Text Size


Oct 26

Myth of the Secret Star Ship Navy

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Creon said it better than me. Ed et-al move on and forget this paranoid nonsense. Such beliefs border on the insane. Also every detailed scheme I have seen for the "propulsion" has been not-even-wrong junk engineering and cargo cult physics.

That being said, of course there is evidence that saucers are real and can neutralize our weapons - that is a different matter. Just look at the 1950's reports of Ruppelt and Hill for solid reliable evidence. Also, we do have secret craft that are hidden in the UFO disinformation noise, but they do not have warp drive - wormhole capability - they are exotic conventional propulsion like the schemes discussed at the recent DARPA-NASA Orlando Hilton Star Ship Conference.

We may also have captured real ET saucers with warp capability as in Colonel Corso's book "The Day After Roswell", but our reverse engineering of them is primitive at best - IF we have them - I am not saying we do. The basic principles are not understood. The closest we have come is in my Star Ship paper - again attached.

On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Levit, Creon (ARC-P) wrote:

Let's see: an ultra-secret breakaway society supported by the highest levels of government & military.  They receive with $trillions.  They are 1000 years ahead of us, past the technological singularity...

There is no way do disprove that.  You can explain anything that way.  And any lack of hard evidence, anyone with a contrary opinion, can simply be labelled "part of the conspiracy".

One might as well believe in God - an equally stupid idea which explains just as much.  At least that keeps the majority of our society from saying to your face that they think you're nuts.

BTW - why would such an all-powerful civilization need trillions of US dollars?  Can't they easily make anything they'd otherwise want to buy by using their warp drives, matter compilers, psychic powers, etc? I'd love to wake up and smell the roses, but in this case unfortunately as soon as the eyes open, the roses vanish.

On Oct 26, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Bruce Maccabee wrote:

I agree with Jack.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Komarek To: JACK SARFATTI Sent: Wed, Oct 26, 2011 12:46 pm
Subject: Re: Secret Space Navy Myth

I disagree very strongly Jack just look at the evidence I have presented in Chapter Three starting with the very important declassified Wright Patterson 1956 paper on electorgravitics.  I built up a pretty impressive timeline of evidence in Chapter Three supporting my argument if anybody cares to read it and the links provided.  In my opinion the 100 year Starship Project is just a Darpa propaganda operation no different that NASA or SETI today, its designed to prepare scientists and the public for the already operational Deep Space Program and Space Fleet. Keep in mind that it is generally considered that black projects are ahead by about 50 years and in this case because they have entered a Technological Singularity it's 100-1000 years ahead of our host civilization already. Wake up and smell the roses. :-)  As far as keeping such a secret from the public it's not that difficult being that the large numbers of people you are referring to are all classified in what Richard Dolan calls a Breakaway Society.  No wonder he has been giving a few military people heartburn.  What we have is a parasitic Breakaway classified civilization consuming trillion of dollars of resources gotten from who knows where.  The Pentagon even admits it has somehow misplaced three trillion dollars.  Where do you think that went?  My evidence for my position is in Chapter 2 & 3.  Here is chapter 3 with links to other chapters and introduction.  http://exopolitics.blogspot.com/2011/10/exopolitics-book-chapter-3-draft.html  Where is the evidence for your position? :-)  Ed

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:14 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

I wish you were right, but I think you are not. We do not have any secret space navy with advanced propulsion like you posit. It's complete fiction. If we did DARPA & NASA would not have bothered with the 100 year Starship Project. There would be no way to keep such technology secret. It would require large numbers of people with knowledge greater than the faculties of our top universities like Cal Tech, Stanford etc. Only naive people who do not understand real physics and engineering would believe such nonsense.

On Oct 25, 2011, at 06:01 PM, Ed Komarek wrote:

It's all part of nodes along a timeline I am constructing from then to now.  Each bit of evidence is a node on that time line to where we are today.  I believe this evidence in its entirety is compelling and that you guys don't realize how advanced the secret space program really is, nor how far military contact  between us and different ET races has progressed in the past fifty years.  Wake up and smell the roses, It appears that we already have deep space capabilities and are traveling between the stars just as Ben Rich and others have suggested.  You and I are nothing but the public relations team doing what governments should be doing to educate the general population as to extraterrestrial realities. We work cheap. ha ha  Ed

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 12:47 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Military Interactions with Extraterrestrials

Submitted by Ed Komarek on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 13:23
Exopolitics Book, Chapter 2 (Draft)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Christopher O'Brien wrote:
Come on Ed---say it ain't so! You don't actually believe what you've written is true? Sounds like half-baked, true-believer fairy tales from lalaland to me. Chris

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:02 AM, nonlethal2@aol.com Colonel John Alexander wrote:

Is this for Stargate or something?  Certainly not serious.  There are no lower limits to crazy.

-----Original Message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI To: Ed Komarek Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2011 9:35 pm
Subject: Re: For Jessie Ventura - war with ETs? Fact or Fiction?

Is Ed Komarek, who cites the words below in his book, merely being alarmist? As I said he comes from the American Power Elite.
"5. Our scientists could build a ship propelled by a similar rotating and oscillating electro-magnetic field– if they knew some method to change the energy released into a nuclear-reactor directly into electric power. The problem is not solved yet.

6. These visitors from outer space are dangerous when apprehended and definitely hostile when attacked. We have already lost many planes attempting to shoot down one of them. We have no defense against them till now. They outperform easily any of our fighters, which have no chance against them. Guided missiles are also useless; they can fly still faster than any of them and can even maneuver around them, as if they were toys; or they can interfere with their electric instruments and make the useless soon after launched; or, if they like, the can explode them before they reach their proximities.
They have produced the crash of military planes (propeller or jet type) and airliners by stalling their engines through interference with their electrical systems. (We don’t know yet if this is a side effect or their powerful magnetic field, or the result of some kind of weapon–possibly a high frequency beam of some sort). They have also a horribly destructive long range weapon which has been used mercilessly against our jet fighters. In one case, for example, an U.S. Navy interceptor with a crew of two, scrambled to go after an UFO.

Their mission was, as usual, to make it land or to shoot it down–if necessary. They used their guns. The answer was immediate and terrifying: instantly all metallic parts of their plane were disintegrated, disrupted into thousands of fragments, and they found themselves suddenly seated in the air (nonmetallic pieces or objects were not affected by the phenomenon); one of them was killed but the other lived to tell the story. We have evidence that this tremendous weapon is an ultra-sonic beam of some sort, which disrupts the molecular cohesion of any metallic structure. They have means to paralyze our radar systems too, to interfere with our radio and television apparatus, and to short-circuit our electric power-plants.

7. They have not showed, till now, any interest in contacting us. They are obviously preparing a planet-wide huge military operation to interfere against us. We don’t know what kind of operation will be this. There are, however, three possibilities: (a) total war followed my mass-landings, to destroy our power, slave the remnant of our people and colonize the planet; (b) police-action to stop our plans for the conquest of space, and to avoid our dangerous progress in the field of atomic weapons; this would involve mass landings at strategic points with occupation by forces of limited areas of vital interest for their purposes; (c) “friendly interference” (followed by military intimidation) to make us agree with their plans for us–whatever they may be–avoiding open war or any other kind of direct interference; patrolling and eventual police-action only outside our atmosphere.

