On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Very astute observation Jack. Yes, this is math.

It's pseudo-math.

I am trying to clarify my position on the abstract LC decomposition and it's relationship to
the abstract LC deformation tensor to Kiehn here.

Drivel

I am trying to explain to Kiehn how I am importing Weyl's generalized affine connection *sans*
torsion into a Riemannian theory. This is a general discussion of how the LC deformation model
picks out a unique "maximal non-metricity" Q* out of an infinite family of Q's.

Who gives a damn? It's not Einstein's physics. It's a bunch of cra# so far. Much ado about nothing important for physics.

Once we get the math straight in the abstract then we can talk about physical interpretation with
specific reference to GR -- which however then follows naturally and immediately from the LC
deformation model, given Einstein's own first-order definition of the "gravitational field".

Z.

JACK SARFATTI wrote:

the point here is that there is no physics here - none at all

Einstein's GR has Q = 0

A = LC

adding a second connection A' with a Q' is not kosher

if one proposes a new theory with Q =/=0, one must justify it in detail with clear definitions and showing the physics - what are the observables? etc

On Nov 15, 2009, at 2:38 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Change to:

"Given an n-dim analytical manifold M equipped with a Riemann metric g_ij, what I am talking about here is a family of
covariant derivatives {D} associated with various non-metric connections A obtained from the torsion free metric
compatible LC connection by the addition of a non-metricity tensor Q, or

A = LC + Q"

Paul Zielinski wrote:

Given an n-dim analytical manifold M equipped with a Riemann metric g_ij, what I am taking about here is a family of
covariant derivatives {A} associated with various non-metric connections A obtained from the torsion free metric
compatible LC connection by the addition of a non-metricity tensor Q, or

A = LC + Q

Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1638 L. H. Ford, Thomas A. Roman (Submitted on 9 Jul 2009) The use of atomic decay rates as a probe of sub-vacuum phenomena will be studied. Because electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations are essential for radiative decay of excited atomic states, decay rates can serve as a measure of the suppression of vacuum fluctuation in non-classical states, such as squeezed vacuum states. In such states the renormalized expectation value of the square of the electric field or the energy density can be periodically negative, representing suppression of vacuum fluctuations. We explore the extent to which atomic decays can be used to measure the mean squared electric field or energy density. We consider a scheme in which atoms in an excited state transit a closed cavity whose lowest mode contains photons in a non-classical state. The change in the decay probability of the atom in the cavity due to the non-classical state can, under certain circumstances, serve as a measure of the mean squared electric field or energy density in the cavity. We derive a quantum inequality bound on the decrease in this probability. We also show that the decrease in decay rate can sometimes be a measure of negative energy density or negative squared electric field. We make some estimates of the magnitude of this effect, which indicate that an experimental test might be possible. Decoherence and Recoherence in Model Quantum Systems http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.1596v1 Jen-Tsung Hsiang, L.H. Ford (Submitted on 10 Nov 2008) We discuss the various manifestations of quantum decoherence in the forms of dephasing, entanglement with the environment, and revelation of "which-path" information. As a specific example, we consider an electron interference experiment. The coupling of the coherent electrons to the quantized electromagnetic field illustrates all of these versions of decoherence. This decoherence has two equivalent interpretations, in terms of photon emission or in terms of Aharonov-Bohm phase fluctuations. We consider the case when the coherent electrons are coupled to photons in a squeezed vacuum state. The time-averaged result is increased decoherence. However, if only electrons which are emitted during selected periods are counted, the decoherence can be suppressed below the level for the photon vacuum. This is the phenomenon of recoherence. This effect is closely related to the quantum violations of the weak energy condition, and is restricted by similar inequalities. We give some estimates of the magnitude of the recoherence effect and discuss prospects for observing it in an electron interferometry experiment. 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@...

