- Star Fleet Academy High School Online

Lecture on NASA Breakthrough Propellantless Propulsion and UFOs.An argument is made below that Puthoff's "PV" EM control of gravity program, as currently formulated in 4-dim space-time without hyperspace deformation and spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry, will not work based on the logical structure of his theory and the dimensional scaling techniques of Paul Wesson. This conclusion is also consistent with the work of Hehl and Obukov and Kiehn on the topological nature of electromagnetism independent of metric and connection. Adding hyperspace may repair Puthoff's theory. Thanks to Joe Firmage for cosmically triggering this message. :-)

Part I.

Puthoff's PV theory is based on the idea that the gravitational bending

of light, the advance of the perihelion of mercury, and the gravitational

redshift are really caused by a variable dielectric and magnetic susceptibility

of the vacuum presumably from virtual electron-positron pairs. Puthoff's

model is given in http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf Puthoff's model has a hypothetical control parameter K which in the exotic region K < 1 is a candidate for NASA Breakthrough Propellantless Propulsion (BPPP)http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

http://www.softwareresearch.org/indexflash.html

http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/fepmenu.htm

http://www.calphysics.org/pop_articles.html

http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/hyperspace/Dr. Eric Davis of NIDS http://www.nidsci.org/ in a soon to be released paper for MUFON on Star Gates and "TRUFOs" (http://brumac.8k.com/prosaic1.html) also cites Puthoff's PV model as a viable explanatory framework to make progress in reverse engineering the phenomenon.

Therefore, I am carefully studying Hal's model both its strengths and its weaknesses. Here is a progress report based on Paul Wesson's "Space-Time-Matter: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory" http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/physics/people/faculty/wesson/wesson.html

Wesson is on the CIPA Science Advisory Board

http://www.calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

Indeed he is Chairman I think?Click on http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf and go to Tables I & II on pp 9 and 10. The key results are scaling laws for key physical dimensions as a function of the candidate BPPP control parameter K for mass M, length L and time T

M -> M' = K^3/2 M (1a)

L -> L' = L/K^1/2 (1b)

T -> T' = TK^1/2 (1c)

We can write all of the basic constants of physics in terms of the dimensions mass M, length L and time T. Indeed time T, measured with atomic clocks, is most fundamental of all

"We conclude that most accuracy can be achieved by defining a unit of time, and then using this to define a unit of length, and then employing this to obtain a unit of mass." p. 8 Wesson, op-cit

[..] means physical dimensions of ...

From page 3 of Wesson in cgs units, the fundamental constants are

Speed of light [c] = LT^-1, c = 3.10^10 cm/sec in classical vacuum (2a)

Newton's gravity constant [G] = M^-1L^3T^-2, G = 6.7x10^-8 gm^-1cm^3sec^-2 (2b)

Planck's quantum of action [h] = ML^2T^-1, h = 6.6x10^-27 gmcm^2sec^-1 (2c)

Electron charge [e] = M^1/2L^3/2T^-1 = 4.8x10^-10 gm^1/2cm^3/2sec^-1 (2d)

This unit of charge is for esu. Puthoff used SI units. The two systems of EM units are related by 4pe(o). The Greek symbols for pi and epsilon may not show on outmoded email programs. e(o) is the electric permittivity of free space = 8.9 x 10^-12 C^2m^-3sec^2kg^-1, where in Puthoff's SI units e = 1.6 x 10^-19 C(oulombs). The magnetic permeability of classical vacuum is mu zero i.e. m(0). Puthoff's starting point is Maxwell's discovery in Scotland during the American Civil War that

c^2 = 1/e(o)m(0) (3)

Where Puthoff defines K as

e(0) -> e(K) = Ke(0) (4a)

m(0) -> m(K) = Km(0) (4b)

OK next we apply Puthoff's scaling laws (1) to the fundamental constants in (2).