8. All military authorities and governments through the world are informed about the situation. There is an exchange of information through intelligence services, and top-secret military conferences are held periodically to discuss new developments on the subject. The Brazilian Navy, for example, receives monthly classified reports from the U.S. Navy and sends back to them any information available here. A similar contact exists among our Army and Air Force and several (similar) military organizations in other countries. Here in Brazil only the persons who work in the problem know the real situation: intelligence officers in the Army, Navy and Air Force; some high-rank officers in the High Command; the National Security Council and a few scientists whose activities are connected with it; and a few members of certain civilian organizations doing research for military projects.
9. All information about the UFO-subject from military is not only classified or reserved for official uses, it is top-secret. Civilian authorities and military officers in general are not entitled to know. Even our President is not informed of the whole truth.

10. Military authorities through the world agree that the people are not entitled to know anything about the problem. Some military groups believe that such knowledge would be a tremendous shock–enough to paralyze the life in our countries for many years in the future. On the other side, the believe that flying saucer reconnaissance (as it is now) might last other 10 years–the people couldn’t be controlled for so long a time and the danger of uncontrolled panic would be high.
Besides, the probability of UFO-hostile interference (described on item 7) is still estimated at 50%; there is yet a 10% probability that their hostility is only a consequence of our attacks against their ships; because of this possibility, we are attempting now to make them aware that we would like to make a peaceful contact–so, the orders now (now) are to avoid any further attack against their craft. This policy has been adopted generally, with the exception of some countries which still have fools in their Air Forces–who think otherwise. We don’t know if UFOs will react to these measures recently put under operation. We still hope the will.
11. To conceal the truth from the public, a carefully planned censorship is under operation for several years. The policy to debunk the whole saucer-subject is the better weapon we are using for this purposed. Ridicule is an efficient tool against most people who attempt to inform the public but other measure are sometimes necessary. Chiefly against persons who possess evidence that, if published, would open the eyes of the people. In some countries force has been used to silence some of them, when this is not possible, all tricks had been used to make their evidence useless. In a few cases, unfortunately, violence had to be used; we regret this but we have no choice. We are going to keep this thing secret at any cost. We are not interested in the so-called “inalienable rights” of the people. Right or wrong we– the military– are going to do our job and no one is going to stop us. (End)
As we can see from the following article at least some ET races were not cooperating with our military even by 1968 and I believe this still continues to this day from my experiences with local contactees. It would appear there is still disagreement between we the indigenous people of earth and those ETs that are here as to who owns the earth and its environs. I suspect it is those races with advanced enough technology to maintain bases deep underground, under the oceans and from huge motherships that are outside global government’s ability to enforce jurisdiction."
On Oct 21, 2011, at 9:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

OK, this would be the basis for a good series of shows


Oct 25

Is MT Nick Herbert dreaming he is MT

or the other way round?
Compare their respective webpages. Nick's is quantum tantra.

On Oct 25, 2011, at 4:07 PM, MT wrote:

Whew! Must've been some transient phenomenon
that displayed an alien visage upon the space
where I now [3:56 PM 25|Oct|2011] see an ad banner residing. Previously the old bloke's
face looked completely unfamiliar to the kind,
wizened face of our beloved Czar of Back Action
Timeline Engineering. Strangely, I am gladly
relieved, as if 'reality' is still continuous.

-----0rigami Massage-----
| From: JACK SARFATTI | To: MT | Cc: Gary G Ford , | SarfattiScienceSeminars-owner@yahoogroups.com, | "Gary G. Ford" , | Mark Thornally | Subject: Re: Bifurcating Timelines (Re: [Starfleet Command] |          | Date: Oct 25, 2011 2:47 PM

photos of me are at
http://stardrive.org & facebook and wikipedia

On Oct 25, 2011, at 1:21 PM, MT wrote:

Indeed, Mahatma Gargantuan Genetics Ford, indeed!
As if one timeline isn't enough to keep track of
without going completely ape-shit-bonkers, imagine
bifurcating timelines and parallel reality maps to
navigate with non-local, shifting, polymorphous apeman consciousnesses! Thanks for sending me this.
Down stream a piece, in this particular timeline, I'll take a closer look at:


Is that photo in the upper left hand corner an
image of Mahatma Sar as he looks today?!
If so, WOW! Back to the future with a parallel
universe William S. Burroughs Naked Lunch Ride to Eternity!  I'm pretty sure you meant SPLITTING HAIRS, not
"Spitting of Hairs" -- unless of course you're
referring to White Holes 'Spitting Out' inverse
singularity nouveau universe matter/time/space
bifurcations? Which would be cool, and entirely
relevent to the point you are wisely making about
'discrepancies' not being necessarily errors, but
bifurcated data sets... Thou art deep, in either
realm. Be well amigo. -eMpTy 25|Oct|2011 1:15PM
[ Somewhere lost in Zero Point Energy Land... ]

-----0rigami Massage-----
| From: Gary G Ford | To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com | Cc: "Gary G. Ford" , eMpTy , | Mark Thornally | Subject: Re: [Starfleet Command] | RE: preliminary impression of Puthoff paper
| Date: Oct 24, 2011 6:09 PM

When memories are discrepant, errors may be there,
but something else might be happening instead:

Look NOT to "Spitting of Hairs" and finding errors,
but instead for spitting of time-line fibers, then their
reconnection, after a separation.  One branch can be
different from the other in some respects, yet they both
started as one, they spit, later re-merging back to one,
as master-time progresses, and BOTH may be equally
V A L I D.

GGF, Cosmos Child

-----End Of 0rigami Massage-----


"In a Quasi-Parallel Multiverse, in the dimmest
recesses of ancient fore-history, there did manifest
a powerful, quantum computing device, located at
approximately 2/3rd radius along one arm of a spiral
galaxy. A cosmological variation on the double-slit
experiment arose:

"How about running a near infinite number of
simultaneous interdimensional 'big bang' simulations
with infinitesimal variations in each simulation to
determine the most novel, and long-lived, open-ended
scenario of survival; thereby selecting the specific
'history' of this advantageous pathway over all other
shorter-lived, 'extinction' pathways...?

"Could sporadic, sentient unhappiness and
suffering throughout the successful pathway be
entirely ruled out?"  http://tinyurl.com/ba5s2


To No0ne In Particular...


