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

Apr
11

Tagged in: Milky way, Hawking radiation, Gravity Waves, Black Hole

Tentatively

Black body thermal gravitons radiated from the black hole at the center of our galaxy should each have an energy equal to the electron rest energy 10 ^-6 ergs. There should be 10^21 of these gravitons passing through us each second per square centimeter. It has mass ~ 5 million Suns and is 26 000 light years away.

This assumes quantum foam of Planck mass zero point gravity field fluctuations converted to my new second high energy peak of the Hawking radiation.

f = c/(LA^1/2)^1/2

L = IR cutoff

A = area of horizon

Details in a few days.

LIgo & lisa will not see them

They only look for lfgw

If gravitons convert to photons efficiently that might explain the gamma rays at electron rest energy?

Also em radiation different numbers.

Sent from my iPad

Apr
10

Tagged in: Hawking radiation, Dark Energy, black holes

I compute that black holes have much shorter evaporation times than Hawking et-al first computed. They computed surface vibrations and neglected thickness vibrations due to geometrodynamical field zero point vacuum fluctuations.

On Apr 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/9/2014 4:42 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:According to Einstein’s classical geometrodynamics, our future dark energy generated cosmological horizon is as real, as actualized as the cosmic blackbody radiation we measure in WMAP, Planck etc.

But doesn't its location depend on the position of the observer? How "real" is that?

Alice has to be very far away from Bob for their respective de Sitter horizons not to have enormous overlap.

We all have same future horizon here on Earth to incredible accuracy.

What else? Obviously.

No, static LNIF hovering observers have huge proper accelerations at Lp from the horizon with redshifted Unruh temperature T at us

I assume by "dark energy generated" you simply mean that the FRWL metric expansion is due to /, and

/ registers the presence of dark energy.

We have actually measured advanced back-from-the-future Hawking radiation from our future horizon. It’s the anti-gravitating dark energy Einstein cosmological “constant” / accelerating the expansion of space.

OK so the recession of our future horizon produces Hawking-like radiation due to the acceleration of our frame of reference

wrt the horizon?

kBT ~ hc/(A^1/2Lp^1/2)^1/2

use black body law

energy density ~ T^4

to get hc/ALp^2

The static future metric is to good approximation

g00 = (1 - r^2/A)

we are at r = 0

future horizon is g00 = 0

imagine a static LNIF hovering observer at r = A^1/2 - Lp

his proper radial acceleration hovering within a Planck scale of the horizon is

g(r) ~ c^2(1 - r^2/A)^-1/2 (A^1/2 - Lp)/A

= c^2(1 - (A^1/2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2(A^1/2 - Lp)/A

= c^2(1 - (1 - 2 Lp/A^1/2 + Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)

= c^2(2Lp/A^1/2 - Lp^2/A )^-1/2(A^-1/2 - Lp/A)

~ c^2(2Lp^-1/2/A^-1/4 )A^-1/2(1 - Lp/A^1/2)

~ c^2(A^1/4/Lp^1/2)A^-1/2 ~ c^2/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)

f(emit) = c/(Lp^1/2A^1/4)

1 + z = (1 - (A^1’2 - Lp)^2/A)^-1/2 = (A^1/4/Lp^1/2)

OK this is the standard low energy Hawking radiation formula from surface horizon modes

However, there is a second high energy quantum thickness radial mode

f'(emit) ~ c/Lp

You seem to be drawing a direct physical analogy between cosmological horizons and black hole horizons.

This requires the anti-Feynman contour for advanced radiation in quantum field theory.

i.e. mirror image of this

It’s energy density is ~ hc/Lp^2AA = area of future horizon where the future light cone of the detector intersects it.

Apr
09

Tagged in: Uri Geller, Seth Lloyd, precognition, Leonard Susskind, hologram universe, Gerard 't Hooft, David Deutsch, CIA

I disagree

When the events are complex and significant they are not statistical

New rules apply Vallee's high strangeness

When an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.

Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.

The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.

More is different

Emergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.

Sent from my iPad

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.

From: beowulfr@interlog.com

To: iksnileiz@gmail.com

Subject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400

Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.

Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?

As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.

Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.

Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.

From:Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]Sent:April-07-14 9:08 PMTo:Robert AddinallSubject:Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUM

Except that we were

alsotalking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Which

doesn't agree with Jack's.

Remember?

On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:

Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Ruth Kastner wrote:Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Havingwell-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events._____________________________________________________________On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:Every really wealthy person I know well personally has an uncanny talent to make good decisions financially.I am not talking only about stock market.For example, the Marshall Naify had extraordinary powers akin to Uri Geller’s and Ingo Swann. I personally experienced “mental time travel” with him (shared telepathic experience) to past events (Ancient Egypt, Middle Ages). He saw the potential of cable TV early and was one of the creators of what led to Comcast.I have also noticed other evidence in them of paranormal talent.I am not saying this as a scientific fact - only a subjective observation - folklore.I am not saying that 100% of the 1% are precognitive but that a significant fraction are.Even successful criminals and evil leaders are.On Apr 9, 2014, at 12:59 PM, CloudRider@aol.com wrote:Question, for Jack, et al...Is it possible... or have you considered (seriously, with respect)... that what's in play here is a form of human perception perhaps located somewhere on the autism spectrum, even higher-functioning than Asperger's?I am not a brain neuroscientist. I do not know.If such a condition were to allow "tuning" to different signals from what "typical" receivers (people, brains) are capable of picking up. Not to imply "disability" or abnormality, per se, but a "stretch" in what most people are able to perceive... or perceive and retain in consciousness. Also, Jack's signal had to have a 'sender,' who quite likely would know about the "tuning" aspect of human perception, in the 1950s quite new to us.Exactly my point! HIGH STRANGENESS - REALITY OF THE UNCANNY THAT MANY STRAIGHT SCIENTISTS OUT OF FEAR SUPPRESS.Vallee and Davis Physics of High Strangeness ... - skinwalker ranchwww.skinwalkerranch.org/images/Vallee-Davis-model.pdfby JF Vallee - Cited by 6 - Related articlesOct 24, 2003 - clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by ... Jacques Vallée has a Ph.D. in computer science; Eric Davis holds a Ph.D.You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/1/14High Strangeness by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Arkadiusz Jadczykwww.cassiopaea.org/cass/high_strangeness.htmThe term "high strangeness" is attributed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek who addressed the ... French scientist, Jacques Vallee writes in a paper about High Strangeness:.High strangeness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_strangenessWikipediaWithin the domain of Ufology, high-strangeness is a term used to denote a ... It is perhaps of interest that Jacques Vallee, a close colleague of Hynek, has in a ...This doesn't explain "contacts" by some kind of external source using conventional physical means (i.e., the telephone); could these have been an effort to "simulate extraordinary stimulation" by scientists studying such phenomena. I.e., if selected for programming, how to reach Jack (others?) without alarming them?Well, the phone calls were real. Who made them is still a mystery.Conversely, "extraordinary" ET or UT entities intending to contact and influence (this young scientist, retrocausally identified from the future) could have used the telephone because "supernatural" modalities of such "contact" might have triggered a psychotic break or other rejection reaction, by Jack's mother or any subsequently engaged psychiatrists brought in to "help" normalize their target, getting him locked away or chemically restrained, as quite obviously has happened to many other such "revelatees" over millennia?That did not happen to me. But remember I was part of the USG superkids project out of Columbia University AFTER the phone calls throughout high-school with early admission into Ivy League Cornell with full scholarship for four years.This project (also associated with Ayn Rand) was funded by born in Brooklyn (where I lived):The Eugene McDermott Scholars Program - The University of Texas ...www.utdallas.edu/mcdermott/University of Texas at DallasFeb 25, 2014 - Established by Mrs. Eugene McDermott in support of her husband's dream, the McDermott Scholars program provides select UT Dallas ...Application Information - The McDermott Award - Meet the Scholars - Contact UsEugene McDermott Library - The University of Texas at Dallaswww.utdallas.edu/library/University of Texas at DallasOnline catalog, list of newly acquired titles, and general information for the lecture series and the McDermott and Callier Libraries.Databases - Library Hours - Journals - eBooks CollectionsEugene McDermott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McDermottWikipediaEugene McDermott (1899-1973) was a geophysicist and co-founder first of Geophysical Service and later of Texas Instruments. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on ...Early career - Geophysical Service - Texas Instruments - PhilanthropyYou've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 11/25/13"IT" used the phone because that approach would not necessarily provoke a panicked response the way a "Biblical" manifestion of revelatory experience likely would have, i.e., "messianic" distortion or psychic break.Either way, the net effect was to recontextualize Jack's personality and "genius," providing direction (both overt and subliminally, likely) and opening his mind to a stream of ongoing but more subtle signals later on.Credulity, post-exposure, would be interesting to some scientists contemporaneous to the experience?http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cacheof-summary-paper-the-invasion-from-mars-readings-in-social-psychology-1947-hadley-cantril.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_CantrilOn Apr 9, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:So Jack is not going to be satisfied with retro-causal connections between mere possibilities.For him the future is fully actualized and physically influences the present through CTCs in aneternal block universe.For him, that is what "precognition" means.On 4/9/2014 11:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:I disagreeWhen the events are complex and significant they are not statisticalNew rules apply Vallee's high strangenessWhen an alleged computer from the future tells me in 1953 of what will happen to me in 1973,which happens in fact and which is the cosmic trigger for the narrative in david kaisers MIT book etc that's a real time loop in a block universe in my opinion.Remember CIA tape recording of my 1953 memory made in 1973 during SRI visit ties in with uri Geller narrative.The rules of the game are more like a homicide police investigation rather than statistical analysis of unitary S matrix measurements.More is differentEmergence of new rules with increasing complexity uniqueness of historical events.Sent from my iPadOn Apr 7, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes to clarify I don't rule out that there could be legitimate pre-cognitive experiences. The question is what can be inferred from those. Having well-documented cases of correct predictions does not automatically imply that the future consists of actualized specific events.From: beowulfr@interlog.comTo: iksnileiz@gmail.comSubject: RE: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUMDate: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 21:35:31 -0400Yes Z, but Ruth doesn’t seem to have a problem with discussing the implications of precognition as a possibly real phenomenon. Like me she seems to be willing to discuss it, but not to go out on a limb and wholeheartedly agree with Jack. So, we were discussing whether precognition would definitely favor Jack’s theory, or whether it could be explained in her theory as well. She and I both seemed to make the point that viewing of future events doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is viewing the only possible future – there could be a number of possible futures.Actually, on this point I remember reading some books by Lyall Watson back in the 1980s or early 1990s. Watson had various of these sorts of psychic precognition examples listed. I remember that he specifically claimed that aircraft, trains or other vehicles that are going to crash statistically have fewer people on them – that there is a rash of last-minute cancellations before the trip. I don’t know how rigorous his statistics were and whether this is really true. However, just assuming for a moment that it is, and that people do have an innate precognitive sense, what does Watson’s argument imply about the future?As I remember Watson’s argument, he is not saying that people have a specific vision of dying in a fiery crash (although IIRC he claims that sometimes that does happen) but just that people get a bad feeling about the trip and come up with some excuse to cancel and do something else. The precognition in his argument therefore happens at a sort of half-conscious level.Either the people who last minute cancel are never going to die/are not “supposed” to die (whatever that means; maybe Jack’s future cosmological horizon quantum computer is post-determining that they live longer), and the precognition happens in order to actualize the future that is there all along. Or, the cancellations are simply weird effects at a classical level, kind of like a Novikov self-consistency principle that would cause odd coincidences to happen to prevent you from changing history if you travelled to the past through a wormhole.Alternatively, a future existed in which those people did die, and they precognitively sensed it, and so actualized a different future where they avoided death. This would mean that the future is changeable through precognition, so multiple possible futures must exist.From: Paul Zielinski [mailto:iksnileiz@gmail.com]Sent: April-07-14 9:08 PMTo: Robert AddinallSubject: Re: From deadhead to think-outside-the-block head? DR. QUANTUMExcept that we were also talking about Ruth Kastner's alternative model for "retro-causality". Whichdoesn't agree with Jack's.Remember?On 4/7/2014 5:39 PM, Robert Addinall wrote:Anyway, this is exactly what I was saying the other day – for the purposes of this conversation accepting Jack’s concept of precognition as a proven reality is fine.

