an engineering model. Or a "pedagogy", if you prefer.

Again think of the Ricci compressions and the Weyl tidal distortions that even can be detected locally and intrinsically in a LIF - it would have to be something like that!

We can measure clock retardation in the Poincare-Lorentz model. As Einstein famously said to Heisenberg (in the1926 conversation about Einstein's own 1905 paper), "It

is the theory that tells you what can be measured".

Something is "real" only if it's (local) frame "gauge" covariant from which invariants can be computed. Therefore the shrinkage and dilation must be intrinsically measurable even in the rest frame of the allegedly really moving rod/clock - just as tensor curvature is real.

Well I agree, but isn't that the point of objective clock retardation? That it is an objective physical effect?

In the Minkowski spacetime geometry, the invariant spacetime interval s determines the times read by moving clocks. It is represented

by a Lorentz tensor. If one interprets Minkowski spacetime in terms of a Poincare-Lorentz type model, the Lorentzian metric can be

understood as a geometric representation of the objective slowing of clocks in inertial motion. In a generally covariant formulation of

Minkowski's spacetime geometry, the invariant interval becomes a general tensor.

Doesn't that overcome your objection?

Note, that in cosmology there is the global rest frame of the Hubble flow in which the CMB is maximally isotropic to 1 part in 10^5 in the sense of WMAP etc.

Right. There is a natural choice for a global rest frame in modern cosmology.

But this is a spontaneous breakdown of the vacuum Lorentz group analogous to the Heisenberg ferromagnet for the rotation group, the field equations are still dynamically invariant under the Lorentz group for locally coincident LIF --> LIF' maps e.g. the tetrads e^I are Lorentz group 4-vectors.

Well if you have a set of Lorentz transformations under which the laws of physics are invariant, then you have a Lorentz

group. But this applies in both the Einstein and Poincare-Lorentz models for Minkowski SR. Only the physical interpretation

of the Lorentz transformations is different.

Then there would be no need for actual physical compression in the model, only for the actual universal slowing of clocks.

Word salad. This is mere word play. If you can't tell an experimental physicist how to measure it, it ain't good physics. It's what Feynman meant by "philofawzy".

I'm just saying there is no need for actual length contraction in either model.

The point here Jack is that it is the physical model that is adopted that tells you what you are measuring with you operational procedures.

Einstein himself understood this by 1926:

"For the first time, therefore, I now had the opportunity to talk with Einstein himself. On the way home, he questioned me about my background, my studies with Sommerfeld. But on arrival, he at once began with a central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the notion of electron path' did not occur at all, but that in a cloud chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in which the electron's movements were occuring. I defended myself to begin with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in the theory.

"To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: 'Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it is nonsense all the same.'... ...He pointed out to me that the very concept of observation was itself already problematic. Every observation, so he argued, presupposes that there is an unambiguous connection known to us, between the phenomenon to be observed and the sensation which eventually penetrates into our consciousness. But we can only be sure of this connection, if we know the natural laws by which it is determined. If, however, as is obviously the case in modern atomic physics, these laws have to be called into question, then even the concept of "observation" loses its clear meaning. In that case, it is the theory which first determines what can be observed."

http://www.intercom.net/~tarababe/Einstein-Heisenberg.html

The Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction would then be reduced to an epiphenomenon of physical time dilation. In this respect a Poincare-Lorentz type

model would thus follow exactly the same approach as Einstein SR. Wouldn't that overcome your objection?

No, because your sentences make no sense to me. They sound good, but I see no meaning to them.

Isn't it the case that in Einstein's model, length contraction is an epiphenomenon of relativistic time dilation? Isn't it the case that in Einstein's 1905

theory, length contraction is only apparent, while physical time actually slows down relative to the observer's inertial frame of reference?

I think this is the position taken in several textbooks. French's "Special Relativity", for example.

<moz-screenshot-4.png>

Remember, we're talking about an engineering model here, not fundamental theory. I'm still assuming that the fundamental theories

here are orthodox SR and orthodox GR.

This strain asymmetry in uniform zero-g force motion would be analogous to the Ricci and Weyl curvature distortions that are detectable on timelike geodesics.

Therefore, I do not think the objective distortion idea can work.

OK, but what about deriving it from changes in physical simultaneity due to the objective physical behavior of moving clocks?

Again this is word salad.

But you said that "real" physical quantities should transform as tensors. Doesn't the objectivity of inertial clock retardation in the Poincare-Lorentz

model naturally result in tensor invariance in a 4D spacetime geometric representation?

You are misusing "objectivity." Sure the half-life of unstable particles is frame-covariant just like measuring components of the EM field tensor Fuv is frame-covariant and frame invariants can be constructed from the raw data.

If the observer at rest with the absolutely moving clock cannot locally detect his absolute motion then it's not good physics.

So you disagree with Einstein in the quote above, where he reportedly says to Heisenberg, "... every theory in fact contains unobservable

quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out..."?