On, or around, Sept, 9th 2001, it was written:

"...Continuity of Consciousness, by definition,
presupposes that the perceptive core tracks
continuously across all parallel realities...
One femtosecond is to a second as one second is
to 32.6 million years! The 'Parallel Universe'
theory (Many-Worlds Theory) is a defunct
bastardization of an ill-perceived anthropocentric
misunderstanding of the double-slit experiment,
[Collapse of a Quantum Wave Function into a
Measurable Particle w/ History]:
In the 'Many Worlds' theory of quantum physics,
popularized by David Deutsch and others,
( http://www.qubit.org/people/david/ ), our conscious
selves inhabit an infinite realm of parallel
universes: a 'multiverse.' Now, over the many years
wherein we've all made countless decisions both
conscious and automatic, and the countless times
we've all pondered ending our own miserable
myriad existences, what if we actually did?
Would it, therefore, seem like a cruel fate for
consciousness to have no final escape from
awareness, perception, and embeddedness...?
And what if it's true?! Whooooooooooshhh!!!!
Is everyone the same biospheric personage? Are
we dispersed across an undifferentiated
light-cone of ultra-dimensional wavelike
potentiality in nature, and only specified
in particularity as a 3D lifeform?
( http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/ManyWorlds.html )
Who-are-we to suffer such an endless fate?
And what does it mean?!! What if there is a seamless
continuity to sentience, so that no matter how
many times you actually 'die,' your multiversal
"self" continues uninterrupted?"
[circa: Sept 9, 2001]

See also:  http://www.eelstheband.com/biography/index.php


READING In-between-the-lines therein,
above, a bit of a crisis, which made
the subsequent events - days later -
seem like a parallel life had been
embodied as the previous one seemed
to have possibly evaporated?
Cryptic? Yes, probably... but, point
being, the MindGland was not so
rigorous in delineating factual data
in a subsequently accurate manner.
Which is my convoluted, elaborate
excuse for presuming such erroneous
trans-temporal back-engineered loopy
mentations of multidimensionality!

Glad to have caught up with your
enormously talented real self? again!

Warmest Regards,

<> "This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic:
<> There are no atoms, only waves and motions
<> all around. Here, you discard all belief in
<> barriers to understanding. You put aside
<> understanding itself. This universe cannot
<> be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be detected
<> in any way by fixed perceptions.
<> It is the ultimate void where no preordained
<> screens occur upon which forms may be projected.
<> You have only one awareness here - the screen
<> of the magi: Imagination!
<> Here, you learn what it is to be human.
<> You are a creator of order, of beautiful
<> shapes and systems, an organizer of chaos."
<> --Frank Herbert  - Heretics of Dune -



In terms of spatial ratios, a hypothetical
'super string' is to an atom as a tree is to
the visible universe... AND: In terms of
temporal ratios, a femtosecond is to a
second as a second is to 32.6 million years...
THEN: ...?

A Physicist Explains Why Parallel Universes
May Exist:  [...]   "But there's a more
confounding aspect of quantum theory that
receives less attention.
After decades of closely studying quantum
mechanics, and after having accumulated a
wealth of data confirming its probabilistic
predictions, no one has been able to explain
why only one of the many possible outcomes
in any given situation actually happens.
When we do experiments, when we examine
the world, we all agree that we encounter
a single definite reality. Yet, more than
a century after the quantum revolution
began, there is no consensus among the
world's physicists as to how this basic
fact is compatible with the theory's
mathematical expression." [...]

Excerpted from 'The Hidden Reality'
by Brian Greene
Copyright 2011 by Brian Greene.

Unsticking the "brane"

Professor Tom Weiler and graduate fellow Chui Man Ho
hypothesize using the Large Hadron Collider as a TIME TUNNEL

LHC http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Several [months] ago, had a dream of two silhouettes
'Snow Boarding' thru a tunnel of concentric rings,
ala the old 60's TV show: 'THE TIME TUNNEL' see pic:
[Wed, 9 Mar 2011]

47 years ago, Sir Freddy wrote:

"It has often been said that, if the human species
fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some
other species will take over the running. In the
sense of developing high intelligence this is not
correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted
the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this
planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone,
high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however
competent can make the long climb from primitive
conditions to high-level technology. This is a
one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system
fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same
will be true of other planetary systems. On each
of them there will be one chance, and one chance
only."    -- Sir Fred Hoyle,
"Of Men and Galaxies," 1964


5 years ago, Daniel Pinchbeck wrote:

[...] "The Catholic mystic Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
foresaw the development of a 'new, integrated mind' of
global humanity, calling it the 'noosphere,' from the
Greek word nous, meaning mind. Noting that our planet
consists of various layers -- a mineral lithosphere,
hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere consisting of
troposphere, stratosphere, and ionosphere -- Chardin
theorized the possible existence of a mental envelope,
a layer of thought, encompassing the Earth.
The 'hominization' of the Earth had concluded the
phase of physical evolution, during which species
multiplied and developed new powers, leading to an
entropic breakdown of the biosphere. This process,
Chardin realized, requiring the tapping of the stored
energy and amassed mineral resources of the planet,
could happen only once." [...] Pg. 60; Part One:
A Universe In Ruins; Chapter Five |
2012 - The Return of Quetzalcoatl
by Daniel Pinchbeck (c) 2006



Oct 25

On the physics of mind Vitiello-Freeman model

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Dear Giuseppe
That's OK - your paper is very detailed and impressive and I was not asking you to cite me in it. The new idea I have that you do not have is that the non-orthogonal coherent states you get permit signal nonlocality in Valentini's sense of the word. I think this is the missing link to explain how consciousness arises within your model that I think is essentially correct, but it does not go far enough. :-)

In other words when P.W. Anderson says "More is different" it means the Born probability rule breaks down and signal nonlocality (entanglement signals without need for a classical key) is permitted. Orthodox micro-quantum theory breaks down because of macro-quantum coherent "phase rigidity."

On Oct 25, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Giuseppe Vitiello wrote:

Dear Jack,

I have seen your mail message and I thank you for it. I knew your work in the old time of superconductivity....

We have not quoted your papers (as well as the ones by other authors, except for the book by P. Anderson and some more recent paper on nonequilibrium TDGL equation) just because the TDGL eq. is a well established subject (also thanks to your contributions), matter of textbooks.