Apr
01

Tagged in: Einstein's curved spacetime gravity, Albert Einstein

On Apr 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Paul Zelinsky wrote:

"Also, what do you think the Minkowski fiber bundle represents in modern formulations of GR? It represents a local mapping of the curved base space inner products determine by g_uv onto the Minkowski fibers defined by the globally flat Minkowski metric n_uv."

To which I replied:

To which I replied:

frame field for LNIF is eu(LNIF) with curvilinear metric guv(LNIF).

One can always find LNIFs where in Taylor series about origin

g^u^v(LNIF) ~ n^u^v(Minkowski) + {Levi-Civita Connection}^u^vw&x^w + {Riemann Curvature Tensor}^u^vwl&x^w&x^l + ….

ds^2 = guv(LNIF)e^u(LNIF)e^v(LNIF)

frame field for LIF (Cartesian coordinates a must as Einstein stipulates in his papers) eI(LIF) tangent bundle fiber metric Taylor expansion is

n^I^J(LIF) = n^I^J(Minkowsk) + {Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL&x^K&x^L + ….

ds^2 = nIJ(LIF)e^I(LIF)e^J(LIF)

Small font indices u,v ... are in the LNIF base space

Caps I,J are in the LIF fiber

The tetrad transformation is

e^u(LNIF) = e^uIe^I(LIF) etc.

EEP means that

{Levi-Civita Connection}^I^JK = 0

though in general

{Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JK =/= 0

{Levi-Civita Connection}^u^vw =/= 0

Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL = 0

Riemann Curvature Tensor}^I^JKL =/= 0

Note that e^I(LIF) is a set of 4-vectors with components e^Iu

e^u(LNIF) is a set of 4-vectors with components e^uI

e^uIe^Iv = kronecker delta uv etc. ORTHOGONAL GROUP O(1,3)

ds^2 = nIJ(LIF)e^Ie^J = guv(LNIF)e^ue^v

LIF Alice and LNIF Bob are COINCIDENT

LIF Alice has zero proper acceleration

LNIF Bob has non-zero proper acceleration

ds is invariant space interval between 2 neighboring events measured simultaneously by both Alice and Bob.

Since we impose COINCIDENCE no problem with simultaneity.

Also clock postulate that proper acceleration of clocks in LNIF can be synchronized to clocks in LIF if they are coincident.

Apr
01

Tagged in: Mach's Principle, Jim Woodward, gauge theory, Einstein's curved spacetime gravity

On Feb 8, 2014, at 1:23 AM, "jfwoodward@juno.com" wrote:

For those of you who are trying to figure out what Jack and Paul are arguing about, sometimes on this list again, the basic issue, put simply, is whether gravitational fields are present in spatially flat spacetimes. Jack says no. That non-vanishing spatial curvature must be present if gravity is present.

JS: Jim is muddling my position.

1) Real gravity fields must have curvature.

2) Artificial gravity fields exist without curvature.

3) Einstein's Equivalence Principle (EEP) is: imagine you are inside an elevator with no windows.

Situation A: Elevator is standing still on surface of Earth. The reaction force (radially inward) of your body down on the scale is your weight

W = (your inertia in kg)10 meters per sec^2

Your inertia is

m = E/c^2

E is your total energy in Joules

c = 3 x 10^8 meters/sec^2

In Einstein's GR you have an upward net non-zero off-geodesic proper tensor acceleration (radially outward) g = DV/dt = 10 meters per sec^2 in order to stand still (hovering static LNIF) in the Earth's curvature field. Your world line is not a geodesic of the Earth's curvature field.

V = 0 and dV/dt = 0 in the hovering static LNIF

g = - {LNIF}V0^2 = + GMEarthr/r^3 radially outward

The action-reaction pair of electrical contact forces of Newton's third law is LOCAL having no astrological magic influence from the distant stars. It is caused by local U1 electromagnetic gauge invariance + quantum field theory.

WHEELER-FEYNMAN RADIATION REACTION IS NOT IN PLAY HERE - THERE IS NO RADIATION.

dP/dt = 0 P = total charge momentum + EM field momentum

= mV + (e/c)A

From quantum field theory, the local U1 gauge transformation is simply mostly the exchange of a near field spacelike virtual photon between the charge e of inertia m and the EM field A coincident with the charge.

The dominating Feynman diagram is >---|

> = electron world line

--- = virtual spacelike photon world line

| = Glauber macro-quantum coherent state of virtual photons order parameter describing the near field A

A is exactly like the Bose-Einstein condensate reservoir in superfluid helium it is also analogous to the Higgs vacuum field - these are all examples of spontaneous broken continuous symmetry groups of the dynamical action.

note subject of my PhD was "Local Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Superfluids" 1969 UCR

Formally the internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation is

mV -> mV' = mV + hGradS

S = quantum phase of the charge's information BIT field.

A -> A' = A - (hc/e)GradS

Therefore, the total canonical momentum P of the Hamiltonian for minimal QED coupling is GAUGE INVARIANT

P -> P' = mV + hGradS + (e/c)A - hGradS = P

dP/dt = 0

The formal U1 internal symmetry local gauge transformation actually describes the transfer of a virtual photon from the classical near EM field to the charge and vice versa! It's a quantum field virtual dynamical process in space-time and it obviously implements Newton's 3rd Law that the total momentum of the system of interest is LOCALLY CONSERVED.

Change in momentum of charge + change in momentum of near field = 0

The radially outward real force pushing the charge off a timelike geodesic is

F = hGradS/&t

The radially inward real reaction force of the charge back on the source of the near field A is

- F = -hGradS/&t

this radially inward reaction force causes the pointer of the scale to show weight.

&E&t < h for virtual photon (Heisenberg uncertainty principle)

Situation B: the elevator is properly accelerating at 10 meters per sec^2 in any direction in flat empty spacetime.

