SarfattiScienceSeminars : Messages : 14867-14896 of 14896

new slides

On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:45 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The spin 1 boson fields of the fundamental electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions are induced by light cone causality appended to the approximate compact U1xSU2xSU3 internal symmetries of the lepton and quark spin 1/2 fermion fields generated by 12 charges.

Two events outside each other’s light cones must be able to make independent internal symmetry frame transformations on the lepton-quark fields while keeping their total dynamical action invariant in accord with the Action Principle.

Einstein’s 1915 gravitational field can be understood in exactly the same way except we use the non-compact translation space-time symmetry group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of all the matter fields. The basic gravity field is the spin 1 tetrad field not the spin 2 metric field that is a pair correlation quadratic in the tetrads as demanded by the Einstein Equivalence Principle.

slide from my GR lectures under construction

1 of 1 File(s)

StarGate2010v2.pdf

#14895

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:11 am
Subject: Dr. Quantum: [jcs-online] Has Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR been falsified?

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jonathan Edwards <jo.edwards@...>
Date: December 18, 2009 2:59:22 AM PST
To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [jcs-online] Has Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR been falsified?
Reply-To: jcs-online@yahoogroups.com

Dear Christopher,
You ask:

> What precisely does a quantum mechanical model of resonance in
> microtubules promise to tell us about consciousness? ... How does
> this constitute (or contribute to) an explanation of consciousness;
> its origin, purpose, uses, potential, or even its true phenomenal
> parameters?

It provides a basis for understanding the amazing, but finite,
richness of actuality. It provides a circumscribed spatiotemporal
domain for an occasion in which potentiality is actualised - and as
such makes sense of modern physics. It allows consciousness to be an
integral part of the laws of physics so there is no issue of origin
any more than origin of mass or charge. Purpose, uses and potential
are folklore pseudodynamic concepts based on a failure to grasp the
implications of determinacy. The biological advantage of our
particular consciousness will be commensurate with the dynamic
properties of the associated occasions. Nothing more needs to be
explained. The relationship between the dynamics and the phenomenal
aspects are so far very hard to pin down but if we know the dynamic
domain of an occasion of human experience then we have somewhere to
start. All very straightforward.

> Awareness and orientational concepts such as self/world divisions
> are also manifest in un-brained organisms and occur at the level of
> cells, social groups, and interspecies interactions

How does an interspecies interaction have a concept? What you mean is
that when you think about these things you get these concepts popping
up in your occasions of experience.

> How does ... Orch OR theory add to an understanding of ... the
> role of consciousness in activating intentional awareness; its role
> in organizing experience, categorizing knowledge, producing (or
> even recognizing) meaning, and so on?

It provides a domain within which to try and understand these
relations. I am not sure it is useful to say that consciousness has a
role because 'consciousness' is the existence of the actuality rather
than the dynamics that determine the actuality. What we want to know
is how the dynamics, described in standard physical law terms
correlate with aspects of meaning. We are not looking to explain why
there is meaning - complementarity points out that this is an empty
quest. No other theory does any better on that. All we need is a
dynamic domain within which to look for correlations.

My reaction to the Reimers paper is that the attempt to knock down
what is a straw man version of Orch OR they have usefully clarified
some of the possibilities relating to coherence in the superposition
sense in Frohlich modes. It does seem that Johnjoe has conflated
coherence in the superposition sense with coherence in the phase
correlation sense and I am unclear whether or not Reimers is really
clear on this. There also seems to be an assumption in all these 'QM
is impossible' arguments that superposition must relate to primary
electron modes with very rapid decoherence properties. As I
understand it, both Stuart and I are considering weaker higher order
modes. Trillions of particles being in superposition over millimetres
is really no big deal for phononic modes as far as I can see. It is
trivial for light, as indicated in my example earlier.

Best wishes

Jo

#14894

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:45 pm
Subject: Local Gauge Induction of Interactions, Light Cone Causality & Spin of the Gravity Field

jacobsarfatti

Offline

The spin 1 boson fields of the fundamental electromagnetic-weak-strong interactions are induced by light cone causality appended to the approximate compact U1xSU2xSU3 internal symmetries of the lepton and quark spin 1/2 fermion fields generated by 12 charges.

Two events outside each other’s light cones must be able to make independent internal symmetry frame transformations on the lepton-quark fields while keeping their total dynamical action invariant in accord with the Action Principle.

Einstein’s 1915 gravitational field can be understood in exactly the same way except we use the non-compact translation space-time symmetry group T4 generated by the total energy-momentum of all the matter fields. The basic gravity field is the spin 1 tetrad field not the spin 2 metric field that is a pair correlation quadratic in the tetrads as demanded by the Einstein Equivalence Principle.

slide from my GR lectures under construction

#14893

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:34 pm
Subject: Sean Carroll's & Feynman's therapy for OCD MPD relativity cranks, crackpots & blockheads confused on "acceleration" in GR

jacobsarfatti

Offline

JACK SARFATTI wrote:

under construction power point

Zielinski's naive "common sense" confusion on the shift in meaning of the idea of acceleration in the paradigm shift from Newtonian Euclidean geometry to Einsteinian Non-Euclidean geometry is not limited to him alone, but is rampant among some philosophers of science, space engineers seeking exotic propulsion and even some particle physicists who never seriously thought about the conceptual foundations of Einstein's General Relativity and so I stress this important change of perspective from the very beginning.

On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

You are still spewing nonsense. On p 18 you have

You are ignoring the geometric contributions to the connection coefficients G^u_rs, which in
GR are responsible for the objective geometric deformation of the SR geodesics in the presence
of a gravitational source.

A mere frame transformation cannot alter the geometric relationships between test particle
geodesics and the world line of a gravitational source.

Dear Z of course it does not alter the intrinsic tensor/spinor geometric relationships and nothing I say here says it does - another Red Herring.

You miss the "elegant truths of Einstein's theory ... obscured by [your] accumulation of certain pre-relativity notions which, though very useful, must first be discaded in order to appreciate the world according to GR .... So we will set about learning the deeper story by gradually stripping away the layers of useful but misleading Newtonian intuition." p. 3 Sean Carroll's Cal Tech/University of Chicago textbook "Spacetime and Geometry"

Z you have never grokked that standing still here on Earth getting varicose veins comes from the quantum electrical force of the Earth's rigid material pushing up on us preventing us from free-floating weightless on time like geodesics of the Earth's gravity curvature field. Our true tensor 4-acceleration standing still in the curvature field is non-zero. The true acceleration of Baron Munchausen, ignoring air friction is zero. Until you understand that you do not understand Einstein's theory and all of your objections to it are clueless crackpottery.

The Baron on parabolic geodesic orbit has zero true acceleration in curved space-time even though it has relative kinematic acceleration to the surface of Earth - it is the surface of rigid Earth that truly accelerated up to the Baron. This makes no sense to Z's limited mind. He considers this to be "insane."

Once you choose a set of observers

e.g. static observers

you get a metric representation guv of the invariant ds^2

and the connection field in that representation

e.g. static LNIFs (blasting rockets below)

SSS vacuum

goo = - 1/grr = 1 - 2m/r

pictured in Hawking's Fig 1.11 below

There is no such thing as the geometric contribution to the connection apart from the torsion tensor in Einstein-Cartan theory etc.

This is precisely where you fail to understand GR and it is precisely why your work stinks and fits all of Feynman's 1 to 6 below.

You Z miss the "elegant truths of Einstein's theory ... obscured by the accumulation of certain pre-relativity notions which, though very useful, must first be discaded in order to appreciate the world according to GR .... So we will set about learning the deeper story by gradually stripping away the layers of useful but misleading Newtonian intuition." p. 3 Sean Carroll's Cal Tech/University of Chicago textbook "Spacetime and Geometry"

#14892

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:22 am
Subject: Anatomy of a Crackpot Mind ;-)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

LOL Z your insane lack of logic is truly amazing.

On Dec 20, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Z what pisses me off about u is how arrogant and smug u r when in fact u r so cluelessly stupid about this.

In “Universe in a Nutshell” Hawking wrote (Fig 1.11):

“This equivalence between gravity and acceleration didn’t seem to work for a round earth - people on opposite sides of the Earth would have to be accelerating away from each other but staying at constant distance from each other. Einstein [realized] that the equivalence would work if spacetime were curved and not flat, as had been assumed hitherto.”

To any reasonably sane person this would mean that a way would have to be found to avoid such an absurdity.

Z it seems that u cannot read plain English. Your idea of sanity is that of the "Victorian Station Master" (Colin Bennett).

"Einstein [realized] that the equivalence would work if spacetime were curved and not flat, as had been assumed hitherto.” (Hawking)

But not to you Jack. To you it means the exact opposite -- that this was not part of the *problem*, but part of the
solution!

Autistic polemic.

Which I can clearly see is the exact opposite of what Hawking is saying in his book.

I diagnose *severe dyslexia*, complicated by symptoms of advanced *dementia praecox*.

In "SpaceTime and Geometry" p.2 Sean Carroll wrote:

“Gravity is not actually a ‘force,’ … A charged particle in an electric field feels an acceleration … in contrast a particle in a gravitational field moves along a [geodesic] path that is the closest thing there is to a straight [world] line [in 4D space-time]. Such particles do not feel acceleration; they are freely-falling. … think of a ball flying through the air as being more truly ‘unaccelerated’ than one sitting on a table; the one sitting at a table is being deflected away from the geodesic it would like to be on (which is why we feel a force on our feet as we stand on Earth.)”

And who do you suppose disagrees with this? How do you think this conflicts with what I've been saying?

You deny that the ball sitting on the table is the one truly accelerating and that the ball on the parabolic free-fall orbit is not truly accelerating. You say the ball on the table is not truly accelerating and the ball on the freely-falling path is. The latter is Newton's "common sense" POV in flat spacetime. The former is Einstein's curved spacetime POV.

The operational test is g-force. Any object registering g-force is truly accelerating - being pushed off a geodesic by a non-gravity force.

In my argument I refer to the free fall trajectories -- the geodesics!

Jack, I believe you've lost your marbles.

<Wackie Jackie.jpg>

I think Nick was right -- you need professional help.

Z.

Again Feynman's 1 to 6 below - all of them apply to your bogus ideas on the theory of relativity

On Dec 20, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack, I just can't take you seriously on this subject.

Your crackpot idea that according to GR opposite sides of the Earth are constantly accelerating away from
one another is a bad joke. You are insulting Hawking by attributing this lunatic idea to him.

I've shown you exactly where you have your wires crossed. What you do about it, if anything, is up to you .

Z.

JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Huh? Maybe Z understands u? Just joking since Z understands nothing about relativity.

