- Here is my question:
What are the topological, and other, properties of the physical vacuum

which will make faster than light travel engineerable, and survivable?Is there a method to accomplish this folding of space, that is realizeable,

technically?I think that this work is being done now.

See below for more comments.

Jack Martinelli wrote:

How about back-tracking (back to the old drawing board?)and or step-wise re-finement?----- Original Message -----**From:**Robert Neil Boyd**Sent:**Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:55 PMOK.**Subject:**Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental questionIn many instances, we discover new things by

exploring uncharted domains. What domains

remain uncharted, regarding this topic?

Sounds good to me. Back to the drawing board. Assume nothing.

Start over. Then compare results to what has gone before. Jack!

I'm surprised at you! You're advocating empirical science! Oh,

what shall become of us? ;-)Topological physics, temporal physics, and consciousness

Can you put this into the form of a fundamental question?

physics, would be my answer, and these are the

realms I have been exploring.In addition, I am not

Ok. This is a start. How can you use this to discover betterphysical representations?

compelled to agree with the standard view of

physics, which I feel is flawed in fundamental ways.Here then, is a starting point:

You can go deeper than this. e.g., what's energy? for one.How many kinds of force fields are there? Let us delineate these various fields, and their effects.

For example, did you know that there is such a thing as "imaginary charge", which has physically

measureable effects? See: Kleinert http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de:80/~kleinert/kleiner_re3.html

Have you ever heard of the Fermi field? The spin field? The torsion field? What is orgone energy?

What is "Life Force"? And on and on...Especially, the anomalies!Then we should examine the interactivities

I wouldn't until I understood the things we represent with labels like "field".of these various fields with each other, with mass,

I'm not sure I see the tie-in.

with time, and so on. There are at least 13 discrete branches of physics, easily many more.

The number of permutations and combinations of these 13 branches alone, taken two at a time

gives us on the order 6,227,020,800 different interinvolvements between these fundamental branches

of the physics. This number alone is enough to keep us well involved in the process

discovering the operations of, this universe alone, for quite a long time I would say.

See, for example, one of Keihn's recent works: http://www22.pair.com/csdc/car/carfre75.htmKiehn examined what I said regarding permutations and combinations of

interinvovelments of the various branches of physics, and has proceeded to

use this understanding to produce two important papers over the last two

years, viewing just such interinvolvements. The above paper is one example.

Kiehn is the first individual in the world to have taken advantage of this fact

of interinvolvement.What is the origination of these various fields?

Now this is a fundamental question. Any ideas?Yes. The various forces have a purely topological origination.

I have mentioned this before on this forum, along with a few

supporting citations.What are the various kinds of transductions that are possible

What's mass? What's time?(Ok, I see below)

among the various forces, and mass, and time, and so on?How do these various fields interact with the various

So, instead of exploring greater complexity, explore simplicities. This is where thelaws of physics lies.

other fields, and the physical constants of this particular

universe? And what is the orgination of these constants?What is mass?

What is energy? How many kinds of energy are there?

What is time, and what causes it?How are we to explain and describe the "subtle energies",

which Einstein was so fond of investigating? These energies

have real and measureable physical effects, yet they are

substantially ignored by the mainstream physics community.

Why is that? Perhaps there is no existing approach which is

capable to explain the subtle energies.What is the exact nature of the substructure of the various

subatomic particles?What is the exact construction, and what are the properties of the physical vacuum?

You see, the more you go on with these explorations, the more you know.

And the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. And

the number and depth of your questions can increase without bound.The truth is simple. The intellect is complicated, and wants to make everything else complicated.

So, as you are perhaps pointing out, it's easy to have questions. It's not so

Why "motions of mass"? How about just motion (and distance)?

easy to answer all these questions in any unambiguous way. So let's confine

our search to field-type events which lead to net motions of mass.

I answer the question with a question...Is there mass?i.e., Does anything weigh anything?

Why is that? What can we do about it?Well, this is not so easy as it looks, on the surface. Where to start...