All my best,


‎"Dark energy's true nature remains a mystery. Theoretical attempts to account for its observed properties have foundered. Its existence, however, appears secure. The new Nobel laureates and their collaborators
discovered the accelerated expansion by observing a certain type of reliably uniform supernova. Supporting evidence has since come from three independent sources: large-scale structure, clusters of galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background." Physics Today
· · Share · 20 hours ago near San Francisco
    • Jack Sarfatti I don't think it's a mystery.
      20 hours ago · · 2 people
    • Laurel Oplatka ‎3145 ?ah, so dark energy is or is not a mystery ?
      20 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti What didn't you understand about my sentence?
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka So the first sentence of this paragraph was found later to be false ?
      18 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti No, that's not what I wrote. I simply gave my opinion that I think it's false. The mainstream does not think it's false. Time will tell who is correct. Me or them.
      18 hours ago · · 2 people
    • Laurel Oplatka Indeed, that it what I figured: you were disagreeing with the first statement and it is yet to be found out. But, then, does that mean it is still ultimately a mystery ? ~
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka I hope you are correct !
      18 hours ago ·
    • Carol Turner The second sentence ... Theoretical attempts to account for its observed properties have foundered ... effectively negated the first Laurel.
      18 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti I have solved the problem alluded to in the second sentence.
      18 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka True, Carol.
      18 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Jack, that is superb then and probably elegant. I am somewhat more optimistic now.
      18 hours ago ·
    • Terry Arbegust I guess I don't understand why you can't get you paper before the proper Peer review group, that way we wouldn't be reading about Dark Energy's being a "mystery" in Physics Today.
      Jack, in a nutshell, can you explain why your work hasn't been peer reviewed, or has it?, and if it has what say they, the Peer group?, IF it has "who", names please agrees with your physics and who doesn't, say for example where does Max Tegmark stand, Lenny Susskind, Roger Penrose, Whitten, Sir Martin Rees, Fred Alan Wolf, Nick Herbert, Saul Paul Sirag [the hippies who saved phyiscs] to name just a few, or is the problem with the politics of academia?, Just curious.
      17 hours ago ·
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert Dr. S- Can you make "Retrocausality and Signal Nonlocality in Consciousness and Cosmology" into a children's book for me so I can understand it? :)
      8 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I have had papers on this published in peer reviewed journals. See wikipedia page on me. 2008, 2011
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti No I can't Teresa.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti There is still a lot of theoretical work to be done - new physics.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert one of these days can you or someone write a dumbed down summary?
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I have simply pointed out that all the data is consistent with mainstream physics that virtual particles inside the vacuum bend spacetime just like real particles outside the vacuum do. From this one concludes that dark matter real particles do not exist - this is Popper falsifiable. Mainstream physics shows that virtual bosons anti-gravitate just like dark energy. Viirtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate just like dark matter.
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti The hologram theory "explains" dark energy as back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future event horizon.
      5 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert What conclusions can be drawn from a holographic universe and signal non-lacality? What are YOUR thoughts on "God"
      5 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Real photon Hawking radiation is seen by an accelerating detector. A non-accelerating detector momentarily coincident with it sees virtual photon zero point vacuum fluctuations instead like in the Lamb shift and the Casimir force. Whether a particle is real or virtual depends on the motion of the detector.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert so intelligent design Dr. S???
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti The Brain of God for our observable piece of the multiverse sandwiched between our past and future cosmological horizons is our future horizon. This is Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point - more accurately a 2D surrounding lightlike null geodesic surface that is also a quantum computer with 10^123 BITS - Hawking's MIND OF GOD. We are its 3D hologram images.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert or you can tell me in an im or email if you dont want to start a debate
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti We are intelligently designed back from our future de Sitter dark energy event horizon. The entropy of the event horizon is its area. The dark energy density back from the future is Planck's quantum times the speed of light divided by the Planck area multiplied by the area-entropy of our future horizon at the intersection of our future light cone with it.
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Now this is much more detailed than any primitive theology in our history. Stupid people demonize me with anonymous remailers - they are no better than the other terrorists.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert you have quite literally defined God and done the most to merge science and spirituality. I SO hope I get to meet you some day. Pls. let me know if you make it to DC Dr. S.
      4 hours ago ·
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert where can I find more of this in laywoman's terms Dr S?
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Teresa Tindal-Swigert so what is time?
      4 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Tersa - google key words. Wikipedia these days is pretty good on basics.
      4 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka I am desparately trying to deeply comprehend this material. Jack, do you consider M. Talbot's "Holographic Universe' to be kindergarten stuff, or a jump off point for some of your theories or is it inextricably linked to what you are saying ? I will have to do the Wiki thing as well. Also, are you appalled by David Bohm's material, such as, "Wholeness and Implicate Order" ? I may have asked you that question previously. Thank you !
      4 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Actually, I've changed my question, Dr S, OK, hope I am not a pariah for asking, but can the bulk of mainstream physics be truly understood without grasping the fundamentals of higher math (calculus) ??
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti No, absolutely not.
      a few seconds ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti I was a post-doc with Bohm. He is one of my heros.
      a few seconds ago ·

Jack Sarfatti
?"Early in the 20th century, Albert Einstein gave us new conceptual tools to rigorously address the questions of the origins, evolution, and fate of the
universe. In recent years, technology has developed to the point where these concepts from general relativity can be substantiated and elaborated by measurements. For example, measurement of the remnant glow from the hot dense beginnings of the expanding universe—the cosmic
microwave background—is yielding increasingly detailed data about the first half-million years and the overall geometry of the cosmos ..." Nobel Laureate Saul Perlmutter April 2003 Physics Today