This situation is made very clear in Hawking's Fig 1.11 all u Pauls need to have your heads examined by Kit Green! ;-)

PS of course LNIF's static or no accelerate in every frame - their covariant acceleration is a tensor! Another Red Herring as if I said different, which I never did. Z makes up lies to suit his delusionary agenda. He cannot discriminate polemics from physics.

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Paul Murad wrote:

Guys:

And what about anti-nodal effects on the surface of the Earth? If this happens, then why would anyone assume the geodesics are different on the other side of the Earth....

Ufoguy...

--- On Sun, 12/20/09, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
Subject: Re: last remark to Z
To: "JACK SARFATTI" <sarfatti@...>

I meant:

"Then the *dynamical* acceleration relative to the geodesics can be different on opposite sides of the Earth,
even while kinematically the earthbound observers' trajectories are both completely static and thus co-accelerating
*in every kinematical frame*."

Paul Zielinski wrote:

Hawking is talking here about static LNIFs as natural choices of kinematical reference frame for observers on the
Earth's surface. To reduce gravitational attraction to frame acceleration, the choice of kinematical frame would have
to be different on opposite sides of the Earth, which presented a conundrum to Einstein which he felt he was able to
resolve by invoking curved spacetime. Then the *dynamical* acceleration relative to the geodesics can be different
on opposite sides of the Earth, even while kinematically the earthbound observers' reference frames are both
completely static and thus co-accelerating *in every kinematical frame*.

#14891

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Mon Dec 21, 2009 1:04 am
Subject: Re: last remark to Z

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Z what pisses me off about u is how arrogant and smug u r when in fact u r so cluelessly stupid about this.

In “Universe in a Nutshell” Hawking wrote (Fig 1.11):

“This equivalence between gravity and acceleration didn’t seem to work for a round earth - people on opposite sides of the Earth would have to be accelerating away from each other but staying at constant distance from each other. Einstein [realized] that the equivalence would work if spacetime were curved and not flat, as had been assumed hitherto.”

In "SpaceTime and Geometry" p.2 Sean Carroll wrote:

“Gravity is not actually a ‘force,’ … A charged particle in an electric field feels an acceleration … in contrast a particle in a gravitational field moves along a [geodesic] path that is the closest thing there is to a straight [world] line [in 4D space-time]. Such particles do not feel acceleration; they are freely-falling. … think of a ball flying through the air as being more truly ‘unaccelerated’ than one sitting on a table; the one sitting at a table is being deflected away from the geodesic it would like to be on (which is why we feel a force on our feet as we stand on Earth.)”

Again Feynman's 1 to 6 below - all of them apply to your bogus ideas on the theory of relativity

On Dec 20, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Jack, I just can't take you seriously on this subject.

Your crackpot idea that according to GR opposite sides of the Earth are constantly accelerating away from
one another is a bad joke. You are insulting Hawking by attributing this lunatic idea to him.

I've shown you exactly where you have your wires crossed. What you do about it, if anything, is up to you .

Z.

JACK SARFATTI wrote:
Huh? Maybe Z understands u? Just joking since Z understands nothing about relativity.

This situation is made very clear in Hawking's Fig 1.11 all u Pauls need to have your heads examined by Kit Green! ;-)

PS of course LNIF's static or no accelerate in every frame - their covariant acceleration is a tensor! Another Red Herring as if I said different, which I never did. Z makes up lies to suit his delusionary agenda. He cannot discriminate polemics from physics.

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

On Dec 20, 2009, at 11:32 AM, Paul Murad wrote:

Guys:

And what about anti-nodal effects on the surface of the Earth? If this happens, then why would anyone assume the geodesics are different on the other side of the Earth....

Ufoguy...

--- On Sun, 12/20/09, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
Subject: Re: last remark to Z
To: "JACK SARFATTI" <sarfatti@...>

I meant:

"Then the *dynamical* acceleration relative to the geodesics can be different on opposite sides of the Earth,
even while kinematically the earthbound observers' trajectories are both completely static and thus co-accelerating
*in every kinematical frame*."

Paul Zielinski wrote:

Hawking is talking here about static LNIFs as natural choices of kinematical reference frame for observers on the
Earth's surface. To reduce gravitational attraction to frame acceleration, the choice of kinematical frame would have
to be different on opposite sides of the Earth, which presented a conundrum to Einstein which he felt he was able to
resolve by invoking curved spacetime. Then the *dynamical* acceleration relative to the geodesics can be different
on opposite sides of the Earth, even while kinematically the earthbound observers' reference frames are both
completely static and thus co-accelerating *in every kinematical frame*.

#14890

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:19 am
Subject: Fwd: Einstein's GR for that Really Dumb Z ;-)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: December 20, 2009 4:18:27 PM PST
To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

Subject: Einstein's GR for that Really Dumb Z ;-)

under construction

1 of 1 File(s)

GRforDumbZ1.pdf

#14889

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:03 pm
Subject: Re: Ingo Swann in Sarfatti's North Beach 1977 ;-) Dr. Quantum

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Yes indeed.

On Dec 20, 2009, at 10:16 AM, lensman@... wrote:

I have an interesting story that involved Ingo Swann. I was living in North Beach in late 1977 above the famous Saloon, and my room overlooked Grant Avenue directly above the bar. Jack's bother Mike had recently purchased one of the very first commercially available helium neon lasers. Back at that time, a half milliwatt laser consisted of a rectangular aluminum housing around 20" in length and around 5" in diameter, which ran off of an AC plug -- not your pinky sized laser pointer. Lasers were still new and very exotic. It was early evening, and the sun was going down. I decided to have a little fun with some of the patrons of the Saloon as they were entering and exiting the bar. I would point the laser down on the sidewalk near their feet, which would immediately result in them pointing down at the bright spot, sometimes trying to stomp on it, while looking around to see where it might be coming from. On this particular evening, there were two or three people who were out front while I was doing this, and it was obvious this was blowing their minds. I played with the folks for a good ten minutes before they finally left the scene. Years later I found out that one of those people was Ingo Swann, and that his mind was blown so much by this incident that he took to wearing a bright red pendant around his neck, apparently in remembrance of this event. I believe Bob Jones has more information on this incident.

Biomind Superpowers
Provides an archive of remote viewing information, articles, and an online book by Ingo Swann.
www.biomindsuperpowers.com/ - Cached - Similar -

Superpowers of the Human Biomind
The Ingo Swann Database Regarding the Biomind Superpowers. Here you'll find a series of statements, ... The Ingo Swann Role of Honor for Remote Viewing ...
www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/Superpowers.html - Cached - Similar -
Show more results from www.biomindsuperpowers.com

Ingo Swann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ingo Swann (born Ingo Douglas Swan on 09/14/1933 in Telluride, CO) is an artist and author, best known for his work as a co-creator (according to his ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann - Cached -
Image results for ingo swann
- Report images
Video results for ingo swann
Remote Viewing Program - Ingo Swann Part 1
10 min - Jun 14, 2007
www.youtube.com
Ingo Swann
1 min 55 sec - Oct 10, 2006
www.youtube.com
Books by Ingo Swann
The Great Apparitions of Mary: An Examination ... - 1996 - 239 pages
To Kiss Earth Good bye - 1975 - 260 pages
Purple Fables quartet - 1994 - 98 pages
books.google.com - More book results »

Ingo Swann Gets Feedback Regarding Naked Men on - AlienZoo: Believe*
Ingo Swann gets feedback regarding naked men on the moon. Remote viewer sees more than a "man in the moon" 4/27/2000 ...
archive.alienzoo.com/conspiracytheory/ingoswann.html - Cached - Similar -

Ingo Swann Remote Views a UFO « Reality Uncovered
On his website, www.biomindsuperpowers.com, Ingo Swann discussed that incident, which allegedly occurred between 1975 and 1976 when he was asked to remote ...
www.realityuncovered.net › blog - Cached - Similar -

Ingo Swann is a natural psychic, creator of Coordinate Remote ...
Ingo Swann, discoverer of the breakthrough techniques that allowed the military to train officers to be more accurate than the best natural psychics, ...
www.remoteviewer.org/remoteviewing/swann.htm - Cached - Similar -

Ingo Swann on CIA/ESP connection
1 December 1995 Statement by Ingo Swann on Remote Viewing I refer to: 1- CIA Public Affairs Bureau release of a statement concerning Remote Viewing dated 6 ...
www.mindspring.com/~txporter/iswann.htm - Cached - Similar -

Learn Remote Viewing with Ingo Swann — Learn Remote Viewing
Jun 26, 2009 ... I'd love to share with you a story I recently read about their experience learning remote viewing with the legendary Ingo Swann. ...
blog.learnremoteviewing.com/.../learn-remote-viewing-ingo-swann/ -Cached - Similar -

Timeline results for ingo swann

1972	Dr. Carole Silfen performed a test with Ingo Swann where the contents of a rather large black box had to be viewed and drawn. As outlined in the report ... www.astralvoyage.com
1973	Project SCANATE began on May 29, 1973, when Ingo Swann was utilized for the first of a series of remote viewing sessions that went on for two ... books.google.com

More timeline results »

On Dec 19, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org wrote:

A few sources believe they know the 'real' Mr. Axelrod who allegedly visited SRI. Axelrod first appeared at the end of the first phase of SRI research, in March 1975.

I am less interested in "data" than the veracity or otherwise of the existence of "Axelrod" ...

The record also shows the involvement of no less than three offices from CIA, several military services including an offer from US Navy to act as a cut out for CIA, and at least one agency whose identity remains redacted.

Is Russell's comment based on opinion or confidence?

Btw Russell should know I was made aware of their 'research' as of July 1974.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:56:20
To: Russell Targ<radiant@...>

Subject: Re: Ingo Swann

10-4 :-)
On Dec 19, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Russell Targ wrote:

Ingo is a very nice man.
He is also very psychic.
And he is a science fiction writer.
/Penetration/ isn't data.
Yours in science,
Russell

JACK SARFATTI wrote:
ok yes I know

On Dec 19, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org <http://STARpod.org> wrote:

According to Ingo's book Penetration, he was led to believe there were ETs on the moon, and their avatars in human form here on Earth. To add weight to this, a black operation took him to eye witness a UFO in Alaska near the Arctic Circle. The UFO fired lasers into the location where they were situated, bursting Pine trees and sending them running. The object was described as diamond-triangular shaped and cloaked in red and purple lightning. It appeared out of thin air and grew in size as it sat in a stationary location above a lake.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@... <mailto:sarfatti@...>>
*Date: *Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:47:56 -0800
*To: *<garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*
*
*Subject: *Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last SERPO?

