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

Fw: UFOs, HFGW, STRING THEORY & VOODOO CARGO CULT PHYSICS

Expand Messages
  • Royce Holleman
    ... From: Jack Sarfatti To: Royce Holleman Cc: Joe Stefula ; Alex Burns Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:46 PM Subject: Fwd: UFOs, HFGW, STRING THEORY &
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 21, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jack Sarfatti
      To: Royce Holleman
      Cc: Joe Stefula ; Alex Burns
      Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:46 PM
      Subject: Fwd: UFOs, HFGW, STRING THEORY & VOODOO CARGO CULT PHYSICS






      Begin forwarded message:


      From: Jack Sarfatti <adastra1@...>
      Date: November 17, 2007 4:34:54 PM PST
      To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>, "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>


      Subject: UFOs, HFGW, STRING THEORY & VOODOO CARGO CULT PHYSICS


      In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. Winston Churchill�




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------






      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




      On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Ryan wrote:
      Yes, sorry I misunderstood - the military implications weren't disrupting communications, but disrupting the navigational ability of missiles and craft, as described in Baker's 2005 paper titled Applications of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves, Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. - in which he states below on page 1:



      Baker is here describing what I call "metric engineering" (coined by Hal Puthoff). My opinion is that this technology exists now and in fact we see it in the "good" UFO data. Indeed my paper�
      http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022%ef%bf%bd still under construction unfinished mind you is intended to set the stage for what Baker describes hypothetically below. Basically this was the mission of the ISSO Physics Group 1999-2000 to backward engineer alleged alien ET technology as described, e.g. in the Corso-Birnes book "The Day After Roswell." Whether Robert Baker's particular approach can do that is another issue. Ray Chiao's "Gravity Radio" EM-Gravity wave transducer using superconductors is very relevant. There is also the related issue of propagating torsion waves professed by the Russian group (Shipov et-al) and also by Richard Hammond in Fargo (US Naval Contract of initial work). Bill Page of Canadian Ministry of Defence monitors the Russian torsion work.


      Peter Woit and Lee Smolin have written popular books claiming that string theory is voodoo physics. Sharon Weinberger has written a book on voodoo physics in the Pentagon. A thousand physicists working 30 years in our top universities on string theory spending maybe a billion dollars in US tax money have, like All The King's Men not been able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. The Gordian Knot has not been untied by Ed Witten & Co nor is it likely that it will be. Therefore, if Congress really is interested in Voodoo Physics focusing on the Hafnium bomb and HFGW is chump change - a diversion from the real target - String Theory IMO.


      Bottom line, HFGW is not voodoo physics and that is why LNL's George Chapline Jr supports Robert Baker and that's why Mainland China is providing money for it. This does not mean that Baker's work is correct. I don't know, but it's real physics that is falsifiable. As Hal Puthoff points out the propulsion issue needs to be kept separate from the C^3 issue.


      The applications to be specifically addressed include: providing (1) multi-channel communications (both point to point�and point to multipoint through all normal material things � the ultimate wireless system); (2) a remote means for causing�perturbations to the motion of objects such as missiles (bullets to ICBMs), spacecraft, land or water vehicles or craft; (3)�remote coalescing of clouds of hazardous vapors, radioactive dust, etc. by changing the gravitational field in their
      vicinity; (4) the potential for through-earth or through-water �X-rays� in order to observe subterranean structures,�geological formations, create a transparent ocean, view three-dimensional building interiors, buried devices, etc.; and (5)�the potential for remotely disrupting the gravitational field in a specific region of space. The utilization of a HFGW�telescope as a navigational aid, by viewing the anisotropic or patterned HFGW relic cosmic background above, on, or
      under the ground without reliance on GPS satellite signals is also noted. Many of the applications are discussed in the�context of space technology and several approaches to the generation and possible focusing of HFGWs are referenced.

      Puthoff@... wrote:
      In a message dated 11/17/2007 1:22:51 P.M. Central Standard Time, ryguy@... writes:
      Is communication the only proposed realistic application of the technology?� I heard that the technology could be used as a weapon to disrupt communications
      Can't even begin to imagine how.� Gravity waves interact so weakly with matter that they've never even been directly detected yet, only inferred form decaying pulsar orbits (Hulse & Taylor, 1993 Nobel Prize).

      Such a claim would be science fiction in my estimation.

      Hal


      Hal's last sentence is basically what my intuition also told me and what I wrote below. However, there are Jokers in the deck:


      1. Ray Chiao's superconducting EM - Gravity wave transducers


      a.. RAYMOND CHIAO
      b.. Papers
      a.. Gravity Wave Papers
      b.. Publications
      c.. Links
      d.. Contact Info


      Papers
      New Direction for Gravity-Wave Physics via "Milikan Oil Drops"

      Conceptual Tensions Between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity: Are There Experimental Consequences?

      Proposed Observations of Gravity Waves from the Early Universe via "Milikan Oil Drops"

      Quantum Gravity: Planned Experiments at UC Merced

      Can a Charged Ring Levitate a Neutral Polarizable Object? Can Earnshaw's Theorem Be Extended to Such Objects?