The observer inside the elevator cannot tell whether he is out in empty space or sitting still on surface of Earth.

We assume of course that he has no windows and no tidal curvature measuring capability.

Therefore, subject to these conditions one cannot distinguish artificial non-tidal gravity defined as the Levi-Civita connection from the non-tidal gravity field associated with tidal curvature.

JW: Paul says yes. That spatially flat spacetime does not preclude the presence of gravity. That Paul is right should be obvious from the fact that general relativity is predicated on the assumption that in sufficiently small regions of spacetime, the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies.

JS: Jim, you have totally muddled two different meanings of the ambiguous term "gravitational field". Also you are dead wrong. You have made a very elementary error.

Your "the Minkowski metric (spatially flat) applies"

The Minkowski metric is flat in the 4D sense, not only in the 3D sense.

Your argument here is a non sequitur

"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies." wiki

JW: It is also the boundary condition in the Schwartschild solution of Einstein's equations.

JS: Schwarzschild, also it's another non sequitur red herring.

JW: And in critical cosmic matter density cosmologies, spatial flatness obtains in the presence of black hole horizon strength gravity. The problem for Jack (and other "modernists") is that if you allow that, the WMAP results give back Mach's principle as a simple prediction of general relativity.

JS: I challenge you to give a mathematical model that WMAP proves Mach's Principle.

You do not need Mach to have k = 0 in the FRW metric.

JW: Do not expect closure on this any time soon. :-)

Apr
01

Tagged in: supersymmetry, multiverse, LHC CERN, Higgs field

**Subject:** **Particle fever a fork in the road the movie**

Don't miss it I just saw it

If the Higgs mass was 115 GeV it would be strong evidence for super symmetry connecting fermions to bosons

And that case there is still room for an intelligent designer acting back from the future dark energy DeSitter cosmic horizon programming a virtual hologram universe simulation

10^120 ~ 1/ / qubits

IT From BIT

+

BIT From IT

=

Entanglement Signal Nonlocality

If the Higgs mass was 140 GeV it would be strong evidence for Tegmark's multi-verse levels one and two in that case the mass of the electron etc. is a random coincidence in the cosmic landscape of string theory

In fact the Higgs mass is 125 GeV smack in the middle pretty much

Therefore God is subtle but not malicious as Einstein said

I do predict they will never find a dark matter particle however because dark matter is made from virtual particles inside the quantum vacuum in my opinion

Sent from my iPad

Mar
14

Tagged in:

I make Popper falsifiable[i] original predictions in this book: Dark matter[ii] detectors will fail to register true signals because dark matter is caused by virtual particles inside the quantum vacuum not real particles outside the vacuum whizzing through space. Trying to find real dark matter particles is like Michelson and Morley in 1887 trying to detect the motion of Earth through the aether with their interferometer.[iii] A preponderance of virtual spin ½ fermion-antifermion pairs over virtual spin 1 boson pairs creates the net gravity attraction of dark matter that mimics cold dark matter real particles. Dark energy is the opposite.

I also claim to have essentially solved the mind-matter “hard problem.” I used David Bohm’s picture of quantum theory. The non-relativistic limit is valid for biological physics. I postulate that Bohm’s quantum information field called the quantum potential Q that pilots particles and electromagnetic fields is essentially “mental” or “thoughtlike” (Henry P. Stapp) with the particles and electromagnetic fields as “matter” in the common sense way of thinking. Orthodox quantum theory, that I will call “special quantum theory” in analogy with Einstein’s “special theory of relativity,” obeys the “no-signal theorem” in its several guises. This means that nonlocal quantum entanglement, now a powerful resource in applied physics of imaging, cryptography etc., cannot be used as a stand-alone command-control-communication-channel C4. Yes, one can encode a complex message nonlocally in a spatially extended entangled quantum system, like the electron switches inside the protein dimers in the microtubules of our brains in the Stuart Hameroff model, for example, but we cannot decrypt the spread-out coded message without light-speed limited classical signal keys. I say that our consciousness violates this restriction and the theory that explains it is, in analogy with Einstein’s general theory of relativity of the gravitational field - “general quantum theory.” Antony Valentini has published papers on “general” quantum theory where he introduces the idea of “signal nonlocality” in a more formal way than I did and Brian Josephson did independently before him. I claim that evidence for signal nonlocality is found in the independent “brain presponse” data of several experimental scientists, Ben Libet, Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, and most recently Cornell’s Daryl Bem in his paper “Feeling the Future.” Technically, the special quantum theory taught in school is linear and unitary provided that “strong” measurements are not made in between the time evolution of the quantum system. General quantum theory is nonlinear and non-unitary. Both of these properties can arise in different ways. Spontaneous symmetry breaking of the ground state of complex systems is one way. General quantum systems, it seems, must be open systems pumped far from thermodynamic equilibrium like Ilya Prigogine’s “dissipative structures.” David Bohm with Basil Hiley showed that the no-signal property of special quantum theory comes from the violation of Einstein’s philosophical “action-reaction principle” that forms the essence of his general theory of relativity of the gravitational field. In special relativity, the four-dimensional spacetime continuum pilots the real force-free “geodesic” motion of particles and field configurations without any direct back-reaction of those piloted particles and fields on the spacetime-continuum. That is, the space-time continuum acts without being reacted upon directly! Einstein found this to be repugnant to his intuition of how God should have created the universe. Indeed, Wolfgang Pauli quipped that Einstein should stop telling God what to do. Einstein transformed the spacetime continuum from an absolute object into a relative object the geometrodynamical field in which the particles and non-gravity fields back-react directly producing curvature of the spacetime continuum. Indeed, such curvature permits time travel to the past as well as global faster than light messaging through traversable “stargate” wormholes that are the other side of the quantum entanglement coin where ER = EPR. Note, that locally, the message-signal travels slower than light inside the wormhole. It is faster than light only to observers outside the wormhole. So we have to borrow from John Archibald Wheeler “faster-than-light without faster-than-light.” The no-signal theorem of special quantum theory corresponds to wormholes with event horizons that pinch off before a message or traveller can get through the warped space tunnel. Anti-gravitating amplified dark energy holds the wormhole open. General quantum theory violating the no-signal theorem of special quantum theory depends on the dark energy that is about 68% of all the stuff in the universe. Now there are the naysayers who discount all this. However, because of the UFO evidence, I take the position in this book of “Damn the photon torpedoes, full warp ahead.” One other point, Einstein’s equivalence principle allows artificial “non-tidal” gravity even in special relativity. We experience artificial gravity without curvature when we are at rest in accelerating reference frames called “non-inertial frames.” Real gravity fields correspond to hovering in a “stretch-squeeze” Weyl “tidal” curvature field. However, even in such a real gravity field with curvature, we can eliminate its “non-tidal” artificial gravity component by freely falling weightless on a timelike geodesic that is inside our local light cone. The light cone is the essential object in both special and general relativity. Now let’s return to the hard problem of our immediate experience of the “Now” in our consciousness called “qualia” by the mind-matter philosophers. I say that “qualia” are generated in our minds as immediate experiences from the direct back-reactions of the charged particles and electromagnetic fields in our brain on a macroscopically coherent quantum potential Q mental pilot field. Our conscious experiences, qualia, are simply excited states out of the ground state of our Q-field. The Q-field emerges from spontaneous symmetry breaking of a dissipative structure in our brains. Topological computing also probably plays an essential role because it is robust against thermal environmental decoherence. This would be a off-equilibrium biological version of the fractional quantum Hall effect in 2D nano-quantum wells with the braid group of anyonic fractional quantum statistics replacing the spin-statistics connection of 3D quantum systems. Indeed, the wrapping of the protein dimers around the microtubules inside our nerve cells is, it seems to my intuition, such a 2D nano-quantum well structure. Summarizing, the analogy of real tidal gravity curvature to conscious qualia is profound.