[c] = LT^-1 -> K^-1/2K^-1/2c = c/K (5a)

This gives us the first conceptual ambiguity in Puthoff's PV theory because he does not distinguish between wave velocity c(w) and particle velocity c(p). This difference is important in the dispersive quantum vacuum that he needs for his theory. In general

c(w)c(p) = c^2 (6a) de Broglie equation

One reason, this distinction does not appear important at this stage is that

c(p) = c^2/c(w) (6b)

Therefore, c, c(p) and c(w) all scale the same as K^-1. However, c(w)

> c and c(p) < c in a dispersive quantum vacuum and/or material. This

is the first appearance of the kinds of hyperbolic "duality" relations rampant in Kaluza-Klein hyperspace theories of physical reality.There is also the problem gr-qc/0001010 v2 3 May 2000 Hehl & Obukov that the key EM gravity coupling (without hyperspace deformation of 3+1 flat spacetime used in both PV and ZPF origin of inertia) is metric and connection independent depending on the K-invariant ratio (e(0) /m(0) )^1/2 that Puthoff 's et-al approach to a quantum electromagnetic origin to both inertia and gravity does not properly address. R. Kiehn http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre55.htm has also made this point. See also http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html

Next:

G -> G' = K^-3/2 K^-3/2K^-1G = K^-4 G (5b)

Note, however that

"the gravitational coupling constant in general relativity is not really G but the combination 8pG/c^4" p. 7 Wesson, op-cit

G/c^4 -> K^-4 K^4 G/c^4 = G/c^4 (7)

Note that this coupling of stress energy to geometry has the dimensions of (Force)^-1. When G is weak you need too much force to bend spacetime to make Star Gates. This is the problem with Eric Davis's MUFON Star Gate paper in the preliminary version I have seen.

Therefore, the strength of the bending of 4-dim spacetime geometry by quantum electrodynamic vacuum polarization dispersion forces in K-invariant. This, to my mind, pretty much shoots down Hal's approach to electrodynamic control of gravity, as currently formulated, as a viable strategy. This result is also in line with the work of Hehl, Obukov and Kiehn that electromagnetism with conserved charge and magnetic flux in the vacuum is metric and connection independent.

Continuing

h -> K^3/2K^-1K^-1/2h = h is K-invariant. (5c)

Finally,

e -> K^3/4K^-3/4 K^-1/2e = K^-1/2e (5d)

e^2/hc -> K^-1K e^2/hc (5e)

is K-invariant.

Gm^2/hc -> K^-4 K^3K Gm^2/hc = Gm^2/hc (5f)

is K-invariant.

Note the Wesson-Regge rule for astronomy is (p. 10 Wesson) is

GM^2/Jc ~ 1/300 (8a)

where M is the mass of the rotating astronomical body and J is its angular momentum. This is obviously K-invariant since Gm^2/hc is. Compare this to hadronic resonances, the data that made modern hyperspace string theory

Gm^2/hc ~ 5 x 10^-39 (8b)

m = hadronic mass scale = 1 Gev

G corresponds to mass scale ~ 10^19 Gev in comparison which is the fly in the ointment of all non hyperspace based schemes for NASA BPPP. This energy barrier is lowered by hyperspace deformation and that IMO is how to explain TRUFOs.

For quantum gravity at the Planck scale (Wesson p. 9) h means hbar here.

Mp = (hc/G)^1/2 = 2.2 x 10^-5 gm, 1 gm = 4.6 x 10^4 Mp (9a)

Lp = (Gh/c^3)^1/2 = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm, 1 cm = 6.3 x 10^32 Lp (9b)

Tp = (Gh/c^5)^1/2 = 5.4 x 10^-44 sec, 1 sec = 1.9 x 10^32 Tp (9c)

Homework problems.

1. Compute the K-scaling of Mp, Lp and Tp.

2. There are two ways to geometrize mass

xm(classical particle) = Gm/c^2

xm(quantum wave) = h/mc

which one should we use under what conditions?

What is the meaning of their ratio?

Is there a similar condition for electromagnetism?

To be continued.

--

CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE

http://stardrive.org

- Part II
The TRUFO phenomenon renders our Air Defense "impotent and obsolete".

Star Fleet Academy High School Online

Lecture on NASA Breakthrough Propellantless Propulsion and UFOs.The problem of the large numbers needed in Puthoff's PV theory is shown in Eric Davis's

http://www.webcom.com/kelleher/articles/davis/wormhole_induction.html

Note this paper is not the MUFON paper with the TRUFO data alluded to in Part I below.