Not at all. That does not follow from what I have written. I agree with Einstein obviously. I say ALL local observables must be frame-covariant like Fuv for example with respect to the global (and localized) dynamical symmetries (with compensating spin 1 gauge connections), with the proviso, that some of these local symmetries may be spontaneously broken in the vacuum spacetime continuum. Also, we are restricted by the local light cones as well as the global light-like horizons (e.g. the Susskind papers)- unless we have post-quantum signal nonlocality, but that is largely uncharted territory still. Also I am neglecting smearing of the light cones from alleged quantum gravity.

Note we can detect peculiar motion relative to the Hubble flow of the expanding accelerating universe from the anisotropy in the CMB and we can measure absolute time from the CMB temperature.

Right.

Where the distance between the endpoints of an inertially moving rod "at the same time" depends on the physical behavior of the clocks? In other words, length

contraction would be an artifact of using moving physical clocks to determine simultaneity according to the usual synchronization procedures?

I have no idea what your sentence means physically. You seem to be going round in circles.

I'm talking about simultaneity judged using inertially moving clocks and the standard Poincare-Einstein synchronization procedure. If the clock

readings are taken at face value, then simultaneity *appears* to change with the observer's inertial frame in the 1905 Poincare model, just as it

does in the 1905 Einstein model.

We are talking about different things here. My point is that if you cannot measure the effect in a LIF it is not real. More specifically, if one claims there is an absolute rest frame and if there is no way to measure uniform motion relative to it, then it is not real physically. Of course, in cosmology, this particular effect is real from the spontaneously breakdown of time translation and boost symmetry - this is ultimately a non-classical quantum effect appended to classical relativity.

In the Poincare model, the clocks actually slow down -- it's an objective physical effect -- and that is accounted for in Minkowski's 4D spacetime

geometry by the (tensor) invariance of the spacetime interval. On the other hand there is nothing in Einstein's 1905 theory to physically account

for such invariance. From the Einstein 1905 POV, this pops up out of nowhere.

Interestingly, Minkowski himself commented on this.

Isn't that essentially what we do in orthodox SR? Isn't it the frame-dependent changes in simultaneity from point to point that result in length

contraction in SR?

That's the point. Length contraction is not real in orthodox SR it's an optical illusion from the finite speed of light and the Lorentz group.

OK.

I'm saying that the situation regarding length contraction would be essentially the same in a Poincare-Lorentz type model. I'm saying there is no more

need for actual contraction in such a model than there is in the Einstein model for SR.

To the guy on the moving meter stick it still is a meter. Similarly, for the ticking of the clock. Of course, we measure time dilation in the cosmic mu meson experiment etc., but that does not contradict my point here.

OK.

So in either theory all we need is universal inertial clock retardation. In Einstein's 1905 theory, the retardation is kinematical;

in the Poincare-Lorentz approach, the retardation is dynamical.

Another example, is that a moving rod actually appears to rotate not contract when you do the problem correctly.

Length contraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1959 Roger Penrose and James Terrell published papers demonstrating that length contraction instead actually show up as elongation or even a rotation in ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction - Cached - Similar

?

Terrell rotation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This behaviour was described independently by both James Terrell and ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation - Cached - Similar

Show more results from wikipedia.org

Terrell Rotation

Sep 24, 2002 ... IMO if you compare, what you should see at high speed, includingTerrell Rotation, when no length contraction is involved (ie length l0) ...

users.telenet.be/nicvroom/terrell.htm - Cached

Can You See the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction?

Or: Penrose-Terrell Rotation. People sometimes argue over whether the Lorentz- Fitzgerald contraction is "real" or not. That's a topic for another FAQ entry, ...

www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html -Cached

The true nature of length contraction

16 posts - 7 authors - Last post: Oct 9, 2006

The true nature of length contraction Special & General Relativity discussion. ...Indeed, Penrose and Terrell revealed more about the effects of high speed ...

www.physicsforums.com › Physics › Special & General Relativity -Cached

Penrose-Terrell rotation - 11 posts - May 11, 2011

4 length contraction questions. - 16 posts - Oct 13, 2010

Length Contraction (Dilation?) - 3 posts - Jun 15, 2010

Length Contraction Documentary - 12 posts - Jan 20, 2010

More results from physicsforums.com »

OK, so you agree that there is no actual length contraction in Einstein's 1905 model. I'm saying there is no need for it in a Poincare-Lorentz

type model either.

Remember, there are no detectable distortions of measuring rods and clocks on timelike geodesics for observers at rest with respect to them.

Right.

On May 25, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On 5/25/2011 5:32 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 25, 2011, at 5:17 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On 5/25/2011 5:03 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 25, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Well, how did we get along without 4 tensors in Newtonian gravity?

Newton's theory does not have a good theory of measurement. It cannot correctly tell you what locally coincident detectors measuring the same events will record.