I wouldn't worry about this yet. I think that interaction is closely related to dynamics.I'd prefer to start with dynamics.

There are an enormous number of interactions which shall result in

a net relocation of mass. Which of these shall we focus our attentions on?Dynamics of what? Will your dynamics involve energy, mass, or time?

Or something else, such as topological originations of such?I have focused on the foundational properties of the physical vacuum,

I don't know enough psa to even be dangerous. But, why a topological approach? Besidesheuristic reasoning?

as being the best focus of studies, in these regards, because, if we

understand all of the qualities, properties, and constituencies of the

vacuum, then it seems most likely that we will find our answer. For

me, the basic question has been, "How is it possible to attain a faster than

light transport of mass, which a living human being can survive?" In this

regard, I have championed the folding of the 3D space in a 4D way,

in analogy to the folding of a 2D paper plane, by an act in three dimensions.Topology and geometrical algebras are foundational to our existence, our existence. Without the

existence of these underlying topologies, we wouldn't even HAVE space. Of any kind. I think

that topological studies are as foundational as you can get. The rest of it is a mere reflection of

the underlying topology.This is being explored by several investigators, and it seems that this is

mine too. But astrophyscial space is flat & three D.

do-able. An additional investigation is going along the lines of the conformal

physics of Segal, and it is highly probable that these two courses of investigation

will coincide. In fact, they already have. But the confluence is rather unexpected.I will do justice to the best current source of these investigations, by not revealing

the name or the works, until this individual considers that the task has been

completed, and publishes. Although I understand what is being accomplished,

the mathematical skill required in this endeavor is way over my head.No, it is

__not__three D.Moving a mass accross a galaxy faster than c,It seems to me this breaks a conservative law.

How so?

You can't have a momentum in one direction that isgreater than the sum of all momenta in the universe.

What is the basis for such a statement?

Mach's principle is invalid, and relativity is only valid

to the boundary of light speed, and then, only for classical__mass__. FTL events can__not__involve relativity.There is no time paradox here, either. If we exceed light

speed, we dotravel backward in time.__not__If an assumption such as you have made above were true,

that it woud require an infinite amount of energy to attain light velocity,

wouldn't light, itself, be impossible?By definition of infinite energy?

__Fact__: Photons have a measurable

andamount of energy associated with them.__finite__an infinite__Not__

energy per photon.__And__they travel at the speed of light in the media.If it took an infinite energy to attain photons, photons could never exist.

Don't you see the paradox here?Infinite velocity means that we shall traverse an infinite distance

with no time elapsed. Any velocity which is less than infnite

shall involve time. But not time in the sense of relativity theory.That is, time has no relationship to light velocity, in these velocity domains

__between__infinite velocity and c velocity. This property should be found inherent

to the vaccum.I will leave you with the clue that this is not the only reality, nor is this the only dimension.

In the meanwhile, have a look at Tony Smith's website and his explorations of conformal

physics, and some very realistic and engineerable FTL engines, at:

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/SegalConf.html , and at the works of

Arkadiusz Jadczyk, at: http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/jadpub.htm

for some futher hints. And you might investigate a bit of Heim, while you're at it.

See: http://people.blinx.de/behemoth/protosimplex/px_heime.htm#Kindheit

as was suggested by EagleHawk and Berkant. Also, http://www.fuel2000.net/starsteps.htm

has some rather interesting points.Neil

- ----- Original Message -----
**From:**Robert Neil Boyd**Sent:**Wednesday, February 28, 2001 3:04 PM**Subject:**Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental questionHere is my question:What are the topological, and other, properties of the physical vacuum