* RED TRUFO ALERT, ALL STAR FLEET HIGH SCHOOL CADETS MAN YOUR VR BATTLE STATIONS. THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION. REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A SIMULATION.

http://www.freezone.co.uk/tomfeise/8thusaaf/bases.htm

Spitfires scramble.

http://www.bigginhill.co.uk/rafstation.htm

:-) Hot off the wire:"The National Institute For Discovery Science has received approximately

ninety-four reported sightings of triangular UFOs seen between 1990 and

the present. In a study to determine the possibility of patterns to these

sightings, each sighting was plotted onto a map of the United States. Two

maps were created. Map 1 plots the location of each triangular UFO

sighting between 1990 and the present. Additionally, 17 U.S. Air Force

bases under the Air Mobility Command (AMC) or an affiliate were plotted on

the map. This map shows the proximity of sightings to the AMC bases. It

appears that the sightings are predominately within corridors between

bases. By connecting the bases with a straight line, it shows that the

sightings seem to closely follow, with only minor divergence, these lines.Map 2 also plots the location of the same triangular UFO sightings for the

same period of time. In addition to the 17 AMC and affiliate bases, 16

bases belonging to the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) are also plotted.

Combining the bases of the two commands and then plotting their

relationship to the sightings show distinct patterns of sightings along

the straight lines between bases. Again it appears that the sightings are

predominately within corridors between the plotted bases. In the Eastern

United States, Wright-Patterson AFB, HQ AFMC, seems to be a focal point,

with Scott AFB, HQ AMC, running a close second. It is interesting that the

January 5, 2000 sightings by five police officers in Illinois were in such

extremely close proximity to Scott AFB.Study of both maps reveal a large empty corridor in the mid-western United

States where there is an absence of sightings. Incidentally, in the same

area there is an absence of AMC or AFMC bases. The totality of the

evidence leads us to hypothesize that the flight paths are suggestive of

the deployment of military aircraft hitherto unacknowledged.We invite comments on this hypothesis.

See the "What's New" section of the NIDS website to view the report."

Homework Problem Set I

1. Compute the K-scaling of Mp, Lp and Tp.

They scale consistently with Puthoff's Tables I & II.

2. There are two ways to geometrize mass

xm(classical particle) = Gm/c^2 (10a)

xm(quantum wave) = h/mc (10b)

Both scale consistently.

Which one should we use under what conditions?

Keep thinking.

What is the meaning of their ratio?

(Classical particle length/quantum Compton wave length) = (Gm/c^2)/(h/mc) = Gm^2/hc dimensionless and K-invariant.

Further advanced research topic: differential geometry uses pullback Cartan forms or cotangent vectors fibered on a configuration space that are local stacks of wave fronts. It also uses dual push forward tangent vectors. Can you connect this to wave-particle duality? What happens if you have a discrete crystal lattice, possibly aperiodic with Penrose tiling, and you can no longer use the continuum approximation?

Is there a similar condition for electromagnetism?

Classical electron particle radius is e^2/mc^2

Classical electron radius/Quantum Compton wave length = (e^2/mc^2)/(h/mc) = e^2/hc dimensionless fine structure constant ~ 1/137.

In low energy perturbative quantum field theory of electromagnetism (QED) of point charges approximations to strings

(e^2/hc)^1/2 ~ vertex function for an electron world line to meet a photon world line

electron

\_ photon ~ (e^2/hc)^1/2~ 0.085 at low energy

/

electrone^2/hc is r-scale, r ~ h/p, p is 3-momentum transfer in a scattering of photon against an electron. Two electrons scatter by exchanging an off mass shell virtual photon. e gets larger as r gets shorter. In contrast, the strong charge anti-screens getting weaker as r gets shorter.

Similarly

(Gm^2/hc)^1/2 is Feynman quantum amplitude for mass m to emit or absorb a virtual graviton. Problem is that this quantum gravity theory in analogy with QED is not consistent.