So for example if we have a pair of coincident accelerometers moving in different accelerating frames, non-covariantly formulated Newtonian theory in

3D space doesn't allow us to predict the readings of the accelerometers, given some source mass M at some location x?

Well we have to use the Galilean group, so if v/c << 1 for the detectors, I suppose within that approximation one will get a decent answer.

But in Hal's PV there is no effective procedure or algorithm to even answer your question. If there is then Hal will show us how.

OK fair enough, we would of course have to invoke Lorentz transformations, either in a Poincare-Lorentz or an Einsteinian framework. Poicare-Lorentz

is known to give all the same predictions as Einstein's approach, but would be a better match with the PV model which as I understand it attributes the

metrical effects of gravity to the objective physical distortion of the measuring instruments.

Either way agreed you need Lorentz transformations to get accurate predictions unless v << c. But I still don't see why you need a 4D tensor formalism.

After all, there was no 4D spacetime in Einstein's non-covariant 1905 model, was there?

Or in the classical optics of refractive media?

The old equations only work in the rest frame of the material.

Are you saying you can't predict and allow for the effects of observer frame transformations on the comoving detector readings

without going to a 4D tensor formalism?

You cannot predict correctly when v/c ~ 1 and the locally coincident detectors are accelerating.

OK but you can if you attribute the high velocity effects to objective motion-dependent physical changes in the measuring instruments,

correct? I'm not saying that one necessarily *should* do this, just that if this is done you do get accurate predictions from a set of Lorentz-

type transformations without the use of tensors -- as per Poincare-Lorentz 1905-6.

Even Einstein, who bundled the Lorentz transformations into the kinematics using coordinate frames, didn't need tensors to get accurate

predictions.

And doesn't PV assume flat reference geometry for the kinematics? With objective gravitational distortion

of physical measuring rods?

Ask Hal.

OK.

In the PV model, does the lack of general covariance imply that this flat reference geometry is not invariant

under general frame transformations?

Ask Hal.

OK.

On 5/25/2011 4:36 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 25, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

But this is only needed if you go to a 4D representation of motion. There is no practical need for 4-tensors

in a 3D + 1 representation. And if I understand it correctly, PV is a 3D + 1 model for gravity.

No that is wrong. See the ADM formulation for example.

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Arnowitt-Deser-Misner_formalism

also you completely miss the physics i.e.

The tensor and spinor maps allow you to write the same intrinsic geometry in terms of LNIFs on arbitrary timelike worldlines.

Of course you *can* reformulated a pre-Einstein 3D + 1 model (such as Newton's theory) in a covariant

4D framework, but there is no practical need to do it if we are only interested in using the model for

engineering purposes. We can still make predictions regarding the effects experienced by moving

detectors just as we can in traditional Newtonian physics.

Are you saying that a 4D covariant tensor formulation is needed for that? Or just that it makes things

neater from a mathematical perspective?

On 5/25/2011 4:06 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

For example

if you write a formal expression such as

g00 = 1 - rs/r for rs/r < 1 et-al

or

g00' = 1 - /\r^2 et-al

for a detector at r = 0

these representations are shadows on the wall of Plato's Cave where the Platonic form or Idea is the invariant

ds^2(r) = guv(LNIF)dx^udx^v = nIJ(LIF)dx^Idx^J

the above representations are only valid for a class of hovering static LNIF detectors whose world lines are not timelike geodesics.

The tensor and spinor maps allow you to write the same intrinsic geometry in terms of LNIFs on arbitrary timelike worldlines.

On May 25, 2011, at 3:54 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On May 25, 2011, at 3:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

I'm not trying to sell you on PV. I'm just suggesting that the *purpose* of the the toy model developed by

Thorne et al. is very similar to Hal's purpose in developing his PV "engineering model" for GR.

Perhaps, but Kip's model agrees with observation and Hal's does not.

Agreed that Hal's version of PV is not tensor covariant, but I will say that since it is a purely mathematical

exercise to render any reasonable physical theory into fully covariant form, I don't see this as a fundamental

objection.

No, here is the physical point you miss. What tensor and spinor formal transformations mean physically when combined with the EEP tetrad map is how locally coincident detectors data may be computed to get invariants on simultaneous local measurements of the same set of events, e.g. photons from a distant pulsar etc.

Therefore, Hal's PV model does not have a clear theory of measurement of its fundamental observables.

I imagine that the Thorne model has very similar limitations to the PV model.

Not as far as I know.

I'm not sure that "Popper falsifiability" is directly relevant to an approximate "engineering" model which as

such is subject to purely pragmatic criteria. After all, NASA continues to use Newtonian gravitational theory

as an "engineering model" for the computation of satellite orbits, and I doubt that the engineers at NASA are

concerned that Newton's theory has been deemed to have been "falsified" in favor of GR -- as long as the

accuracy of the predictions is sufficient for engineering purposes.

