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

Book Report

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    I now have 2 books. Book # 1: Destiny Matrix will be out in early November. The cover is at http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg http://www.1stbooks.com
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      I now have 2 books.

       

      Book # 1: Destiny Matrix will be out in early November. The cover is at

       

      http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg

       

      http://www.1stbooks.com

       

      Book #2:  Space-Time and Beyond – The Series: Episode 2: Dark Energy

       

      Is on its way to the publisher now.

       

      You can see it at http://stardrive.org/Jack/STBII.pdf    10 meg file.

       

      It has contributions by Fred Alan Wolf and others including Lorna McLearie on Gary Zukav, several people on Ira Einhorn, my critiques of the physics of Bernie Haisch and Hal Puthoff in detail etc.

       

       

    • Jack Sarfatti
      The book is a fact. It is out there. All your lame vague polemics won t change that. Attacking my competence as a PhD in physics from UC and Ivy League without
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        The book is a fact. It is out there. All your lame vague polemics won't
        change that.
        Attacking my competence as a PhD in physics from UC and Ivy League without
        any specific professional refutations on my allegations point by point as I
        gave you ample chance to do for over a year simply won't do.
        I have nothing in the book about this Casimir effect and your secret work
        stuff only your public PV stuff.
        Nick Cook gives that impression I suspect. Whenever zero point energy is
        discussed right away one hears "Casimir".
        Also you keep your work secret so take the consequences.
        Hal you are deluding yourself on all this stuff I fear.
        The die is cast.

        Meantime you can see for yourself at

        http://stardrive.org/Jack/STBII.pdf

        write your own book refuting mine if you like.

        You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity of
        r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0.

        You have yet to give even one example justifying Eric Davis's claims about
        your PV and UFOs.

        All my quotes from you are in the public domain on list e-mail that went out
        to a large number of people at the time.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Puthoff@... [mailto:Puthoff@...]
        Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:54 AM
        To: sarfatti@...
        Subject: Re: Book Report


        In a message dated 10/04/02 4:59:18 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

        << my critiques of the physics of

        Bernie Haisch and Hal Puthoff in detail etc. >>

        If I may correct you. Pseudocritiques that are "not even wrong!" (As we've
        documented over and over.)

        For example, someone just sent me a copy of one of your earlier postings of
        http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf, where you go on and on about how we
        are crazy to think that the weak Casimir effect could ever be used to
        extract
        significant ZPE energy. Indeed, it we thought that, we would be crazy. The
        energy extraction techniques we are investigating have nothing to do with
        the
        Casimir effect. Your critique is a total Red Herring of the first water.

        Collegially (giving you the benefit of the doubt),
        Hal
      • Jack Sarfatti
        PS Correction http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf, is in first book but not in the second. I stick by what I say there until I get relevant information from
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          PS Correction http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf, is in first book but
          not in the second. I stick by what I say there until I get relevant
          information from you not lame polemics and/or wrong math.


          The book is a fact. It is out there. All your lame vague polemics won't
          change that.
          Attacking my competence as a PhD in physics from UC and Ivy League without
          any specific professional refutations on my allegations point by point as I
          gave you ample chance to do for over a year simply won't do.
          I have nothing in the book about this Casimir effect and your secret work
          stuff only your public PV stuff.
          Nick Cook gives that impression I suspect. Whenever zero point energy is
          discussed right away one hears "Casimir".
          Also you keep your work secret so take the consequences.
          Hal you are deluding yourself on all this stuff I fear.
          The die is cast.

          Meantime you can see for yourself at

          http://stardrive.org/Jack/STBII.pdf

          write your own book refuting mine if you like.

          You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity of
          r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0.

          You have yet to give even one example justifying Eric Davis's claims about
          your PV and UFOs.

          All my quotes from you are in the public domain on list e-mail that went out
          to a large number of people at the time.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Puthoff@... [mailto:Puthoff@...]
          Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 8:54 AM
          To: sarfatti@...
          Subject: Re: Book Report


          In a message dated 10/04/02 4:59:18 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

          << my critiques of the physics of

          Bernie Haisch and Hal Puthoff in detail etc. >>

          If I may correct you. Pseudocritiques that are "not even wrong!" (As we've
          documented over and over.)

          For example, someone just sent me a copy of one of your earlier postings of
          http://stardrive.org/Jack/Casimir.pdf, where you go on and on about how we
          are crazy to think that the weak Casimir effect could ever be used to
          extract
          significant ZPE energy. Indeed, it we thought that, we would be crazy. The
          energy extraction techniques we are investigating have nothing to do with
          the
          Casimir effect. Your critique is a total Red Herring of the first water.

          Collegially (giving you the benefit of the doubt),
          Hal
        • puthoff@aol.com
          In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@well.com writes:
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

            << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
            of
            r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

            Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c was
            irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it.

            That's why I call your critiques "pseudocritiques." When you are corrected,
            you just ignore it as if nothing had happened and go on with your uncorrected
            viewpoint.

            Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his correction to
            your faulty critique is not correct and telling.

            Hal
          • Jack Sarfatti
            This is nonsense Hal. What you say is not true. In any case I have a lot of what you say in the book for the record. The only time you made specific answers
            Message 5 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              This is nonsense Hal. What you say is not true. In any case I have a lot of
              what you say in the book for the record.

              The only time you made specific answers were Red Herrings. You never once
              addressed this

              << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
              of r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

              In any case, it's all there. Let the informed readers decide for themselves.

              If you really believe what you are saying here then all I can say is that my
              standards of doing theoretical physics are higher than yours.

              You are primarily an experimentalist and probably a good one. You cannot do
              theoretical physics IMO.


              In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

              << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
              of
              r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

              Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
              was
              irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it.

              That's why I call your critiques "pseudocritiques." When you are corrected,
              you just ignore it as if nothing had happened and go on with your
              uncorrected
              viewpoint.

              Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his correction to
              your faulty critique is not correct and telling.

              Hal
            • Jack Sarfatti
              PS Oh I missed this on first read Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c was irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it. Hal
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                PS Oh I missed this on first read

                "Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
                was irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it."

                Hal this shows you are completely clueless on the facts here! It must be
                that Ibison does all your math for you. This is really a Red Herring.

                Ibison's equation


                r_c = r_ie^GM/c^2r_i


                is PART OF MY REFUTATION! I use it.

                You obviously have not understood anything I have been saying here.
                Pathetic, simply pathetic.

                In any case, all of these details are in the book.





                This is nonsense Hal. What you say is not true. In any case I have a lot of
                what you say in the book for the record.

                The only time you made specific answers were Red Herrings. You never once
                addressed this

                << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                of r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                In any case, it's all there. Let the informed readers decide for themselves.

                If you really believe what you are saying here then all I can say is that my
                standards of doing theoretical physics are higher than yours.

                You are primarily an experimentalist and probably a good one. You cannot do
                theoretical physics IMO.


                In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

                << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                of
                r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
                was
                irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it.

                That's why I call your critiques "pseudocritiques." When you are corrected,
                you just ignore it as if nothing had happened and go on with your
                uncorrected
                viewpoint.

                Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his correction to
                your faulty critique is not correct and telling.

                Hal
              • Jack Sarfatti
                PPS There are two aspects here. The formal and the informal. 1. On formal level I use Ibison s equation for PV to derive an infinity of r_I for a single r_c
                Message 7 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  PPS There are two aspects here. The formal and the informal.

                  1. On formal level I use Ibison's equation for PV to derive an infinity of
                  r_I for a single r_c with r_I complex in the limit r_c -> 0.
                  2. On informal level, your proposed eschewing of r_c as the relevant measure
                  of strong field vs near field is utter hogwash and is unacceptable in
                  contradiction to all of the global topology work on manifolds done by Roger
                  Penrose and Stephen Hawking post Dicke 1961 which you are completely
                  clueless about.



                  PS Oh I missed this on first read

                  "Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
                  was irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it."

                  Hal this shows you are completely clueless on the facts here! It must be
                  that Ibison does all your math for you. This is really a Red Herring.

                  Ibison's equation


                  r_c = r_ie^GM/c^2r_i


                  is PART OF MY REFUTATION! I use it.

                  You obviously have not understood anything I have been saying here.
                  Pathetic, simply pathetic.

                  In any case, all of these details are in the book.





                  This is nonsense Hal. What you say is not true. In any case I have a lot of
                  what you say in the book for the record.

                  The only time you made specific answers were Red Herrings. You never once
                  addressed this

                  << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                  of r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                  In any case, it's all there. Let the informed readers decide for themselves.

                  If you really believe what you are saying here then all I can say is that my
                  standards of doing theoretical physics are higher than yours.

                  You are primarily an experimentalist and probably a good one. You cannot do
                  theoretical physics IMO.


                  In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

                  << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                  of
                  r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                  Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
                  was
                  irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it.

                  That's why I call your critiques "pseudocritiques." When you are corrected,
                  you just ignore it as if nothing had happened and go on with your
                  uncorrected
                  viewpoint.

                  Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his correction to
                  your faulty critique is not correct and telling.

                  Hal
                • Jack Sarfatti
                  PPPS in my third book Spring 2003. Space-Time and Beyond - The Series Episode 3 Metric Engineering Star Gates and Warp Drive I will justify all this in great
                  Message 8 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    PPPS in my third book Spring 2003.

                    Space-Time and Beyond - The Series Episode 3 Metric Engineering Star Gates
                    and Warp Drive

                    I will justify all this in great pedagogical detail


                    PPS There are two aspects here. The formal and the informal.

                    1. On formal level I use Ibison's equation for PV to derive an infinity of
                    r_I for a single r_c with r_I complex in the limit r_c -> 0.
                    2. On informal level, your proposed eschewing of r_c as the relevant measure
                    of strong field vs near field is utter hogwash and is unacceptable in
                    contradiction to all of the global topology work on manifolds done by Roger
                    Penrose and Stephen Hawking post Dicke 1961 which you are completely
                    clueless about.