OK, now back to seeing how Puthoff's PV theory fares. The quantum gravity energy gap is

Ep = hfp = Mpc^2 K-scales as K^3/2K^-2 = K^-1/2. (11)

Look at the "exotic" Table II suggested for NASA BPP and the explanation of the TRUFO phenomenon that renders our current Air Defense "impotent and obsolete". Puthoff's exotic region is K < 1. This means fp the quantum gravity threshold frequency is increasing. However, consider

e^2/r ~ Ep (12a)

Note that the LHS e^2/r is the electrostatic self-energy at scale r. Its Puthoff K transformation is K^-1 K^1/2 = K^-1/2. The electric field associated with this is

E = e/r^2 (12b)

whose Puthoff K transform is K^-1/2K ~ K^1/2

The electric field energy density ~ E^2 scales as K. The electric field needed is weaker but it must be provided over a larger volume so the end result is that Puthoff's K -> 0 exotic region requires even more energy expenditure than is set by the usual 10^19 Gev scale. Indeed, the quantum gravity scale is ~ 10^19Gev/K^1/2. This does not bode well as a TRUFO explanation or a practical low energy way to make a Star Gate.

In contrast, the hyperspace deformation scaling is quite different because h and c are fixed, only G scales as Salam short range low energy gravity G* where, in my toy model,

G*/G = exp{[R/(r + Lp*)]^n} (13a)

Lp*^2 = G*h/c^3 (13b)

(13a) and (13b) are solved simultaneously.

R = Kaluza-Klein scale of the n extra spacelike dimensions of hyperspace.

R ~ Lp*

r = Einstein comoving radial coordinate

Homework Problem Set 2

1. Are equations (13a) and (13b) consistent?

2. Compute Mp*, Lp* and Tp* as a function of the ratio R/r.

3. How does the high frequency cut off fp* scale with R/r.

Blackett Effect

[e] = [G^1/2m]

"The electric charge of a particle ... can only be geometrized by including the gravitational constant via x(q) = (G/c^4)^1/2q. This, together with the ... fact that masses can carry charges but not the other way round, suggests that mass is more fundamental than charge." p. 11 Wesson op-cit

By this, I think Wesson means you can have a zero charge mass, but you cannot have a massless charge. The self-energy of the charge generates a mass.

4. How does Wesson's remark impact the HRP ZPF origin of inertia model that seems to require a massless charge?

The Blackett effect conjecture is that every rotating neutral mass m generates a charge q where

q = bG^1/2m (14)

http://stardrive.org/Jack/sirag-vigier3.pdf

5. Can you give b a hyperspace interpretation?

Typo corrected Draft # 2 of Part I Key sentence should have been

Therefore, the strength of the bending of 4-dim spacetime geometry by quantum electrodynamic vacuum polarization dispersion forces is K-invariant.

"Dr. Jack Sarfatti" wrote:

An argument is made below that Puthoff's "PV" EM control of gravity program, as currently formulated in 4-dim space-time without hyperspace deformation and spontaneous breakdown of gauge symmetry, will not work based on the logical structure of his theory and the dimensional scaling techniques of Paul Wesson. This conclusion is also consistent with the work of Hehl and Obukov and Kiehn on the topological nature of electromagnetism independent of metric and connection. Adding hyperspace may repair Puthoff's theory. Thanks to Joe Firmage for cosmically triggering this message. :-)

Part I.

Puthoff's PV theory is based on the idea that the gravitational bending

of light, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitational

redshift are really caused by a variable dielectric and magnetic susceptibility

of the vacuum presumably from virtual electron-positron pairs. Puthoff's

model is given in http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf Puthoff's model has a hypothetical control parameter K which in the exotic region K < 1 is a candidate for NASA Breakthrough Propellantless Propulsion (BPP)http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

http://www.softwareresearch.org/indexflash.html

http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/fepmenu.htm

http://www.calphysics.org/pop_articles.html

http://www.maths.qmw.ac.uk/hyperspace/Dr. Eric Davis of NIDS http://www.nidsci.org/ in a soon to be released paper for MUFON on Star Gates and "TRUFOs" (http://brumac.8k.com/prosaic1.html) also cites Puthoff's PV model as a viable explanatory framework to make progress in reverse engineering the phenomenon.

