Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: Nick Herbert

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    Subject: Re: Nick Herbert The point is, Jack: One never really knows. History must decide. Over simplified. Certainly we know you are no Einstein with your
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Subject: Re: Nick Herbert

      The point is, Jack:

      One never really knows. History must decide.
      Over simplified. Certainly we know you are no Einstein with your current
      ideas about what is wrong in MTW p. 32. You are kidding yourself that there
      is anything wrong there. Second Einstein's achievements were quickly
      recognized by the top people - quickly considering the slowness of
      communication back then.


      Jack Sarfatti wrote:

      > Most lazy dogs are not geniuses like Einstein. Most of them are crackpots,
      > human dust.
      > One out of what a million?
      >
      > BTW from my book
      >
      > Motion Sciences has already gone kaput as has Bernie Haisch's Laputan CIPA
      > funded by Joe to "make sun beams from cucumbers" with uncontrollably
      random
      > zero point photon energy (as in the SED model) in the flaky sense of Nick
      > Cook's silly book "The Hunt for the Zero Point". The NIDS UFO operation
      has
      > been scaled back. Joe's latest attempt to recoup his lost fortune is
      > OneMany.com. I am told that the software is actually quite good if it can
      > really be made to work. There are serious problems with it and with the
      > business plan. Bernie Haisch is the "Science Officer". What that means
      > exactly I do not know. I was an am upset with Joe's stubborn
      > Einstein-bashing and with Bernie Haisch's tolerance of Joe's incorrigible
      > crackpot views on Einstein's physics.

      There *is* Einstein bashing. There are also cranks, loons, and fruitcakes
      -- especially on the Web. Even I am getting perpetual motion papers over
      the transom that I cannot bring myself to read.

      But not everything Einstein ever thought or wrote is carved in stone.

      Jack: Red Herring. That's not the point.


      Z: every critic of general relativity is a crank or even anti-Einstein.
      Jack: Wrong. Name one who isn't? I am talking about classical Einstein
      theory not attempts to extend it to the micro-quantum and macro-quantum
      realm. My theory BTW is the latter. Any attempt like Hal Puthoff's to find
      an alternative formulation of GR in the classical realm is a very bad bet at
      best and crackpot at worst, especially when incompetently done.
      BTW curious that the basic nonanalytic formula of PV for isotropic x to
      curvature radial coordinates y (many x for one y that's ONEMANY for you!
      :) )
      y = xe^1/x
      is similar in form only not in meaning to the basic NONPERTURBATIVE formula
      of BCS model of superconductors for the energy gap of a correlated pair
      condensate.
      y = xe^1/z


      Z: For example, the later Einstein (1925-), who told Heisenberg at a meeting
      iu
      Berlin in 1926

      "...I may even have written it... but it was rubbish all the same."
      Jack: Exactly. Crackpots never have that much self-objectivity. That's
      exactly what I said about "Space-Time and Beyond" 1975. My correction to it
      is in
      http://stardrive.org/Jack/STB.pdf 8 meg file - need at least DSL. It will
      be in the book out soon.


      Z: Jack, what do *you* think Einstein had in mind here?
      Jack: This is a famous discussion with Heisenberg. See Stapp's book. It was
      his too extreme positivism in special relativity - - but don't take this out
      of context.


      Z: Einstein v. Einstein. Oppenheimer thought Albert had gone senile. I
      guess
      today he would say "Alzheimer's".
      Jack: Oppenheimer had his problems also. Ask Steve.


      Z: Personally, I do not believe like Oppy that Einstein understood *less* as
      his thinking evolved.

      Bohm, your late mentor, also went up against the "Church".

      Jack: So do I. However, the difference is that we have paid our dues in
      traditional academia and understand the question before attempting the
      answer. Also when we err we are smart enough and quick enough to correct our
      errors - a crackpot is simply incapable of learning beyond their fixation.

      Z: Look where it
      got him. Was he a "crank"?

      Jack: Yes, Bohm became more and more cranky as he aged. He was still able to
      do his old physics however with Basil Hiley. But as he hung around New Agers
      too much his mind began to soften and grow vague. Nevertheless, Bohm did
      great work.
      Z: I don't think so. Yet he carried on Einstein's
      later struggle against ossified vulgar positivism in physics.
      Jack: Hawking is an unabashed positivist. You are too ideological here like
      a Stalinist denouncing Trotsky. There is value in postivism, great value,
      but one must keep in balance. It's like a Bengal Tiger.


      Z: Do you think gravitational theory is exempt from all this? It isn't.
      Jack: Your objections to it are unsound based upon several confusions. There
      is nothing deep and correct in your objections to MTW p. 32 - all Red
      Herrings based on several misunderstandings of elementary ideas. You simply
      do not know how to take the limit correctly and you do not really understand
      that EEP is local. Also you do not understand that g is both a derivative of
      a metric and an integral of a curvature without contradiction.
      g ~ c^2(curvature)(curvature coordinate) ~ derivative of metric are self
      consistent.
      Note that c^2(curvature)(curvature coordinate) is an integral of curvature!
      When curvature -> 0, g -> 0 always. The limit is not a uniformly
      accelerating frame at g in global flat space. That's your basic error.
      Classical gravitational theory of Einstein is now well tested in its proper
      domain - especially in PPN limit.
      What happens at distances small compared to say 10 microns needs test (large
      extra dimensions). Possible excitation of the /\ field locally away from /\
      = 0 has enormous consequences.
      Strong field still needs testing. Hal's PV is not a strong field theory at
      all. He is confused and doesn't know near from far.
      UFOs are interesting as potential tests of GR.