Change to:

"Given an n-dim analytical manifold M equipped with a Riemann metric g_ij, what I am talking about here is a family of
covariant derivatives {D} associated with various non-metric connections A obtained from the torsion free metric
compatible LC connection by the addition of a non-metricity tensor Q, or

A = LC + Q"

Paul Zielinski wrote:

Given an n-dim analytical manifold M equipped with a Riemann metric g_ij, what I am taking about here is a family of
covariant derivatives {A} associated with various non-metric connections A obtained from the torsion free metric
compatible LC connection by the addition of a non-metricity tensor Q, or

A = LC + Q

Dear Kiehn,

What I should have written here is

"The covariant derivative ":" is *completely non-metric* and is thus its associated connection is completely
insensitive to the intrinsic geometry of the manifold."

Given an n-dim analytical manifold M equipped with a Riemann metric g_ij, what I am taking about here is a family of
covariant derivatives {A} associated with various non-metric connections A obtained from the torsion free metric
compatible LC connection by the addition of a non-metricity tensor Q, or

A = LC + Q

My position here is that all covariant derivatives of the metric tensor field g_ij(x) associated with this family {A = LC + Q} of
connections A, with arbitrary non-metricity Q, are *tensor quantities* with respect to the group Diff(R^n) of passive
diffeomorphisms on the coordinate space R^n associated with M.

Within this family of non-metric connections I am also talking about a unique torsion free "completely non-metric" connection
A* that makes zero geometric corrections to the inner products of parallel transported vectors and higher tensors,

A* = LC + Q*

where I claim that the maximal non-metricity Q* is equal to the negative of the LC "deformation tensor"

r = LC'' - LC'

defined on a single n-dim analytical manifold M in a common atlas of local coordinate charts defined around each point on M,
and taken with respect to a globally flat reference metric LC'.

This is all premised on a Riemannian model, in which the intrinsic geometry of any Riemannian manifold {M, g) is
independently determined by the metric, as opposed to for example a metric-affine model in which the metric is derived
from a connection.

Hopefully this will make the discussion a little clearer.

Z.

> Paul Zielinski wrote:

> Metric compatibility of a connection has NOTHING  to do with the covariance of the associated covariant
> derivative. All connections in the family

> A = LC + Q

> (where Q is an arbitrary non-metricity term) are associated with fully covariant tensor derivatives.

> The first order tensor differential variation g_ij: k of the metric field g_ij(x) along the manifold is zero everywhere
> on a Minkowski spacetime manifold, but not on a warped spacetime manifold.

> The covariant derivative ":" is *completely non-metric* and is thus completely insensitive to the intrinsic geometry
> of the manifold.

 

RMK says:

 

I disagree with Zielinski.

 

All "manifolds" obey the Hausdorff T2+ separation axiom, which means

that they are metrizable.  That is, a metric can be found.

 

The Covariant derivative is not necessarily tensorial.

Tensorial :  Dx(fY) = f (Dx(Y)).

Koszul has shown that the affine connection obeys the rules

Affine:  D(x)(fY) = f (Dx(Y)) + Dx(f) Y

  see attachment

The affine derivative is not tensorial, but it still is geometric and

can be related to a metric.

*

 

In a message dated 14/11/2009 4:08:27 A.M. Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@... writes:

On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Robert you are not making any sense. I am not a proponent that the metric alone develops an adequate theory. 

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, rkiehn2352@... wrote:

To all

 

Read my words closely, predicated on the conjecture that gravity and QM must be compatible. 

 

IIf the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,  then I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory of gravity.

 

Again for the record: IMHO the gravity field is a compensating local gauge field just like the internal electromagnetic, weak and strong gauge fields. The difference is that gravity is universal and the internal fields are not. Gravity is universal because it comes from localizing the space-time symmetry groups that apply to all the lepton-quark fields.

Therefore, more fundamental than metric are the connection Cartan 1-forms, because it is the connections for parallel transport that are induced by the localization process. In the case of gravity, these connections are ten in number (at least) four tetrads and six spin connections (in Einstein-Cartan extension of Einstein 1915) - possibly more if we use the conformal group.

 

In a message dated 14/11/2009 4:08:27 A.M. Romance Standard Time, sarfatti@... writes:

On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Robert you are not making any sense. I am not a proponent that the metric alone develops an adequate theory. 

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, rkiehn2352@... wrote:

To all

 

Read my words closely, predicated on the conjecture that gravity and QM must be compatible. 

