Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » Ernst Mach
On Sep 18, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org> wrote:

This article on that same website is also very good. Apparently no one dares propose the possibility that nature as we observe it is literally shaped by our expectations:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130524-is-nature-unnatural/

I interpret the results of psi research as pointing toward the same possibility.


best wishes,
Dean

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences
Co-Editor-in-Chief, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
Author, Supernormal and other books
Personal website 


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:08 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
Thanks, Gaby.
This is not only a marvelous discovery
that I had never heard of
(I live in the woods after all)
but a beautifully written article
describing the discovery
and iys possible implications.

Nick

On Sep 18, 2013, at 2:48 AM, Jungle Girl wrote:

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Simons Foundation
www.simonsfoundation.org
Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: The universe might not make sense.
  • Jack Sarfatti Jim should have done more elementary calculations of simple cases in his book. I will not make the same pedagogical mistake in my book.

    Jim's Sciama vector theory of gravity which I soundly reject as beyond the fringe of plausibility as well as Einste
    in's tried and true battle tested tensor theory of gravity which I accept as The Word made Flesh from GOD(D) herself are BOTH classical field theories. Feynman diagrams
    Feynman diagram - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
    In theoretical physics, Feynman diagrams are pictorial representations of the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles.
    Motivation and history - Representation of physical reality
    are for quantum field theory and beyond, e.g. supergravity STING theory. 

    Of course, if one used classical field perturbation theory some remnant of Feynman's technique should survive. The effects of off-mass-shell virtual particles will be ignorable i.e. internal lines smeared over into a glob. However, the idea of using the amplitudehedron to compute solutions of nonlinear classical field theory might not be completely stupid? Jim's vector theory of gravity is relatively Mickey Mouse and does not need all of this fancy Dan math.

    MY VERSION of Jim's theory is very simple and does not need all his numbo jumbo about fictitious forces etc.

    One simply postulates in a Popper falsifiable manner:

    observed inertia = (Nonlocal Mach screening factor)(Local inertia)

    Local rest mass comes from several sources at different levels

    1) Higgs vacuum field for leptons, quarks, W bosons

    2) quantum chromodynamics for hadrons (confined ZPE of the quarks)

    3) standard low energy nuclear, atomic, solid state, chemical bond binding energy physics

    Finally we have the split

    (Nonlocal Mach screening factor) = Aharonov Destiny + Aharonov History

    The BACK FROM THE FUTURE DESTINY piece is the Wheeler-Feynman Hoyle-Narlikar-Cramer ADVANCED FUTURE LIGHT CONE INFLUENCE FUNCTIONAL constrained by our future dark energy TOTAL ABSORBER de Sitter event horizon (a hologram quantum computer).

    Similarly, for the RETARDED past light cone part constrained by our past particle horizon.

    OK now use plain vanilla Einstein GR

    Newton's 2nd law of TEST PARTICLE mechanics is

    DP/ds = F

    P = (Nonlocal Mach factor)(Local Inertia)V = (Phi)mV

    V = tensor 4 velocity of test particle

    D/ds = d/ds + (Levi-Civita DETECTOR terms)

    ds = proper time of test particle differential along its CLASSICAL world line

    (Levi-Civita DETECTOR terms) ~ 0 when the detector is on a timelike geodesic and is not rotating.

    d(Phi mV)/ds = (dPhi/ds)mV + Phi(dm/ds)V + (Phim)dV/ds

    This is only for timelike test particles NOT for PHOTONS!

    The ROCKET PROPELLENTLESS PROPULSION term is

    (dPhi/ds)mV

    In addition there need be some classical field (from action) equations for Phi, but this Phi does not at all correspond to

    g00 = 1 - phi/c^2

    BTW on Jim's speed of light RED HERRING!

    classically ds = 0 and that's all one can really say correctly.

    In the general metric corresponding to an arbitrary timelike LNIF set of detectors

    ds^2 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

    for a classical optics light ray this is

    0 = g00c^2dt^2 + g0icdtdx^i + gijdx^idx^j

    i,j = 1,2,3

    If we define the PROPER LENGTH dL as

    dL^2 = gijdx^idx^j

    and PROPER TIME dT as

    dT^2 = g00dt^2

    then the light ray equation is

    0 = - c^2dT^2 + g0icdtdx^i + dL^2

    = - c^2dT^2 + g0ig00^-1/2cdTdx^i + dL^2

    You can always choose a local triad where gij = 0 if i =/= j and not change the dynamical physics

    define like Ray Chiao Ai = g0i

    Therefore, the light ray null geodesic equation is

    0 = - c^2dT^2 + g00^-1/2cdTA.dL + dL^2

    DEFINE c' = dL/dT

    Therefore, JIM IS WRONG! 