Well you need GR for GPS positioning for example. That's very pragmatic.

On 5/25/2011 2:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The basic defects in Hal's model in my opinion are:

1) not local frame covariant - no tensors

2) no event horizons - all of modern relativity assumes horizons and t' Hooft-Susskind hologram approach depends on it "causal diamond" et-al - Uruh effect, Hawking radiation

3) falsified by data

4) can't do rotating masses

But at least it was Popper falsifiable.

On May 25, 2011, at 2:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Maybe- but I gave you the mechanism below why it works.

It has to do with virtual electron-positron pairs at the horizon similar to Stephen Hawking's picture leading to Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation from the acceleration of the virtual pairs "stuck" to the horizon membrane as static LNIFs i.e.

covariant acceleration of a static LNIF = (Newtonian gravity "force" acceleration)/g00^1/2 ---> infinity at a horizon where g00 ---> 0

therefore an enormous Unruh temperature that pulls virtual electron-positron pairs into real electron-positron pairs one falls down the black hole, the other escapes to us.

PS to model the constant force acceleration of the universe requires for static LNIFs inside the cosmological future horizon (outside a black hole horizon in that dual case)

g00' = 1 - /\^1/2r

rather than the de Sitter

g00 = 1 - /\r^2

On May 25, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

But this is merely a classical working model, right? Of an inherently quantum mechanical phenomenon?

In this respect similar in purpose to Hal Puthoff's PV model?

On 5/25/2011 10:53 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

As I understand it. Kip's idea applies to neutral Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes without any real net external charge. It has to do with virtual electron-positron pairs at the horizon similar to Stephen Hawking's picture leading to Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation from the acceleration of the virtual pairs "stuck" to the horizon membrane as static LNIFs i.e.

covariant acceleration of a static LNIF = (Newtonian gravity "force" acceleration)/g00^1/2 ---> infinity at a horizon where g00 ---> 0

therefore an enormous Unruh temperature that pulls virtual electron-positron pairs into real electron-positron pairs one falls down the black hole, the other escapes to us.

Membrane paradigm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In black hole theory, the black hole membrane paradigm is a useful "toy model" method or "engineering approach" for visualising and calculating the effects predicted by quantum mechanics for the exterior physics of black holes, without using quantum-mechanical principles or calculations. It models a black hole as a thin classically-radiating surface (or membrane) at or vanishingly close to the black hole's event horizon. This approach to the theory of black holes was created by Kip S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald.

The results of the membrane paradigm are generally considered to be "safe".

Contents [hide]

1 Electrical resistance

2 Hawking radiation

3 See also

4 References

[edit]Electrical resistance

Thorne (1994) relates that this approach to studying black holes was prompted by the realisation by Hanni, Ruffini, Wald and Cohen in the early 1970's that since an electrically charged pellet dropped into a black hole should still appear to a distant outsider to be remaining just outside the critical r=2M radius, if its image persists, its electrical fieldlines ought to persist too, and ought to point to the location of the "frozen" image (1994, pp.406). If the black hole rotates, and the image of the pellet is pulled around, the associated electrical fieldlines ought to be pulled around with it to create basic "electrical dynamo" effects (see: dynamo theory).

Further calculations yielded properties for a black hole such as apparent electrical resistance (pp.408). Since these fieldline properties seemed to be exhibited down to the event horizon, and general relativity insisted that no dynamic exterior interactions could extend through the horizon, it was considered convenient to invent a surface at the horizon that these electrical properties could be said to belong to.

[edit]Hawking radiation

May
24

Tagged in:

**The single most interesting feature of attempts to replace dark matter with a modification of gravity is Milgrom’s discovery that in a wide variety of galaxies, there’s a unique place where ordinary gravity plus ordinary matter stops working: when the acceleration due to gravity (as Newton would have calculated it) drops below a fixed value a _{0} ≈ 10^{−10} m/s^{2}. This is the basis of MOND, but the pattern itself is arguably more interesting than any current attempt to account for it. Very possibly it can be explained by the complicated dynamics of baryons and dark matter in galaxies — but in any event it should be explained somehow.**

**The existence of this feature gives a strong motivation for testing gravity in the regime of very tiny accelerations. Note that this isn’t even a statement that makes sense in general relativity; particles move on geodesics, and the “acceleration due to gravity” is always exactly zero. So implicitly we’re imagining some global inertial frame with respect to which such acceleration can be measured. That’s a job for a future theory to make sense of; for the moment we’re forgetting that we know GR and thinking like Newton would have.**

**So now Hernandez, Jimenez, and Allen have tried to test gravity in this weak-acceleration regime — and they claim it fails!**

"This is trivially explained in my paper in the Penrose-Hameroff issue of the Journal of Cosmology

http://journalofcosmology.com/SarfattiConsciousness.pdf

a0 ≈ 10−10 m/s2 ~ c^2(Cosmological Constant)^1/2

This is the smallest acceleration possible if we are hologram images projected from a 2D hologram screen which in this case is our future de Sitter event horizon. It is a kind of round-off error in the hologram cosmic computer.