Therefore, I am carefully studying Hal's model both its strengths and its weaknesses. Here is a progress report based on Paul Wesson's "Space-Time-Matter: Modern Kaluza-Klein Theory" http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/physics/people/faculty/wesson/wesson.html

Wesson is on the CIPA Science Advisory Board

http://www.calphysics.org/sci_articles.html

Indeed he is Chairman I think?Click on http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf and go to Tables I & II on pp 9 and 10. The key results are scaling laws for key physical dimensions as a function of the candidate BPP control parameter K for mass M, length L and time T

M -> M' = K^3/2 M (1a)

L -> L' = L/K^1/2 (1b)

T -> T' = TK^1/2 (1c)

We can write all of the basic constants of physics in terms of the dimensions mass M, length L and time T. Indeed time T, measured with atomic clocks, is most fundamental of all

"We conclude that most accuracy can be achieved by defining a unit of time, and then using this to define a unit of length, and then employing this to obtain a unit of mass." p. 8 Wesson, op-cit

[..] means physical dimensions of ...

From page 3 of Wesson in cgs units, the fundamental constants are

Speed of light [c] = LT^-1, c = 3.10^10 cm/sec in classical vacuum (2a)

Newton's gravity constant [G] = M^-1L^3T^-2, G = 6.7x10^-8 gm^-1cm^3sec^-2 (2b)

Planck's quantum of action [h] = ML^2T^-1, h = 6.6x10^-27 gmcm^2sec^-1 (2c)

Electron charge [e] = M^1/2L^3/2T^-1 = 4.8x10^-10 gm^1/2cm^3/2sec^-1 (2d)

This unit of charge is for esu. Puthoff used SI units. The two systems of EM units are related by 4pe(o). The Greek symbols for pi and epsilon may not show on outmoded email programs. e(o) is the electric permittivity of free space = 8.9 x 10^-12 C^2m^-3sec^2kg^-1, where in Puthoff's SI units e = 1.6 x 10^-19 C(oulombs). The magnetic permeability of classical vacuum is mu zero i.e. m(0). Puthoff's starting point is Maxwell's discovery in Scotland during the American Civil War that

c^2 = 1/e(o)m(0) (3)

Where Puthoff defines K as

e(0) -> e(K) = Ke(0) (4a)

m(0) -> m(K) = Km(0) (4b)

OK next we apply Puthoff's scaling laws (1) to the fundamental constants in (2).

[c] = LT^-1 -> K^-1/2K^-1/2c = c/K (5a)

This gives us the first conceptual ambiguity in Puthoff's PV theory because he does not distinguish between wave velocity c(w) and particle velocity c(p). This difference is important in the dispersive quantum vacuum that he needs for his theory. In general

c(w)c(p) = c^2 (6a) de Broglie equation

One reason, this distinction does not appear important at this stage is that

c(p) = c^2/c(w) (6b)

Therefore, c, c(p) and c(w) all scale the same as K^-1. However, c(w) > c and c(p) < c in a dispersive quantum vacuum and/or material. This is the first appearance of the kinds of hyperbolic "duality" relations rampant in Kaluza-Klein hyperspace theories of physical reality.

There is also the problem gr-qc/0001010 v2 3 May 2000 Hehl & Obukov that the key EM gravity coupling (without hyperspace deformation of 3+1 flat spacetime used in both PV and ZPF origin of inertia) is metric and connection independent depending on the K-invariant ratio (e(0) /m(0) )^1/2 that Puthoff 's et-al approach to a quantum electromagnetic origin to both inertia and gravity does not properly address. R. Kiehn http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre55.htm has also made this point. See also http://www.inetarena.com/~noetic/pls/woodward.html

Next:

G -> G' = K^-3/2 K^-3/2K^-1G = K^-4 G (5b)

Note, however that

"the gravitational coupling constant in general relativity is not really G but the combination 8pG/c^4" p. 7 Wesson, op-cit

G/c^4 -> K^-4 K^4 G/c^4 = G/c^4 (7)

Note that this coupling of stress energy to geometry has the dimensions of (Force)^-1. When G is weak you need too much force to bend spacetime to make Star Gates. This is the problem with Eric Davis's MUFON Star Gate paper in the preliminary version I have seen.