      > Hal Puthoff wrote me that he has been
      > trying to educate Joe about physics these past two years since I gave up
      on
      > that hard task. Judging by Joe's latest pronouncement in August 2002 that
      > Einstein's general relativity lacks adequate experimental confirmation,
      Joe
      > has still not passed the course. Part of this is Hal's fault since Joe is
      > basically citing a paper by Dicke written in 1961. This paper is where Hal
      > got his basic PV equations. Hal was remiss in not telling Joe that the
      paper
      > is considered obsolete today especially in regard to the experimental
      tests
      > of Einstein's physics in the past 40 years. Joe approaches science as if
      it
      > were ideology and theology.

      That's the way I am beginning to look at "gravity is a manifestation of
      curved
      spacetime". So I guess that makes me a "Firmagio".
      Jack: It makes you a raving crackpot lunatic - grist for Steve's Mill BTW -
      or I should say "human dust"?
      On the other hand I do not think you are serious. If so, I really over
      judged your intelligence and competence in basic physics.
      Remember how Steve said the crackpot obsesses on trivia. That should give
      you pause.


      > This is dangerous for a man still young with his
      > eyes, and his father's eyes, on the White House in say 20 years. Joe sees
      > himself as a world leader meeting with Presidents and the Dalai Lama.
      Joe,
      > as a descendent of Brigham Young, may be able to get Mormon money to back
      > him. It is alleged that he also has the support of international
      > wheeler-dealers like Maurice Strong. The problem is that Joe, in my
      opinion
      > as an Ivy League Cornell graduate and in my working with him, has not been
      > properly educated and does not really know what real knowledge and
      critical
      > thinking are. He has naively and fanatically bought into all the mindless
      > superficial est-Esalen-State of the World Forum toxic Cargo Cult
      > pseudo-scientific psychobabble and sham-spiritual cosmologies of the
      > California New Age Consciousness movement that emerged from the 60's New
      > Left.

      Z: Or perhaps you've gone orthodox? What happened to Einstein-Bohm critical
      realism? What happened to the heroic assault on the false Temple of
      Copenhagenism?
      Jack: I think you have lost your mind Paul. You are wildly loosely
      associating. Are you drunk?
      There is no connection to your ravings here to what I say above. I have not
      been choking on Bohr's Smoky Dragon in my above remark.
      Quite the contrary. The New Age Cargo Cultists have taken the worst in Bohr
      blowing it out of proportion into

      You create your own reality. That's called psychotic delusion like Joe's and
      many others around here.
      When you do you get false realities like Dot.Com Bubble, like ENRON,
      World.Com, Time Warner AOL, Tyco ..you name it. You get zero point origin of
      inertia and PV. You get ginko. You get all sorts of things that really do
      not work and never even had a chance of working. My /\ field? We shall see.
      It's dam pretty idea that explains real observations without any real
      competition so far. You get Sam Sternberg dropping dead at 55 after eating
      fast food all his life, taking New Age potions and not having his arteries
      checked by a Western Doctor.


      Z: Perhaps you don't yet see it, Jack, but "force-free" GR is a
      vulgar-positivist
      mirage. And I can prove it. Pauli was wrong. Einstein eventually saw this.

      I now suspect that what changed Einstein's mind on these deep matters was
      none other than *spacetime curvature*.
      Jack: This is complete hogwash Paul. You have lost your marbles completely.
      You simply do not understand differential geometry. What you say here is
      completely incompetent. "Force free motion" means "timelike geodesic". There
      is no contradiction there with "curvature".


      > This could be very dangerous for America and the world in the future.
      > Conscience compels me to blow the whistle and sound the alarm. If Joe were
      > to spend say four years at Yale or some such equivalent East Coast Ivory
      > Tower, there might be redemption for him. Charisma and just enough
      > intelligence to manipulate men and women without real education are very
      > dangerous. I already saw this same thing up close and personal with Werner
      > Erhard 25 years ago. This is my report to the Nation.

      Z: I'm sure you mean well, Jack, and make some very good points here.
      Jack: I speak from my direct experience and those words are being read at
      high levels of USG Intelligence Community right now. Also by other
      intelligence agencies some not so friendly to America.
      Z: I totally
      agree with you that a critical-rational attitude is essential if we are to
      avoid mass
      lunacy and general chaos.
      Jack: Cultivate your garden.


      Z: But some of us think there is more than one way to skin Einstein's cat.
      Jack: There are many madmen out there. Maybe Iraq is putting something funny
      in the coffee at the Trieste? ;-)


      Z.

      > Talking of phyicists, might I mention that a certain Albert Einstein left
      > ETH Zurich with a lousy degree and was lucky to get a job (through a
      > friend's uncle) as a low-level patent examiner in Berne.
      >
      > The "lazy dog" toiled away for years as a complete nobody, hanging
      > around with his scruffy pals in cafes "bloviating" about nutty ideas
      > emanating
      > from deviant thinkers like Poincare in Paris, while mouthing manifest
      > absurdities
      > such as "the relativity of simultaneity". Apart from his closest friends,
      no
      > one
      > had the slightest idea as to what he was mumbling about.
      >
      > What a loser.
      >
      > Z.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.