    0 = - c^2 + g00^-1/2A.c' + c'^2

    A.c' = cAcos(A,c')

    This is a SIMPLE quadratic equation for the speed of light that has two roots in general when A =/= 0.

    Also note the HORIZON SINGULARITY at g00 = 0

    c' = {-cAcos(A,c')g00^-1/2 +- [c^2A^2cos^2(A,c')/g00 + 4c^2]^1/2}/2

    = {c{Acos(A,c')/g00^1/2 +,- c[A^2cos^2/g00 + 4]^1/2}/2

    In the limit A -> 0 c' -> +,- c

    When A =/= 0 at a horizon we get two roots for c', i.e. 0 and infinity!
  1. The Mach Propulsion Star Ship glows hot.
    Like · · Share
    • Jack SarfattiOn Jul 5, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

      Jack,

      Obviously you take a different view to Jim on what is a fictitious force and therefore how stargates would work, which is well-recorded in Jim’s e-mail list correspondence. You seemed to have comprised with his views slightly when you developed your analysis of Rindler redshifted back from the future radiation as explaining dark energy last month. I find your interpretation interesting and plausible as well, so keep writing…

      Jack says: Not really. Jim never bothered to put numbers into his theory here. Yes there is a cosmological blue shift, but it's tiny at z = 1/2 compared to the enormous gravity redshift z = (A^1/2/Lp)^1/2 ~ (10^28/10^-33)^1/2 ~ 10^30

      Beowolf says: A few comments:

      1. Is it necessary to assume that flying saucers get here through stargates,

      Jack says: Yes. See Enrico Rodrigo's book to see why.

      or is it just as well to assume a broader range of mechanisms which use negative energy densities to alter the curvature of space-time (ie. Alcubierre metrics as well as Kip Thorne’s wormholes)?

      Jack says: Stargates are Kip Thorne's wormholes. Also, as I have said and as Rodrigo says the physics of wormholes and warp drive are the same - if you can do one, you can do the other.

      Beowolf says: 2. I did watch the one Susskind video you linked to (the talk he gave in Toronto), discussing analogies between black hole and observable universe event horizons. I will watch his other lectures this summer if I have time, but finding time is always difficult. There is too much to do in life and not enough time. Life extension technology would be nice.
      3. Your grammar is unclear to me in the phrase: “measuring all the observables possessed by the “test particles”;” you obviously mean something like all the observable motion(s) or all the observable properties of the test particles but it is not precise.

      Jack says: It's perfectly clear to me.
    • Jack SarfattiIn response to Beowolf I wrote:
      The view I take is the standard mainstream view in every top textbook on the subject - the way it's taught at Cal Tech and every other top university.
      The Wikipedia article on fictitious forces is good on this.
      You must understand that Jim's view that the fictitious inertial pseudo-forces, i.e. centrifugal, Euler, Coriolis as well as Newton's F = - GMmr/r^3 are caused by a Mach influence from distant matter is considered "fringe" at the very best and totally cracked at the very worst.

      In Einstein's theory all of these fictitious inertial pseudo-forces are part of the Levi-Civita connection in the covariant derivative D/ds with respect to proper time. Newton's 2nd law in GR is

      Real EM-weak-strong 4-force on test particle =

      Special Relativity proper time derivative of 4-momentum of test particle - Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term

      Einstein's Equivalence Principle EEP is that the Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term = 0 in any Local Inertial Frame (LIF)'s CENTER OF MASS (COM)

      All of this is LOCAL PHYSICS true even in the total absence of gravity and even of the distant matter. You can imagine a universe with only a test particle and a detector - nothing else and these equations would work.

      Now, Jim keeps shooting himself in the foot with all this Mickey Mouse Sciama toy model that even Sciama rejected as simpler than is possible. It was only an off the cuff back of the envelope half-baked notion of Sciama's.

      What I can accept, is the CONJECTURE:

      Real EM-weak-strong 4-force on test particle =

      {Special Relativity proper time derivative of {(Response from Distant Matter) (4-momentum of test particle) }

      - (Levi-Civita Fictitious Force Term) (Response from Distant Matter)}

      In which the coefficient (Response from Distant Matter) has both advanced Wheeler-Feynman back from the future Destiny pieces and retarded past to present History pieces in the sense of Yakir Aharonov's "weak measurements" with pre and post-selection. Fred Hoyle already had this idea in his book "The Intelligent Universe" (~ 1984 ).