 

IIf the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,  then I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory of gravity.

 

Again for the record: IMHO the gravity field is a compensating local gauge field just like the internal electromagnetic, weak and strong gauge fields. The difference is that gravity is universal and the internal fields are not. Gravity is universal because it comes from localizing the space-time symmetry groups that apply to all the lepton-quark fields.

Therefore, more fundamental than metric are the connection Cartan 1-forms, because it is the connections for parallel transport that are induced by the localization process. In the case of gravity, these connections are ten in number (at least) four tetrads and six spin connections (in Einstein-Cartan extension of Einstein 1915) - possibly more if we use the conformal group.

 

RMK SAYS :

JACK

I have a problem, for as I understand it, the concepts of groups, group symmetries, quasi groups, localized embeddings, manifolds, closed Cartan connections, unique integrability, tetrads, deformation processes, Hodge duality and even exterior differential forms on diffeomorphic spaces, equivalence relations .... all are latently based upon Hausdorff T2+ topologies, hence they are geometric concepts related to a classic metric.   What that specific metric is, for all situations,  is not an easy (unresolved) problem.

 

Yet there are physical properties of physical systems that are NOT metrizable.  One property that such systems can have is the property of topological torsion (can't be embedded in R3 , or even in R4 if the exterior differential of the Topological Torsion is zero). 

*

For a video demo of torsion of deformation versus topological torsion, see the zip file attachment

The first video    R2torsion.mwv        demonstrates torsion deformations that are embeddable in the plane.

The second video     R3toptorsion    demonstrates Topological Torsion which is NOT embeddable in the plane.

 

 

and for the emergence of topological defects in a fluid, see

http://www22.pair.com/cdsc/download/spotsmovie.avi

 

 

*

 The classical metric field in 4D presumes the idea of a 4 x 4 matrix of functions, with signatures, where the constraints of symmetry or orthogonality limit the possibilities of the functions that compose the matrix elements.  In all cases the symmetric matrix can be diagonalized, the diagonal elements can be related to translations.   The more general asymmetric matrix of functions has in addition 6 matrix elements that have to do with fixed points of rotation, and the six component functions that make up the anti-symmetric parts of the matrix.    The anti-symmetric matrix components can be of maximal rank 4 (in 4D)  and will have 4 eigenvectors which are complex Spinors, even though the matrix elements are real.

 

In Kiehn, R. M. (1975), Submersive equivalence classes for metric fields, Lett. al Nuovo Cimento  14,  308, I demonstrated the hypothesis that if the classic concept of a metric was extended to include anti-symmetric parts, then these rank 3 and rank 4 anti-symmetric components could be related to Short range - conserved Parity - topological spaces, and Short range - non-conserved Parity- topological spaces.   That is,  the strong force systems  and the weak force systems, respectively.  The Strong force collection belonged to a set that contained an exterior differential 1-form, A, that satisfied the equations A^dA = 0 and d(A^dA)= 0, rank 3.  The weak force was related to the structures such that d(A^dA) =/= 0, rank 4.

*

Rather than say "Gravity is universal because it comes from localizing the space-time symmetry groups that apply to all the lepton-quark fields", I would prefer to say that the NON-metrizable  features of gravity appear to be related to the concept of Boson and Leptons, being associated with Non-metrizable  topologies.   The "localization" need not take place, for it is the process that excludes Non-Metrizable  features.

*

So with such assumptions, the marriage of gravity and quantum mechanics seems (to me) to be possible, and I would agree with the statement: "NON-metrizable features of Bosons and Leptons are the needed ingredients in forming a complete theory of gravity and quantum mechanics.".   

 

Regards,

R. M. Kiehn

<20091114.zip>

On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Robert you are not making any sense. I am not a proponent that the metric alone develops an adequate theory. 

On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, rkiehn2352@... wrote:

To all

 

Read my words closely, predicated on the conjecture that gravity and QM must be compatible. 

 

IIf the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,  then I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory of gravity.

 

Again for the record: IMHO the gravity field is a compensating local gauge field just like the internal electromagnetic, weak and strong gauge fields. The difference is that gravity is universal and the internal fields are not. Gravity is universal because it comes from localizing the space-time symmetry groups that apply to all the lepton-quark fields.