"The existence of this feature gives a strong motivation for testing gravity in the regime of very tiny accelerations. Note that this isn’t even a statement that makes sense in general relativity; particles move on geodesics, and the “acceleration due to gravity” is always exactly zero. So implicitly we’re imagining some global inertial frame with respect to which such acceleration can be measured. That’s a job for a future theory to make sense of; for the moment we’re forgetting that we know GR and thinking like Newton would have."

The de Sitter metric in the observer-dependent static LNIF representation has

g00 = 1 - /\r^2

where we are at r = 0 and /\^-1/2 is the scale of our future event horizon.

a static LNIF has acceleration

g(r) = c^2/\^1/2(1 - /\r^2)^-1/2

the Unruh temperature is proportional to g(r).

so we have

g(0) = c^2/\^1/2

- Jack Sarfatti

See also

Physics: Nagging Little Discrepancies

An interesting paper was posted yesterday on arXiv, “Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?” which summarises the following apparent anomalies for which there are varying degrees of experimental evidence:

Dark matter

Dark energy

The Pioneer anomaly

Excess velocity increase of spacecraft which fly-by Earth

Apparent secular increase in the astronomical unit (about 10 metres/century)

Quadrupole and octupole power in the cosmic background radiation correlated and aligned with the ecliptic

I was unaware of 4, and 5 and hadn't heard much about 6 recently although it was rumoured something interesting might be in the three year WMAP data. This paper does not cite that data release.

Wouldn't be interesting if all of these effects could be explained by the choice of too large a numerical integration step in a simulated universe? Note that items 3 and 4 both involve small apparent discrepancies in the motion of man-made objects which move more rapidly than most natural bodies on such geodesics—the creator (or, perhaps I should write, more reverently, “Creator”) of a simulation who chose a time step suitable for planetary motion (for example, the 1/100th day integration step I used in the Quarter Million Year Canon computation) might just find themselves caught out by pesky in-simulation sentients who made precision measurements of high-speed gravitational assist maneuvers or objects on hyperbolic trajectories.

Here are a few questions for physicists and numerical integration experts. Is the choice of an insufficiently fine integration step likely to produce discrepancies of the sign and magnitude observed in the Pioneer, fly-by, and astronomical unit anomalies? How large an integration step would be required to produce the deviations from general relativity in each case? Are they all the same, or related in a simple way? Are there observations of solar system bodies (for example, sun-grazing comets on hyperbolic escape trajectories or close asteroidal encounters with planets) which could exclude (or provide evidence for) this hypothesis?

Posted at April 13, 2006 14:30

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-04/000683.html

https://public.me.com/adastra1/

StarGatev7.pdf

Star Gate

Back From The Future

The Second Quantum and Relativity Revolutions

From radioactivity to retroactivity.

Jack Sarfatti

A memoir and essays by and about the strange adventures of a radical conservative theatrical physicist trapped in our destiny matrix holographic virtual reality multiverse of time loops and space twists.

Including a new paper by Fred Alan Wolf

American Book Award Author

Taking The Quantum Leap

Foreword 6

Jackie at Cornell in the late 1950’s by David Green 10

Slim Virgin’s History “Jack Sarfatti” 19

Background 20

Education 20

Academic career 21

Research, ideas, and reception 21

Fundamental Physics Group 21

Research into Uri Geller 23

Physics-Consciousness Research Group 25

Publication and research outside academia 26

DARPA/NASA 100 Year Star Ship Study 30

Man on a Pendulum by Colin Bennett 31

The Book 38

Escape from Destiny’s Matrix 43

Back From the Future 44

Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto Resurrected in Post-Modern Physics 47

The Divine Invasion: Did Wheeler’s IT Come From The Future BIT? 50

The Once and Future Hologram Mind of GOD 52

Is it the secret meaning of the Free Mason Symbol? 52

The Destiny of the Universe 56

Decoding The Cipher of Genesis 57

How the Hippies Saved Physics 59

Weird Science by Alex Burns, 21C (1996) 63

Master of the Vortex 64

Encounters with VALIS 69

Into the Pandemonium 73

SDI: Rust In Peace 76

Victory at Sea 80

Strange Loops and God-Phones 80

‘Who is Number One?’ 82

Unlocking the ‘Destiny Matrix’ 84

Quantum Physics and the ‘Meanings of Life’ 87

The Non-Lethal Warfare Imperative 89

Parallel Universes In Collision 93

The Beatnik Physicist by Tony Gantner, 2011 94

Sarfatti’s Spark by Rina Shelly Orid, 2011 102

Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design or Grand Illusion? 104