      Time and Matter in the Interaction between Gravity and Quantum Fluids: Are There Microscopic Quantum Transducers between Gravitational and Electromagnetic Waves?



      2. Russian claims and Richard Hammonds claim of propagating torsion waves.


      3. Possibility of increasing the effective gravity-matter coupling strength artificially (controlled renormalization group flow).


      4. vetted UFO data�http://www.nidsci.org/


      On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


      On Nov 17, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Ryan wrote:
      Jack,


      I was wondering if we could get your take on the subject of high-frequence grav waves.� From what we can find via mainstream sources the comments are mostly that it's voodoo science...but I can't really get any valuable data on what it is exactly.� Do you have a stance on it, and where we could get more information?� A few of our government sources have expressed concern with foreign interest in the field - specifically China and Russia.� Curious if you've heard anything on that front...


      Thanks,
      -Ryan
      www.realityuncovered.com


      Yes, Office Directorate National Intelligence (ODNI) and I think JASON is checking all this out right now.


      I am not an expert on it. The expert is Kip Thorne at Cal Tech physics. You should ask him. He will talk to you.
      Another person to ask is Ray Chiao now at physics dept UC Merced - retired from Berkeley.


      Sure, in principle HFGW exist. The issue is whether they can be used for practical propulsion as I think was claimed at that MITRE conference? I find that doubtful, but I have not sat down and really looked at it. If you see how hard it is to detect LFGW (LISA & LIGO) I would be surprised if the cross-section increased enough for the HFGW - but if they scale as (frequency)^4? Maybe.


      Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" is a whole new approach to all this and you really need to talk to him.


      Yes, mainland China is supporting Baker's work and so is Ed Teller's former assistant George Chapline Jr. So you should also ask Chapline. Chapline is supporting Lubos Motl in the Harvard affair and is currently in a snit with me about Lubos. I know George since 1966 at UCSD btw. ;-) However Chapline is very smart and if he thinks there is real practical application of HFGW he is probably correct. Chapline just wrote an important paper on the physics of plutonium and he works with Laughlin at Stanford.
      http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Dr.%20George%20Chapline's%20Comments.pdf












      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------




      Begin forwarded message:

      > From: Jack Sarfatti <adastra1@...>
      > Date: November 17, 2007 4:34:54 PM PST
      > To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
      > <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>,
      > "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com"
      > <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>
      >
      > Subject: UFOs, HFGW, STRING THEORY & VOODOO CARGO CULT PHYSICS
      >
      >> In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be
      >> attended by a bodyguard of lies. Winston Churchill
      >
      