On Dec 19, 2009, at 5:39 PM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org <http://STARpod.org/> wrote:

My one and only point is this story was spreading by word of mouth long before the Internet.

And then we have Ingo Swann's bizarre ET tale.

Which one?

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: * JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@... <mailto:sarfatti@...>>
*Date: *Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:46:47 -0800
*To: *<garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*
*
*Subject: *Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last SERPO?

details about SARGE and what he told u are sadly lacking no stamp of authenticity - nothing that would amaze me
no sweet smell of truth
only the stink
On Dec 19, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org <http://STARpod.org/> wrote:

I agree with Colin, with the caveat that SARGE told me about all of this in 1983, long before Collins and company, UFO cover-up live, Exempt from Disclosure, and SERPO.

So the meme has been around for quite some time before the Internet.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *COLIN BENNET <sharkley1@... <mailto:sharkley1@...>>
*Date: *Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:23:44 +0000 (GMT)
*To: *JACK SARFATTI<sarfatti@... <mailto:sarfatti@...>>; Gary S. Bekkum<garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*
*
*Subject: *Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last SERPO?

SERPO is nothing more or less than viral meme-modelling. I discussed the technique in "Meme Wars: We have an Agenda." As an essay in Fortean story-technology works, Meme Wars was published in UF0 Magazine, later republished under the same title in Reality Uncovered. The original SERPO mythology was launched in part by our old friends Jerry Pippin, Robert Collins, and that legendary conman Bill Ryan, in association with such nightmare freaks as Dan Burische.
There's plenty of this stuff on the Web - There's Michael Horn, Alfred Webre, and Hoagland, for instance, for whom various kinds of extraterrestrial aliens are as local and as common as the morning milk-man. Salla's Exopolitical movement of course is hard at it manufacturing alien stories, and the good Dr. Boylan is now offering tours of Africa no less, in the company of his extraterrestrial friends from the planet Altimaria.
For some reason there appears to be plenty of money involved in this SERPO re-launch. On cue, the good Victor Martinez has taken recently to plastering SERPO tales all over the place.
As I point out in my Meme Wars article, the technique of viral modelling is largely based upon Borges' story "Tlon Uqbar Orbis Tertius" (in the collection "Labyrinths"). The principle of what I call story-technology is based upon the "factional" idea that parts of things imagined appear in what we tentatively call the "real world," see my article for Paranoia magazine entitled "The Alien is under Construction" in which imagined elements are seen as no-carbon life-forms (such as information systems, which are pure digital abstract architecture).
The same technique existed long before digital technology, witness Orson Wells' film treatment of H.G. Wells story, We cannot resist the idea here that the "Martians" were almost on the verge of semi-autonomous or "actual" creation, or at least parts of them were.

As regards memology, the modelling elements are often multi-media, and the technical skill shown is not to be underestimated. In the Caret case there is a radio interview, a text, still pictures and a video. I showed that the still photographs were fractal in construction.
All this of course would be nothing more than good semi-fraudulent sci-fi fun were it not that the core of Web Theory is based upon such ideas. Given the power of the computer, these networks of engineered suggestions represent a power far greater than that of conventional media.

SERPO revived is therefore politically suspicious. The power brokers have maybe got onto a much richer source of power than the recent Copenhagen pony-and-trap fracas, reminiscent of the politics of 1900 than 2010

This multi-media theory has of course all kinds of quantum analogies. It would be a nice quantum idea in itself to suggest that quantum mechanics and New Media power are developing together in quantum symbiosis in the manner of Escher's hands.
But whether Max Planck would be pleased is quite another matter!
Colin Bennett
Author, London
www.combat-diaries.co.uk <http://www.combat-diaries.co.uk/>
Editor, The New Fortean Times

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@... <mailto:sarfatti@...>>
*To:* Gary S. Bekkum <garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*
**Sent:* Saturday, 19 December, 2009 4:10:26
*Subject:* Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last SERPO?

provide more details
God is in the details
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

The story about ET and USAF was actually conveyed to me in 1983; at the time I was told the interaction between USAF and ETs was actually taking place at one (long ago forgotten) AF base.
Since "Sarge" was not related to Collins & company or any known players (he was about 25 years old at the time) I am now left wondering who/what/why ... since I blew the whole story off at the time thinking it was too crazy to be true.

The above was NOT facetious. Gary S Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org <http://STARpod.org/>
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

http://twitter.com/gary_s_bekkum

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/

garysbekkum@... <mailto:garysbekkum@...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* d14947 <d14947@... <mailto:d14947@...>>
*To:* Gary S. Bekkum <garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*Cc:* JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@... <mailto:sarfatti@...>>
*Sent:* Fri, December 18, 2009 9:33:22 PM
*Subject:* Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last SERPO?

No! You need to make that more clear!

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Gary S. Bekkum <garybekkum@... <mailto:garybekkum@...>> wrote:

EBEN tech transfer ... ;-)

   Stability of the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne Wormhole

D.I. Novikov
<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Novikov_D/0/1/0/all/0/1>, A.G.
Doroshkevich
<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Doroshkevich_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>, I.D.
Novikov
<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Novikov_I/0/1/0/all/0/1>, A.A.
Shatskiy
<http://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Shatskiy_A/0/1/0/all/0/1>
(*Submitted on 23 Nov 2009*)

     The stability of one type of the static
     Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormholes is considered.
     These wormholes filled with radial magnetic field and
     phantom dust with a negative energy density.

     http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.4456v1

      Gary S Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org <http://STARpod.org/>
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

http://twitter.com/gary_s_bekkum

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/

garysbekkum@... <mailto:garysbekkum@...>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* d14947 <d14947@... <mailto:d14947@...>>
*To:* JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...
<mailto:sarfatti@...>>
*Cc:* Gary S.Bekkum <garybekkum@...
<mailto:garybekkum@...>>
*Sent:* Fri, December 18, 2009 9:24:30 PM

*Subject:* Re: New improved SERPO! EBEN better than the last
SERPO?

What BS! Take this to Crapenhagen where they need a good laugh

#14888

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:31 pm
Subject: Persinger's telepathy experiment, Valentini's signal nonlocality violation of QM (Dr. Quantum)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

re: http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/

You are quite right that the details are important here.

1) the magnetic fields at each brain must not overlap, must not influence each
other.

2) the subjects cannot be connected by signals from the computer link

3) the response of the receiver brain must not be delayed by any classical
signal time appropriate to the actual total experimental arrangement.

4) This is not a micro-quantum entanglement phenomenon with e.g. photon pair
states. The human mind field is a macroquantum coherent ground state order
parameter of some boson collective mode in the brain. If Persinger's experiment
holds up then it is showing signal nonlocality between the two brain order
parameters. A detailed model of that does not yet exist to my knowledge.
Necessity will be the mother of invention but first we must see if the report is
real - as you say.

Adding delay lines in the computer link would help there.

On Dec 20, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Ye olde Facebook wrote:

> Nicole Tedesco flapped gums 'bout yours recent Tales
>
> I would have to see the experimental set up in greater detail but I am failing
to see how entanglement would come into play in Persinger's experiment.  I can
understand a single brain modulating the entire magnetic field and in turn
inducing similar (perhaps complementary phase) changes in the other brain--which
of course would happen at light speed.  A simple modulation/induction cycle. 
While this is cool by itself, I don't see where entangled anything comes in to
the picture?  What am I missing?  What pairs of somethings are being created
from a single source, or induced (e.g., condensate) or otherwise distilled?
>
>
> T' spy on all th' parrots scrabblin' at th' door, stab the link below:
>
http://www.facebook.com/n/?%2Fprofile.php&v=feed&story_fbid=214448570945&id=7175\
52322&mid=197e102G2ac4fac2G442dd90G36
>
> Thank ye,
> Ye Olde Facebook Master Crew
>
> ___
> T'is scrawl be intended fer adastra1@.... If ye want to sanction which
e-bottles ye get from ye olde Facebook, stab:
>
http://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php?notifications=1&md=ZmVlZF9jb21tZW50O2Zyb\
209MTY4NDM0MjcxNTt1aWQ9NzE3NTUyMzIyO293bmVyPTcxNzU1MjMyMjtvaWQ9MjE0NDQ4NTcwOTQ1O\
3RvPTcxNzU1MjMyMg==
> Ye olde Facebook's caverns are t' be discovered at 1601 S. California Ave.,
Palo Alto, CA 94304.
>

#14887

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:55 am
Subject: Re: Gl ( 4 , R ) - response from Carlos

jacobsarfatti

Offline

U(4) is similar to GL(4,C)

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Jack :

Thanks for your mail. The article can be found in

http://vixra.org/abs/0912.0039

About your questions

J : It looks to me as though your theory is basically a local gauge theory of GL(4,R)?

C : It looks more like U ( 4 ) gauge theory. Recall that Gl ( 4, R ) does not admit finite dimensional spinorial representations but infinite dimensional ones.

J : My model of emergent gravity only has the 3rd & 5th terms of your more general (4) because you use a larger spacetime group I was hoping to do later on

C : okay

J : Also u get the internal symmetries from the larger spacetime group similar to the claims of string theorists re: Calabi-Yau fiber space.

C : okay

J : I relate the gravity gauge potentials to multi-valued (H. Kleinert) Goldstone phases of the post-inflation vacuum condensate field - so I suppose that can be done for your extra terms as well.

C : I have seen some chapters of Kleinert's book. I guess one could do what you suggest.

J : So you have a new parity-violating? contribution to the tetrads in f^au

C : f^a_u couples to the generator

Gamma_a Gamma_5

of the Clifford algebra. When the index a = spacelike, the latter generator
does *not* change sign under Parity since an even product of minuses gives you a plus sign. However, when the index a = timelike , the latter generator does change sign under Parity.

J : and you have Higgs spin 0 fields au & bu?

C : yes

J : I have to rethink what Lorentz group spin of the spin connection is - it's not an antisymmetric Lorentz group tensor - it has the inhomogeneous term, but it is bilinear in the spin 1 tetrads & their gradients in the zero torsion sector, so maybe it has spin2, spin 1 & spin 0 pieces?

C : Here you have torsion terms.

Best wishes

Carlos

#14886

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:49 am
Subject: Re: Valentini's signal nonlocality seen in Dr. Michael Persinger Telepathy Link in Lab Expt?

adastra1@...

If this report is accurate and replicated - it's a major breakthrough and is strong evidence for my idea about the physical nature of consciousness.

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:15 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

This is more than just quantum theory. This is Antony Valentini's signal nonlocality violating quantum theory IF the brain change in the "receiver" is seen locally as a coherent signal not random noise. In quantum theory, each end locally is random noise you only see the pattern in the correlation done after the fact.

