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

Re: The crux of Woodward's model?

Expand Messages
  • JACK SARFATTI
    I am asking basic questions that I don t see covered in your papers. However, if I am wrong, please copy and paste the relevant text from your papers that
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 1, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I am asking basic questions that I don't see covered in your papers.
      However, if I am wrong, please copy and paste the relevant text from your papers that specifically address my concerns remembering I see no rhyme nor reason for

      phi = c^2

      nor how to connect that to the mass data of elementary particles.

      On Dec 31, 2011, at 11:06 PM, jfwoodward@... wrote:

      Still haven't read and understood any of the published papers yet I see.  Try the Stargates paper on Physics Procedia (10/1/2011).  It's all there.  Had you read it (and understood), or any of the papers since MUSH (FoPL, 1995), you wouldn't have the questions you do, and you wouldn't be saying the sort of things you have.

      Mach effects give you both "impulse" engines and wormhole/warp drives -- because there are TWO transient terms in the equation, and one of them is always negative.  

      Which equations?

      phi = c^2 = constant

      contradicts any local wave equation for phi

      The physics is straight-forward (and takes account of modern cosmology [which doesn't change the spatial flatness condition of FRW cosmologies]).  But you can't understand it if you don't study it.





      Please note: message attached

      From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
      To: David Mathes <dmath777@...>
      Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>,  "jfwoodward@... woodward" <jfwoodward@...>,  Ron Stahl <ronstahl.rs@...>, David Kaiser <dikaiser@...>,  Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...>,  Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@...>, Creon Levit <creon.levit@...>,  acrowl@..., Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@...>,  "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@...>,  "b.j.Carr@... Carr" <b.j.Carr@...>,  Jonathan Post <jvospost3@...>,  "Puthoff@... Puthoff" <Puthoff@...>,  Brian Josephson <bdj10@...>, Gerry Pelligrini <GNPellegrini@...>,  "czarlosromanov@... Castro" <czarlosromanov@...>,  Tony Smith <f130smith@...>,  "sinziana.paduroiu@... Paduroiu" <sinziana.paduroiu@...>,  roger malina <rmalina@...>,  "Lawrence G. \(ARC-RD\) Lemke" <lawrence.lemke@...>,  "nick@... Pope" <nick@...>,  "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>,  Sharon Weinberger <sharonweinberger@...>,  "MPOGO@... Pesse" <MPOGO@...>,  Ronald Pandolfi <ronald.pandolfi@...>,  "paulmarch@... March" <paulmarch@...>,  "duncan@... Cumming" <duncan@...>,  lynda williams <spinor64@...>
      Subject: The crux of Woodward's model?
      Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:27:31 -0800



      From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
      Subject: The crux of Woodward's model?
      Date: December 31, 2011 7:27:31 PM PST
      To: David Mathes <dmath777@...>
      Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>, "jfwoodward@... woodward" <jfwoodward@...>, Ron Stahl <ronstahl.rs@...>, David Kaiser <dikaiser@...>, Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...>, Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@...>, Creon Levit <creon.levit@...>, acrowl@..., Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@...>, "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@...>, "b.j.Carr@... Carr" <b.j.Carr@...>, Jonathan Post <jvospost3@...>, "Puthoff@... Puthoff" <Puthoff@...>, Brian Josephson <bdj10@...>, Gerry Pelligrini <GNPellegrini@...>, "czarlosromanov@... Castro" <czarlosromanov@...>, Tony Smith <f130smith@...>, "sinziana.paduroiu@... Paduroiu" <sinziana.paduroiu@...>, roger malina <rmalina@...>, "Lawrence G. \(ARC-RD\) Lemke" <lawrence.lemke@...>, "nick@... Pope" <nick@...>, "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Sharon Weinberger <sharonweinberger@...>, "MPOGO@... Pesse" <MPOGO@...>, Ronald Pandolfi <ronald.pandolfi@...>, "paulmarch@... March" <paulmarch@...>, "duncan@... Cumming" <duncan@...>, lynda williams <spinor64@...>


      Here is how I understand what Jim is trying to say, perhaps I am misunderstanding him?

      Jim is concerned with the term DM/ds in the covariant form of Newton's Second Law for test particles.