      > On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Ryan wrote:
      >> Yes, sorry I misunderstood - the military implications weren't
      >> disrupting communications, but disrupting the navigational ability
      >> of missiles and craft, as described in Baker's 2005 paper titled
      >> Applications of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves, Robert M. L.
      >> Baker, Jr. - in which he states below on page 1:
      >
      > Baker is here describing what I call "metric engineering" (coined
      > by Hal Puthoff). My opinion is that this technology exists now and
      > in fact we see it in the "good" UFO data. Indeed my paper
      > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022 still under construction
      > unfinished mind you is intended to set the stage for what Baker
      > describes hypothetically below. Basically this was the mission of
      > the ISSO Physics Group 1999-2000 to backward engineer alleged alien
      > ET technology as described, e.g. in the Corso-Birnes book "The Day
      > After Roswell." Whether Robert Baker's particular approach can do
      > that is another issue. Ray Chiao's "Gravity Radio" EM-Gravity wave
      > transducer using superconductors is very relevant. There is also
      > the related issue of propagating torsion waves professed by the
      > Russian group (Shipov et-al) and also by Richard Hammond in Fargo
      > (US Naval Contract of initial work). Bill Page of Canadian Ministry
      > of Defence monitors the Russian torsion work.
      >
      > Peter Woit and Lee Smolin have written popular books claiming that
      > string theory is voodoo physics. Sharon Weinberger has written a
      > book on voodoo physics in the Pentagon. A thousand physicists
      > working 30 years in our top universities on string theory spending
      > maybe a billion dollars in US tax money have, like All The King's
      > Men not been able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. The Gordian
      > Knot has not been untied by Ed Witten & Co nor is it likely that it
      > will be. Therefore, if Congress really is interested in Voodoo
      > Physics focusing on the Hafnium bomb and HFGW is chump change - a
      > diversion from the real target - String Theory IMO.
      >
      > Bottom line, HFGW is not voodoo physics and that is why LNL's
      > George Chapline Jr supports Robert Baker and that's why Mainland
      > China is providing money for it. This does not mean that Baker's
      > work is correct. I don't know, but it's real physics that is
      > falsifiable. As Hal Puthoff points out the propulsion issue needs
      > to be kept separate from the C^3 issue.
      >>
      >> The applications to be specifically addressed include: providing
      >> (1) multi-channel communications (both point to point and point to
      >> multipoint through all normal material things – the ultimate
      >> wireless system); (2) a remote means for causing perturbations to
      >> the motion of objects such as missiles (bullets to ICBMs),
      >> spacecraft, land or water vehicles or craft; (3) remote coalescing
      >> of clouds of hazardous vapors, radioactive dust, etc. by changing
      >> the gravitational field in their
      >> vicinity; (4) the potential for through-earth or through-water “X-
      >> rays” in order to observe subterranean structures, geological
      >> formations, create a transparent ocean, view three-dimensional
      >> building interiors, buried devices, etc.; and (5) the potential
      >> for remotely disrupting the gravitational field in a specific
      >> region of space. The utilization of a HFGW telescope as a
      >> navigational aid, by viewing the anisotropic or patterned HFGW
      >> relic cosmic background above, on, or
      >> under the ground without reliance on GPS satellite signals is also
      >> noted. Many of the applications are discussed in the context of
      >> space technology and several approaches to the generation and
      >> possible focusing of HFGWs are referenced.
      >>
      >> Puthoff@... wrote:
      >>> In a message dated 11/17/2007 1:22:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
      >>> ryguy@... writes:
      >>> Is communication the only proposed realistic application of the
      >>> technology? I heard that the technology could be used as a
      >>> weapon to disrupt communications
      >>> Can't even begin to imagine how. Gravity waves interact so
      >>> weakly with matter that they've never even been directly detected
      >>> yet, only inferred form decaying pulsar orbits (Hulse & Taylor,
      >>> 1993 Nobel Prize).
      >>>
      >>> Such a claim would be science fiction in my estimation.
      >>>
      >>> Hal
      >
      > Hal's last sentence is basically what my intuition also told me and
      > what I wrote below. However, there are Jokers in the deck:
      >
      > 1. Ray Chiao's superconducting EM - Gravity wave transducers
      >
      >> RAYMOND CHIAO
      >> Papers
      >> Gravity Wave Papers
      >> Publications
      >> Links
      >> Contact Info
      >>
      >> Papers
      >> New Direction for Gravity-Wave Physics via "Milikan Oil Drops"
      >>
      >> Conceptual Tensions Between Quantum Mechanics and General
      >> Relativity: Are There Experimental Consequences?
      >>
      >> Proposed Observations of Gravity Waves from the Early Universe via
      >> "Milikan Oil Drops"
      >>
      >> Quantum Gravity: Planned Experiments at UC Merced
      >>
      >> Can a Charged Ring Levitate a Neutral Polarizable Object? Can
      >> Earnshaw's Theorem Be Extended to Such Objects?
      >>
      >> Time and Matter in the Interaction between Gravity and Quantum
      >> Fluids: Are There Microscopic Quantum Transducers between
      >> Gravitational and Electromagnetic Waves?
      >
      > 2. Russian claims and Richard Hammonds claim of propagating torsion
      > waves.
      >
      > 3. Possibility of increasing the effective gravity-matter coupling
      > strength artificially (controlled renormalization group flow).
      >
      > 4. vetted UFO data http://www.nidsci.org/
      >
      > On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
      >
      >> On Nov 17, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Ryan wrote:
      >>> Jack,
      >>>
      >>> I was wondering if we could get your take on the subject of high-
      >>> frequence grav waves. From what we can find via mainstream
      >>> sources the comments are mostly that it's voodoo science...but I
      >>> can't really get any valuable data on what it is exactly. Do you
      >>> have a stance on it, and where we could get more information? A
      >>> few of our government sources have expressed concern with foreign
      >>> interest in the field - specifically China and Russia. Curious
      >>> if you've heard anything on that front...
      >>>
      >>> Thanks,
      >>> -Ryan
      >>> www.realityuncovered.com
      >>
      >> Yes, Office Directorate National Intelligence (ODNI) and I think
      >> JASON is checking all this out right now.
      >>
      >> I am not an expert on it. The expert is Kip Thorne at Cal Tech
      >> physics. You should ask him. He will talk to you.
      >> Another person to ask is Ray Chiao now at physics dept UC Merced -
      >> retired from Berkeley.
      >>
      >> Sure, in principle HFGW exist. The issue is whether they can be
      >> used for practical propulsion as I think was claimed at that MITRE
      >> conference? I find that doubtful, but I have not sat down and
      >> really looked at it. If you see how hard it is to detect LFGW
      >> (LISA & LIGO) I would be surprised if the cross-section increased
      >> enough for the HFGW - but if they scale as (frequency)^4? Maybe.
      >>
      >> Ray Chiao's "gravity radio" is a whole new approach to all this
      >> and you really need to talk to him.
      >>
      >> Yes, mainland China is supporting Baker's work and so is Ed
      >> Teller's former assistant George Chapline Jr. So you should also
      >> ask Chapline. Chapline is supporting Lubos Motl in the Harvard
      >> affair and is currently in a snit with me about Lubos. I know
      >> George since 1966 at UCSD btw. ;-) However Chapline is very smart
      >> and if he thinks there is real practical application of HFGW he is
      >> probably correct. Chapline just wrote an important paper on the
      >> physics of plutonium and he works with Laughlin at Stanford.
      >> http://www.gravwave.com/docs/Dr.%20George%20Chapline's%20Comments.pdf
      >>
      >>>
      >>
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.