Therefore, more fundamental than metric are the connection Cartan 1-forms, because it is the connections for parallel transport that are induced by the localization process. In the case of gravity, these connections are ten in number (at least) four tetrads and six spin connections (in Einstein-Cartan extension of Einstein 1915) - possibly more if we use the conformal group.

how *do* you explain the Pioneer anomaly?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Z's misunderstanding of Einstein's physics
To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory. There is no Q =/= 0 in it.

Einstein's theory is simply in your terms

A = LC

Waldyr & others introduce alternative theories with Q =/= 0 that they claim are equivalent to Einstein's GR.

This is debatable - also not of any interest to the top guns in the field who ignore it - and rightly so.

It is only interesting if the proponents of the alternative theories make predictions that differ from Einstein's GR and if they can explain things like dark energy, dark matter, flyby anomaly, Pioneer anomaly etc - that is what I try to do.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Metric compatibility of a connection has NOTHING  to do with the covariance of the associated covariant
derivative. All connections in the family

A = LC + Q

(where Q is an arbitrary non-metricity term) are associated with fully covariant tensor derivatives.

The first order tensor differential variation g_ij: k of the metric field g_ij(x) along the manifold is zero everywhere
on a Minkowski spacetime manifold, but not on a warped spacetime manifold.

The covariant derivative ":" is *completely non-metric* and is thus completely insensitive to the intrinsic geometry
of the manifold.

see attached v3 under construction - with a new preface!

<Sarfatti Lectures Gravity.pdf>

On Nov 12, 2009, at 4:46 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory. There is no Q =/= 0 in it.

Einstein's theory is simply in your terms

A = LC

Waldyr & others introduce alternative theories with Q =/= 0 that they claim are equivalent to Einstein's GR.

This is debatable - also not of any interest to the top guns in the field who ignore it - and rightly so.

It is only interesting if the proponents of the alternative theories make predictions that differ from Einstein's GR and if they can explain things like dark energy, dark matter, flyby anomaly, Pioneer anomaly etc - that is what I try to do.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Metric compatibility of a connection has NOTHING  to do with the covariance of the associated covariant
derivative. All connections in the family

A = LC + Q

(where Q is an arbitrary non-metricity term) are associated with fully covariant tensor derivatives.

The first order tensor differential variation g_ij: k of the metric field g_ij(x) along the manifold is zero everywhere
on a Minkowski spacetime manifold, but not on a warped spacetime manifold.

The covariant derivative ":" is *completely non-metric* and is thus completely insensitive to the intrinsic geometry
of the manifold.

Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory. There is no Q =/= 0 in it.

Einstein's theory is simply in your terms

A = LC

Waldyr & others introduce alternative theories with Q =/= 0 that they claim are equivalent to Einstein's GR.

This is debatable - also not of any interest to the top guns in the field who ignore it - and rightly so.

It is only interesting if the proponents of the alternative theories make predictions that differ from Einstein's GR and if they can explain things like dark energy, dark matter, flyby anomaly, Pioneer anomaly etc - that is what I try to do.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Metric compatibility of a connection has NOTHING  to do with the covariance of the associated covariant
derivative. All connections in the family

A = LC + Q

(where Q is an arbitrary non-metricity term) are associated with fully covariant tensor derivatives.

The first order tensor differential variation g_ij: k of the metric field g_ij(x) along the manifold is zero everywhere
on a Minkowski spacetime manifold, but not on a warped spacetime manifold.

The covariant derivative ":" is *completely non-metric* and is thus completely insensitive to the intrinsic geometry
of the manifold.

Please change your address books to include

adastra1@...

because

sarfatti@... may be dead on Dec 1.

see attached pdf v1 as a partial answer to Zielinski's not even wrong allegation about both Einstein's theory and my position on Einstein's theory.

<tetrads1.pdf>

On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:40 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

do it in word

save it as pdf

that's what I am doing now

:-)

On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Woodward, James wrote:

I can't get anything like an equation editor to work in Outlook.  Rather than forego a little matn, I'll do a page or two in Word addressing the EEP, Mach's principle, and energy localization.  Sorry to be so long about this.