Begin forwarded message:

From: antigray@...
Date: December 19, 2009 9:33:01 PM PST
To: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: UFOpro@yahoogroups.com, adastra1@...
Subject: “God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Exp

“God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments

December 16th, 2009 alex Neuroscience Researcher and Laurentian University professor, Dr. Michael Persinger, demonstrates telepathy under laboratory conditions.
<Untitled01.jpeg> <Untitled02.jpeg>
Claims of telepathy, ESP and other psi phenomena are a mainstay of popular culture but taboo in neuroscience research circles. Fortunately, Dr. Michael Persinger of Canada’s Laurentian University has never been afraid to venture where other researchers fear to go. In the 1980’s Persinger made headlines with his “God Helmet”, a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states.

Now, Persinger has discovered the same type of brain stimulation can create metal states conducive to human telepathy. “What we have found is that if you place two different people at a distance and put a circular magnetic field around both, and you make sure they are connected to the same computer so they get the same stimulation, then if you flash a light in one person’s eye the person in the other room receiving just the magnetic field will show changes in their brain as if they saw the flash of light. We think that’s tremendous because it may be the first macro demonstration of a quantum connection, or so-called quantum entanglement. If true, then there’s another way of potential communication that may have physical applications, for example, in space travel.”

While Persinger’s experiments could prove groundbreaking, he remains doubtful about his controversial findings reaching his colleagues, “I think the critical thing about science is to be open-minded. It’s really important to realize that the true subject matter of science is the pursuit of the unknown. Sadly scientists have become extraordinarily group-oriented. Our most typical critics are not are mystic believer types. They are scientists who have a narrow vision of what the world is like.”

Play it:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3 (35:40 min.)

http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/

#14885

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:42 am
Subject: Fwd: STEVEN SPIELBERG VIDEO on the core story

adastra1@...

spielberg interview presidents.mp3

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org" <garybekkum@...>
Date: December 19, 2009 8:19:42 PM PST
To: "Dr. JACK SARFATTI" <adastra1@...>
Subject: Fw: STEVEN SPIELBERG ADMITS HE BELIEVES IN ALIENS-UFOs!
Reply-To: garybekkum@...

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: Grant Cameron <presidentialufo@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:09:58 -0500
To: <mc47@...>

Subject: Re: STEVEN SPIELBERG ADMITS HE BELIEVES IN ALIENS-UFOs!

Attached another Spielberg audio comment on the subject

Agencies must publish information online in a timely manner and present their data in a Web-friendly format that is available to download. Agencies with significant backlogs of Freedom of Information Act requests will have to reduce that number of requests by 10 percent each year. "Failure to follow through on this will generate displeasure from the White House and the president," said Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget.

-----Original Message-----
From: mc47 <mc47@...>

Subject: STEVEN SPIELBERG ADMITS HE BELIEVES IN ALIENS-UFOs!

Not surprising,from what Jaimie Shandera said many years ago; Spielberg was "read in" by the Reagan Administration, in fact Spielberg did a training film for newly "read in" insiders.....Rmc ------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eorq6FeQZBA STEVEN SPIELBERG ADMITS HE BELIEVES IN ALIENS-UFOs!

1 of 1 File(s)

#14884

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:34 am
Subject: Re: last remark to Z

adastra1@...

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:28 PM, Zielinski wrote gibberish, for example:

Obviously you *can* choose your kinematical frame to co-accelerate locally at a point x with any intersecting free fall trajectory,
but given any particular choice of kinematical frame, in a weak static field both sides of the Earth accelerate in one or
another direction. You can't invoke two different kinematical frames at once -- you have to choose a frame. Then given a kinematical
frame that is co-accelerating at a point x with respect to any given LIF, *both* sides of the Earth will be observed to accelerate in the
*same* direction.

LOL - complete raving nonsense lunacy word salad.

#14883

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:28 am
Subject: Re: last remark to Z

jacobsarfatti

Offline

You are pathetic, clueless. Paul u r simply stupid.

Sean Carroll writes:

"gravity is not actually a force ... a particle in a gravitational field moves along a path that is the closest thing there is to a straight line. Such particles do not feel acceleration; they are freely falling. Once we become more familiar with the spirit of GR, it will make perfect sense to think of the ball flying through the air as being more truly 'unaccelerated' than one sitting on the table: the one sitting on the table is being deflected away from the geodesic it would be on (which is why we feel a force on our feet as we stand on Earth)."

Now this is exactly what I have told you a jillion times. It's the same thing Hawking is saying in Fig. 1.11. Feynman's 1 to 6 apply to your idiotic "explanations" - never have I see a worse clueless relativity crank crackpot than you. You take the cake.

On Dec 19, 2009, at 8:42 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...> wrote:

Every time u say something right
either it's trite, or you parrot back something elementary that I told u a jillion times as if I said the opposite!

Stop prevaricating Jack. You did say, based on your reading of Hawking, that according to GR opposite sides

of the Earth accelerate away from one another.

Yes, that's exactly what they must do to stay at constant separation from each other in curved spacetime.

Crackpot nonsense. There is no need for such a lunatic idea at all in GR.

The problem here is that *you* are personally unable to separate kinematics from dynamics in GR.

You cannot understand Hawking's plain English Fig. 1.11 below.

No, I can't understand your lunatic constructions.

Obviously you *can* choose your kinematical frame to co-accelerate locally at a point x with any intersecting free fall trajectory,
but given any particular choice of kinematical frame, in a weak static field both sides of the Earth accelerate in one or
another direction. You can't invoke two different kinematical frames at once -- you have to choose a frame. Then given a kinematical
frame that is co-accelerating at a point x with respect to any given LIF, *both* sides of the Earth will be observed to accelerate in the
*same* direction.

You cannot think outside of Newton's Box - your mind is flat, stale and unprofitable.

I'm not talking about Newton's theory. I'm talking about Einstein's.

You are the only person who is talking about Newton's theory here.

You *think* you are talking about GR, but you are actually only talking about your own confused understanding of GR.

GR does not say what you think it says about this case.

You have no intuition for non-Euclidean geometry.

What an idiot. This is really funny coming from someone who has no intuitive understanding of Riemannian geometry
in general. Jack, stop projecting your own mental handicaps onto me!

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

Note the heading: "A Brief History of Relativity".

Now you probably realize that this was a very stupid position to take, and naturally wish to pretend you never

said it.

Not at all. That you cannot understand this shows your mind is too weak to do theoretical physics in relativity.

I'm laughing myself off my chair.

Who's your writer?

We standing still on Earth are approximately static LNIFs.

And also test objects. Do you know the difference?

The weight we feel is the inertial reaction force - the electrical forces of the Earth's rock pushing us off weightless timelike geodesics just like the blasting rockets in Hawking's picture above.

You are a clueless simpleton that you cannot grok this. This is the origin of your not-even-wrong crackpot rants. It's delusion is that you think I have retracted from this. I never have. You fantasize. Your misreading of Hawking's text above is a clear indication of your cognitive dysfunction.

You are a real crackpot Jack The real McCoy.

Each earthbound observer is accelerating with respect to an intersecting free fall trajectory. Earth bound observers on
opposite sides of the Earth thus have covariant acceleration vectors that point in opposite directions. But it doesn't follow
from this that the observers are accelerating away *from one another*. The relation is not transitive.

Only a delusional throughly incompetent crackpot would suggest otherwise.

The obvious explanation here is that kinematically the geodesic reference trajectories are inwardly accelerating towards
one another -- not that the static observers are outwardly accelerating away from one another. This is quite consistent
with the outward *dynamical* acceleration of the static LNIFs with respect to their respective intersecting geodesics.

So as usual you have the thing *ass-backwards*.

Z.

this is your invariant pattern

My invariant pattern here is to attempt to apply logic and mathematics to your idiotic pigs-can-fly

misconceptions about Einstein's theiory of gravity. A Sysiphean labor if ever there was one.

All of Feynman's points 1 to 6 below apply to your bogus "work" on relativity

Look you fool, [Feynman] ridiculed the positivist philosophers that you tried to defend. In fact,

Feynman's views on GR agreed closely with mine.

Your constantly parroting Feynman without having any real clue as to what he is talking about is

a good example of what Feynman called "cargo cult thinking". Even your citations of Feynman's

1974 "cargo cult" address are themselves cargo cult!

I am going to post my Lectures in Relativity on vixra.

Comment there for the record.

All I can say is that you'd better get the distinctions between kinematical and dynamical references

in GR straight before you post anything.

PS g(ea(LIF),eb(LIF)) = (Minkowski LIF metric)ab

is from Sean Carroll's text book.

LIFs are represented by "Riemann normal coordinates" where {LC} = 0 at their origin.

Idiot. Everyone knows this. So what?

Yes, the non-covariant partial derivatives of the metric tensor all vanish at a spacetime point in

Riemann normal coordinates.

The $64K question here is: WHY?

Also

g(eu(LNIF),ev(LNIF)) = (Curvilinear LNIF metric)uv

A non-orthonormal vector basis representation of the metric, as I told you.

All "diffeomorphisms" in GR are T4(x) gauge transformations that describe the SAME OBJECTIVE PHYSICS from the POVs of different locally coincident LNIFs.

Off into the wild blue yonder.

Look Jack, you have to be able to walk before you can run.

You need to go back to basics.

The tetrads are the maps between locally coincident LIFs & LNIFs

ea(LIF) = (tetrad)a^uev(LNIF)

lower indices are vector fields (test particle flow lines of Faraday flux - analogy not literally)

upper indices are dual Cartan 1-form (wave fronts normal to the test particle flow lines of Faraday flux)

Yes, the components of the tetrads e(a) in an arbitary coordinate basis e^u are given by the tetrad

coefficients e_a^u.

What else is new?

<Feynmanwarsaw.jpg>

Jack, it is painfully obvious that you are not getting anything of the meeting. You don't have to convince me.

Z.

#14882

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Dec 20, 2009 6:15 am
Subject: Valentini's signal nonlocality seen in Dr. Michael Persinger Telepathy Link in Lab Expt?

jacobsarfatti

Offline

This is more than just quantum theory. This is Antony Valentini's signal nonlocality violating quantum theory IF the brain change in the "receiver" is seen locally as a coherent signal not random noise. In quantum theory, each end locally is random noise you only see the pattern in the correlation done after the fact.

Begin forwarded message:

From: antigray@...
Date: December 19, 2009 9:33:01 PM PST
To: marssouthpolereturns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: UFOpro@yahoogroups.com, adastra1@...
Subject: “God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Exp

“God Helmet” Inventor, Dr. Michael Persinger Discovers Telepathy Link in Lab Experiments

December 16th, 2009 alex Neuroscience Researcher and Laurentian University professor, Dr. Michael Persinger, demonstrates telepathy under laboratory conditions.

