Term "vacuum propeller" invented at fourmilab.ch
Jack SarfattiFrom: Paul Zelinsky [mailto:yksnilez@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2013 10:55 AM
To: GNPellegrini@aol.com
Cc: jwoodward@Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU; adastra1@me.com; Kafatos, Menas
Subject: Re: [PhysicsFellows] Getting back to Jim's MET & DARK ENERGY COSMOLOGICAL CON...
OK here I agree with Menas.
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com> wrote:
On Jul 14, 2013, at 2:08 PM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kafatos@chapman.edu> wrote:
"Agree with Paul.
So now let’s move on.
What is next?"
Jack writes: Glad u asked.
My version of Jim's MET CONJECTURE
C = Mach Effect
Just in toy model Newtonian mechanics first for simplicity in an inertial frame
F = Cmd^2r/dt^2 + m(dC/dt)dr/dt + mrd^2C/dt^2
effective "dark energy" potential
V ~ (r/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
/ "cosmological constant" ~ d^2C/dt^2
In Einstein's GR this goes into g00
and a nonunitary dissipative friction term
In Einstein's GR this goes into the gravimagnetic metric gi0
Propellantless propulsion is when F = 0
Also
C = CDestiny + CHistory
The Hungarian claims CHistory = 0.82
therefore back from the future CDestiny = 0.18
In a toy GR model imagine only spherical Earth of mass ME and of radius rE and distant matter given by the Mach Cosmological Screening Coefficient C taken to be a pure dimensionless variable that Jim hopes to manipulate with his gizmo.
g00 = 1 - 2GME/c^2|r + rE| + (|r + rE|/c)^2d^2C/dt^2
gi0 = (dC/dt)(xi/c)
OK now we are honing in on the fly in Jim's soup. Jim wrote:
"a fictitious force is one that produces the same acceleration irrespective of the mass of the object on which it acts. It has nothing to do with whether the force is real or not." Footnote 5
Jim's first sentence is correct as far as it goes. It does not go far enough to explain the concept in its fullness. Jim's second sentence is misleading.
First: What is the proper definition of a "real force"?
A real force acting locally in a small region of spacetime is what an accelerometer placed in that region measures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer
also see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics
Special Relativity SR works locally in GR (EEP).
Non-rotating accelerometers on timelike geodesics measure ZERO.
The pattern of timelike geodesics are the INERTIAL PROPERTIES of space.
e.g. Lense-Thirring effect dragging of LIFs by rotating source masses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
Mach's Principle (MP) would conceivably apply to this pattern of timelike & null geodesic.
The timelike geodesics provide the local GEOMETRODYNAMIC reference field upon which "inertia" according to Newton's 2nd law is measured.
Inertia is the ratio of applied external electromagnetic-weak-strong force to what accelerometers measure.
Real test particles obey Einstein's mass shell constraint
E^2 = (mc^2) + (pc)^2
(poles of the Feynman propagator in the complex energy plane in quantum field theory)
Virtual particles violate the above constraint.
Both real and virtual particles directly bend space time in different ways i.e. both contribute to the Tuv source tensor in
Guv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv = 0
Mach's principle and Einstein's GR have nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of the rest masses m of the elementary particles.
The pattern of rest masses m come from quantum field theory (including Higgs) of the electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions.
The rest masses m are UNDETERMINED PARAMETERS as far as MP & GR are concerned.
m is also called inertial mass = gravity mass (part of the EP).
Therefore, anyone who claims that the actual values of m are determined by GR & MP is most definitely confused and wrong in my opinion.
They confuse the inertial properties of space-time given by GR with the inertia of elementary particles m.
On Dec 26, 2012, at 6:40 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
No point wasting more time on this quicksand rut.
I want to move on reading Jim's book.
I think I have made the point clearly with detailed math for two independent situations that I think u & Jim confound.
I argue with equations as much as possible and Z your verbal explanations generally make no sense to me.
What you still don't understand Z is that
Case 1: the observed test particle on geodesic when observed in a non-inertial frame will show apparent fictitious Coriolis, Euler, centrifugal forces and Newtonian gravity forces on that test particle whose accelerometer pointer stays at zero. In contrast the frame accelerometer pointer is off zero. Therefore, in that case, the apparent forces on the geodesic test particle are simply optical illusions.
Case 2: The observed test particle is now pushed off geodesic by a real constraint force. In that case the test particle will obey Newton's third law LOCALLY and will exert an equal and opposite CONTACT LOCAL INERTIAL REACTION FORCE on the ACCELERATING AGENT ( to use Jim's phrasing).
In some cases, e.g. the CYCLOTRON PROBLEM that electrical inertial reaction force will be outward centrifugal on the magnetic flux mr x w x w = (e/c)v x B where v = rw in the tangential direction of the circular orbit of period 1/w.
Now this term the real electrical local contact inertial reaction force mr x w x w in Case 2 MIMICs a term in the fictitious force Case 1 for the rotating non-inertial frame B (do not confuse with magnetic field pseudo-vector in BOLD FACE) where:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/1/5/515d0a6a1c2cca13eae083c7fad66a19.png
A is the inertial frame, and B is the rotating frame.
On Dec 26, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/26/2012 12:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote
I .Z I think you & Jim are seriously confused on the concept of inertial forces so much so that your views are not even wrong in Pauli's sense - indeed mystical in the worst sense of the word. If I am right, then Jim's entire scheme for Mach propulsion seems fatally flawed. I am withholding final judgement till I real more in his new Star Ship book.
A website means nothing. It's the funding that counts. I never heard of this group.
Mae Jemison has a lot of fund-raising clout in the Democratic Party. Mae can call up Bill Clinton, Obama's top people etc.
If Obama gets re-elected she has a very good chance of raising big private $.
How effective that will be in terms of technological development is another story of course because her tech people are afraid of the UFO flying saucer issue even though some of them worked on it in the past with Joe Firmage and Robert Bigelow.
In any case, all bets are off until the POTUS election is over.
It's clear that the Star Ship effort will split into parallel competing efforts. This is a good thing.
On Sep 30, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Angelo wrote:
Jim,
regarding Mae Jemison's institute "the Way", it seems that there is already a brand new interstellar research institute:
http://www.i4is.org/
Best,
Angelo
Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 8:52
Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012
Gentlefolk,
..
In a related vein, Mike L. put me on to an article about the recent 100YSS meeting where in an interview with Mae Jemison, she allowed that maybe the 100YSS operation was not the ideal way to actually get work done on the starship project. . . . She's tinkering with the idea of another operation (she calls "the way") as the thing that actually tries to get something done. My sense is that that isn't what the creators of the 100YSS project had in mind. . . . But we'll see. :-)
Have a good what's left of the weekend,
Jim Woodward