---

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@...]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Subject: John Cramer & Woodward nonlocalizable gravity energy & EEP "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" -

Thanks for the clarification James. I need to think about this. The EEP is very profound with many facets.

Let's take a uniformly accelerating test particle in globally flat Minkowski space-time with zero intrinsic curvature

The coordinates of the accelerating particle (from a non-gravity force) in the slow speed v/c << 1 Galilean limit are

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

t' = t

gt/c << 1

can ignore y & z

dx = dx' + gt'dt'

dt = dt'

ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 = c^2dt'^2 - (dx' + gt'dt')^2

= c^2(1 - (gt'/c)^2)dt^2 - 2gt'dtdx - dx'^2

there is a gravimagnetic field of gtx = 2gt'/c in this LNIF

There is an effective non-static Newtonian gravity potential energy per unit test particle

VNewton ~ (1/2)(gt')^2

Is there a Newtonian gravity force on the test particle in this slow speed approximation?

t'^2 = 2(x - x')/g

VNewton ~ (1/2)(gt')^2 = g(x - x')

Newton's universal gravity force per unit test particle = -dVNewton/dx' = g

so the calculation is self-consistent.

Now according to the EEP

the test particle mass should change continuously from m to

M = m(1 + VNewton/c^2) ~ m(1 + g(x - x')/c)

Of course energy is being pumped into the particle from the work done by the non-gravity force - so this change of mass is what one expects from special relativity - everything seems consistent.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Woodward, James" <jwoodward@...>

Date: November 5, 2009 11:15:21 AM PST

To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@...>

Subject: RE: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

Thanks.  By the way, you'll find a brief discussion of the EEP and gravitational energy localization in the notes to pp 39 and 40 for the PDF version of the presentation I gave at John Cramer's 75th birthday symposium.  (It's on the symposium website.)  Brans (in 1962) was correcting Einstein's claim (in 1921) that "spectator" masses (nearby mass concentrations) contribute to the gravitational potential energy, and thus the mass, of objects -- whereas the EEP requires that the total gravitational potential be a locally measured invariant to keep this from happening (and completely screwing up GR).  If localizable, local gravity fields change the masses of things -- and accelerations don't -- gravity and accelerations can be discriminated as Brans describes and the EP (E or otherwise) is false.

---

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:sarfatti@...] 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:15 AM
To: Woodward, James

Subject: Fwd: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

Begin forwarded message:

From: UserSg4282@...

Date: November 4, 2009 7:12:02 PM PST

To: sarfatti@...

Cc: lensman@..., SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

The book is right on with the chapters I mentioned earlier -- see attached excellent chapter!
Gary


In a message dated 10/16/09 3:52:45, sarfatti@... writes:

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Unified-Field-Philadelphia-Experiment/dp/1931882843/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
look at table of contents - very similar to what we were trying to 
check out at Joe Firmage's ISSO
book not as flaky as its cover - but probably wrong in the end
On Oct 16, 2009, at 3:46 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 5:01 PM, ... wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  http://www.amazon.com/dp/1563479567/?tag=fourmilabwwwfour
>>>
>

do it in word

save it as pdf

that's what I am doing now

:-)

On Nov 10, 2009, at 7:26 PM, Woodward, James wrote:

I can't get anything like an equation editor to work in Outlook.  Rather than forego a little matn, I'll do a page or two in Word addressing the EEP, Mach's principle, and energy localization.  Sorry to be so long about this.

---

From: JACK SARFATTI [sarfatti@...]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:31 PM
To: Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars
Cc: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Subject: John Cramer & Woodward nonlocalizable gravity energy & EEP "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" -

Thanks for the clarification James. I need to think about this. The EEP is very profound with many facets.