Claims of telepathy, ESP and other psi phenomena are a mainstay of popular culture but taboo in neuroscience research circles. Fortunately, Dr. Michael Persinger of Canada’s Laurentian University has never been afraid to venture where other researchers fear to go. In the 1980’s Persinger made headlines with his “God Helmet”, a device that stimulates temporal lobes with a weak magnetic field in order to produce religious states.

Now, Persinger has discovered the same type of brain stimulation can create metal states conducive to human telepathy. “What we have found is that if you place two different people at a distance and put a circular magnetic field around both, and you make sure they are connected to the same computer so they get the same stimulation, then if you flash a light in one person’s eye the person in the other room receiving just the magnetic field will show changes in their brain as if they saw the flash of light. We think that’s tremendous because it may be the first macro demonstration of a quantum connection, or so-called quantum entanglement. If true, then there’s another way of potential communication that may have physical applications, for example, in space travel.”

While Persinger’s experiments could prove groundbreaking, he remains doubtful about his controversial findings reaching his colleagues, “I think the critical thing about science is to be open-minded. It’s really important to realize that the true subject matter of science is the pursuit of the unknown. Sadly scientists have become extraordinarily group-oriented. Our most typical critics are not are mystic believer types. They are scientists who have a narrow vision of what the world is like.”

Play it:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3 (35:40 min.)

http://www.skeptiko.com/michael-persinger-discovers-telepathic-link/

#14881

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: Cal Tech J. Preskill on More Is Different (Dr. Quantum)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/preskill/oh/19.html

These Preskill slides are not easily understood, however

Feynman said that before the world hologram idea - now all we need to simulate our observable universe inside our causal diamond of past and future horizons is N BITs where

NLp^2 ~ Hubble Radius^2 = asymptotic area of intersection of our future light cone with our future event horizon

dark energy density ~ 1/(area of our future horizon)

thermodynamic entropy of observable universe ~ 1/dark energy density

On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:34 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/preskill/oh/01.html

On Dec 19, 2009, at 12:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Dec 19, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Stuart Hameroff wrote:

Hi everyone

Im just catching up on some of this after a ski holiday.

Jonathan Edwards <jo.edwards@...>:

There are clearly issues here of terminology about what mode 'is
classical' and what 'is quantum'. I have come to think that this
distinction is often used in a way that Bohr would not have
recognised. My feeling for some time has been that quantum coherence
is not of great interest

Stuart
Quantum coherence is too vague a term, so I agree with Jonathan here.
It could imply condensation (which people like Reimers have further
subdivided), but sometimes is conflated with entanglement and superposition.

Let me start to give a precise definition of macro-quantum coherence, not the same as the micro-quantum superposition principle. Indeed, macro-quantum coherent systems have c-number condensate order parameters local in space-time - the nonlocal entanglements are hidden under the rug so to speak. Their evolution is nonlinear and non-unitary and when they are pumped we can expect A. Valentini's "signal nonlocality" the key to qualia in my opinion. Note that the c-number phase coherent signal is a reservoir source sink for micro-quantum q-number noise that does obey the unitary signal locality rules of micro-quantum "orthodox" quantum theory.

"Macro-quantum coherence" - similar terms

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SBS) of the ground states of complex many-particle systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

Off-Diagonal-Long-Range-Order (ODLRO) factorization of micro-quantum density matrices (correlation functions)
Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962): Yang - Concept of Off-Diagonal ...
by CN Yang - 1962 - Cited by 506 - Related articles
Concept of Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order and the Quantum Phases of Liquid He and of Superconductors. C. N. Yang Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.694 - Similar -

P.W. Anderson "More is different"
[PDF]
More Is Different P. W. Anderson Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
by PW Anderson - Cited by 804 - Related articles - All 49 versions
More Is Different. P. W. Anderson. Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4047. (Aug . ... more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@.... ...
robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/.../anderson72more_is_different.pdf - Similar -

Jonathan
- what matters is the existence of modes
with stable geometric domains that carry notionally quantised energy
but whose biologically significant dynamics can be understood in pre-
QM terms (classical is a tricky word).

Stuart
Hmmm. No There is something else. The stable geometric domains (e.g. tubulin
hydrophobic sites in hexagonal lattice) can be entangled, implying they are
also in superposition. So they can do quantum computing.

Jonathan
I came to a prediction of
1-10MHz from neurological considerations, which is close to Pokorny's
8MHz and much lower then Fröhlich.

Stuart
For what, exactly? Pokorny found it for microtubules.

Its interesting that the observed frequency is two orders of magnitude lower
than Frohlich. But the oscillators are embedded in a large mass
(microtubules),
far greater than the individual proteins in lipid membranes Frohlich
considered.
So not surprising the frequency is lower.

Jonathan
It would be very exciting if we could begin to base discussion of
such modes on a rather more 'kitchen sink' sort of dynamics
compatible with biology, while retaining the essential indivisibility
of the history of a notionally quantisable system which I see as
essential to any viable theory of consciousness.

Stuart
Im not entirely sure what youre asking for, but the fact is we dont understand
whats going on precisely at this level yet, so a kitchen sink approach is all
weve got.

Serge Patlavskiy
Now then, if we agree that a subject
of cognitive activity who possesses some element of subjective
experience (some new knowledge) differs from that same subject when he
does not possess that element of subjective experience yet, then which
explanatory unit (element, characteristic, etc.) of the "Orch OR" theory
is used to formalize the subject of cognitive activity in cases of the
presence and absence of that element of subjective experience? (It must
go without saying that the function of consciousness consists, first and
foremost, in gaining knowledge, mustn't it?) The answer to this question
will help me to enter the door which, as I hope, will lead me to, at
least, embryonic understanding of the discussed problem.

Stuart
Not sure I buy your premise -couldnt a non-conscious cognitive system gain
knowledge? But, OK...

In each Orch OR event, classical inputs create information states which then
become superpositioned, and via entanglement interact/compute with other
superpositioned states - thats quantum computing (among tubulins in
microtubules in the brain). In supeprosition, each tubulin is in multiple
possible information states. Then the objective reduction OR occurs, the
superpositions each reduce to new classical states as the solution. This
then triggers axonal firings (or not), adjusts synapses etc. The
results of each
and every Orch OR event - billions of tubulin bits every 25 msec -
comprise the
new knowledge.

cheers
Stuart

#14880

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:34 pm
Subject: Cal Tech J. Preskill on More Is Different (Dr. Quantum)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses_c03/preskill/oh/01.html

On Dec 19, 2009, at 12:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Dec 19, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Stuart Hameroff wrote:

Hi everyone

Im just catching up on some of this after a ski holiday.

Jonathan Edwards <jo.edwards@...>:

There are clearly issues here of terminology about what mode 'is
classical' and what 'is quantum'. I have come to think that this
distinction is often used in a way that Bohr would not have
recognised. My feeling for some time has been that quantum coherence
is not of great interest

Stuart
Quantum coherence is too vague a term, so I agree with Jonathan here.
It could imply condensation (which people like Reimers have further
subdivided), but sometimes is conflated with entanglement and superposition.

Let me start to give a precise definition of macro-quantum coherence, not the same as the micro-quantum superposition principle. Indeed, macro-quantum coherent systems have c-number condensate order parameters local in space-time - the nonlocal entanglements are hidden under the rug so to speak. Their evolution is nonlinear and non-unitary and when they are pumped we can expect A. Valentini's "signal nonlocality" the key to qualia in my opinion. Note that the c-number phase coherent signal is a reservoir source sink for micro-quantum q-number noise that does obey the unitary signal locality rules of micro-quantum "orthodox" quantum theory.

"Macro-quantum coherence" - similar terms

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SBS) of the ground states of complex many-particle systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

Off-Diagonal-Long-Range-Order (ODLRO) factorization of micro-quantum density matrices (correlation functions)
Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962): Yang - Concept of Off-Diagonal ...
by CN Yang - 1962 - Cited by 506 - Related articles
Concept of Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order and the Quantum Phases of Liquid He and of Superconductors. C. N. Yang Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.694 - Similar -

P.W. Anderson "More is different"
[PDF]
More Is Different P. W. Anderson Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
by PW Anderson - Cited by 804 - Related articles - All 49 versions
More Is Different. P. W. Anderson. Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4047. (Aug . ... more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@.... ...
robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/.../anderson72more_is_different.pdf - Similar -

Jonathan
- what matters is the existence of modes
with stable geometric domains that carry notionally quantised energy
but whose biologically significant dynamics can be understood in pre-
QM terms (classical is a tricky word).

Stuart
Hmmm. No There is something else. The stable geometric domains (e.g. tubulin
hydrophobic sites in hexagonal lattice) can be entangled, implying they are
also in superposition. So they can do quantum computing.

Jonathan
I came to a prediction of
1-10MHz from neurological considerations, which is close to Pokorny's
8MHz and much lower then Fröhlich.

Stuart
For what, exactly? Pokorny found it for microtubules.

Its interesting that the observed frequency is two orders of magnitude lower
than Frohlich. But the oscillators are embedded in a large mass
(microtubules),
far greater than the individual proteins in lipid membranes Frohlich
considered.
So not surprising the frequency is lower.

Jonathan
It would be very exciting if we could begin to base discussion of
such modes on a rather more 'kitchen sink' sort of dynamics
compatible with biology, while retaining the essential indivisibility
of the history of a notionally quantisable system which I see as
essential to any viable theory of consciousness.

Stuart
Im not entirely sure what youre asking for, but the fact is we dont understand
whats going on precisely at this level yet, so a kitchen sink approach is all
weve got.

Serge Patlavskiy
Now then, if we agree that a subject
of cognitive activity who possesses some element of subjective
experience (some new knowledge) differs from that same subject when he
does not possess that element of subjective experience yet, then which
explanatory unit (element, characteristic, etc.) of the "Orch OR" theory
is used to formalize the subject of cognitive activity in cases of the
presence and absence of that element of subjective experience? (It must
go without saying that the function of consciousness consists, first and
foremost, in gaining knowledge, mustn't it?) The answer to this question
will help me to enter the door which, as I hope, will lead me to, at
least, embryonic understanding of the discussed problem.

Stuart
Not sure I buy your premise -couldnt a non-conscious cognitive system gain
knowledge? But, OK...