which will make faster than light travel engineerable, and survivable?Taking this one step further, we should ask about the nature of light-speed. Thereare two things to address here: the context & content. And we should address these twoideas without any bias towards either. I.e., we need both to make meaningful statements.So, for clarity & further discussion we need to agree on what or how we define a contextthat allows us to make statements about "the speed of light". So, I'll propose my ideaand then you can see if you can poke holes in it.I would, first of all, suggest that any statements we make about the structure and contentof the universe be immediately verifiable. Implying that whatever elaborations (withinreason) we might make to our verification procedures will lead to some verifiablephenomena. I.e., rather than build theory on the interpretations of measurement results,we build on the implications of a measurement theory. Ok, there I said it, my bias istowards measurement theory :),Note that there is a "topological" (point set algebra) implementation of measurement theory( see for example: http://aris.ss.uci.edu/cogsci/personnel/narens/narens.html )But I think a category implementation is also possible and probably the better choice sinceit can model a universe of both discrete & continuous objects. I know very little about eithercategory theory, or psa, but this is the direction I find myself being pulled in. Someday I hopeto be able to discuss "the speed of light" with these tools, but for now there are things wecan discuss using the principle of verification. And besides, the statements we can makeat this level of detail are also more illuminating to lay people (the people who fund stuff like this)and students.Having said that, I'll propose a couple of definitions for "static" and "dynamic". And weuse these to discuss "the speed of light".static: that which does not change with respect to something else.dynamic: that which changes with respect to something else.Note that "something" should not be time. Obviously it can be but, I think that time, asit has been used, implies some context that nobody (it seems) understands. Whichwon't help us.Take "static length" for example. To show that a length is a static length I have to have"a prior" static length to compare it with -- not possible. Consequently I can onlycompare two lengths and determine that they are static only with respect to each other.Which implies that two lengths can be static with respect to each other and dynamicwith respect to other lengths. An interesting consequence of this view is that is can besaid that the universe is not expanding -- matter is shrinking. I.e., we just define theuniverse to be static and matter to be dynamic. I.e., the universe is static with respectto space & matter is static wrt to matter, but matter is dynamic wrt space.I could go on more about this, but, before I do I think I should let you respond.----- Original Message -----

How about back-tracking (back to the old drawing board?)and or step-wise re-finement?**From:**Robert Neil Boyd**Sent:**Sunday, February 25, 2001 6:55 PMOK.**Subject:**Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] The first fundamental questionIn many instances, we discover new things by

exploring uncharted domains. What domains

remain uncharted, regarding this topic?

Sounds good to me. Back to the drawing board. Assume nothing.

Start over. Then compare results to what has gone before. Jack!

I'm surprised at you! You're advocating empirical science! Oh,

what shall become of us? ;-)I'm an advocate of the scientific method. I think the first step is to observe, and if Iremember correctly, there are four others... hypothesize & test, revise and? I've forgotten now. what are the others?What is the origination of these various fields?

Now this is a fundamental question. Any ideas?Yes. The various forces have a purely topological origination.

I have mentioned this before on this forum, along with a few

supporting citations.I'm not sure I agree with you on this at the level of detail I'm talking about. If I understand itwell enough... doesn't topology represent fields as static structures? I'm afraid I just don't buyinto a simple static continuum. & let me give you some references that argue for a universeof multiple continua (continuums?)So, instead of exploring greater complexity, explore simplicities. This is where the laws of physics lies.

The truth is simple. The intellect is complicated, and wants to make everything else complicated.

Yep. I agree 100%.So, as you are perhaps pointing out, it's easy to have questions. It's not so

easy to answer all these questions in any unambiguous way. So let's confine

our search to field-type events which lead to net motions of mass.Why "motions of mass"? How about just motion (and distance)?

I answer the question with a question...Is there mass?i.e., Does anything weigh anything?

Why is that? What can we do about it?Weight requires a gravitational field. If we can find out how a GF is formed maybe there are somenew possibilities there?[...]

I don't know enough psa to even be dangerous. But, why a topological approach? Besidesheuristic reasoning?In this

regard, I have championed the folding of the 3D space in a 4D way,

in analogy to the folding of a 2D paper plane, by an act in three dimensions.Topology and geometrical algebras are foundational to our existence, our existence.

