|
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 602
Location: Toon Town
|
Memorandum for the Historical Record
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Eric, I am too busy with other matters at the moment but I will reply to
this ASAP.
"Yes, I know you are not using w = - 1 I even said so. My point is you
should be. You are barking up the wrong tree asking the wrong key
questions on a path that does not work. I do agree however with many
specific things you say. It is quite obvious you are not able to explain
the real UFO data with your specific approach - right? I will do a
detailed textual analysis of what you say and why it is not the right
way to approach the problem."
"Negative energy" is a Red Herring. What in fact you want is w = - 1
positive ZPF with negative pressure to get the anti-gravity. How to do
it is the trick of course.
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:24 PM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:
Bcc:
Subject: Eric replies RE: Eric Davis & Are ARVs real or disinformation?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:24:45 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jan 2007 20:24:47.0548 (UTC)
FILETIME=[B12E2FC0:01C73FF5]
"Jack:
With all due respect, you are completely wrong in your comments about my
papers regarding negative energy because you aren't understanding the
content of my papers nor do you read the reference citations in them,
all of which clearly and succinctly define negative energy density in
common quantum field theory terms and which clearly and succinctly have
nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmological vacuum energy (the one
with w = -1)."
Yes, I know, my point is that you should if you could. You have not
posed the problem properly IMHO in a way that will explain the UFOs the
ARV's etc.
"I am saying this because all of your comments (posted below) are
inconsistent with the content of my papers. I am not wrong within the
framework of GR."
I did not say you were wrong ever? I said your analysis is irrelevant to
the mission. It's OK but not germane. I said what you say is only true
for w > - 1/3, but ZPF has w = - 1, which is why I say you are not
asking the right questions.
"I am wrong within the framework of your model. All your
readers need to keep this subtle fact straight so that they understand
that I am correct within the GR framework only. Nowhere in my research
do I invoke your GR model. I invoke only Einstein's, which is tried and
tested."
Wait a minute. What you just said is misinformation. My theory is
Einstein's theory! You imply that it isn't and mislead the lay reader.
My theory is Einstein's theory with a source w < - 1/3. Your theory is
Einstein's theory with a source w > - 1/3. That's the formal difference.
They are both Einstein's theory in non-overlapping parameter subspaces.
"I am not doing anything at all with your particular model and can't do
so because you are drawing upon a global vacuum energy having a positive
energy density and negative pressure."
What you don't understand is that it does not have to be strictly global
when there are torsion fields! That's the key point you don't get. That
saucers fly is dramatic proof that it's not always global. It is
controllable on small scales.
"I am working strictly from within standard quantum field theory
applications of local quantum coherence effects (like quantum squeezing,
etc.) for the problem of generating negative energy that GR requires to
induce FTL spacetimes. A lab cannot access the cosmological vacuum
energy since that is about 10^(-10) J/m^3 in density and so is useless,
not to mention that it is a positive energy density. But a lab,
suitably equipped with squeezed vacuum sources or some E or B fields
having a radial dependence, can generate negative energy
density/negative fluxes and/or negative pressure locally to affect a
local modification of spacetime according to GR."
So what do you get from it? Nothing that works. Nothing that will fly.
If I am mistaken please show in detail how.
"I'm not interested in working with your model at this time because you
haven't published any predictions using it, so it hasn't been tested
against the cosmological, black hole stellar collapse, gravitational
waves, and FTL spacetimes problems and compared with the Einstein GR
results."
My theory is standard Einstein theory, therefore it agrees with all the
experiments.
I have made predictions and it's in my archive paper spelled out very
clearly. Please none of your Victorian Station Master red tape that if
it's not published in a paper journal it does not exist. What matters is
if it's in your mind and you understand it. The publication process was
meant to be slave not master. All this academic bullshit of publishing
jillions of the same hack papers slightly rehashed is a Tower of Babel
impeding theoretical physics. It's style over substance.
I predict on archive that LHC will not find on shell particles
explaining dark matter Omega ~ 0.23 because I alone say dark matter is
negative zero point energy density with positive pressure of w = -1. It
looks like w = 0 CDM because it gravity lenses exactly like CDM.
Thus "dark matter" is the dual of "dark energy" both are w < - 1/3 ZPF
(w = - 1 in fact in isotropic case) of positive and negative pressures
respectively.
My prediction is like Michelson-Morley. Looking for "dark matter
particles" in LHC detectors is same as looking for motion of Earth
through the "ether".
Now, why in your mind, is that not a valid prediction?
-------
Eric
Eric W. Davis, Ph.D., FBIS, AFAIAA
Inst. for Advanced Studies at Austin
11855 Research Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
This new paper by Max Tegmark and Alan Guth - Heavy Dudes in spacetime
physics today is relevant. Also I will have much to say about Eric
Davis's recent AIAS/STAIF papers that have a weak point at their core -
though it is fixable. Eric is still confused about the "negative
energy" as are others. Basically, Einstein's 1915 GR field equation can
be written as
Ruv = -(8piG/c^4)(Tuv - (1/2)guvT) is the Ricci curvature tensor of
contraction/expansion (gravity lensing)
T = T^uu = g^u^vTuv = (c^4/8piG)R
R is the Ricci curvature scalar
Note in classical vacuum with no dark energy and no dark matter as well
Ruv = R = 0
but in general the tidal stretch-squeeze Weyl conformal curvature
tensor of rank 4 is not zero outside a source or even in a "geon" soliton.