Tony Gantner continued 105

Intelligent Design, Good, Bad or Bogus? 108

Flying Saucer Physics: Covert Black Ops, Zero Point Energy, Anti-Gravity? 110

Paul Hill’s book on Flying Saucers (early 1950’s) 110

Foreword to Report on UFOs by Edward J. Ruppelt, 1955 113

October Sky 1953 - Merlin’s Super Kids 124

The Mists of Avalon 133

Photo of Glastonbury by Hank Harrison 134

Rina Shelly Orid Lost in The Mist 134

The Michelangelo Code 139

Bob Toben, Fred Alan Wolf Space-Time & Beyond 141

Jean Cocteau, French Surrealism meets Italian Futurism 144

Brendan O’Regan, CIA’s SRI Remote Viewing 145

Dr. Kardec, Baphomet and The Knights Templar 147

Solomon ha-Zarfati AKA Rashi de Troyes (1040-1105) 154

Cabalist Carlo Suares 156

(Balthazar of Durrell’s “The Alexandria Quartet”) 156

The Woman and The Child 160

Psi Wars! Uri Geller, Dennis Bardens, Her Majesty’s Secret Service 161

“Dr. Sarfatti, may I take you to dinner?” 162

Does the World Hang Perilously on Stretched G-Strings? 164

Enigma of the point particle 166

Vibrating Strings and Branes in 11 Dimensions? 168

Afternoon of The Magicians 172

My World Line: The Tibetan Connection 172

The Cradle Will Rock: Tea With Benito Mussolini’s Mentor Margherita Sarfatti 175

The Pope’s Jew 177

The Occult Third Reich 179

Hitler’s 1923 suicide attempt foiled at last moment! 182

Ciao! Manhattan 186

Alleged Jewish Sarfatti Ancestory of Queen Victoria According to Martin Dunn-Sarfatti 191

Post-Inflation Emergent Hologram Gravity 198

IT FROM BIT 199

CIA's not so 'fair game' of spies, lies, and fMRIs? by Gary S. Bekkum 212

Herbert Gold’s Bohemia 230

John Updike allegedly got into the act 231

Causality-Violating Quantum Action-at-a-Distance Lecture at SFSU 235

Making Star Trek Real 238

ISSO Research in the Physics of Consciousness 242

Henry Stapp’s Bohr-Heisenberg idealistic model of presponse 245

Jack Sarfatti’s Bohmian realistic model of presponse 245

Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics 246

Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 20, p. 267 (1948), Feynman 246

The Cat’s Cradle Principle: Collision of History with Destiny 249

Epilogue Back From the Future 257

Physics Today: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly 259

Nobel Physics Laureate Brian Josephson’s “How To Run A Conference.” 264

Jack Sarfatti and the Shadows on the Wall by Alan Waite 267

GroupThink and the Myth of the Cave 268

Science and the Cost of Discipleship 269

Sarfatti and The Cave 275

Jack Sarfatti and the Breaking of Chains 283

Valentini Towler Conference Controversy: Shadows on the Wall 292

Science, Integrity and Mythos 303

Transcript of the Interview 309

Physics Notes 356

Intelligent Design? 366

From Eternity Back to Here-Now 368

Holographic Universe Conjecture 372

Consciousness in the Universe 380

A brief history of my contributions to acausality in quantum physics by Fred Alan Wolf 381

Have Scientists Finally Discovered Evidence for Psychic Phenomena? 381

Retrocausality and Signal Nonlocality in Consciousness & Cosmology 405

Emergent M-Matrix Gravity 433

End Notes 445

Newly Released

Flying Saucers Over the White House

A Biography of Edward J. Ruppelt,

a Man the Government Didn't Want You to Know

“Do aliens exist?”

It's one of the big questions of our lifetimes and was already answered in the 1950s by Edward J. Ruppelt, when he stated:

"We found out that UFOs frequently visited Washington. …fifty targets had been tracked from 8:00PM till midnight."

Edward J. Ruppelt was not just an ordinary citizen. He was a U.S. Army Air Force officer and the first person connected with the U.S. government to seriously research the subject of extraterrestrial life. The U.S. government

appointed him to lead “Project Blue Book” in the early 1950s, which was the official U.S. Air Force investigation into the UFO phenomenon.

British author and UFO researcher Colin Bennett wrote Flying Saucers Over the White House, a unique biography about Ruppelt, which is for the first time being released in the U.S.by Cosimo Books.

In this biography, Bennett not only describes Ruppelt’s life as a military man and UFO investigator, but examines his UFO findings, the military industrial complex surrounding his research and the subsequent alleged military cover-up of his conclusions.

This biography is indispensable reading for UFO fans, anyone interested in the fascinating life of Edward J. Ruppelt, and citizens who want to understand how governments can initiate investigations but suppress the implications when the results are unfavorable. Now sixty years since Ruppelt’s research, as we are still left wondering whether aliens exist, Bennett has given those interested in UFOs an opportunity to discover ufology through the eyes of the man who started it all.