This is probably a semantic distinction, but I'd say that topology & algebra are languages we can use to represent thestructure & content of the universe. The existence and structure of the universe have never depended on any symbolsystem (our invention). But I agree that if the universe didn't have the structure and content that it does, which we candescribe with algebra & topology, we wouldn't be here. (Probably what you meant to say?)Without the

existence of these underlying topologies, we wouldn't even HAVE space. Of any kind. I think

that topological studies are as foundational as you can get. The rest of it is a mere reflection of

the underlying topology.This is being explored by several investigators, and it seems that this is

mine too. But astrophysical space is flat & three D.

do-able. An additional investigation is going along the lines of the conformal

physics of Segal, and it is highly probable that these two courses of investigation

will coincide. In fact, they already have. But the confluence is rather unexpected.I will do justice to the best current source of these investigations, by not revealing

the name or the works, until this individual considers that the task has been

completed, and publishes. Although I understand what is being accomplished,

the mathematical skill required in this endeavor is way over my head.No, it is

__not__three D.Moving a mass across a galaxy faster than c,It seems to me this breaks a conservative law.

How so?

The universe cannot have a net velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc.. If you sum over all dynamics wrt every possible frame

of reference the result must be 0. Take this sum and move*one*vector (any one) to the "0-side". The single vector mustalways be equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the other side. Move a second vector out of the sum & overto the other side. The sum of these two vectors must be equal & opposite to the rest of the universe. Now, I can't provethis but, I think that the velocity of a*single*object (ala Democritus) can only be the speed of light. I think, though, that I can provethat the sum of a single motion vector (constrained by all other motions) & a reference vector yields the Lorentztransform for the time coordinate. Wana see? :)You can't have a momentum in one direction that is greater than the sum of all momenta in the universe.What is the basis for such a statement?

Mach's principle is invalid, and relativity is only valid

to the boundary of light speed, and then, only for classical__mass__. FTL events can__not__involve relativity.1. Mach's principle is correct. It just needs to be updated. It needs to consider that the context of motionis larger today than it was in the 1800's.2. FTL phenomena can involve relativity, just not with the 1905/1915 assumptions Einstein had made.3. Don't assume that the universe is a container. (There is a reason for pursuing a background-freemetric.)There is no time paradox here, either. If we exceed light

speed, we dotravel backward in time.__not__If an assumption such as you have made above were true,

that it would require an infinite amount of energy to attain light velocity,

wouldn't light, itself, be impossible?Energy is not the constraint. Net motion is (non-clasical).By definition of infinite energy?

__Fact__: Photons have a measurable

andamount of energy associated with them.__finite__an infinite__Not__

energy per photon.__And__they travel at the speed of light in the media.If it took an infinite energy to attain photons, photons could never exist.

Don't you see the paradox here?There is no paradox. After a few more exchanges I think you'll understand why, or at leastwhy*I*think there is no paradox.Infinite velocity means that we shall traverse an infinite distance

with no time elapsed. Any velocity which is less than infnite

shall involve time. But not time in the sense of relativity theory.This sounds to me like you're confusing measurement, numbers & geometry.That is, time has no relationship to light velocity, in these velocity domains

__between__infinite velocity and c velocity. This property should be found inherent

to the vaccum.I'm not sure I follow...If objects are*not*point-like (as seems to be the case) as M-theory, or loop QG seem to say, then wecan ask how big these objects are? In 1944, in his book "The Evolution of Physics", Einstein hintedthat it is entirely possible that there is no distinguishable characteristic that we can use to say wherea particle stops & its field begins. I.e., it is conceivable that a particle/field is 'infinitely large" (meaningas large as the unbounded universe). if this is the case, then it is also conceivable that "instantaneous"action at a distance is possible -- so long as the net change in the universe is 0. So, it is evenconceivable that two identical objects might be able to exchange positions in the universe withoutviolating any of the laws of physics. FTL Teleportation?RegardsJack Martinelli