In each Orch OR event, classical inputs create information states which then
become superpositioned, and via entanglement interact/compute with other
superpositioned states - thats quantum computing (among tubulins in
microtubules in the brain). In supeprosition, each tubulin is in multiple
possible information states. Then the objective reduction OR occurs, the
superpositions each reduce to new classical states as the solution. This
then triggers axonal firings (or not), adjusts synapses etc. The
results of each
and every Orch OR event - billions of tubulin bits every 25 msec -
comprise the
new knowledge.

cheers
Stuart

#14879

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 11:09 pm
Subject: Fwd: [Mind and Brain] News: What Is the Speed of Thought? [4 Attachments]

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Begin forwarded message:

From: Massimo Bondì <masbond@...>
Date: December 19, 2009 10:38:42 AM PST
To: <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Massimo Bondì <masbond@...>
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] News: What Is the Speed of Thought? [4 Attachments]
Reply-To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com

Dear Robert, I send you one of mine papers regarding the speed of signal through

the neurons extension in the cerebral-cortex(substantia grigia) by the USC(unified synaptic channel) and 3 microphotos. Best regards and compliments.. Max Bondì

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Karl Stonjek

To: Psychiatry-Research ; Cognitive NeuroScience ; Mind and Brain

Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:00 AM

Subject: [Mind and Brain] News: What Is the Speed of Thought?

The Brain: What Is the Speed of Thought?
12.16.2009
Faster than a bird and slower than sound. But that may be besides the point: Efficiency and timing seem to be more important anyway.
by Carl Zimmer

iStockphoto
When Samuel Morse established the first commercial telegraph, in 1844, he dramatically changed our expectations about the pace of life. One of the first telegraph messages came from that year’s Democratic National Convention in Baltimore, where the delegates had picked Senator Silas Wright as their vice presidential nominee. The president of the convention telegraphed Wright in Washington, D.C., to see if he would accept. Wright immediately wired back: No. Incredulous that a message could fly almost instantly down a wire, the delegates adjourned and sent a flesh-and-blood committee by train to confirm Wright’s response—which was, of course, the same. From such beginnings came today’s high-speed, networked society.
Less famously but no less significantly, the telegraph also transformed the way we think about the pace of our inner life. Morse’s invention debuted just as researchers were starting to make sense of the nervous system, and telegraph wires were an inspiring model of how nerves might work. After all, nerves and telegraph wires were both long strands, and they both used electricity to transmit signals. Scientists knew that telegraph signals did not travel instantaneously; in one experiment, it took a set of dots and dashes a quarter of a second to travel 900 miles down a telegraph wire. Perhaps, the early brain investigators considered, it took time for nerves to send signals too. And perhaps we could even quantify that time.
The notion that the speed of thought could be measured, just like the density of a rock, was shocking. Yet that is exactly what scientists did. In 1850 German physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz attached wires to a frog’s leg muscle so that when the muscle contracted it broke a circuit. He found that it took a tenth of a second for a signal to travel down the nerve to the muscle. In another experiment he applied a mild shock to people’s skin and had them gesture as soon as they felt it. It took time for signals to travel down human nerves, too. In fact, Helmholtz discovered it took longer for people to respond to a shock in the toe than to one at the base of the spine because the path to the brain was longer.
Helmholtz’s results clashed with people’s gut instinct that they experienced the world as it happened, with no lag between sensation and awareness. “This is altogether a delusion,” German physiologist Emil Du Bois-Reymond declared in 1868. “It appears that ‘quick as thought’ is, after all, not so very quick.”
With their simple tools, Helmholtz and others could manage only crude measures of the speed of thought. Some of them came up with rates that were twice as fast as others. Researchers have been trying to get more precise results ever since. Today it is clear why they have had such a hard time. Our nerves operate at many different speeds, reflecting the biological challenges of wiring all the parts of the body together. In some ways evolution has fine-tuned our brains to run like a digital superhighway, but in other ways it has left us with a Pony Express.
Thought may not be instantaneous, but it is rapid enough to seem like it is most of the time. The need for speed in the nervous system is not hard to understand. Many animals depend on their nerves to sense danger and to escape from predators; the predators, in turn, depend on their nerves to mount a fast attack. But speed also influences us in surprising ways.
In one common experiment for studying the speed of thought, researchers briefly show test subjects a lopsided, upside-down U and then ask them which leg of the figure is longer. It turns out that the subjects’ reaction times say a lot about their lives in general. People with faster responses tend to score higher on intelligence tests. Some psychologists have argued that a high processing speed in the brain is a vital ingredient for intelligence. Responses slow down when people suffer certain psychological disorders like depression. More puzzling, people with sluggish reaction times are more likely to die of incidents like strokes or heart attacks.
High speed is also crucial to the way we perceive the world. Three or four times a second, our eyes dart in a new direction, allowing us only about a tenth of a second to make sense of what we see in each spot. And we make remarkably good use of that time. Recently, neuroscientists Michelle Greene and Aude Oliva of MIT ran an experiment in which they briefly showed people a series of landscapes and then asked questions about the scenes. For example, was there a forest in the picture? Did it look like a hot place? People did well on these tests even when they glimpsed each of the pictures for less than one tenth of a second.
We are able to understand the world so quickly because of some clever speed boosters built into our eyes. Tim Gollisch of the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Germany recently discovered evidence of one of these. He extracted retinal tissue from amphibians and exposed the living tissue to a series of simple geometric patterns. Then he recorded how the nerve cells fired in response. He noticed that each neuron started firing a little earlier or a little later, depending on which picture he showed. The shifts were distinctive enough that he could predict a shape just by looking at the timing of the neural reaction. Although this test involved amphibians, Gollisch proposes that the results would hold true for human brains as well. They might not wait for all the signals from the retina to arrive before they begin building a representation of the world. They might get a head start with the very first bits of information.

+++

Using a fast code helps speed up thought, but to a large extent the brain—like a telegraph network—really depends on efficient pathways. Impulses from the retinas, for instance, have to travel up the optic nerve to the thalamus, which relays the signals to the visual cortex in the back of the brain. Then they ripple forward to other brain centers, where we use the visual information to make decisions and take actions. One way to hasten that journey is to use fast wiring. In 1854 physicist William Thomson showed that the wider a telegraph wire, the faster its signal and the farther the signal could travel. That same principle applies to nerves. The fattest axons, such as Betz cells in the brain, are 200 times thicker than the thinnest ones.
Another way to speed up wires is to insulate them, and again the same goes for neurons. Some neurons are wrapped in an insulating material known as myelin. In the heavily myelinated neurons running down the spine, signals can travel up to 180 miles an hour. In neurons that lack myelin, signals travel just over half a mile an hour. Nerve fibers that carry pain are among the slowest. Pain can take many seconds to reach the brain, explaining why sometimes we seem to react to a stubbed toe in slow motion.

In principle, our thoughts could race far more efficiently if all the axons in our brains were thick. But the human brain has at least a quarter of a million miles of wiring—more than enough to reach from Earth to the moon—and is already packed tight. Sam Wang, a Princeton University neuroscientist, calculated how big our brain would be if it were built with thick axons. “Making an entire brain out of them would create heads so large that we couldn’t fit through doorways,” he concluded. Such a brain would also consume a tremendous amount of energy.
Given the constraints of biology and physics, our brains appear to have evolved to run very efficiently. For instance, neurons in the brain tend to be joined together into small networks, which are then linked to one another by relatively few long-range connections. This kind of network needs less wiring than other arrangements, and therefore shortens the distance signals need to travel.
Our brains also speed up through practice. Rene Marois, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilt University, measured this effect by having people perform a basic multitasking test: They had to identify which of two possible faces appeared on a computer screen while responding to one of two possible sounds. In just two weeks of training (encompassing eight to twelve practice sessions), the test-takers were able to do both tasks in rapid succession almost as quickly as doing either one on its own. With practice, Marois speculates, the neurons in the brain’s bottleneck regions, primarily in the prefrontal cortex, require fewer signals and less time to produce the right response.
Sometimes our brains actually need to slow down, however. In the retina, the neurons near the center are much shorter than the ones at the edges, and yet somehow all of the signals manage to reach the next layer of neurons in the retina at the same time. One way the body may do this is by holding back certain nerve signals—for instance, by putting less myelin on the relevant axons. Another possible way to make nerve impulses travel more slowly involves growing longer axons, so that signals have a greater distance to travel.
In fact, reducing the speed of thought in just the right places is crucial to the fundamentals of consciousness. Our moment-to-moment awareness of our inner selves and the outer world depends on the thalamus, a region near the core of the brain, which sends out pacemaker-like signals to the brain’s outer layers. Even though some of the axons reaching out from the thalamus are short and some are long, their signals arrive throughout all parts of the brain at the same time—a good thing, since otherwise we would not be able to think straight.
So when Helmholtz recognized that thought moves at a finite rate, faster than a bird but slower than sound, he missed a fundamental difference between the brain and a telegraph. In our heads, speed is not always the most important thing. Sometimes what really matters is timing.
Source: Discover
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/dec/16-the-brain-what-is-speed-of-thought
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

#14878

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: [jcs-online] Has Penrose Orch OR been falsified? (Dr. Quantum)

jacobsarfatti

Offline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking

On Dec 19, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Stuart Hameroff wrote:

Hi everyone

Im just catching up on some of this after a ski holiday.

Jonathan Edwards <jo.edwards@...>:

There are clearly issues here of terminology about what mode 'is
classical' and what 'is quantum'. I have come to think that this
distinction is often used in a way that Bohr would not have
recognised. My feeling for some time has been that quantum coherence
is not of great interest

Stuart
Quantum coherence is too vague a term, so I agree with Jonathan here.
It could imply condensation (which people like Reimers have further
subdivided), but sometimes is conflated with entanglement and superposition.

Let me start to give a precise definition of macro-quantum coherence, not the same as the micro-quantum superposition principle. Indeed, macro-quantum coherent systems have c-number condensate order parameters local in space-time - the nonlocal entanglements are hidden under the rug so to speak. Their evolution is nonlinear and non-unitary and when they are pumped we can expect A. Valentini's "signal nonlocality" the key to qualia in my opinion. Note that the c-number phase coherent signal is a reservoir source sink for micro-quantum q-number noise that does obey the unitary signal locality rules of micro-quantum "orthodox" quantum theory.

"Macro-quantum coherence" - similar terms

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (SBS) of the ground states of complex many-particle systems.

Off-Diagonal-Long-Range-Order (ODLRO) factorization of micro-quantum density matrices (correlation functions)

Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962): Yang - Concept of Off-Diagonal ...

by CN Yang - 1962 - Cited by 506 - Related articles
Concept of Off-Diagonal Long-Range Order and the Quantum Phases of Liquid He and of Superconductors. C. N. Yang Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, ...
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.34.694 - Similar -

P.W. Anderson "More is different"

[PDF]
More Is Different P. W. Anderson Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
by PW Anderson - Cited by 804 - Related articles - All 49 versions
More Is Different. P. W. Anderson. Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4047. (Aug . ... more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@.... ...
robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/.../anderson72more_is_different.pdf - Similar -

Jonathan
- what matters is the existence of modes
with stable geometric domains that carry notionally quantised energy
but whose biologically significant dynamics can be understood in pre-
QM terms (classical is a tricky word).