· · 3 hours ago near San Francisco

  • Mollyann Wingerter likes this.
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"In principle, the expansion history of the cosmos can be determined quite easily, using as a “standard candle” any distinguishable class of astronomical objects of known intrinsic
      brightness that can be identified over a wide distance range. As the light from such beacons travels to Earth through an expanding universe, the cosmic expansion stretches not only the distances between galaxy clusters, but also the very wavelengths of the photons en route. By the time the light reaches us, the spectral wavelength has thus been redshifted by precisely the same incremental factor z by which the cosmos has been stretched in the time interval since the light left its source." ibid
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The recorded redshift and brightness of each such object
      thus provide a measurement of the total integrated expansion
      of the universe since the time the light was emitted. A collection of such measurements, over a sufficient range of distances, would yield an entire historical record of the universe’s expansion.
      Conceptually, this scheme is a remarkably straightforward means to a profound prize: an empirical account of the growth of our universe. A spectroscopically distinguishable class of objects with determinable intrinsic brightness would do the
      trick. In Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the cosmic expansion
      in the 1920s, he used entire galaxies as standard candles.
      But galaxies, coming in many shapes and sizes, are difficult
      to match against a standard brightness. They can grow fainter with time, or brighter—by merging with other galaxies. In the 1970s, it was suggested that the brightest member of a galaxy cluster might serve as a reliable standard candle. But in the end, all proposed distant galactic candidates were too susceptible to evolutionary change."
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti These are retarded light signals in the past light cone of the telescope photon detectors.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"In the early 1980s, a new subclassification of supernovae
      emerged. Supernovae with no hydrogen features in
      their spectra had previously all been classified simply as
      type I. Now this class was subdivided into types Ia and Ib,
      depending on the presence or absence of a silicon absorption
      feature at 6150 Å in the supernova’s spectrum.2 With
      that minor improvement in typology, an amazing consistency
      among the type Ia supernovae became evident. Their
      spectra matched feature-by-feature, as did their “light
      curves”—the plots of waxing and waning brightness in the
      weeks following a supernova explosion.3,4
      The uniformity of the type Ia supernovae became even
      more striking when their spectra were studied in detail as
      they brightened and then faded. First, the outermost parts
      of the exploding star emit a spectrum that’s the same for
      all typical type Ia supernovae, indicating the same elemental
      densities, excitation states, velocities, and so forth.
      Then, as the exploding ball of gas expands, the outermost
      layers thin out and become transparent, letting us see the
      spectral signatures of conditions further inside. Eventually,
      if we watch the entire time series of spectra, we get
      to see indicators that probe almost the entire explosive
      event. It is impressive that the type Ia supernovae exhibit
      so much uniformity down to this level of detail."
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"When the veteran Swiss researcher Gustav Tammann and
      his student Bruno Leibengut first reported the amazing
      uniformity of type Ia supernovae, there was immediate interest
      in trying to use them to determine the Hubble constant,
      H0, which measures the present expansion rate of
      the cosmos. That could be done by finding and measuring
      a few type Ia supernovae just beyond the nearest clusters
      of galaxies, that is, explosions that occurred some 100 million
      years ago. An even more challenging goal lay in the tantalizing prospect that we could find such standardcandle
      supernovae more than ten times farther away and
      thus sample the expansion of the universe several billion
      years ago. Measurements using such remote supernovae
      might actually show the expected slowing of the expansion
      rate by gravity. Because that deceleration rate would depend
      on the cosmic mean mass density rm, we would, in effect,
      be weighing the universe." - everything in quotes is from Perlmutter's article.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Note "weighing the universe" - key idea.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"If mass density is, as was generally supposed a decade
      ago, the primary energy constituent of the universe, then
      the measurement of the changing expansion rate would
      also determine the curvature of space and tell us about
      whether the cosmos is finite or infinite. Furthermore, the
      fate of the universe might be said to hang in the balance:
      If, for example, we measured a cosmic deceleration big
      enough to imply a rm exceeding the “critical density” (roughly 10–29 gm/cm3), that would indicate that the universe
      will someday stop expanding and collapse toward an
      apocalyptic “Big Crunch.”
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"mass density" means two things: first real particles (baryons and leptons and their compounds whizzing around space. These are in quantum field theory - poles of the Feynman propagator in the complex energy plane where momentum p and energy E are constrained by the equation
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti This is a form of the right triangle theorem of Pythagoras. m is the frame-invariant rest mass that is zero for a photon.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Jack, have you written a recent book, where all of the above posts would be included ? Thanks.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka That is, where can we find your work all in one place that a physics major can quasi-understand ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka No I mean that someone who is NOT a physics major can grasp ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Second, it includes dark matter that is about 23% of all the stuff in the observable universe that we see in our past light cone. In my opinion this is the residual off-pole contribution to the Feynman propagator for virtual fermion-antifermion pairs whose quantum vacuum pressure is positive and is three times bigger than its negative zero point energy density forced by Pauli's exclusion principle. This assumes spatial isotropy of the quantum vacuum.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti In contrast virtual light inside the vacuum anti-gravitates and is the main component of dark energy accelerating the expansion speed of the universe's 3D space.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka So the 'virtual' components of dark matter are the key, then ?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"Figure 3. Observed magnitude
      versus redshift is plotted for
      well-measures distant and
      (in the inset) nearby type Ia supernovae.
      For clarity, measurements
      at the same redshift are
      combined. At redshifts beyond
      z = 0.1 (distances greater than
      about 10^9 light-years), the cosmological
      predictions (indicated
      by the curves) begin to
      diverge, depending on the assumed
      cosmic densities of
      mass and vacuum energy. The
      red curves represent models
      with zero vacuum energy and
      mass densities ranging from the
      critical density rhoc down to zero
      (an empty cosmos). The best fit
      (blue line) assumes a mass
      density of about rhoc /3 plus a
      vacuum energy density twice
      that large—implying an accelerating
      cosmic expansion"
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Dang, this is above my level of comprehension, yet I think and feel I MUST understand it.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti There are no real components of dark matter. Dark matter is 100% virtual in my opinion. The mainstream pundits assume the opposite that its 100% real. This is a dramatic difference that will b e settled by experiments, though it will take a long time assuming the world financial structure does not suddenly collapse soon and the few survivors will be an a post-apocalyptic ruin - Hobbes's "state of nature" nasty and brutish.
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti It is above the comprehension of most humans.
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Look at the figures in http://supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf
      3 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka a) so, dark matter which in your opinion is 100% virtual - at the present time this is neither provable nor disprovable, but hopefully in time experimentation will show that your theories are correct, hope I have this right. b) well, I do remember some of Hobbes, as I was a Philosophy Major - unfortunately not a physics/mathematics major. c) above comprehension of most humans - yes, I comprehend that statement and which some super-conscious intelligence in one form or another would visit my mind and shed some more light. d) thank you very much for the above link !
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka If 'intelligence' is transcendent to 'matter', what the heck is it, really?
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka oh boy
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Wrong Laura. You are not understanding me. My idea is completely testable and is continually being tested by several groups. Simply Google "dark matter detectors" - so far all the data is on my side - they are not finding anything! If they do, then my idea will be falsified. Google "Karl Popper falsification". Similarly Michelson and Morley did not find the motion of the Earth through the mechanical aether leading to the invariance of the vacuum speed of light for all non-accelerating detectors independent of their relative motion - basis for Einstein's two theories of relativity.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Laurel you are being mystical muddying clear waters. Mind is Bohm's quantum information field. Matter is the not-so "hidden variable" - this is discussed in my Journal of Cosmology paper 2011 - see Wikipedia page on me.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"Intelligence" is purposeful adaptation to the environment. It need not be conscious. We are making rapid progress in AI. Simply Google "Artificial Intelligence" and read Roger Penrose's books on the subject. No need for primitive mystical New Age fuzzy thinking anymore.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka OK, I thought you said in an above post that all of this will be settled by experiments which take a long time. But it IS testable, all right, but the mainstream will fight your knowledge because it is a threat to them, well fight in the form of falsification...... I will google dark matter detectors and Karl Popper, for clarification, thank you. Re: Bohm's 1st book I became confused with the mathematical formulas but somehow have always been deeply fascinated by the idea of an implicate/explicate order. Yes, I must be muddying the waters because the symptom of that is my own confusion. I will read the Wiki page on you, as I need to understand your concept of matter.
      3 hours ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Bohm's implicate order is the information processing on both our past and future 2D cosmological horizons that are hologram screens computing us as 3D hologram images at the intersection of past and future in the sense of Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurements". The horizons need to be fractal self-similar from the tiny Planck scale 10^-33 cm to the large dark energy future horizon scale 10^28 cm.
      2 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti The 2D hologram horizon computations are the implicate orders. The 3D hologram image projections from them both past and future are the explicate orders of our conscious perceptions.
      2 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Closely examine Fig 3 in http://supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf The vertical axis is observed magnitude of the Type 1a supernovae. The horizontal axis is the cosmological redshift z a measure of how far away the source of light is from our telescope photon detector's past light cone. Google any jargon you don't understand. Draw a horizontal line - constant observed magnitude and see that the redshift z is smaller if the universe is accelerating than if it's not. Likewise, draw a vertical line at constant redshift z and see that the observed magnitude is larger for the accelerating universe than for the one that does not accelerate. That is compare the lowest solid red line with the highest solid blue line when horizontal and vertical lines intersect them.
