Russian Torsion Field Weapons?
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 01/20/05
- Next message: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: Operation Troll Shoulder 1/2/2005"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Coherence Force and Other Matters"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Russian Torsion Field Weapons?"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Russian Torsion Field Weapons?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:37:32 GMT
http://www.bizspirit.com/science/Sarfatti,%20Jack%20workshop.html
On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:45 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Memorandum for the record.
Subject: Russian, American, Brasilian Exotic Propulsion Physics Compared
http://qedcorp.com/SDI/RussianTorsion2.pdf
is now a 1 meg file still under construction - Poltorak's, Shipov's &
Brasilian's approaches all under study in relation to exotic propulsion
objective of ISSO Science & CIPA 1999-2000. R. Hammond's work in Fargo
SD will also be considered.
The key American torsion physicist I am aware of is Richard Hammond at
the college in Fargo. He had a US Navy contract that went "black" when
he began to confirm some of Akimov's torsion radiation allegations from
Moscow from former Soviet SDI physicists. Hammond came to talk to us at
ISSO in the summer of 2000 where I heard the story.
http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=756925
http://www.osti.gov/gpo/servlets/purl/756925-3hLHaz/webviewable/756925.pdf
go to p.13
Hagen Kleinert of the Free University in Berlin is the key German
physicist in the field I know of. One of his students came to ISSO also
at the same time.
Once we realize that the basic universal dynamical principle is local
gauge invariance with possible spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry,
it does not matter whether we are talking of internal space symmetries
(electroweak-strong ...) or spacetime symmetries (conformal group &
beyond). In all cases, the compensating gauge force field translates
into a geometrodynamic connection field for parallel transport of
tensors and spinors along world line paths. Covariance of the objective
tensor fields is the minimal coupling where the ordinary derivative is
replaced by the connection-dependent covariant derivative. According to
Mike Ibison, Puthoff's "metric engineering" strategy has none of this
structure that is battle tested. No wonder his theory does not agree
with experiments except in the three trivial classic tests.
Paul note in the Brazilian paper p. 7 bottom how to translate between
the gauge force representation and the geometrodynamic representation.
That the Lorentz group is not locally gauged in the 1916 GR is
explicitly spelled out on p. 8 e.g. eq. (55) where they say that the
Lorentz group is not a local dynamical symmetry but a kinematical
symmetry. The torsion-free Ricci rotation coefficients are not
independent fields as they are in Gennady Shipov's torsion field
extension of 1916 GR.
The key issue for C^3 -> W^3 is "torsion radiation" more controversial
than "gravity waves" (e.g. Ray Chiao's "Gravity Radio" efficient
transducer conjecture).
On Jan 18, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Gennady Shipov wrote from Moscow:
----- Original Message -----
From: Gennady Shipov
To: Jack Sarfatti
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:50 PM
Dear colleagues!
I congratulate you on the New 2005 declared by the United Nations as
the Year of Physics.
Hundred years ago A.Einstein has finished creation of the Special Theory
of Relativity which was the first generalization of Newton's mechanics.
Then the second has followed (the general theory of a relativity 1915)
and the third (quantum mechanics 1928) generalizations in which
A.Einstein took a part.
I suggest to count 2005 as the beginning of return to Descartes's ideas
which proved, that any movement is rotation. Comes the fourth
generalizations of Newton mechanics. The main post-Descartes now are
three researchers:
1. Roger Penrose (Oxford, England), put forward the Twistor Program.
This scientific program continues works of Heisenberg, considering
particles as rotating objects - Twistors.
2. Moshe Carmeli (Ben Gurion,Israel) which the first has introduced the
rotational metrics on the angular coordinates and has suggested
to introduce the Rotational Relativity.
3.Gennady Shipov (Moscow university, Russia), continuing work of A.
Einstein, R.Penrose and M.Carmeli. It has been shown, that the fourth
generalization of mechanics of Newton is achieved by localization [of
the gauge] of the group of Lorentz O(3,1) and allows to reduce all
movements to rotation. In the new mechanics named mechanics of
Descartes, the important roles of Torsion and Ricci fields are
displayed. For example, they can be used for vacuum teleportation.
Dear colleagues!
There are many experiments which specify necessity creations and
acceptance of a new scientific picture of the world. We shall make it in
2005.
Always yours,
Shipov Gennady.
Moscow
Earlier today on the American side:
I do agree with Hal Puthoff's statement today:
"My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as
providing the binding force, but the implications are the same. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 ."
Hal says Casimir force is the right idea. I say dark energy is the right
idea.