                    PS Oh I missed this on first read

                    Hal wrote: "Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics
                    just why r_c was irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it."

                    Jack replied: Hal this shows you are completely clueless on the facts here!
                    It must be that Ibison does all your math for you. This is really a Red
                    Herring.

                    Ibison's equation


                    r_c = r_ie^GM/c^2r_i


                    is PART OF MY REFUTATION! I use it.

                    You obviously have not understood anything I have been saying here.
                    Pathetic, simply pathetic.

                    In any case, all of these details are in the book.





                    This is nonsense Hal. What you say is not true. In any case I have a lot of
                    what you say in the book for the record.

                    The only time you made specific answers were Red Herrings. You never once
                    addressed this

                    << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                    of r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                    In any case, it's all there. Let the informed readers decide for themselves.

                    If you really believe what you are saying here then all I can say is that my
                    standards of doing theoretical physics are higher than yours.

                    You are primarily an experimentalist and probably a good one. You cannot do
                    theoretical physics IMO.


                    In a message dated 10/04/02 11:22:09 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

                    << You have yet to answer any of my specific charges on PV like the infinity
                    of
                    r_I for a single r_c and that your r_I are complex when r_c -> 0. >>

                    Nonsense. Ibison made it quite clear with math and graphics just why r_c
                    was
                    irrelevant for PV. You just ignored it.

                    That's why I call your critiques "pseudocritiques." When you are corrected,
                    you just ignore it as if nothing had happened and go on with your
                    uncorrected
                    viewpoint.

                    Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his correction to
                    your faulty critique is not correct and telling.

                    Hal
                  • puthoff@aol.com
                    I repeat: Ibison
                    Message 9 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I repeat:

                      << Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his (Ibison's)
                      correction to your faulty critique is not correct and telling. >>

                      Ibison is an excellent theoretical physicist. You need to come up to his
                      standard and answer his correction.

                      Hal
                    • Jack Sarfatti
                      Sorry Hal but you are acting obtusely as anyone who reads what is actually there can see. First of all Ibison admitted to me that he is an amateur in general
                      Message 10 of 10 , Oct 4, 2002
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sorry Hal but you are acting obtusely as anyone who reads what is actually
                        there can see.

                        First of all Ibison admitted to me that he is an amateur in general
                        relativity. His primary field is quantum mechanics under Basil Hiley at
                        Birkbeck if I am not mistaken?

                        Second, there is nothing I say that contradicts Ibison's math!
                        I have no quibble with his algebra on this very tiny detail.

                        Indeed, I use Ibison's nice little formula for your PV!

                        This is high school algebra that even a practical metric engineer should be
                        able to understand.

                        You don't have to be a rocket scientist.

                        Third, the more substantial issue is the informal one of interpretation of
                        r_c and r_I in general independent of detailed action for a given model i.e.
                        GR vs PV. This depends on manifold theory and global topology of manifold
                        which neither you nor Ibison know diddley squat about.

                        You are not free to make up your own rules on that like you do.

                        In this case, your attempt to replace curvature r by isotropic r as the true
                        measure of strong vs weak field is physically untenable and downright stupid
                        if you understand anything at all about Penrose diagrams.

                        First of all your common sense should tell you something is amiss if you get
                        a multiple set of isotropic r for a single curvature r.

                        Second, it's even more serious when your isotropic r become complex numbers
                        in precisely the "strong field" region used by Einstein in GR.

                        Now Einstein's GR has TWO isotropic r for one curvature r. These two
                        isotropic r are complex inside the event horizon for the SSS vacuum
                        solution.

                        This is indeed why the two isotropic r are two coordinate patches outside
                        the event horizon forming an Einstein-Rosen bridge or nontraversable
                        wormhole in the global topology of the manifold for Einstein's SSS vacuum
                        solution.

                        Now in your model using Ibison's nice little PV equation relating isotropic
                        r to curvature r you have in your PV an infinity of isotropic r for a single
                        curvature r. Like GR your infinity of isotropic r also go complex when
                        curvature r -> 0 in the traditional strong field limit. This should give you
                        pause, but it obviously doesn't.

                        Each isotropic r must be a coordinate patch and your non-analytic y = e^1/x
                        is the source of your pathological infinity, your excess mathematical
                        baggage of an infinity of isotropic r. Hence call your monster solution the
                        Medusa metric. This is an interesting example of pathological physics.

                        Hal you are simply not connecting the dots here. You have never addressed
                        this and neither has Ibison.

                        "Anything Goes" is a good musical but not a good approach to theoretical
                        physics.

                        Neither is "Create your own reality" in spite of Niels Bohr.



                        I repeat:

                        << Now it's your turn. Answer his specific charge as to why his (Ibison's)
                        correction to your faulty critique is not correct and telling. >>

                        Ibison is an excellent theoretical physicist. You need to come up to his
                        standard and answer his correction.

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