The work of Colin Bennett, including Flying Saucers over the White House, has received wide praise from various corners: “While Ruppelt and his world belong to the past, the demons of Bennett’s [Flying Saucers Over the White House] are still with us—as you are about to discover.” —from the Introduction, by Nick Pope, UFO Desk Office, UK Ministry of Defence, 1991–1994

“Colin Bennett's purpose in writing the book is to present Edward Ruppelt's information to a newer, more open generation--to let it decide what it wants to believe. ……… This is a must read for anyone interested in the origins of UFOs, or in the reaction of the government toward what has become a respectable area of study.” —Todd Rutherford, “Publishing Guru,” 2011

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

COLIN BENNETT has written several books, including The Entertainment Bomb, Looking for Orthon, and Politics of the Imagination, which won the Anomalist Award for Best Biography in 2002. Bennett also wrote an introduction to Ruppelt’s book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (reissued 2011 from Cosimo Classics). After leaving school to become a professional musician, Bennett returned to college to study English at University of Oxford, Balliol College. He wrote several plays that were performed in London before reinventing himself as an electronics engineer

and founding a consulting agency. Bennett currently resides in London where he continues to write and discover new interests.

FLYING SAUCERS OVER THE WHITE HOUSE:

The Inside Story of Captain Edward J. Ruppelt and his Official

U.S. Airforce Investigation

with Introduction by Nick Pope

Cosimo Books, December 2010

UFOs/Biography

ISBN 978-1-61640-454-3

Paperback, 172 pages, $16.95 / £12.99

Always available at online bookstores. Visit www.cosimobooks.com

Contact: info@cosimobooks.com

Ph: (212) 989-3616 Fax: (212) 989-3662

Flying Saucers US: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers-over-White-House/dp/161640454X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304344187&sr=1-2

Flying Saucers UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flying-Saucers-Over-White-House/dp/161640454X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304344221&sr=8-1

Ruppelt Book: http://www.amazon.com/Report-Unidentified-Flying-Objects-Original/dp/1616404949/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304344077&sr=8-4

May
12

Tagged in:

On May 12, 2011, at 9:19 PM, brumac@compuserve.com wrote:

The Ruppelt draft of an article for the air intelligence digest, wherein he "openly" (in a classified paper) says that the ET hypothesis was being considered, is further supported by the July 29 and October 27 FBI memoranda which report that upper levels of the Air Force intelligence were seriously considering that the objects might be "interplanetary ships."

The July 29 document is especially interesting because that was the day of General Samford's press conference.(Samford was Dir Air Force Intel) At this press conference he pointed out that credible people were reporting incredible sightings but that it was his belief that all unexplained sightings were caused by natural phenomena. It just so happened that July 29 was the day that the FBI sent a liaison agent to AF Intelligence at the Pentagon to find out what was going on with all the saucer sightings. (Recall that this was the "summer of the saucers" and the "year of the UFO" when the AF collected hundreds of sightings in June, July and August, in particular). What did the FBI agent learn from one "Commander Boyd" (Navy officer assigned to work with AF intel)? Mark you!!! This was Samford's office and Boyd was one of Samford's "employees." Boyd said, among other things that 2% of the sightings had not be explained (!) and that, although some of these might be caused by natural phenomena, "it is not entirely impossible that the objects sighted might be ships from another planet."

Now, if Samford had said that at the press conference the lid would have blown off. However, he did not state publicly what was being discussed privately and the press went away from the conference perfectly happy to parrot the "natural phenomena" explanation (e.g., the sightings over Washington, DC were caused by temperature inversions.... many years later shown to be an impossibility).

It is amusing to note that the recent flap over an FBI document from March 1950 was based on "rumor and innuendo" and perhaps on an outright hoax. Yet it got worldwide attention while the July 29 and October 27 FBI documents that say "ships from another planet" were being considered as a definite possibillity, have not even achieved public mention.... and these documents are not based on a hoax!

As I said, these FBI documents support Ruppelt's claim in the article he wrote (was never published?). It has long been known that one General, Garland, was a witness! He was Samford's assistant at the time and furthermore he was Ruppelt's boss from the fall of 1952 until Ruppelt left the AF.

This is further discussed and placed into historical context at www.brumac.8k.com Scroll down the opening page until you reach "The Legacy of 1952" and

download the WORD document. This is an "Excellent" history of UFOs in 1952.

If you don't want to download a WORD document you can read a less detailed version on the net at

http://www.brumac.8k.com/1952YEAROFUFO/1952YEAROFUFO.html.

-----Original Message-----

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

To: Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net>

C

Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 1:00 pm

Subject: Re: meeting Nick Pope in London this Sunday

it will end all doubts to any honest intelligent reader that there are real

advanced metallic craft not simply delusions - that and Paul Hill's book - both

from the 1950's - essentially no progress since then.