On Jan 18, 2005, at 12:06 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Hal Puthoff today responded to
In a message dated 1/18/2005 9:01:03 A.M. Central Standard Time,
garysbekkum@hotmail.com writes:
"The immediate issue that must be addressed is a "proof of concept" for the
use of clusters of electron charge held together by the dark energy, as
Rambaut's paper suggests the release of nuclear energy, perhaps even an
electronic nuclear device scaled to catastrophic thermonuclear energy
release. Such a "proof of concept" should also be considered highly
sensitive or even secret given the potential for proliferation should such
concepts come to fruition. This was the case, as I recall, for the proof of
concept of the original fission device."
"My approach considers Casimir vacuum energy rather than dark energy as
providing the binding force, but the implications are the same. See
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408114 .
Collegially,
Hal"
This proliferation of Hal's fundamental misunderstanding of the real
problem here by journalists like Nick Cook and others is dangerous. I am
not attacking Hal here. He is not alone in making this error. Clarity of
thinking is my goal here.
The Casimir force is much too weak. FORGET IT! The dark energy is zero
point energy! The zero point energy's electrical effect in the Casimir
force ~ hcA/d^4 is really tapping only the mutual induced electric
dipole energy. The gravity influence of this zero point energy is a
completely different physics coming from Einstein's battle-tested
Guv + /\zpfguv ~ 0
on a much more powerful scale.
Hal & Co have completely mis-identified the qualitative nature of the
phenomenon.
On Jan 18, 2005, at 5:01 AM, Paul J. Werbos, Dr. wrote:
Hi, Jack!
...
In the previous email, I gently expressed some worry about your theory
of gravity.
If you require that the electron have a radius of 10**-13 cm, and if the
scattering
data put an upper limit of 10**-18, this suggests a need either to
restructure
the model or parameters -- or else a whole lot of explaining, a lot more
than that
last email you sent us. I understand that the mainstream 10**-18 view is
not sancrosanct... but I wouldn't throw it out just on faith or personal
authority.
No I am not doing anything of the kind. You (and probably others not
just you :-)) do not understand my really NOVEL basic physical idea
(conjecture) here of MICRO space warping. The "size" of the electron is
not FIXED. It depends on how it is observed. It SHRINKS from variable
space warping that is a function of the momentum transfer of the virtual
photon probe. At low energy of chemistry and atomic physics it is 10^-13
cm with a plasma cloud reaching out to 10^-11 cm. But has you kick it
with higher energy it SHRINKS down to 10^-18 cm! This is explained by
Kip Thorne in his "Black Holes and Space Warps". The ratio of
circumference C to physical Bohm hidden variable radius e^2/mc^2 ~
10^-13 cm shrinks with increasing scattering momentum transfer p. The
effective size of the electron to the virtual photon probe is
(neglecting spin & charge - really need to use A. Burinski's Kerr-Newman
micro-geon model) is roughly
C ~ (1 - (8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h))^1/2(e^2/mc^2)
Note, that to get apparent measured scattering size = 0,
i.e. a "point"
(8pi/3)/\zpf(e^2/mc^2)^3(p/h) = 1
i.e. ~ 10/\zpf 10^-39 10^18 ~ 10^-22/\zpf = 1
/\zpf = (h/mc)^-2 ~ 10^22 cm^-2
That is, we have the beautifully consistent result that the plasma cloud
of virtual electron-positron pairs (e+e-) at h/mc ~ 10^-11 cm is
precisely what is needed to make the electron (also the quark) look like
a "point particle" at scattering momentum transfers p ~ h/10^-18 cm,
where the negative zero point energy density of the virtual e+e- plasma
cloud is ~ (string tension)/\zpf ~ (c^4/G)/\zpf ~ 10^19Gev 1033 cm^-1
10^22 cm^-2 ~ -10^74 ergs/cc. But w = -1, there is equal and opposite
positive quantum pressure. However the gravity influence of the ZPF is
(energy density)(1 + 3w)
So this is
c^4/\zpf = G*(energy density)
10^42 10^22 10^-74 ~ 10^-10 ~ G* ~ G in cgs units.
That is G stays invariant, but the zero point energy density is large
enough to stabilize the extended electron Bohm hidden variable Wheeler
micro-geon "Mass without mass". Of course, if G* >> G from extra space
dimensions, then the required zero point energy density is reduced.
But the issue requires some precision in any case. The word "radius" is
actually ambiguous, dangerously so -- and that might be our problem
here. Maybe.
- Next message: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: Operation Troll Shoulder 1/2/2005"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Coherence Force and Other Matters"
- Next in thread: Uncle Al: "Re: Russian Torsion Field Weapons?"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Russian Torsion Field Weapons?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