Stuart
Hmmm. No There is something else. The stable geometric domains (e.g. tubulin
hydrophobic sites in hexagonal lattice) can be entangled, implying they are
also in superposition. So they can do quantum computing.

Jonathan
I came to a prediction of
1-10MHz from neurological considerations, which is close to Pokorny's
8MHz and much lower then Fröhlich.

Stuart
For what, exactly? Pokorny found it for microtubules.

Its interesting that the observed frequency is two orders of magnitude lower
than Frohlich. But the oscillators are embedded in a large mass
(microtubules),
far greater than the individual proteins in lipid membranes Frohlich
considered.
So not surprising the frequency is lower.

Jonathan
It would be very exciting if we could begin to base discussion of
such modes on a rather more 'kitchen sink' sort of dynamics
compatible with biology, while retaining the essential indivisibility
of the history of a notionally quantisable system which I see as
essential to any viable theory of consciousness.

Stuart
Im not entirely sure what youre asking for, but the fact is we dont understand
whats going on precisely at this level yet, so a kitchen sink approach is all
weve got.

Serge Patlavskiy
Now then, if we agree that a subject
of cognitive activity who possesses some element of subjective
experience (some new knowledge) differs from that same subject when he
does not possess that element of subjective experience yet, then which
explanatory unit (element, characteristic, etc.) of the "Orch OR" theory
is used to formalize the subject of cognitive activity in cases of the
presence and absence of that element of subjective experience? (It must
go without saying that the function of consciousness consists, first and
foremost, in gaining knowledge, mustn't it?) The answer to this question
will help me to enter the door which, as I hope, will lead me to, at
least, embryonic understanding of the discussed problem.

Stuart
Not sure I buy your premise -couldnt a non-conscious cognitive system gain
knowledge? But, OK...

In each Orch OR event, classical inputs create information states which then
become superpositioned, and via entanglement interact/compute with other
superpositioned states - thats quantum computing (among tubulins in
microtubules in the brain). In supeprosition, each tubulin is in multiple
possible information states. Then the objective reduction OR occurs, the
superpositions each reduce to new classical states as the solution. This
then triggers axonal firings (or not), adjusts synapses etc. The
results of each
and every Orch OR event - billions of tubulin bits every 25 msec -
comprise the
new knowledge.

cheers
Stuart

#14877

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: last remark to Z

jacobsarfatti

Offline

On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...> wrote:

Every time u say something right
either it's trite, or you parrot back something elementary that I told u a jillion times as if I said the opposite!

Stop prevaricating Jack. You did say, based on your reading of Hawking, that according to GR opposite sides

of the Earth accelerate away from one another.

Yes, that's exactly what they must do to stay at constant separation from each other in curved spacetime. You cannot understand Hawking's plain English Fig. 1.11 below. You cannot think outside of Newton's Box - your mind is flat, stale and unprofitable. You have no intuition for non-Euclidean geometry.

Now you probably realize that this was a very stupid position to take, and naturally wish to pretend you never

said it.

Not at all. That you cannot understand this shows your mind is too weak to do theoretical physics in relativity.

We standing still on Earth are approximately static LNIFs. The weight we feel is the inertial reaction force - the electrical forces of the Earth's rock pushing us off weightless timelike geodesics just like the blasting rockets in Hawking's picture above.

You are a clueless simpleton that you cannot grok this. This is the origin of your not-even-wrong crackpot rants. It's delusion is that you think I have retracted from this. I never have. You fantasize. Your misreading of Hawking's text above is a clear indication of your cognitive dysfunction.

this is your invariant pattern

My invariant pattern here is to attempt to apply logic and mathematics to your idiotic pigs-can-fly

misconceptions about Einstein's theiory of gravity. A Sysiphean labor if ever there was one.

All of Feynman's points 1 to 6 below apply to your bogus "work" on relativity

Look you fool, Feynamn ridiculed the positivist philosophers that you tried to defend. In fact,

Feynman's views on GR agreed closely with mine.

Your constantly parroting Feynman without having any real clue as to what he is talking about is

a good example of what Feynman called "cargo cult thinking". Even your citations of Feynman's

1974 "cargo cult" address are themselves cargo cult!

I am going to post my Lectures in Relativity on vixra.

Comment there for the record.

All I can say is that you'd better get the distinctions between kinematical and dynamical references

in GR straight before you post anything.

PS g(ea(LIF),eb(LIF)) = (Minkowski LIF metric)ab

is from Sean Carroll's text book.

LIFs are represented by "Riemann normal coordinates" where {LC} = 0 at their origin.

Idiot. Everyone knows this. So what?

Yes, the non-covariant partial derivatives of the metric tensor all vanish at a spacetime point in

Riemann normal coordinates.

The $64K question here is: WHY?

Also

g(eu(LNIF),ev(LNIF)) = (Curvilinear LNIF metric)uv

A non-orthonormal vector basis representation of the metric, as I told you.

All "diffeomorphisms" in GR are T4(x) gauge transformations that describe the SAME OBJECTIVE PHYSICS from the POVs of different locally coincident LNIFs.

Off into the wild blue yonder.

Look Jack, you have to be able to walk before you can run.

You need to go back to basics.

The tetrads are the maps between locally coincident LIFs & LNIFs

ea(LIF) = (tetrad)a^uev(LNIF)

lower indices are vector fields (test particle flow lines of Faraday flux - analogy not literally)

upper indices are dual Cartan 1-form (wave fronts normal to the test particle flow lines of Faraday flux)

Yes, the components of the tetrads e(a) in an arbitary coordinate basis e^u are given by the tetrad

coefficients e_a^u.

What else is new?

<Feynmanwarsaw.jpg>

Jack, it is painfully obvious that you are not getting anything of the meeting. You don't have to convince me.

Z.

#14876

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes: At a Mine's Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter

jacobsarfatti

Offline

u saw what happened with the global warming data in UK ;-)

On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:19 AM, david mosier wrote:

Sounds like somebody needs to write a letter to the Times, or to the author, pointing out what Jack just said in his email. Now, as to whether the author will respond, or the Letters editor will publish it....

--- On Sat, 12/19/09, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...> wrote:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
Subject: Re: NYTimes: At a Mine's Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter
Too tiny pulses in two years?
~ 23% of universe stuff is dark matter
How do they get 23% ? from any locally collected data that may come is the question.
What model assumptions are being made?
My bet is that dark matter is not real particles at all, but is a phase (positive zpf pressure of w = -1 virtual fermion-antifermion dominance) of quantum vacuum. Sure maybe exotic particles are out there, but in sufficient number to get 23%?

<KolbDE.jpg>

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:11 AM, david mosier wrote:

At a Mine’s Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: December 17, 2009
An international team of physicists working in the bottom of an old iron mine in Minnesota said Thursday that they might have registered the first faint hints of a ghostly sea of subatomic particles known as dark matter long thought to permeate the cosmos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?_r=1&em

#14875

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Gravity, Yang-Mills, Matter Unification

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Hi Carlos

Very impressive as usual.

I am trying to understand the underlying physical picture.

It looks to me as though your theory is basically a local gauge theory of GL(4,R)?

A is your grand unified local compensating gauge potential.

My model of emergent gravity only has the 3rd & 5th terms of your more general (4) because you use a larger spacetime group I was hoping to do later on.

Also u get the internal symmetries from the larger spacetime group similar to the claims of string theorists re: Calabi-Yau fiber space.

I relate the gravity gauge potentials to multi-valued (H. Kleinert) Goldstone phases of the post-inflation vacuum condensate field - so I suppose that can be done for your extra terms as well.

The coefficient e^au of 3rd term on RHS looks like the spin 1 tetrad coefficients.

Clearly the last term are the spin connection coefficients.

So you have a new parity-violating? contribution to the tetrads in f^au

and you have Higgs spin 0 fields au & bu?

I have to rethink what Lorentz group spin of the spin connection is - it's not an antisymmetric Lorentz group tensor - it has the inhomogeneous term, but it is bilinear in the spin 1 tetrads & their gradients in the zero torsion sector, so maybe it has spin2, spin 1 & spin 0 pieces?

On Dec 18, 2009, at 8:25 PM, Carlos Castro wrote:

Dear Colleagues :

Four your interest, the article :
"On Conformal Gravity, Yang-Mills and Matter Unification in Clifford spaces "
to appear in the special issue of the IJST journal
can be found in

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24275873/Gravity-Yang-Mills-and-Matter-Unification-in-Clifford-spaces

and should appear in www.vixra.org soon.

Best wishes for the holidays

Carlos

#14874

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:07 pm
Subject: last remark to Z

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Every time u say something right

either it's trite, or you parrot back something elementary that I told u a jillion times as if I said the opposite!

this is your invariant pattern

All of Feynman's points 1 to 6 below apply to your bogus "work" on relativity

I am going to post my Lectures in Relativity on vixra.

Comment there for the record.

PS g(ea(LIF),eb(LIF)) = (Minkowski LIF metric)ab

is from Sean Carroll's text book.

LIFs are represented by "Riemann normal coordinates" where {LC} = 0 at their origin.

Also

g(eu(LNIF),ev(LNIF)) = (Curvilinear LNIF metric)uv

All "diffeomorphisms" in GR are T4(x) gauge transformations that describe the SAME OBJECTIVE PHYSICS from the POVs of different locally coincident LNIFs.

The tetrads are the maps between locally coincident LIFs & LNIFs

ea(LIF) = (tetrad)a^uev(LNIF)

lower indices are vector fields (test particle flow lines of Faraday flux - analogy not literally)

upper indices are dual Cartan 1-form (wave fronts normal to the test particle flow lines of Faraday flux)

#14873

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:39 pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes: At a Mine's Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter

jacobsarfatti

Offline

Too tiny pulses in two years?

~ 23% of universe stuff is dark matter

How do they get 23% ? from any locally collected data that may come is the question.

What model assumptions are being made?

My bet is that dark matter is not real particles at all, but is a phase (positive zpf pressure of w = -1 virtual fermion-antifermion dominance) of quantum vacuum. Sure maybe exotic particles are out there, but in sufficient number to get 23%?