On May 12, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

> I haven't read the Ruppelt report, but look forward to doing so.

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On May 12, 2011, at 1:26, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

>

>> ok

>> Have you read the full Ruppelt report?

>> No question about defense significance. Our fighters used machine guns on

them - to no avail.

>> I will give it to you when I get back. It has a forward from Colin Bennett.

>> It and Paul Hill's book are conclusive evidence for real machines - and that

was in 1950's about same time as my "phone call(s)".

>>

>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

>>

>>> Ask him if he knows anything about the Ruppelt material, and what he thinks

of it. And ask him if UFOs might have any defense significance. But remember,

he worked for MOD for 21 years, so anything he says is automatically suspect.

I've never heard him actually state that there is the possibility that at least

a small percentage of UFO sightings might actually be evidence extraterrestrial

technology. He may have said that, but I'm not aware of it. And that makes

raises a red flag with me.

>>>

>>> On May 11, 2011, at 12:37 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

>>>

>>>> if you have questions let me know

>>>>

>>

The Ruppelt draft of an article for the air intelligence digest, wherein he "openly" (in a classified paper) says that the ET hypothesis was being considered, is further supported by the July 29 and October 27 FBI memoranda which report that upper levels of the Air Force intelligence were seriously considering that the objects might be "interplanetary ships."

The July 29 document is especially interesting because that was the day of General Samford's press conference.(Samford was Dir Air Force Intel) At this press conference he pointed out that credible people were reporting incredible sightings but that it was his belief that all unexplained sightings were caused by natural phenomena. It just so happened that July 29 was the day that the FBI sent a liaison agent to AF Intelligence at the Pentagon to find out what was going on with all the saucer sightings. (Recall that this was the "summer of the saucers" and the "year of the UFO" when the AF collected hundreds of sightings in June, July and August, in particular). What did the FBI agent learn from one "Commander Boyd" (Navy officer assigned to work with AF intel)? Mark you!!! This was Samford's office and Boyd was one of Samford's "employees." Boyd said, among other things that 2% of the sightings had not be explained (!) and that, although some of these might be caused by natural phenomena, "it is not entirely impossible that the objects sighted might be ships from another planet."

Now, if Samford had said that at the press conference the lid would have blown off. However, he did not state publicly what was being discussed privately and the press went away from the conference perfectly happy to parrot the "natural phenomena" explanation (e.g., the sightings over Washington, DC were caused by temperature inversions.... many years later shown to be an impossibility).

It is amusing to note that the recent flap over an FBI document from March 1950 was based on "rumor and innuendo" and perhaps on an outright hoax. Yet it got worldwide attention while the July 29 and October 27 FBI documents that say "ships from another planet" were being considered as a definite possibillity, have not even achieved public mention.... and these documents are not based on a hoax!

As I said, these FBI documents support Ruppelt's claim in the article he wrote (was never published?). It has long been known that one General, Garland, was a witness! He was Samford's assistant at the time and furthermore he was Ruppelt's boss from the fall of 1952 until Ruppelt left the AF.

This is further discussed and placed into historical context at www.brumac.8k.com Scroll down the opening page until you reach "The Legacy of 1952" and

download the WORD document. This is an "Excellent" history of UFOs in 1952.

If you don't want to download a WORD document you can read a less detailed version on the net at

http://www.brumac.8k.com/1952YEAROFUFO/1952YEAROFUFO.html.

-----Original Message-----

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

To: Kim Burrafato <lensman137@sbcglobal.net>

C

Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 1:00 pm

Subject: Re: meeting Nick Pope in London this Sunday

it will end all doubts to any honest intelligent reader that there are real

advanced metallic craft not simply delusions - that and Paul Hill's book - both

from the 1950's - essentially no progress since then.

On May 12, 2011, at 5:56 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

> I haven't read the Ruppelt report, but look forward to doing so.

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> On May 12, 2011, at 1:26, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:

>

>> ok

>> Have you read the full Ruppelt report?

>> No question about defense significance. Our fighters used machine guns on

them - to no avail.

>> I will give it to you when I get back. It has a forward from Colin Bennett.

>> It and Paul Hill's book are conclusive evidence for real machines - and that

was in 1950's about same time as my "phone call(s)".

>>

>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Kim Burrafato wrote:

>>

>>> Ask him if he knows anything about the Ruppelt material, and what he thinks

of it. And ask him if UFOs might have any defense significance. But remember,

he worked for MOD for 21 years, so anything he says is automatically suspect.

I've never heard him actually state that there is the possibility that at least

a small percentage of UFO sightings might actually be evidence extraterrestrial

technology. He may have said that, but I'm not aware of it. And that makes

raises a red flag with me.

>>>

>>> On May 11, 2011, at 12:37 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

>>>

>>>> if you have questions let me know

>>>>

>>