      about an hour ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Now if you can't understand the above exercise after trying hard then you cannot really understand what I am talking about. So test yourself.
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti If you can't get it, ask any smart kid over the age of maybe 12 to explain it to you.
      about an hour ago · · 2 people
    • Jack Sarfatti Actually genius kids younger than 12 interested in science can explain it to you if you can find them.
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka OK, I will do this exercise, might take me awhile and I have to change browsers in order to download and print the pdf article. Yes I will definitely have to engage in some major googling with all of this. Thank you for providing this information. Reading what you've just posted now I believe I do understand a bit more about the implicate/explicate notions. Well, I my nephew in law is pretty young and very astute about some of these matters, I could ask him, am not sure though, as he has a form of autism. May sound cliche', but if I meditate (quiet the gabbing of my mind) I hope to expand my awareness to a degree wherein some of this may become more comprehendable. Can become vicious circle, i.e., my anxiety about NOT understanding alot of then clouds my mind, making it even more difficult to grasp the meanings !
      about an hour ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti Also study carefully Fig 4 Note that a negative z (cosmological blue shift) would be seen if there were retro-causal real advanced Wheeler-Feynman photons back from a future source along our future light cone. "Figure 4. The history of cosmic expansion, as measured by the high-redshift supernovae (the black data points), assuming flat cosmic geometry. The scale factor R of the universe is taken to be 1 at present, so it equals 1/(1 + z). The curves in the blue shaded region represent cosmological models in which the accelerating effect of vacuum energy eventually overcomes
      the decelerating effect of the mass density. These curves assume vacuum energy densities ranging from 0.95 rhoc (top curve) down to 0.4 rhoc. In the yellow shaded region, the curves represent models in which the cosmic expansion is always decelerating due to high mass density. They assume
      mass densities ranging (left to right) from 0.8 rhoc up to 1.4 rhoc. In fact, for the last two curves, the expansion eventually halts and reverses into a cosmic collapse."
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti again click on http://supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf
      about an hour ago · · 1 person
    • Jack Sarfatti Very important - the greater the observed magnitude the less bright or dimmer is the source of light!
      57 minutes ago · · 1 person
    • Laurel Oplatka All right, thank you, yes I must read and study this article. Permutter material crucial I see. Retro-causal photons....this has to do with the nature of space/time warps ? OK, yes I must read this material.
      56 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The faintness—or distance—of the high-redshift supernovae
      in figure 3 was a dramatic surprise. In the simplest cosmological models, the expansion history of the cosmos
      is determined entirely by its mass density. The greater the
      density, the more the expansion is slowed by gravity. Thus,
      in the past, a high-mass-density universe would have been
      expanding much faster than it does today. So one shouldn’t
      have to look far back in time to especially distant (faint)
      supernovae to find a given integrated expansion (redshift)."
      54 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Notion of greater observed mag, yet less bright - of course at this stage I find this very puzzling....this is going to be a big project.
      54 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka Yes, I did understand about the greater the density, the more expansion slowed by gravity. Integrated expansion is the definition of redshift ? You see, I have to get all of this terminology. So the relationship of the mass density to length of expansion is key here?
      48 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"If these data are correct, the obvious implication is
      that the simplest cosmological model must be too simple.
      The next simplest model might be one that Einstein entertained for a time. Believing the universe to be static, he
      tentatively introduced into the equations of general relativity
      an expansionary term he called the “cosmological
      constant” (/ Greek Lambda) that would compete against gravitational collapse. After Hubble’s discovery of the cosmic expansion, Einstein famously rejected / as his “greatest blunder.” In later years, L came to be identified with the zero-point vacuum energy of all quantum fields.
      It turns out that invoking a cosmological constant allows
      us to fit the supernova data quite well. (Perhaps there
      was more insight in Einstein’s blunder than in the best efforts
      of ordinary mortals.)" More precisely / is only from virtual bosons - virtual light inside the quantum vacuum dominant term. The problem here is that naive quantum field theory without gravity gives the wrong prediction hc/Lp^4 when the observed value is in fact hc/Lp^2A. Here h is Planck's quantum of action, c is the vacuum speed of light. Lp^2 is the Planck area pixel qubit on our past and future cosmic horizon computers, A is the asymptotic area of our future cosmic horizon not our past particle horizon as explained in Tamara Davis's Ph.D. dissertation that is online - just Google. Also Google MIT Seth LLoyd's papers on black holes as computers, e.g. article in Scientific American.
      39 minutes ago ·
    • Laurel Oplatka All right, I will do the googling re: Davis and Lloyd and alot of this terminology. boson-higgs experiment - I need to understand that, do I ? The relationship of virtual particles and 'time' ---- past/present/future.....
      32 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti virtual particles can move any direction in time even faster than light outside the light cone.
      26 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti A real particle of real rest mass with negative energy moving back from the future along inside the past light cone of the source away from the source is the same as a real anti-particle with opposite charges (if any) moving to the source with positive energy inside the past light cone of the source.
      22 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti That's Feynman's "theorem".
      22 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The best fit to the 1998 supernova data (see figures 3
      and 4) implies that, in the present epoch, the vacuum energy
      density rho/ is larger than the energy density attributable
      to mass (rhomc2). Therefore, the cosmic expansion is now
      accelerating. If the universe has no large-scale curvature, as the recent measurements of the cosmic microwave background
      strongly indicate, we can say quantitatively that about 70% of the total energy density is vacuum energy and 30% is mass. In units of the critical density rhoc, one usually writes this result as
      Omega/ = rho//rhoc ~ 0.7 and Omegamc^2 = rhomc^2/rhoc ~ 0.3 " However, I say that the 0.7 is mostly virtual light. In contrast ~ 0.25 of the 0.3 is mostly from virtual lepton-antilepton and virtual quark-antiquark "plasma" inside the quantum vacuum. Only about .05 is from real leptons, real quarks etc and their compounds excited out of the quantum vacuum as ordinary gravitating matter in the usual classical sense.
      13 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The story might stop right here with a happy ending—a complete physics model of the cosmic expansion—were it
      not for a chorus of complaints from the particle theorists.
      The standard model of particle physics has no natural
      place for a vacuum energy density of the modest magnitude
      required by the astrophysical data. The simplest estimates
      would predict a vacuum energy 10^120 times greater.
      (In supersymmetric models, it’s “only” 10^55 times greater.)
      So enormous a / would have engendered an acceleration
      so rapid that stars and galaxies could never have formed.
      Therefore it has long been assumed that there must be
      some underlying symmetry that precisely cancels the vacuum
      energy. Now, however, the supernova data appear to
      require that such a cancellation would have to leave a remainder of about one part in 10^120. That degree of fine tuning is most unappealing. The cosmological constant model requires yet another fine tuning. In the cosmic expansion, mass density becomes ever more dilute. Since the end of inflation, it has fallen by very many orders of magnitude. But the vacuum energy density rho/ a property of empty space itself, stays constant. It seems a remarkable and implausible coincidence that the mass density, just in the present epoch, is
      within a factor of 2 of the vacuum energy density."
      9 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"The dark energy evinced by the accelerating cosmic expansion
      grants us almost no clues to its identity. Its tiny
      density and its feeble interactions presumably preclude
      identification in the laboratory. By construction, of course,
      it does affect the expansion rate of the universe, and different
      dark-energy models imply different expansion rates
      in different epochs. So we must hunt for the fingerprints
      of dark energy in the fine details of the history of cosmic
      The wide-ranging theories of dark energy are often
      characterized by their equation-of-state parameter
      w = p/rho, the ratio of the dark energy’s pressure to its
      energy density. The deceleration (or acceleration) of an
      expanding universe, given by the general relativistic
      d^2Rdt^2/R = –4/3pGrho(1 + 3w),
      depends on this ratio. Here R, the linear scale factor of the
      expanding universe, can be thought of as the mean distance
      between galaxy clusters not bound to each other.
      Thus the expansion accelerates whenever w is more negative
      than –1/3, after one includes all matter, radiation,
      and dark-energy components of the cosmic energy budget.
      Each of the components has its own w: negligible for
      nonrelativistic matter, +1/3 for radiation and relativistic
      matter, and –1 for /. That is, L exerts a peculiar negative
      pressure! General relativity also tells us that each component’s
      energy density falls like R^–3(1 + w) as the cosmos expands.
      Therefore, radiation’s contribution falls away first,
      so that nonrelativistic matter and dark energy now predominate.
      Given that the dark-energy density is now about
      twice the mass density, the only constraint on dark-energy
      models is that w must, at present, be more negative than
      –1/2 to make the cosmic expansion accelerate. However,
      most dark-energy alternatives to a cosmological constant
      have a w that changes over time. If we can learn more
      about the history of cosmic expansion, we can hope to discriminate among theories of dark energy by better determining w and its time dependence."
      5 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti In my theory, both dark energy and dark matter have w = -1. However, dark energy virtual bosons have / > 0. In contrast, dark matter has / < 0 from virtual fermion-antifermion plasma. The latter clump from its self-gravity just like w = 0 Cold Dark Matter real particles would do! That's what the pundits are missing. There is a scale dependence to /. It is positive on largest scale and negative on smaller scales as in our Galactic Halo.
      2 minutes ago ·
    • Jack Sarfatti ?"We live in an unusual time, perhaps the first golden
      age of empirical cosmology. With advancing technology, we
      have begun to make philosophically significant measurements.
      These measurements have already brought surprises.
      Not only is the universe accelerating, but it apparently
      consists primarily of mysterious substances. We’ve
      already had to revise our simplest cosmological models.
      Dark energy has now been added to the already perplexing
      question of dark matter. One is tempted to speculate
      that these ingredients are add-ons, like the Ptolemaic
      epicycles, to preserve an incomplete theory,. With the next
      decade’s new experiments, exploiting not only distant supernovae, but also the cosmic microwave background,
      gravitational lensing of galaxies, and other cosmological
      observations, we have the prospect of taking the next step
      toward that “Aha!” moment when a new theory makes
      sense of the current puzzles."
Oct 24