Let's take a uniformly accelerating test particle in globally flat Minkowski space-time with zero intrinsic curvature

The coordinates of the accelerating particle (from a non-gravity force) in the slow speed v/c << 1 Galilean limit are

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

t' = t

gt/c << 1

can ignore y & z

dx = dx' + gt'dt'

dt = dt'

ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 = c^2dt'^2 - (dx' + gt'dt')^2

= c^2(1 - (gt'/c)^2)dt^2 - 2gt'dtdx - dx'^2

there is a gravimagnetic field of gtx = 2gt'/c in this LNIF

There is an effective non-static Newtonian gravity potential energy per unit test particle

VNewton ~ (1/2)(gt')^2

Is there a Newtonian gravity force on the test particle in this slow speed approximation?

t'^2 = 2(x - x')/g

VNewton ~ (1/2)(gt')^2 = g(x - x')

Newton's universal gravity force per unit test particle = -dVNewton/dx' = g

so the calculation is self-consistent.

Now according to the EEP

the test particle mass should change continuously from m to

M = m(1 + VNewton/c^2) ~ m(1 + g(x - x')/c)

Of course energy is being pumped into the particle from the work done by the non-gravity force - so this change of mass is what one expects from special relativity - everything seems consistent.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Woodward, James" <jwoodward@...>

Date: November 5, 2009 11:15:21 AM PST

To: "'JACK SARFATTI'" <sarfatti@...>

Subject: RE: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

Thanks.  By the way, you'll find a brief discussion of the EEP and gravitational energy localization in the notes to pp 39 and 40 for the PDF version of the presentation I gave at John Cramer's 75th birthday symposium.  (It's on the symposium website.)  Brans (in 1962) was correcting Einstein's claim (in 1921) that "spectator" masses (nearby mass concentrations) contribute to the gravitational potential energy, and thus the mass, of objects -- whereas the EEP requires that the total gravitational potential be a locally measured invariant to keep this from happening (and completely screwing up GR).  If localizable, local gravity fields change the masses of things -- and accelerations don't -- gravity and accelerations can be discriminated as Brans describes and the EP (E or otherwise) is false.

---

From: JACK SARFATTI [mailto:sarfatti@...] 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 5:15 AM
To: Woodward, James

Subject: Fwd: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

Begin forwarded message:

From: UserSg4282@...

Date: November 4, 2009 7:12:02 PM PST

To: sarfatti@...

Cc: lensman@..., SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com, Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" - Hey guys I found something else - surprising

The book is right on with the chapters I mentioned earlier -- see attached excellent chapter!
Gary


In a message dated 10/16/09 3:52:45, sarfatti@... writes:

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Unified-Field-Philadelphia-Experiment/dp/1931882843/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
look at table of contents - very similar to what we were trying to 
check out at Joe Firmage's ISSO
book not as flaky as its cover - but probably wrong in the end
On Oct 16, 2009, at 3:46 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 5:01 PM, ... wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>  http://www.amazon.com/dp/1563479567/?tag=fourmilabwwwfour
>>>
>

... to explain BH Entropy, Holography & Entanglement:http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.4017v1.pdf 

---

Is Achmed Zarafat the mysterious "AZ"

implicated in secret NSA reports concerned

about Waziristan Taliban designing first non-Western

Emergent Gravity Bomb (EGB) using hijacked USA tech?

And against whom will first Islamic tactical black hole (TBH) be detonated?

Whatever the answer you can be certain that 

you will hear nothing about the alleged AZ/Waziristan connection on Fox News.

Yes, you are right O Great One.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdU25U8CeT8

On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:33 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Good thinking, Achmed.

We pretend

is just farce.

On Nov 9, 2009, at 3:07 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwczIc4FNV0&feature=video_response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6C2Ufs5afM&annotation_id=annotation_857522&feature=iv

On Nov 9, 2009, at 2:57 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

more relevant perhaps

<default.jpg>

3:15

From 1929....Silly ...........Dance Number

13,316 views

perfectjazz78

<default.jpg>

0:09

Shaw & Lee

2,107 views

vinphizz

<default.jpg>

2:37

Great duo does a Vaudeville act. - 1930

8,154 views

perfectjazz78

<default.jpg>

2:49

Vaudeville Act: Lowe, Hite and Stanley

30,843 views

CineGraphic

<default.jpg>

2:55

Yiddish Hillbillies

118,671 views

CineGraphic

<default.jpg>

5:20

One of a Kind Vaudeville Collection at UA

7,958 views

On Nov 9, 2009, at 2:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Nov 9, 2009, at 2:41 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Salaam, fellow Moor.