Therefore, the strength of the bending of 4-dim spacetime geometry by quantum electrodynamic vacuum polarization dispersion forces is K-invariant. This, to my mind, pretty much shoots down Hal's approach to electrodynamic control of gravity, as currently formulated, as a viable strategy. This result is also in line with the work of Hehl, Obukov and Kiehn that electromagnetism with conserved charge and magnetic flux in the vacuum is metric and connection independent.

Continuing

h -> K^3/2K^-1K^-1/2h = h is K-invariant. (5c)

Finally,

e -> K^3/4K^-3/4 K^-1/2e = K^-1/2e (5d)

e^2/hc -> K^-1K e^2/hc (5e)

is K-invariant.

Gm^2/hc -> K^-4 K^3K Gm^2/hc = Gm^2/hc (5f)

is K-invariant.

Note the Wesson-Regge rule for astronomy is (p. 10 Wesson) is

GM^2/Jc ~ 1/300 (8a)

where M is the mass of the rotating astronomical body and J is its angular momentum. This is obviously K-invariant since Gm^2/hc is. Compare this to hadronic resonances, the data that made modern hyperspace string theory

Gm^2/hc ~ 5 x 10^-39 (8b)

m = hadronic mass scale = 1 Gev

G corresponds to mass scale ~ 10^19 Gev in comparison which is the fly in the ointment of all non hyperspace based schemes for NASA BPP. This energy barrier is lowered by hyperspace deformation and that IMO is how to explain TRUFOs.

For quantum gravity at the Planck scale (Wesson p. 9) h means hbar here.

Mp = (hc/G)^1/2 = 2.2 x 10^-5 gm, 1 gm = 4.6 x 10^4 Mp (9a)

Lp = (Gh/c^3)^1/2 = 1.6 x 10^-33 cm, 1 cm = 6.3 x 10^32 Lp (9b)

Tp = (Gh/c^5)^1/2 = 5.4 x 10^-44 sec, 1 sec = 1.9 x 10^32 Tp (9c)

Homework problems.

1. Compute the K-scaling of Mp, Lp and Tp.

2. There are two ways to geometrize mass

xm(classical particle) = Gm/c^2 (10a)

xm(quantum wave) = h/mc (10b)

Which one should we use under what conditions?

What is the meaning of their ratio?

Is there a similar condition for electromagnetism?

To be continued.

CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE

http://stardrive.org

- "Dr. Eric W. Davis" wrote:

> Jack:

Thanks. I just found an interesting paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104121? that

>

> This

> http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/whip.pdf

> is a better, updated version of my NASA paper, than the one

> below. It has an additional table showing the large stress numbers.

>

> Regards,

>

> Eric

>

appears to significantly extend the scope of Hal's PV program beyond the simple weak

field perturbation Schwarzschild model he has in http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf

For the record, it is my conjecture, that only when GR (including Hal's PV variation on

the essential Einstein theme) is embedded in the hyperspace of M-theory will the "large

stress number" problem be solved so that "low energy" practical NASA BPP and practical

TRUFO "Star Gate" technology will be reversed engineered by us.

The key problem is that basing physics on 3+1 hyperbolic manifold as in 1915 GR combined

with quantum theory gives the 10^19 Gev energy barrier which is the root cause of the

"large stress number" problem. Short distance hyperspace deformation results in strong

short range Salam G* gravity low quantum energy barriers << 10^19 Gev indeed lower than

even 1/40 ev perhaps under certain artificially engineered conditions, namely exactly

the TRUFO evidence you cite in your MUFON paper! I want to make it clear that I am being

guided mainly by the empirical evidence NIDS has now accumulated on TRUFOs which IMO

will prove to be as important for 21st Century Physics as atomic spectra, finite speed

of light, laws of heat, Millikan's oil drop (quantized charge) Michelson-Morley (special

relativity), black body spectrum (Planck's quantum h), X-rays, photoelectric effect