There are two kinds of Stephen Hawking black body radiation^{[iv]}from black holes and our two past and future cosmological horizons that define the edges of our observable universe. Hawking’s original prediction was from low energy horizon surface area modes of vibration. The new higher energy radiation is from the quantum uncertainty thickness of these horizons. In particular, the black hole horizons are heat engines doing work whose outer regions pump out beams of particles.

· Dark energy accelerating the expansion rate of the three-dimensional space of our universe, itself maybe a back-from-the-future hologram image, is redshifted advanced Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body radiation with negative energy density. Retarded radiation from past obeys the Feynman propagator boundary condition that positive energy propagates forward in time, while negative energy propagates backward in time. I postulate here, the mirror image anti-Feynman boundary condition for back-from the future advanced radiation: that negative energy propagates forward in time, while positive energy propagates backwards in time. Therefore, even though w = + 1/3 for real black body thermalized photons they generate universally repulsive anti-gravity. The cosmological expansion of space makes a blue shift for back-from-the-future advanced radiation, but it’s a very small correction to the enormously larger gravity redshift from our future dark energy de Sitter cosmological event horizon that may well be the holographicHawking Brain/Brane of God, whose software is his “Mind of God.” Indeed, the Hawking radiation energy density is the actuallyobserved hc/ALp^{2} where A is the area-entropy of the observer-dependent future cosmic horizon. A ~ 10^{124} quantum bits of information. In general quantum theory we have entanglement signal nonlocality, which makes the Brane of God conscious in my opinion – take it, or leave it.[v]

· One of the most important principles in modern theoretical physics is that of local gauge invariance used in conjunction with the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the lowest energy state called the quantum vacuum for virtual particles and the quantum ground state for real particles. The “God Particle” of Peter Higgs found in the CERN LHC in Geneva, Switzerland, that gives rest masses to spin ½ fermion leptons and quarks as well as weak force spin 1 vector bosons is an example of the former. The persistent electric currents in quantized magnetized superconducting rings are an example of the latter. The equations of local gauge invariance that explain all the real forces of electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions are presented in text books as formal mathematical tricks without any immediate physical meaning. I have recently discovered their physical meaning. I have connected the pure mathematics of local gauge transformations to Einstein’s “objects of experience.” The simplest case is that of electromagnetism from the internal symmetry U1 unitary Lie group of continuous phase transformations. The electromagnetic field potential A transforms to A + (hc/e)d. Of course, h is the Planck’s quantum of action and c is the speed of light in vacuum. Everyone knows that is the quantum phase of, for example, the electron test charge e’s wave function , whose rest mass m is induced by the Higgs vacuum superconductor field that presumably forms in the moment of inflation Alpha Point creation of our universe in the quantum phase transition from a false to the “true” vacuum. The total linear momentum of the charge coincident with the electromagnetic field A is the canonical momentum P

P = mV + (e/c)A

The gauge transformation keeps the canonical momentum P invariant. It does not change because from the Schrodinger quantum equation of motion

mV à mV - hdf

(e/c)A à (e/c)A + hdf

suddenly dawned on me that hdf is simply the linear momentum transfer Dp between the test charge and the electromagnetic field it is in local contact with. This is a near field electrical contact force caused by the exchange of a virtual photon whose momentum is simply hdf. Indeed, from Fourier analysis it is easily shown that the virtual photon has longitudinal polarization pointing in the same direction as its linear momentum. Let me remind the physicist reader that virtual particles do not obey Einstein’s “mass shell” constraint between energy and momentum. That is, unlike the case for real particles excited out of the vacuum, the equation

E^{2} = c^{2}P^{2} + (mc^{2})^{2}

Is violated for virtual particles. Since Dp = hdf cancels out in an elementary exchange, DP/ds = 0 and DE/ds = 0 separately in such an exchange that takes time Dt. The local contact force per elementary exchange is

hdf/Dt ~ - (e/c)DA/ds ~ ectric field)

Where

DE Dt < h.