      DM/ds = Gamma(Dm0)/ds + m0D(Gamma)/ds

      Somehow, in a way that I don't understand at all, Jim says that Mach's principle gives him an equation like

      m0(t) = m0(sinf(t)t)

      and he has some way to rectify this so that there is a "rocket" g-force from the VuDM/ds

      I don't understand how the rectification would work either - I am reminded of Gennady Shipov's device that made a similar claim.

      In any case I also don't see where is warp drive term comes from here or how he proposes to get a negative effective mass m0 < 0?


      On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

      No, it makes Jim's theory "not even wrong" in my opinion. It's not consistent with modern cosmology. 
      Jim's theory may have made some sense, though not much, during the time that Sciama wrote that paper when in early 1950's - but not now.

      Almost all the stuff in the universe is made from virtual particles inside the vacuum.

      There is no way to measure the inertia of virtual particles.

      Inertia only has meaning for real particles with non-zero rest mass when you push them off timelike geodesics with a non-gravity 4-force Fu. That's what Newton's 2nd law means in GR.

      Fu = DPu/ds 

      D is the covariant derivative (LC connection)

      Pu = test particle 4-momentum

      DPu/ds = MDVu/ds + VudM/ds

      Vu = dxu/ds

      ds = differential of frame-invariant proper time of test particle

      M = (Rest Mass)(Gamma of Special Relativity) = m0(Gamma)


      On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:28 PM, David Mathes wrote:

      Jack


      >Density DECREASES with cosmic time as a(t)^-3! 

      That makes Mach Effects time dependant on the eon scale. What about local time?

      What I think you are implying is that density needs to be added to the Mach Effect equations for a) expanding universe and b) as a contingency calculation for regional variations in density during travel.

      Given the proverbial spaceship, how does one construct a detector and a density meter?

       
      David



      Your last question is unintelligible.




    • JACK SARFATTI
      PS If there is anyone else who can give answers to my questions please pipe in.
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 1, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        PS If there is anyone else who can give answers to my questions please pipe in.

        On Jan 1, 2012, at 1:10 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

        I am asking basic questions that I don't see covered in your papers.
        However, if I am wrong, please copy and paste the relevant text from your papers that specifically address my concerns remembering I see no rhyme nor reason for

        phi = c^2

        nor how to connect that to the mass data of elementary particles.

        On Dec 31, 2011, at 11:06 PM, jfwoodward@... wrote:

        Still haven't read and understood any of the published papers yet I see.  Try the Stargates paper on Physics Procedia (10/1/2011).  It's all there.  Had you read it (and understood), or any of the papers since MUSH (FoPL, 1995), you wouldn't have the questions you do, and you wouldn't be saying the sort of things you have.

        Mach effects give you both "impulse" engines and wormhole/warp drives -- because there are TWO transient terms in the equation, and one of them is always negative.  

        Which equations?

        phi = c^2 = constant

        contradicts any local wave equation for phi

        The physics is straight-forward (and takes account of modern cosmology [which doesn't change the spatial flatness condition of FRW cosmologies]).  But you can't understand it if you don't study it.





        Please note: message attached

        From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
        To: David Mathes <dmath777@...>
        Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>,  "jfwoodward@... woodward" <jfwoodward@...>,  Ron Stahl <ronstahl.rs@...>, David Kaiser <dikaiser@...>,  Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...>,  Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@...>, Creon Levit <creon.levit@...>,  acrowl@..., Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@...>,  "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@...>,  "b.j.Carr@... Carr" <b.j.Carr@...>,  Jonathan Post <jvospost3@...>,  "Puthoff@... Puthoff" <Puthoff@...>,  Brian Josephson <bdj10@...>, Gerry Pelligrini <GNPellegrini@...>,  "czarlosromanov@... Castro" <czarlosromanov@...>,  Tony Smith <f130smith@...>,  "sinziana.paduroiu@... Paduroiu" <sinziana.paduroiu@...>,  roger malina <rmalina@...>,  "Lawrence G. \(ARC-RD\) Lemke" <lawrence.lemke@...>,  "nick@... Pope" <nick@...>,  "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>,  Sharon Weinberger <sharonweinberger@...>,  "MPOGO@... Pesse" <MPOGO@...>,  Ronald Pandolfi <ronald.pandolfi@...>,  "paulmarch@... March" <paulmarch@...>,  "duncan@... Cumming" <duncan@...>,  lynda williams <spinor64@...>
        Subject: The crux of Woodward's model?
        Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 19:27:31 -0800