      In formal language suppressing indices

      P' = (Mach)P

      F = D{(Mach)P}/ds = (Mach)DP/ds + Pd(Mach)/ds

      Pseudo-forces are completely irrelevant to any Mach propulsion effect.

      Suppose we are in a LIF and F = 0 then

      (Mach)dP/ds + Pd(Mach)/ds = 0

      Pd(Mach)/ds is the CONJECTURED MET effect clearly & properly expressed by me perhaps for the first time?

      In this Machian picture added AD-HOC to Einstein's GR if no distant matter, then

      P' = 0 since (Mach) = 0

      Shed all the excess baggage of fictitious forces that are a distraction of absolutely no relevance.
    • Jack SarfattiFrom: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:adastra1@me.com]
      Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 7:03 PM
      To: Exotic Physics
      Subject: Star Gate Book Notes 1

      Stargate

      Making Star Trek Real

      Jack Sarfatti

      Preface

      I adopt as a working hypothesis that the flying saucers are real and that they get here through stargates. The task is then to see what modern physics has to say about such a scenario even if it’s not true. Whether or not it’s true is beside the point. I will also write about quantum theory and its relation to computing, consciousness, cosmology, the hologram universe and ending in a scenario for Stephen Hawking’s “Mind of God.” That Hawking thinks God is not necessary is again is beside the point. A good background reference here is Enrico Rodrigo’s “The Physics of Stargates: Parallel Universes, Time Travel and the Enigma of Wormhole Physics.” If you have the patience, Leonard Susskind’s Stanford University lectures in physics online videos are also worth the effort for the serious student.

      Chapter 1 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell

      Contrary to popular misconceptions, although the local laws of classical physics have the same “tensor” and/or “spinor” form for all motions of detectors measuring all the observable possessed by the “test particles”, there are privileged dynamical motions of the test particles in Einstein’s two theories of relativity special 1905 and general 1916. This was in Einstein’s words “My happiest thought.” These privileged motions are called “geodesic” motions or “world lines.” Test particles are distinguished from “source particles.” It is an approximation that test particles do not significantly modify the fields acting on them. They are, strictly speaking, a useful contradiction of the metaphysical principle of no action of Alice on Bob without a direct “back-reaction” of Bob on Alice. Massless point test particles in what physicists call the “classical limit” move on “null” or “lightlike” geodesics. Test particles with mass m move on timelike geodesics that are inside the “light cone” formed by all the light rays that might be emitted from that test particle if it were electrically charged and if it were really accelerating. The latter is a “counter-factual” statement. Look that up on Google. The key point is that Alice is weightless when traveling on a timelike geodesic inside her two local light cones past and future. There are no real forces F acting on Alice. On the contrary, Bob who is measuring Alice with a detector (aka “measuring apparatus”) need not be on another timelike geodesic. He can be off-geodesic because real forces can be acting on him causing him to feel weight. The real forces acting on Bob appear as “fictitious” “inertial pseudo-forces” acting on Alice from Bob’s frame of reference. The only real forces in nature that we know about in 2013 are the electro-magnetic, the weak and the strong. Gravity is not a real force in Einstein’s theory. Gravity is one of the fictitious forces described above. Real forces on test particles, unlike all fictitious forces on them, are not universal. Fictitious inertial forces that appear to, but are not really acting on the observed test particles all depend on the mass mass m of the test particle. Consequently, if Alice and Eve are each on separate timelike geodesics very close to each other and if Bob who is not on a timelike geodesic of his own due to real forces acting on him, then Alice and Eve will have the same kinematical acceleration relative to Bob and they will both feel weightless though Bob feels weight – also called “g-force.” This causes a lot of confusion, especially to aerospace missile engineers and high-energy particle physicists, because Newton did consider gravity to be a real force, but Einstein did not. Gravity is not a force. Gravity is the curvature tensor of four-dimensional space-time. What Newton thought of as a real gravity force, is demoted to a fictitious inertial pseudo-force in Einstein’s theory. In the language of the late John Archibald Wheeler, gravity is a “force without Force”. The best local frame invariant way to think about gravity in an objective local frame-independent way is the pattern of both light like and timelike geodesics whose source is the “stress-energy density tensor field” Tuv of matter. By matter we mean spin 1/2 leptons, quarks, and the spin 1 electromagnetic-weak-strong gauge bosons as well as the spin 0 Higgs vacuum superconductor field that formed only when our observable piece of the multiverse called the “causal diamond” popped out of the false vacuum about 13.7 billion years ago.

      Sent from iCloud