The action-reaction principle in this case in the form of linear momentum conservation and Noether’s theorem connecting conservation laws with continuous symmetries of dynamical fields is trivially obeyed locally without any need for the astrological belief called Mach’s Principle that inertial resistance to off-geodesic pushes by real forces in Newton’s second law of particle mechanics comes from the far away stars as suggested by Dennis Sciama and promoted by James Woodward and others. Einstein may be forgiven for flirting with Mach’s Principle in his struggle to create general relativity. He eventually rejected it as no more than a useful psychological crutch in his creative process. This same idea will work for the SU2 weak real force as well as the SU3 strong real force. Real forces push slower than light massive test particles off the timelike geodesics of the gravitational field in contrast to fictitious forces that are actually the non-tidal curvature-free part of the gravitational field itself! This is what the equivalence principle demands.

Amazingly enough, local gauge invariance also works for the proper off-geodesic accelerations of test particles in the gravitational field rather than the linear momenta of test particles being measured by those detectors. The key idea of gravity is that of the geodesic, which is longest proper time path connecting two events in Einstein’s unified four-dimensional spacetime continuum. That is, all neighboring paths that have the same starting and ending events have smaller proper times. This is an example of the “Action Principle” that is a key organizing idea of all theoretical physics. Clocks moving on these paths, called “world lines” measure proper time. Proper time is the amount you age if you are on that world line journey. Indeed, this explains why your twin who is abducted by an evil extra-terrestrial is much younger than you when they return him as in Francis Ford Coppola’s “4400” sci fi TV series for example. The proper acceleration of a test particle is DV/ds where V is the “four-velocity” of the test particle relative to some detector at the origin of a local frame of reference. In general, using my symbolic short hand without tensor indices to keep it as simple as possible, without being simpler than is possible (Einstein paraphrase):

DV/ds = dV/ds – {LNIF}(VV)

Where the symbol {LNIF} describes the detector at the origin of the local frame, in this case a “Local Non-Inertial-Frame.” It’s also called the “Christoffel symbol”, the “Levi-Civita connection” and the “affine metric connection with zero torsion.” Mathematically it describes, “parallel transport” of geometric objects in a tangent fiber bundle whose base space is Einstein’s world spacetime continuum. Physically it encodes all the fictitious forces on the observed test object Eve caused by real forces on the detector at the origin of the local frame of reference, either Alice or Bob’s. For example, {LNIF} could describe a rotating frame or a frame with translational proper off-geodesic acceleration, or both at once. Any object, is on an off-geodesic world line only if an external real (EM-weak-strong) force acts on it. This is Newton’s second law of motion. Newton’s first law of motion is simply the “geodesic equation” that if no real forces act, the massive object moves along a timelike geodesic that is independent of the mass of the object. In this case, we assume that the mass of the object is not changing as it would in a rocket or jet ejecting mass in the exhaust.

We now consider a physical local frame transformation. Suppose Alice is measuring Eve’s motion. Also imagine that Bob is momentarily coincident with Alice and they both measure Eve’s motion with radars. Remember now, that Eve, Alice and Bob all with rest masses are each independently on arbitrary timelike world lines. Eve’s world line need not be close to Alice’s and Bob’s since they measure Eve’s motion with light signals. However, Alice and Bob must be physically near each other and must make their measurements of Eve almost simultaneously in order to test Einstein’s general relativity field equations. The local frame transformation between coincident Alice and Bob is X. The Christoffel symbol then transforms as

{LNIF}_{A}à {LNIF}_{B} = XX^{-1}X^{-1}{LNIF}_{ A} + X^{-1}X^{-1}dX

V_{A}à V_{B} = XV_{A}

{LNIF}(VV)_{A}à XX^{-1}X^{-1} {LNIF}XX(VV)_{A} + X^{-1}X^{-1}XX(VV)_{A}dX

_{ }

= X{LNIF}(VV)_{A} + (VV)_{A} dX

_{ }

dV_{A}/ds à dV_{B}/ds = XdV_{A}/ds – (VV)_{A} dX

_{ }

Just as the exchanged virtual photon momentum transfer hdfDt cancels out in the local electrical U1 contact gauge force for coincident fermion charge and spin 1 boson field, so does the gravity gauge transformation term (VV)_{A}dX cancel out leaving the first rank tensor transformation

DV_{A}/ds à DV_{B}/ds = XdV_{A}/ds

What is the physical meaning of the gravity gauge term dX(VV)_{A}?

Obviously, it is the proper acceleration difference between coincident Alice and Bob. Einstein’s equivalence principle tells us that a frame with proper acceleration is the same as a frame at rest in a non-tidal Newtonian gravity field. Because of the Unruh effect, it corresponds to the momentum of a macro-quantum coherent Glauber state of near field virtual spin 2 gravitons with momentum (h/c^{2})dX(VV)_{A}

_{ }

I was much enthralled with John Archibald Wheeler’s geometrodynamics back in the late 1960s when I was a very young assistant professor of physics at San Diego State with Fred Alan Wolf who was an associate professor. Wheeler modeled the electron as a tiny wormhole with closed lines of quantized electric flux lines threading it. The quantization of electric charge was then trivially explained from the single-valuedness on the wormhole’s quantum wave function around a closed loop exactly like the quantization of magnetic flux vortices in Type II superconductors and the magnetic flux through superconducting rings carrying persistent currents. The electric flux entering one of the two wormhole mouths of the Einstein-Rosen bridge would be a tiny Kerr-Newman black hole pure vacuum black hole with negative electric charge from Gauss’s theorem. The flux leaving the other mouth in possibly a different parallel universe would have positive electric charge and would be a white hole. What we didn’t know back then, but what we know now some forty plus years later is that the white hole mouth is unstable while the black hole mouth is stable. Therefore, we have a trivial explanation for the C-charge violation, why we do not see anti-matter in the universe. One major problem, if we want to explain the rest of the lepton and the quarks this way, is that Newton’s gravity G is too small. I should add, that quarks were not totally accepted back then. Geoffrey Chew’s analytic S-Matrix was also a competitor. Gerard t’ Hooft had not yet showed the renormalizability of Yang-Mills gauge theories and the role of spontaneous symmetry breaking of the vacuum giving a “superconducting” order parameter for the SU2 weak force. This order parameter was described by Glauber macro-quantum coherent states of virtual massive Higgs and virtual massless Goldstone quanta forming a spin 0 cosmic field that gives rest masses to the weak spin 1 boson of the radioactive weak force as well as rest mass to the spin ½ leptons and quarks. Abdus Salam had introduced the idea of f-gravity with a strong force massive graviton. This gave a strong short-range gravity on the scale of a Fermi that was forty powers of ten stronger than Newton’s gravity at short scales. I immediately realized that Salam’s idea naturally explained why the slopes of all the Regge trajectories for hadronic resonances were parallel to each other in the plot of their spins against the square of their masses seen in the peaks in the resonance scattering cross sections. The hadrons were little black holes. Their Hawking radiation would explain their decay times. Salam was excited by my discovery and he invited me to his Institute for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy 1973-4. My old idea has recently been rediscovered in 2013. I also got the idea that EPR quantum entanglement was the other face of the same coin describing the wormhole ER. That is, the two mouths of the wormhole connected by a stringy tunnel described, for example, an entangled electron-positron pair. Lenny Susskind and I knew each other at Cornell in 1963-5 and he rediscovered this idea not long ago. We now know that all the no-go theorems of quantum information theory, which prohibit faster-then-light messaging, correspond to the pinch off of the wormholes with event horizon mouths when signals try to get through them. However, we also now know that the anti-gravitating dark energy permits traversable “stargate” wormholes whose mouths are not event horizons. Therefore, signals can get through them not only faster-than-light, but also even back-from-the-future in time.