On Dec 19, 2009, at 10:11 AM, david mosier wrote:

At a Mine’s Bottom, Hints of Dark Matter
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: December 17, 2009
An international team of physicists working in the bottom of an old iron mine in Minnesota said Thursday that they might have registered the first faint hints of a ghostly sea of subatomic particles known as dark matter long thought to permeate the cosmos.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/science/space/18dark.html?_r=1&em

#14872

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 3:01 am
Subject: Re: Check out Physicists disappointed at discovery of dark mattress : Dr. Quantum

jacobsarfatti

Offline

i don't know but it's funny

last i heard there was something fishy about the whole thing

remember my prediction - no real dark matter particles at all - it's all virtual fermion-antifermion pairs inside the vacuum dominating virtual bosons on small scales, the virtual bosons dominate on large scales.

On Dec 18, 2009, at 4:10 PM, lensman@... wrote:

But is this article real?

On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:58 PM, antigray@... wrote:

Click here: Physicists disappointed at discovery of dark mattress : Not Exactly Rocket Science

#14871

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Dec 19, 2009 2:38 am
Subject: Re: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3110 Towards Quantum Experiments with Human Eyes Detectors Based on Cloning via Stimulated Emission ?

jacobsarfatti

Offline

10-4

On Dec 18, 2009, at 5:07 PM, lensman137@... wrote:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3110

Following excerpted from .PDF. If Nick hasn't seen this he might be interested. They have an experimental arrangement.

In summary, all previous considerations fully support
our claim asserting that the work [12], taken together
with previous works by our Laboratory [11][14] indeed
consists of the first exact realization of the Macroscopic
Quantum Superposition, i.e. complying exactly with the
original definition given by Schr¨odinger in 1935 [15]. The
value of this discovery is further enhanced by the large
resilience to decoherence shown by our system, which involves
as many as N ~ 10^5 particles [16]. The robustness
against any kind of noise makes our system apt to the investigation
on several so far inaccessible fundamental issues
of quantum mechanics close to the elusive ”quantum
- classical boundary”.

#14870

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: UFO pyramid reported over Kremlin?- Telegraph Dr. Quantum

jacobsarfatti

Offline

cgi? what do the photo experts say?  Pyramid possible shape for a Star Gate.

On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:07 AM, lensman137@... wrote:

>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6837200/UFO-pyramid-\
reported-over-Kremlin.html
>
> The object has been compared to an Imperial Cruiser in the Star Wars films and
witnesses estimated it could be up to a mile wide.

#14869

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:27 am
Subject: The Physical Meaning of Einstein's Relativity (Special and General) 1 & Hologram Conscious Multiverse as Simulation

jacobsarfatti

Offline

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-07/000728.html

The theory of relativity is about how to extract objective reality invariants from observer-frame dependent raw data. The two observers Alice and Bob must measure the same pattern of events in order to compare their data meaningfully.

Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity (SR) is about how Alice and Bob compare their measurements when real gravity fields are zero and when they are each not accelerating but are in relative motion. Of course, the test particles they observe can accelerate under the action of non-gravity forces.

The diagonal Minkowski metric tensor field nIJ is invariant under the strictly inertial frame transformations of SR.

We can extend SR a bit to include accelerating frames. When we do so the metric field in the accelerating frame is curvilinear and there is a non-zero Levi-Civita connection field in that accelerating frame that in part describes the non-gravity force causing the frame to accelerate as well as the orbital angular momentum of the frame if it is also rotating about its center of mass that might be in free fall (on a timelike geodesic).

Real gravity fields correspond to objective curvature fields and possibly to torsion fields. Einstein's 1915 General Relativity GR assumes that the torsion field is zero - there is only a curvature field.

The fundamental gravity field is the tetrad field together with its spin connection field. In GR the spin connection field is not independent, but is determined by the tetrad field.

The tetrad field is analogous to a kind of Dirac square root of the metric tensor field.

Physically, the 16 tetrad coefficients connect locally LIFs with locally coincident LNIFs.

SR allows global frames, GR only allows local frames. Each detector is a local frame.

The local coordinate chart for a given detector is arbitrary - this is a set of redundant non-physical gauge transformations.

Physical locally coincident frame transformations are equivalence classes of redundant gauge transformations.

For example

x ---> x'(x,y,z)

y ---> y'(x,y,z)

z ---> z'(x,y,z)

t = t'

is a redundant gauge transformation.

So there are many more redundant local coordinate chart transformations than there are physical locally coincident frame transformations.

However, every physical frame transformation can be described as a local coordinate transformation.

For example

x ---> x' = xcoswt + ysinwt

y ---> y' = -xsinwt + ycoswt

z = z'

t = t'

is a physical frame transformation from a GIF to a rotating GNIF in SR with v/c << 1.

Similarly, for uniform translational acceleration from a non-gravity force on the detector (what the test particle feels is a separate issue)

x ---> x' = x + (1/2)gt^2

y = y'

z = z'

t = t'

gt/c << 1

The main difference between Einstein's 1905 SR and Einstein's 1915 GR is that in the latter Alice and Bob can independently accelerate or not. They can also have any d^nx^u(observer)/ds^n beyond n = 2. 1915 SR is restricted to n = 1.

Newton's theory of gravity is a very special limiting case of Einstein's 1915 GR.

Newton's "gravity force" is simply the inertial force of a static LNIF in curved spacetime as shown in Hawking's Fig 1.11

The local objective tensor matter and gravity fields do not vanish in the LIFs if they do not vanish in the coincident LNIFs - this is the strong form of the Equivalence Principle (EP).

Another aspect of the EP is the universal coupling of the gravitational fields to all matter fields.

The best way to formulate this universal coupling is via the tetrad fields. The gravity theory then looks very much like the electro-weak-strong gauge force theory in 1905 SR and it's easy to translate the standard model of leptons, quarks, gauge bosons in flat space-time into curved spacetime using the tetrads and the spin connections.

Since the tetrads are spin 1 vector fields their quantum gravity field theory on a formal Minkowski space time should be renormalizable. This theory is also background independent in the usual sense even though it uses a formal global Minkowski metric background - the physical spacetime is curved and dynamical. The tetrad fields are very much like the vector potential lines in Maxwell's electromagnetism and their covariant curls are like Faraday's lines of force.

The tetrads and the spin connections are the compensating local gauge potentials from the localized spacetime symmetries that apply universally to all matter fields.

In addition, there is a connection to inflation cosmology because the c-number parts of the tetrad and spin connection fields are modulations in a set of holographic macro-quantum coherent Goldstone phases which also may describe the strong gluon and weak W-boson forces in a kind of duality.

Our observer-dependent future dark energy event horizon may be the pixelated retrocausal Wheeler-Feynman hologram in which we are its images.

This last idea is really far out of course. In this picture we are a holographic simulation.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2006-04/000683.html

Physics: Nagging Little Discrepancies

An interesting paper was posted yesterday on arXiv, “Is the physics within the Solar system really understood?” which summarises the following apparent anomalies for which there are varying degrees of experimental evidence:

I was unaware of 4, and 5 and hadn't heard much about 6 recently although it was rumoured something interesting might be in the three year WMAP data. This paper does not cite that data release.

Wouldn't be interesting if all of these effects could be explained by the choice of too large a numerical integration step in a simulated universe? Note that items 3 and 4 both involve small apparent discrepancies in the motion of man-made objects which move more rapidly than most natural bodies on such geodesics—the creator (or, perhaps I should write, more reverently, “Creator”) of a simulation who chose a time step suitable for planetary motion (for example, the 1/100th day integration step I used in the Quarter Million Year Canon computation) might just find themselves caught out by pesky in-simulation sentients who made precision measurements of high-speed gravitational assist maneuvers or objects on hyperbolic trajectories.

Here are a few questions for physicists and numerical integration experts. Is the choice of an insufficiently fine integration step likely to produce discrepancies of the sign and magnitude observed in the Pioneer, fly-by, and astronomical unit anomalies? How large an integration step would be required to produce the deviations from general relativity in each case? Are they all the same, or related in a simple way? Are there observations of solar system bodies (for example, sun-grazing comets on hyperbolic escape trajectories or close asteroidal encounters with planets) which could exclude (or provide evidence for) this hypothesis?

#14868

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:07 am
Subject: Correction: Feedback from a real Dummy on Einstein's General Relativity

jacobsarfatti

Offline

On Dec 17, 2009, at 6:26 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

> A^u(LIF) = 0

is wrong.

What is true is

Au(GIF) = 0 in globally flat Minkowski space-time

Au(GNIF) =/= 0  "                       "


For example, in the simple spatially flat cosmological inflation metric
(Appendix J Sean Carroll's textbook)

ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)&ijdx^idx^j  J.36

& = Kronecker delta 4x4 identity matrix elements

e^0u = &^0u

e^I (= ^1,^2,^3)u = a(t)&^I (= ^1,^2,^3)u J.38

e^uI (= 1,2,3) = a(t)^-1&^uI    J.50

for example

e^1(LIF) = a(t)&^1ue^u(LNIF) = a(t)dx^1 = e^1(GIF) + A^1(LIF)

A^1(LIF) = [a(t) - 1]e^1(GIF) =/= 0

However, if a(now) = 1

A^1(LIF now) = 0 etc.

#14867

From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:46 am
Subject: Life in the multi-verse

jacobsarfatti

Offline

LifeInMultiverse-SA-17Dec09.pdf

Begin forwarded message:

From: Saul-Paul and Mary-Minn Sirag <sirag@...>
Date: December 17, 2009 11:34:10 AM PST
To: garybekkum@...

Subject: Re: Yukawa

See "Looking for Life in the Multiverse" Jan 1910 cover story in Sci. Am.

Saul-Paul
------------------------------------
On Dec 17, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Gary S Bekkum / STARpod.org wrote:

Tipler is expressing a form of what is rapidly becoming a mainstream point of view: so does Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg, Tegmark, and many others. It is driven by recent cosmological observation and the isomorphism of inflationary cosmological many worlds to the quantum many worlds.

These worlds are eternal records of all possible outcomes -- Tegmark compares this bird's eye view to data on a DVD.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: d14947 <d14947@...>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:53:37 -0800
To: Gary S. Bekkum<garybekkum@...>

Subject: Re: Yukawa

Not this 'we'. Tipler is a fantasizer, I like the Jung- Pauli Information fierld, it says it all.

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Gary S. Bekkum <garybekkum@...> wrote:

All this too fuzzy and complex. It's just the Jung-Pauli Information field, what used to be called the Akashic records.

These days we refer to the "Akashic records" as the multiverse.

http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-do-Multiple-Universes-Mean-Frank-Tipler-/586

Gary S Bekkum
STARstream Research
STARpod.org
P.O. Box 1144
Maple Grove, MN 55311-6144
Mobile VM (763) 439-0719

http://twitter.com/gary_s_bekkum

http://stargate007.blogspot.com/

garysbekkum@...

2 of 2 File(s)

LifeInMultiverse-SACover-17Dec09.pdf