Update on CERN OPERA FTL Neutrino Controversy

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

[v1] Fri, 21 Oct 2011 14:31:29 GMT (245kb,D)
On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:59 AM, art wagner wrote:




Thanks Art

obviously the experiment is complex. My bet is that there is no violation of special relativity. The experts will have to sort it out.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Two separate issues:

1) superluminal signals are not forbidden in special relativity so long as one is not put off by back-from-the-future retro-causality.
For example Wheeler-Feynman advanced potentials that for some reason do not cancel like they do in the Cramer transaction, see also Penrose books on Libet, the data of Radin, Bierman, Bem ... and my recent proof of entanglement nonlocal signaling using non-orthogonal sender Glauber states entangled with ordinary receiver qubits (giving a talk at SLAC APS 11-11-11 - and also presented it at 100 Year StarShip Orlando DARPA-NASA meeting 10-1-11).

2) is the actual signal in OPERA superluminal, or is it a GPS error etc ?
Some light on "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"

I. Area, X. Prado
(Submitted on 21 Oct 2011)
The recent publication in ArXiv of "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam" has attracted many interest due to the possible theoretical or phenomenological interpretation of the results. In this paper we analyze the results and conclude that they are in agreement with "classical" theory of relativity.
Comments:    8 pages, 3 figures
Subjects:    General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Cite as:    arXiv:1110.4805v1 [physics.gen-ph]
Submission history

Oct 22

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Brandenburg Date: October 22, 2011 3:21:52 PM

Subject: RE: For Jessie Ventura - war with ETs? Fact or Fiction?

I agree with Jack’s statement, a low energy way to transcend interstellar distances, warp drive like in Star Trek,  is definitely possible, this would also explain exterrestrial UFOs , though not why they would want to mutilate cattle and abduct women once they got here.  That requires some deep thought- begining with the question of why humans do things like that.
It also means that UFO aliens may not be as powerful as people imagine them to be- since even second or third rate galactic powers could travel here easily. Some of whom we are dealing with may be “interstellar Riff-Raff”  If you want to see a movie that explains the whole UFO question, and includes alien abductions, underground bases and human traitors  who are so mesmerized by the alien technology, they think they are God- you should watch the Mysterians , a Japanese movie from 1957. It was directed by Honda , who directed Godzilla. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterians
Watching it you could imagine the whole UFO field was the result of someone seeing this movie and then taking LSD.  However, that is not what really happened- which means the makers of the movie seem to have been part of some “calibrated information release” –bringing the public slowly up to speed by releases of information that is itself true, but disguised as science fiction.
Idea! lets make our own devices to modify spacetime geometry!
From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:adastra1@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 3:19 PM
To: John Brandenburg

Subject: Re: For Jessie Ventura - war with ETs? Fact or Fiction?
If there is any truth to this et has low power warp wormhole tech. Only possibility is in my DARPA NASA Orlando 100 yr starship paper - in my opinion.
From iPhone All the conventional propulsion is a joke at interstellar scale.

On Oct 22, 2011, at 12:32 PM, John Brandenburg wrote:

Friends,  Consider this : "even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

what Ed says is not new

Under the principle of "mediocrity", the foundation of SETI, humans and their behaviors are not an abberation on the cosmos, but part of its fabric. The fact that some ETs are hostile , actually confirms mediocrity.

Earth is a microcosm of the universe- everything you find here you will find in the stars.

"I have met these people (the ETs) , the good news is that that they are like us, and the bad news is they are like us. If you want to know what I mean, understand i am Jewish-Ukranian and my  family survived the Holocaust "

Pamela Monroe in Morningstar pass


John Brandenburg PhD
Senior Research Scientist
Orbital Technologies Corporation
Madison Wisconsin

-----Original Message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:adastra1@me.com]
Sent: Sat 10/22/2011 12:
Subject: Re: For Jessie Ventura - war with ETs? Fact or Fiction?

Ed, though allegedly wealthy, lives in a shack in a gator infested swamp I am told. He allegedly has no internet there has to row to the local library. As I said, he is eccentric - another Dan Smith.

On Oct 22, 2011, at 08:28 AM, Christopher O'Brien wrote:

Come on Ed---say it ain't so! You don't actually believe what you've written is true? Sounds like half-baked, true-believer fairy tales from lalaland to me. Chris

Oct 21

Brain Signal Mystery

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Oct 21, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Amara D. Angelica wrote:
So that might explain this puzzling finding? Unexplained communication between brain hemispheres without corpus callosum


On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

I don't know off-hand. Entanglement signals are NOT electromagnetic signals.

