RE: New Age Cargo Cult UFO Pseudo-Physics and US National Security
- Typo corrected draft
PPS Let me clarify. I am blowing the whistle on Hal's BOGUS PV NEW AGE
CARGO CULT PSEUDO PHYSICS and that IS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES indeed at a
very high level of US National Security & Planetary Security. The recent
Jane's Defence and BBC reports on Boeing's thinly disguised UFO
propellantless propulsion "Project Grasp" shows why.
I have no personal axe to grind against Hal Puthoff. If I sincerely thought
his physics even had a chance of working I would defend it. I sincerely
think Hal's effort here is bad physics. Hal is not a theoretical physicist
of any depth and he is outside his domain of competence when it comes to
general relativity as his inability to understand my point on local general
coordinate covariance shows very clearly to any professional theorist. Hal's
ability lies in more engineering physics areas.
The fact is that Hal's zero point physics and his PV gravity physics is
being sold as The Right Stuff by a large influential cadre of disinformation
propagandists whose objective is to weaken American Science IMO. Given Hal's
previous high-level USG security clearances this is a serious matter.
Now as to my own theory of the variable /\ macro-quantum vacuum, I welcome
the kind of close critical analysis that I have given Hal on his PV. I have
done Hal a favor. He has let himself be used by the Cargo Cult Propagandists
selling Snake Oil. I mean people like UFO Disclosure and their not so hidden
agenda of cutting off America's Balls in Space!
For the record: I am not deliberately misrepresenting Hal's PV physics for
political purposes. That is simply a slanderous remark by Bill Page made for
his own personal petty reasons.
Of course nature does not permit us to interpret physics as a
democracy but for those who are unwilling or unable to read
the original published papers, I think it should be viewed as
quite significant that no one on the rather large list of people
reading this exchange has spoken up in support of the opinions
that Jack Sarfatti expresses below and in numerous previous
Jack: First of all, most of the people on this list are not credentialed
physicists who are qualified to comment on the details of the debate. The
three people who primarily comment, Hal, Mike Ibison and Eric Davis all work
Second, no one outside Hal's group, with the exception of Paul Zielinski who
tries to maintain a neutral objective ground is sufficiently interested or
qualified to comment on the issues.
Third, some qualified PhD physicists who agree with my stance have asked not
to be publically identified in this squabble which is important politically
as we see from recent news report on Boeing effort in propellantless
Fourth, all my objections have been developed in sufficient mathematical
detail that no one need consult the obscure papers Hal cites to understand
the basic physics ideas. Feynman, for example, seldom read papers. His
attitude was figure it out on the spot. Feynman would have wiped the floor
with Hal if Hal pulled the kind of stuff on him that he has pulled on me by
citing largely irrelevant Red Herrings.
Fifth, you are a poseur without any real credentials in physics who
illustrates the well known saying from I think Francis Bacon that a little
bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your knowledge of physics is strictly
amateur. I believe your background is in computer science and some math.
That does not qualify you as some of your eccentric opinions on standard
theoretical physics and the obvious big gaps in your understanding, the mark
of an amateur, clearly show. Yes, you know a few math tricks that's true.
BP: It seems to me that Jack deliberately misrepresents Hal
Puthoff's and other's views on the polarizable vacuum theory
for his own purposes that have nothing to do with science.
Jack: It seems to me that you are full of shit making a vague smear. In that
case spell out specifically what you mean.