Simple formula for the conjectured Mach thrust effect for Space Ships

- Status
- Photo
- Place
- Life Event
What's on your mind?
Jack Sarfatti

35 minutes ago near San Francisco

The Mach Propulsion Star Ship glows hot.
Like · · Share

Jack SarfattiOn Jul 5, 2013, at 2:30 PM, Robert Addinall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> 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.

32 minutes ago · Like

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.

29 minutes ago · Edited · Like

Jack SarfattiFrom: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
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

Simple formula for the conjectured Mach thrust effect for Space Ships

Jack Sarfatti