[i] The concern with falsifiability gained attention by way of philosopher of scienceKarl Popper's scientific epistemology "falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific—and makes *falsifiability* the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience. This is often epitomized in Wolfgang Pauli famously saying, of an argument that fails to be scientific because it cannot be falsified by experiment, "it is not only not right, it is not even wrong!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[ii] **Dark matter** is a type of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for a large part of the mass that appears to be missing from the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.

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

Mar
14

Tagged in: Making Starships and Star Gates, James F. Woodward

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius/dp/0393337685

On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Page 8 chapter 3rd paragraph down"The notion has gotten abroad since the advent of general relativity that inertia - the property of the massive objects that makes them resist acceleration by external forces - does not involve force."

Jim gives no reference in the literature back up this statement which to me seems totally bizarre red herring no one actually says anything like that.

He then goes on to make some obscure unintelligible remark about inertial forces.

In fact Einstein's general relativity says nothing at all about the origin of inertia where by the word "inertia" we mean resistance to external force.

That Einstein may have initially thought there was a connection is irrelevant because his final equations showed that there was no such connection after all.

Indeed, the role of the gravitational field is to provide force-free motions - the geodesics.

F^u = DP^u/ds = DmV^u/ds is Newton's 2nd law of test particle motion.

m = "inertia" as resistance to proper tensor acceleration a^u = DV^u/ds **measured locally with an accelerometer clamped to the test particle.**

dV^u/ds = kinematical acceleration measured not locally with light signals using a Doppler radar located at the origin of the frame of reference.

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

DV^u/ds = dV^u/ds - G^uvwV^vV^w

V^u = dx^u/ds 4-velocity of test particle relative to detector separated on a scale small compared to radii of curvature of spacetime if present.

Assume dm/ds = 0 for now.

G^uvw = G^uwv = symmetric **torsionless **Levi-Civita-Christoffel **metric** connection which includes ALL inertial forces.

G^uvw = 0 at the origin of a LIF, which by Einstein's historical definition is always in Cartesian coordinates

ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 for flat spacetine

where dt, dx, dy, dz have "immediate metrical significance" Einstein

F^u = mdV^u/ds

Note if you use

ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2) for flat spacetime

@ = latitude (polar angle)

& = longitude (azimuthal angle)

g00 = 1

g11 = - 1

g22 = - r^2

g33 = - r^2sin^2@

x^0 = ct

x^1 = r

x^2 = @

x^3 = &

these are coordinate labels not powers

The only non-vanishing Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols here are:

G^122 = - r

G^233 = - sin@cos@

G^133 = - r sin^2@

G^313 = 1/r

G^323 = cot@

DV^1/ds = dV^1/ds - 2G^122V^2V^2 - 2G^133V^3V^3

This is

DV^2/ds = dV^2/ds - 2G^212V^1V2 - 2G^233V^3V^3

This is

DV^3/ds^2 = d^2V^3/ds^2 - 2G^313V^1V^3 - 2G^323V^2V^3

This is

DV^4/ds = dV^4/ds

D^2t/ds^2 = d^2t/ds^2

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

The inertia of test particles canceled out of the geodesic equation of motion. Therefore by elementary logic gravity cannot explain the origin of the inertia of test particles.

The only exception would be Wheeler's wormhole geons mass without mass etc., but that also needs non-gravity quantum physics.

Sent from my iPad speaking to Siri

On Mar 12, 2014, at 2:26 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:

Folks,

I wouldn't have spent my time writing the book if I didn't think that there is a reasonable chance we will eventually be able to build starships and stargates. And, truth be told, leaving the details of the enabling physics aside, it seems to me obvious that the only way to create a Jupiter mass of exotic matter in a structure with the dimensions of meters is to find a way to transform normal matter into the exotic matter needed in situ. As I say in the book, I do not claim that the ADM electron model is a substitute for the standard model of RQFT. But it sure has a lot of desirable features to recommend it -- like includng gravity without having to assume that gravity at short range miraculously becomes decades of orders of magnitude stronger than it is at all other scales. And I really like Asim Barut's lepton quantization scheme.

Best,

JimMy Review of James F. Woodward’s book “Making Starships and Stargates” Springer 2013 V2

Jack Sarfatti

John G. Cramer, proponent of the transactional interpretation of orthodox quantum theory based on the Wheeler-Feynman back-from-the-future advanced potential of classical electromagnetism, endorses Woodward’s theory in the “Foreword”[i] I will play Devil’s Advocate usually assigned to Wolfgang Pauli. I pretty much agree with most of Woodward’s “Preface” except for his short shrift for the reality of flying saucers operated by an advanced intelligence. I mean, “advanced” in two senses including the back-from-the-future meaning. So I will home in on what I think are Woodward’s mistakes in his theory. I have nothing intelligent to say about his experiments except that scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory seemingly refuted them about fourteen years ago and that Woodward has not succeeded in getting a small model to fly under its own power in those fourteen years. Neither have any of his competitors in the fringe physics propellantless propulsion world.