Trust in Allah

But tie your camel.

by the balls!

funny scene about that in Men Who Stare at Goats!

How about Women Who Stare at Goatees?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZo4imTt4Og

On Nov 9, 2009, at 11:53 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Nov 8, 2009, at 11:47 PM, nick herbert wrote:

Schwartzie has his Islam teachers;
Jabir's sheik is Hakim Bey
From whom does Dr Sarafat
claim his lineage?

Soloman ha-Zarfati aka Rashi de Troyes - see Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Lincoln & Baginet 

The Sephardic Jews have a rich history with Islam.

PS Istanbul seemed very familiar - like memories of a former life there. Young men on crowded trams in rush hour gave me their seats more than once calling me "Professor". Food is great in Istanbul.

"Sarfatti" in Hebrew means "the Frenchman"

1. Rashi de Troyes

   "I have traced your family tree back a thousand years to Rashi de Troyes. My name is David Padwa." Padwa told me a little about the great French Rabbi. ...
   www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/rashi.html - Cached - Similar - 

2. The Parsifal Effect

   Sharon, Michel and I took a long walk from a party near the Bois De Boulogne ... ancestorRashi de Troyes 24 (1040-1105) played a role in their formation. ...
   www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/parsifal.html - Cached - Similar - 

3. Rashi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Rashi was an only child born at Troyes, Champagne, in northern France. .... De Lyra's book was consulted in preparing the important early (1611) English ...
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi - Cached - Similar - 

4. RASHI DE TROYES - Encyclopédie Universalis

    - [ Translate this page ]
   Après avoir étudié dans les académies juives de Worms et de Mayence, Salomon ben Isaac, dit Rachi (ou Rashi), vit à Troyes où, dit-on, tout en soignant sa ...
   www.universalis.fr/encyclopedie/.../RASHI_DE_TROYES.htm - Similar - 

5. Les Juifs de Rouen au Moyen Age: portrait d'une culture oubliée - Google Books Result

   by Norman Golb - 1985 - History - 475 pages
   A partir de 1483, la famille Soncino commença à imprimer des traités individuels du Talmudde Babylone 82 avec les commentaires de Rashi et les ...
   books.google.com/books?isbn=2902618638... - 

6. Destiny's Oracle: The real Da Vinci Code - Knights Templars - 2012 ...

   The real Da Vinci Code - Knights Templars - 2012 - Secret societies - UFO's - Part 4. A little bit more about Rashi de Troyes Rashi was a rabbi from France, ...
   destiny-destinysoracle.blogspot.com/.../real-da-vinci-code-knights-templars_ 26.html -Cached - Similar - 

7. The Meaning of History

   So was my alleged ancestor Rashi de Troyes. Merlin could entangle with the Eagle in flight and experience what the Eagle experienced looking down. ...
   www.stardrive.org/Jack/history.html - Cached - Similar - 

8. Rachi - Wikipédia

    - [ Translate this page ]
   Jump to Le commentaire de Rachi‎: La petite histoire veut que Rachi ait eu l'idée de son ...avec une anecdote vécue à Troyes ((qui est une ville marchande, ... Rashi employait fréquemment dans ses commentaires les quatre sens ...
   fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachi - Cached - Similar - 

9. Rashi de Troyes, nueve siglos de historia y leyenda - Dialnet

    - [ Translate this page ]
   Información del artículo Rashi de Troyes, nueve siglos de historia y leyenda.
   dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2468094 - Similar - 
   by L Futoransky - 2005

10. UFO's - The real Da Vinci Code - 2012 - Knights Templars , page 1

    17 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Oct 12, 2008

    “Sarfatti” means the “Frenchman” first applied by the medieval Jews in Germany to Rashi de Troyes (1040-1105) AKA Solomon ha-Zarfati - the ...
    www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread415259/pg1 - Cached - Similar - 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Next

On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Dr Sultan Sarafat

Nick Herbert's alter ego is Dr Jabir