(Einstein's photon E = hf), Rutherford scattering (tiny nucleus), Davisson-Germer (wave

nature of electron), Goudsmit (quantized spin of electron), Compton scattering of

photons off electrons, gravitational bending of light, superfluid helium,

superconductivity, Josephson effect, hadronic resonances on Regge trajectories,

Blackett-Sirag effect, Wesson-Regge astronomy effect etc., isotropic cosmic blackbody

radiation, Einstein gravity waves from pulsars, were to the physics of the 19th and 20th

centuries. I am being guided by the pressure of TRUFO experimental evidence as well as

by acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe, dark matter, the new theoretical

developments in both hyperspace physics of parallel material universes closely separated

from each other across hyperspace and the nonperturbative metric independent loop

quantum gravity program as well as Hagen Kleinert's interesting "world crystal" program

at the Free University in Berlin.

--

CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE

http://stardrive.org - Star Fleet Academy High School Online
To Star Fleet Cadets, wherever and whenever you are, past, present and future! :-)

Puthoff@... wrote:

In a message dated 5/2/01 9:49:56 AM, sarfatti@... writes:

<< I just found an interesting paper

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/0104121? that

appears to significantly extend the scope of Hal's PV program beyond the

simple weak

field perturbation Schwarzschild model he has in

http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf>>Jack, my PV program is not just a weak-field model. Yes, to show that it

matches GR I compared my results to the standard GR results for weak

Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom predictions, but the model is robust

(and more accurate, IMHO) for strong fields as well. Eric and I are using it

to examine wormhole metrics, etc.Hal

OK I will include your clarification in next installment. I have not seen the wormhole metric math. The key issue that still remains is that the numbers are too big for anything practical to work. That's why I think hyperspace is essential because then you can get giant Salam G* >> G with much lower energy and field strengths significantly bending space over small distances but enough to make the traversable wormholes (AKA "Star Gates"). For example in Eric's NASA paper http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/whip.pdf a key parameter isa = c^2[m(0)/4pGB^2]^1/2

So how does the parameter "a" K-scale?

c^2 -> c^2/K^2, but G - > G/K^4

so c^2/G^1/2 is K invariant.

So what does m(0)^1/2/B do?

m(0)^1/2 -> K^1/2 m(0)^1/2

So how does magnetic field K-scale?

According to Arnold Sommerfeld's "Electrodynamics"

B = Newton seconds/Charge Meters

That is, I will recheck in morning for algebraic error (tired and in haste)

[B] = (ML/T^2) T/(M^1/2L^3/2T^-1)

= (ML/T)/(M^1/2L^3/2T^-1)

= (ML)/(M^1/2L^3/2)

= (M^1/2L)/L^3/2

= (M/L)^1/2

B -> K^3/4K^1/4 B = KB

Therefore,

m(0)^1/2/B -> K^-1/2 m(0)^1/2/B

Therefore

a -> a/K^1/2

which is consistent with your Tables I & II in http://stardrive.org/Jack/puthoff1.pdf as it should as a length. Therefore, I did the algebra correctly. Check!

So is this any good? No it is not! As K -> 0 a, the radius of curvature induced by the homogeneous cylindrically symmetric magnetic field B gets larger when we want it to get smaller! This means you need a much stronger magnetic field strength to bend space into a Star Gate as your control parameter K gets more exotic. This makes the control problem harder not easier! Your exotic region is having the opposite effect from the one you really want it seems to me unless I have made some mistake in my haste?

Contrast this with the qualitatively different hyperspace deformation in which Newton's G is replaced by Salam's short range strong but lower energy G* >> G in a with everything else fixed.

a scales as 1/(G*^1/2B). Therefore, for a fixed magnetic field B say a very comfortable easy to make 10 Teslas, a is getting smaller as G* gets bigger. That is you get a much bigger magnetic bending of space into a Star Gate for the same field strength - a bigger bang for the buck. My idea here is simple, straightforward and pretty obvious. This is the basic TRUFO techno trick IMO. Hyperspace is the way to go!

--

CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE

http://stardrive.org