Of course, we Pirates of Penzance are all on the same side against the establishment pundits of physics who, in Cramer’s words:

“Erect a ‘picket fence’ around those solutions of Einstein’s equations … to place stable traversable wormholes, faster-than-light warp drives, and time machines in the forbidden area outside the fence … it is presumed that nature does not allow such disreputable objects to exist.”

Woodward professes that “both inertial reaction forces and mass itself” have a “gravitational origin.” (p.xviii) He hedges on whether his approach will allow us to manufacture practical stargates (i.e., traversable wormholes without event horizons that do not pinch off killing the traveler and destroying any message in a signal) but is more optimistic that “at least a means of propellant-free propulsion can be created using Mach effects.”(p.xix) Using orthodox theory assuming Newton’s G requires an impossible Jupiter mass of exotic negative mass matter to make a stargate of few tens of meters across. Woodward invokes the classical 1960 ADM model. Curiously, I was a graduate student in physics at Brandeis in 1960 when Deser was there creating that model. Woodward does not seem to realize that he needs David Bohm’s hidden variable picture of classical particles piloted by a quantum information field in order for the ADM model to make sense. Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” with its magical collapse of the state does not even allow such a picture as ADM suggest. Since I am partial to Bohm’s picture, this is not a bad thing. Woodward alleges that the ADM model “when fixed” shows that there is a lot of negative energy matter locked inside ordinary matter like the electron. Of course, we now know since 1998 that about 68% of our observable universe’s stuff is exotic “dark energy” exactly what we need. However, its energy density 6.7 x 10

^{-10}Joules/meter^{3}is way too small for our purpose unless we can amplify it by many powers of ten. Perhaps, the advanced intelligences in the flying saucers are doing just that? Woodward claims that the negative exotic matter creating universally repelling antigravity is screened at a distance by distant matter by. This is definitely not mainstream textbook physics taught in the top universities. He proposes a kind of catalytic avalanche effect, like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or the butterfly wing flapping creating a super storm across the world, a pistol shot causing an avalanche. [ii] What is disturbing, however, is Woodward’s Frankenstein Monster supposing he were on the right track, fortunately my bet is that he is not, but I could be wrong. Woodward intends to expose a Jupiter mass of exotic matter as his end product, and to concentrate it in a region a few meters across. If this isn’t madness I don’t what is. ;-)

[i]“Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. … It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration. … The inertial transient effects … have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large effect. … he has been able to demonstrate tens of micronewton-level thrusts … they represent convincing evidence that Woodward-Sciama inertial transients are a real physical phenomenon and that the underlying calculations behind them should be taken seriously … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out … The … inertial transient … second term, which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … could … be used to provide the ‘exotic mass’ needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives. ” P.ix

[ii] “Exotic matter is available in everyday matter, normally screened by the gravitational interaction with chiefly distant matter in the universe. … exposure can be achieved by cancelling the gravitational effect of the chiefly distant matter with nearby exotic, negative rest mass matter. The amount … needed to trigger this is miniscule in comparison with the Jupiter mass that results from exposure. Mach effects … produce the exotic matter required … for exposure.” P.xix

Mar
10

Tagged in: Starship, James Woodward

James F. Woodward's Frankenstein Project

Mar
09

Tagged in:

On Mar 9, 2014, at 3:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

FYI - comments?

re: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephan Schwartz

Subject: water experiments

Date: March 9, 2014 at 2:42:33 PM PDT

To: adastra1@icloud.com

Jack --

Saw your excellent article on 10 experiments involving nonlocal perturbation and perception.

(Jack not a paper I wrote something I only forwarded)

Here is another water experiment even clearer than Dean's Emoto replication. Thought you might like to see it. Also a recent paper of mine that you might find of interest. It speaks to these same issues.

Hope all is well with you.

-- Stephan

I replied to SAS

All of these effects have a unified explanation in terms of general quantum physics. General quantum physics is to "orthodox" special quantum physics as Einstein's general relativity is to his special relativity. General quantum physics has what Antony Valentini calls "signal nonlocality". Signal nonlocality is analogous to the curvature of spacetime, that is, the parameter that is missing in special relativity. Special quantum physics is linear and unitary. General quantum physics is nonlinear and non unitary with effective computations around closed timelike world lines from wormholes held open by dark energy in the high energy quantum gravity Wheeler foam - although other lower energy biological mechanisms seem to be possible using Glauber coherent states that are distinguishably non-orthogonal on the macroscopic low energy scale.

FYI - comments?

re: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephan Schwartz

Subject: water experiments

Date: March 9, 2014 at 2:42:33 PM PDT

To: adastra1@icloud.com

Jack --

Saw your excellent article on 10 experiments involving nonlocal perturbation and perception.

(Jack not a paper I wrote something I only forwarded)

Here is another water experiment even clearer than Dean's Emoto replication. Thought you might like to see it. Also a recent paper of mine that you might find of interest. It speaks to these same issues.

Hope all is well with you.

-- Stephan

I replied to SAS

All of these effects have a unified explanation in terms of general quantum physics. General quantum physics is to "orthodox" special quantum physics as Einstein's general relativity is to his special relativity. General quantum physics has what Antony Valentini calls "signal nonlocality". Signal nonlocality is analogous to the curvature of spacetime, that is, the parameter that is missing in special relativity. Special quantum physics is linear and unitary. General quantum physics is nonlinear and non unitary with effective computations around closed timelike world lines from wormholes held open by dark energy in the high energy quantum gravity Wheeler foam - although other lower energy biological mechanisms seem to be possible using Glauber coherent states that are distinguishably non-orthogonal on the macroscopic low energy scale.

10 Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical Material World

www.collective-evolution.com

Nikola Tesla said it best, “the day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one...