        From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
        Subject: The crux of Woodward's model?
        Date: December 31, 2011 7:27:31 PM PST
        To: David Mathes <dmath777@...>
        Cc: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>, "jfwoodward@... woodward" <jfwoodward@...>, Ron Stahl <ronstahl.rs@...>, David Kaiser <dikaiser@...>, Kim Burrafato <lensman137@...>, Saul-Paul Sirag <sirag@...>, Creon Levit <creon.levit@...>, acrowl@..., Paul Murad <ufoguypaul@...>, "Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr." <walrod@...>, "b.j.Carr@... Carr" <b.j.Carr@...>, Jonathan Post <jvospost3@...>, "Puthoff@... Puthoff" <Puthoff@...>, Brian Josephson <bdj10@...>, Gerry Pelligrini <GNPellegrini@...>, "czarlosromanov@... Castro" <czarlosromanov@...>, Tony Smith <f130smith@...>, "sinziana.paduroiu@... Paduroiu" <sinziana.paduroiu@...>, roger malina <rmalina@...>, "Lawrence G. \(ARC-RD\) Lemke" <lawrence.lemke@...>, "nick@... Pope" <nick@...>, "SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Sharon Weinberger <sharonweinberger@...>, "MPOGO@... Pesse" <MPOGO@...>, Ronald Pandolfi <ronald.pandolfi@...>, "paulmarch@... March" <paulmarch@...>, "duncan@... Cumming" <duncan@...>, lynda williams <spinor64@...>


        Here is how I understand what Jim is trying to say, perhaps I am misunderstanding him?

        Jim is concerned with the term DM/ds in the covariant form of Newton's Second Law for test particles.

        DM/ds = Gamma(Dm0)/ds + m0D(Gamma)/ds

        Somehow, in a way that I don't understand at all, Jim says that Mach's principle gives him an equation like

        m0(t) = m0(sinf(t)t)

        and he has some way to rectify this so that there is a "rocket" g-force from the VuDM/ds

        I don't understand how the rectification would work either - I am reminded of Gennady Shipov's device that made a similar claim.

        In any case I also don't see where is warp drive term comes from here or how he proposes to get a negative effective mass m0 < 0?


        On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

        No, it makes Jim's theory "not even wrong" in my opinion. It's not consistent with modern cosmology. 
        Jim's theory may have made some sense, though not much, during the time that Sciama wrote that paper when in early 1950's - but not now.

        Almost all the stuff in the universe is made from virtual particles inside the vacuum.

        There is no way to measure the inertia of virtual particles.

        Inertia only has meaning for real particles with non-zero rest mass when you push them off timelike geodesics with a non-gravity 4-force Fu. That's what Newton's 2nd law means in GR.

        Fu = DPu/ds 

        D is the covariant derivative (LC connection)

        Pu = test particle 4-momentum

        DPu/ds = MDVu/ds + VudM/ds

        Vu = dxu/ds

        ds = differential of frame-invariant proper time of test particle

        M = (Rest Mass)(Gamma of Special Relativity) = m0(Gamma)


        On Dec 31, 2011, at 5:28 PM, David Mathes wrote:

        Jack


        >Density DECREASES with cosmic time as a(t)^-3! 

        That makes Mach Effects time dependant on the eon scale. What about local time?

        What I think you are implying is that density needs to be added to the Mach Effect equations for a) expanding universe and b) as a contingency calculation for regional variations in density during travel.

        Given the proverbial spaceship, how does one construct a detector and a density meter?

         
        David



        Your last question is unintelligible.





      • JACK SARFATTI
        For example the attached pdf excerpt from one of Jim s papers makes no sense to me at all First of all if phi = c^2 then gradphi = 0 always everywhere. Second
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 1, 2012
        View Source
        • 1 Attachment
        • 155 KB
        For example the attached pdf excerpt from one of Jim's papers makes no sense to me at all

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.