Important not to confuse the two.

EM signals are real photons propagating in space at finite speed of light.

Entanglement signals are not any kind of real particle propagating in space.

Entanglement signals are beyond space-time completely. They are signals in the robust non-fragile macro-quantum coherent Bohm qubit field that can pilot real electromagnetic fields for example. All that matters are the free choices of Alice the sender and Bob the receiver when to throw their switches to irreversibly detect the separated pieces of the entangled whole. The space-time separation and time order between these two freely-chosen detections is arbitrary, it's irrelevant. The message can be sent back from the future of the reception for example. This is consistent with Russell Targ's statements on remote viewing for example.

Memorandum for the Record

My paper in Vol 14 Journal of Cosmology April 2011 cites Jorge Berger's work on the time-dependent Landau-Ginzburg eq and I also suggest it as a model for the mind field.


The non-orthogonal coherent eigenstates of the non-Hermitian Goldstone boson destruction operator in the brain are responsible for locally decodable entanglement signals connecting different parts of the brain into a kind of hologram. The Born probability rule of micro-quantum theory is violated.

There is no unitary transformation connecting an orthogonal sharp Fock number basis to the over-complete non-orthogonal Glauber coherent state basis. This is obvious because inner products are invariant under a unitary transformation. Hence the orthodox rules of QM breakdown in the regime that Freeman et-al are talking about.here is a photo of AC with Walter Freeman that I took at Castiglioncello 2008 where I mentioned this general idea in my talk and informally.

Also I think that's Vitiello behind Penrose at that same meeting?

Hagen Kleinert, Angela & Mrs. Kleinert - same meeting

Begin forwarded message:

From: Google Scholar Alerts Subject: Scholar Alert - [ allintitle: time-dependent landau ginzburg equation ]
Date: October 21, 2011 2:49:45 PM PDT
To: JackSarfatti@gmail.com

Scholar Alert: [ allintitle: time-dependent landau ginzburg equation ]

[PDF] Cortical phase transitions, non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation
WJ Freeman, R Livi, M Obinata… - Arxiv preprint arXiv:1110.3677, 2011

Abstract: The formation of amplitude modulated and phase modulated assemblies of neurons is observed in the brain functional activity. The study of the formation of such structures requires that the analysis has to be organized in hierarchical levels, ...

This Google Scholar Alert is brought to you by Google.

Cancel alert
List alerts

Oct 21

Low Power Warp-Wormhole Tech for Dummies

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

From: Jack Sarfatti Subject: Re: Woodward's book on Star Gates
Date: October 21, 2011 12:37:41 PM PDT
To: "jfwoodward

Yes, the first option you describe below is what my DARPA NASA Orlando paper was all about in its first part.
I am giving a paper 11-11-11 at SLAC APS on the second part entanglement signals with nonorthogonal coherent sender states entangled with a single receiver qubit. This is nonunitary post-quantum theory.

On Oct 21, 2011, at 7:04 PM, "jfwoodward wrote:

Well, what I have in mind is to point out that either you can propose to "soften" spacetime by arguing that the coupling constant should be taken as a coupling coefficient and that two modifications are possible: one, that c is the medium velocity rather than vacuum velocity; and two, that negative energy can be achieved using metamaterials (and explaining why the negativity cannot be written off as a difference in the group and phase velocities), as you have. 
Or you can look for enormous exotic mass in the bare properties of normal matter, and show how it can be exposed, my approach.

What I am proposing is that you write a little essay -- for dummies -- explaining your "softening" approach.  If you want to include things like "mass shell" and/or "Feynman propagators", that engineers are likely to be unfamiliar with, explain the terminology.  Better yet, avoid jargon unless it is really essential.  Assume that you are explaining your ideas to someone, an intelligent adult, who knows little or no physics.

Have Millis and Davis been selected to edit the papers from the conference?  My impression has been that all of the papers were to be published in the JBIPS.  It seems to me unlikely that the organizers would turn over editorial control to Millis and Davis.

I think they are the referees for that issue. I may be mistaken.

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI To: "jfwoodward
Subject: Re: Woodward's book on Star Gates
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:26:56 -0700

For real dummies

Einstein's field equation has the algebraic form

A = BC

so far all the Pundits think B is constant and then C is way too big to make a wormhole and a warp drive. However with metamaterials it may be possible to make a very big B that enables us to get the same A for a much smaller C.

also when B is negative we get anti-gravity.

A = induced warp-wormhole curvature

B = coupling of induced warp-wormhole curvature to applied stress-energy current densities

C = applied stress-energy current densities

On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:40 PM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Well, to physicists, perhaps so.  But for aerospace engineers, even those with more physics background than usual, perhaps not.  And while the material on entanglement signaling is interesting, it's not directly germane to the issue of making wormholes and warp drives.  I can present your basic argument, but I'd prefer to have you do so.  But it should be addressed to the target audience.  In my experience at least, they don't have a graduate command of quantum field theory.

Besides, you are already having the paper published, aren't you?

---------- Original Message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI To: "jfwoodward
Subject: Woodward's book on Star Gates
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:48:02 -0700

I think my paper is pretty clear.

Oct 20

Another paper on hologram dark energy

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

On Oct 20, 2011, at 11:59 AM, art wagner wrote:


Machian Origin of the Entropic Gravity and Cosmic Acceleration

Merab Gogberashvili, Igor Kanatchikov
(Submitted on 29 Dec 2010 (v1), last revised 19 Oct 2011 (this version, v2))
We discuss the emergence of relativistic effects in the Machian universe with a global preferred frame and use thermodynamic considerations to clarify the origin of gravity as an entropic force and the origin of dark energy/cosmic acceleration as related to the Hawking-Unruh temperature at the universe's horizon.
The issue is WHEN is the horizon?
It can't be our past particle horizon. It must be our future event horizon to explain the dark energy as advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking radiation.

The Hawking temperature a Planck distance away from our future horizon is

T ~ (1/Planck Distance))^1/2(Cosmological Constant)^1/4

Blackbody radiation law is that the energy density ~ T^4

pluggin in the Stephan-Boltzmann constant gives

Future Wheeler-Feynman black body radiation density back from our future horizon is hc(Cosmological Constant)/(Planck Area)

which is the correct number.

Cosmological Constant = 1/(Area-Entropy of our Future Event Horizon)

Our future event-horizon is the Wheeler-Feynman total absorber of last resort of all retarded photons inside the future event horizon.

T. Davis Ph.D. Fig 1.1c modified (above)

above is for our future de Sitter event horizon (modified from T. Davis PhD 5.1)

This explains ARROW OF TIME if all interior matter fields are 3D hologram images back from our future 2D surrounding surface future event horizon whose time-dependent area is the total thermodynamic entropy of the interior bulk. This pixelated 2D surface is a fractal cosmic computer - we are its computations. Crazy idea for sure.