Using the relativistic isotropic perfect fluid model for Tuv (no
Casimir type boundary anisotropies yet)
Tuv = (mass density + pressure/c^2)U^uU^v - pguv
signature +---
U^u = cdx^u/ds
in the local rest frame
U^0 = 1, U^i = 0, i = 1,2,3
Note that in the local rest frame of a fluid element
Tuv(rest frame) is simply diagonal 4x4 matrix (energy density,
pressure, pressure, pressure)
no - signs hence
Trace{Tuv} = (energy density)(1 + 3(pressure)/(energy density)) =
(energy density)(1 + 3w)
T = g^u^vTuv = (energy density) - 3(pressure) = (energy density)(1 - 3w)
Therefore,
R00 = -(8piG/c^4)(T00 - (1/2)g00T)
T00 - (1/2)g00T) = (energy density) - (1/2)[(energy density) (1 - 3w)
= (energy density)[1 - (1/2)(1 - 3w)] = (energy density)[1 - (1/2) +
3w/2)] = (energy density)[(1/2) + 3w/2)]
Therefore,
R00 = -(4piG/c^4)T00(1 + 3w)
In the weak field slow speed Newtonian limit this gives
Grad^2V(Newton) = 4pi(G/c^2)(Energy Density)(1 + 3w)
V(Newton) is the effective potential energy per unit test mass with
dimensions velocity^2
e.g. eq. 1.85 p. 25 Cosmological Physics by John A. Peacock, Cambridge,
1999
Note no "dark energy" in index of that book since it was not discovered
then.
OK key thing is "w" not "negative energy" as in Eric's discussion in
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2005/lec_notes/Kolb1/jpg/
kolb1new_Page_05.jpg
Eric's discussion is confusing and he seems to tacitly assume
w > - 1/3
when in fact
w = -1 < - 1/3
for all zero point energy as proved from Lorentz invariance and the
equivalence principle on p. 26 eq. (1.8 of the above Peacock book.
Suppose w > - 1/3
then
3w > -1
then
1 + 3w > 0
in that case, you do need "negative energy density" to get anti- gravity
as Eric says. However, that's very incomplete and does not cover the
actual zero point energy case that Hal Puthoff is so interested in
where w = -1 so that 1 + 3w = -2 therefore you need positive zero point
energy to get dark energy antigravity repulsion. Indeed, negative zero
point energy density is obviously attractive dark matter as I have said
in my 3 books and at 4 major physics meetings and a physics book
published by NOVA all since 2002. So Eric throws the baby out with the
bath water in his recent papers. He still has not a clue about what I
am talking about and neither does Hal Puthoff. However, it's simple and
maybe now they will get it?
E. Davis, "An Assessment of Faster-Than-Light Spacetimes: Make or Break
Issues," Proceedings of 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, AIAA 2006-4908 (2006).
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/index.html
That means STAIF and AIAS don't get it either, no wonder USG cannot get
the ARVs to fly right! It's same goofiness that led to bad intelligence
about Iraqi WMD!
On Jan 18, 2007, at 2:41 PM, Fidelio (Captain Robert M Collins, USAF
Intelligence, ret, author of "Exempt From Disclosure" wrote:
You give ... too much credit. Bottom line, he was never part of any
group or knew much beyond his CIA job. Dan Smith spreads a lot of
nonsense about everybody.....
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
I mean if we could all see one. I mean if ... et-al can arrange for us
all to see one close up and personal. Get inside it. Fly it etc.
On Jan 18, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Fidelio wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Well if we could see even one of the 17 that would settle it.
Betty and Cash Landrum did see one....Rmc
On Jan 18, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Fidelio wrote:
We are repeating ourselves again. What was said before? They built 17
ARVs for 74 billion dollars. The Cash-Landrum case is one example. As
everyone knows that one ran into lots of problems. They didn't solve
the stability problems even though they flew the Craft.
Stability has three components, initial Anti-grav reconfiguration for
Deep Space or Planetary environments. The Materials, essential to
create and sustain the field properly, and finally, a way to
manipulate the field to control direction of flight.
Can you elaborate on the above with details?
It's in the book in ALL the details......Rmc
If any of those don't work properly the Craft is unstable.The LANL
Source stated that the Materials and Field Configurations were the
BIG problems....Rmc
What kind of "field"?
What do you think?......Rmc
Well if it's anything like what I am working on it will be a
curvature-torsion field controlled by electromagnetic fields in a high
Tc superconductor fuselage.
Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@pacbell.net
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?"
- Albert Einstein
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=23999
http://lifeboat.com/ex/bios.jack.sarfatti
http://qedcorp.com/APS/Dec122006.ppt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?
docid=-1310681739984181006&q=Sarfatti+Causation&hl=en
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lub/sets/72157594439814784 |
|
|
