Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
SarfattiScienceSeminars · Star Fleet Academy (AIA Approved)
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Show off your group to the world. Share a photo of your group with us.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 14585 - 14614 of 14792   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#14614 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:45 pm
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Look u idiot, you use jargon without defining what you mean.

Nonmetricity means that the length of a vector is not invariant when parallel transported relative to the new non-metric connection e.g. Weyl 1918.
Einstein's GR is a metric connection - period.

Nonmetricity is analogous to non-unitarity in quantum theory where the vector (ray) is in a qubit hilbert space fiber on configuration space - including entanglement.

On Nov 15, 2009, at 2:41 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


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







#14613 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:41 pm
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

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






#14612 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:23 pm
Subject: Curriculum for Star Fleet Academy at The Presidio, San Francisco
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

On Nov 15, 2009, at 2:13 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Looking good! ;-)

Begin forwarded message:

Date: November 15, 2009 1:51:25 PM PST
Cc:
Subject: Re: Great potential StarDrive template

Hi Guys,
This sounds like you want StarDrive to be in a blog type format. What do you think of the idea of dividing up the topics you want to cover into a Wikipedia type format where WE can post the latest information? ...
The following are some of the topics we can cover on StarDrive:

Hardware
Advanced communication systems
Advanced computing systems
Advanced invisibility systems
Advanced propulsion systems
Advanced weapons systems 
Back-engineered alien systems
Electronic mind control systems
Remote assassination systems
Remote viewing systems
Stargates
Telepathic comm systems
Teleportation
Time travel systems
Temporal remote viewing systems
========================
Alien Activities:
Abductions
Artifacts
Historical interaction
Crop circles
Current Interaction
========================
Dark Energy
Dark Matter
Quantum Entanglement
Retrocausality
========================
The Big Picture
========================
I am sure the group will suggest additional topics. After we get the UFO Channel going, StarDrive could be spunoff into a one hour weekly show featuring the latest on the various topics from the people involved.
  
I like the idea of being a paid contributor. Do you guys know any corporate advertisers with deep pockets?
Art Greenfield

Build it and they will come.



#14611 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:13 pm
Subject: Fwd: Great potential StarDrive template Field of Dreams
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Looking good! ;-)

Begin forwarded message:

Date: November 15, 2009 1:51:25 PM PST
Cc:
Subject: Re: Great potential StarDrive template

Hi Guys,
This sounds like you want StarDrive to be in a blog type format. What do you think of the idea of dividing up the topics you want to cover into a Wikipedia type format where WE can post the latest information? Unlike Sikipedia, only WE would be posting. Otherwise we would have to engage in senseless flame wars with morons like occurred with the article about Dr. Sarfatti on Sickipedia. Jack's time is way too valuable to waste answering the posts of leftist morons. That's why I jumped in at Wikipedia to answer the morons and verbally bitch-slap them so Jack didn't have to.

The following are some of the topics we can cover on StarDrive:

Hardware
Advanced communication systems
Advanced computing systems
Advanced invisibility systems
Advanced propulsion systems
Advanced weapons systems 
Back-engineered alien systems
Electronic mind control systems
Remote assassination systems
Remote viewing systems
Stargates
Telepathic comm systems
Teleportation
Time travel systems
Temporal remote viewing systems
========================
Alien Activities:
Abductions
Artifacts
Historical interaction
Crop circles
Current Interaction
========================
Dark Energy
Dark Matter
Quantum Entanglement
Retrocausality
========================
The Big Picture
========================
I am sure the group will suggest additional topics. After we get the UFO Channel going, StarDrive could be spunoff into a one hour weekly show featuring the latest on the various topics from the people involved.
  
I like the idea of being a paid contributor. Do you guys know any corporate advertisers with deep pockets?
Art Greenfield

Build it and they will come.









On Nov 9, 2009, at 6:41 PM, lensman137@... wrote:

I agree. The idea is for you, me, and so many of the others we know, to comb the social and scientific landscape and let us know important things, so we can put them up on StarDrive and feature them. I just couldn't get excited about UpiFony, but StarDrive is a different matter. You get the idea. Science Daily is a great site, and we wouldn't be competing with them in any way. This site would be more specialized in the areas that we have come to specialize in. The idea is to make it THE news site for the latest, greatest, and most controversial research in these very specialized, but popular areas. The only competition would be sites like Rense, Earthfiles, Red Ice, etc. Hoagland's site is a whackarama. Whenever I hear the phrase hyper-dimensional tetrahedral physics, I want to reach for my revolver.



;-)


With the amount of people we know, I'm certain we could get some of these people to contribute articles and tips, etc., with byline credit of course. Of course, we'll try to keep political polemic out of it. But getting guys like antigray, Gary, et al, to contribute, shouldn't be too hard. Maybe Gordon would like to be a contributor. In the beginning, there would be no money involved for anyone. But if we could put it all together, we could easily make some money via advertising -- just start slow and grow it. I'm willing to donate my time and energy.
The bottom line is, whatever we do, let's do it tastefully and with integrity.
On Nov 9, 2009, at 6:10 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

great idea that could generate money with advertisers
On Nov 9, 2009, at 4:53 PM, lensman137@... wrote:

http://www.bestofjoomla.com/index2.php?option=com_bestoftemplate&task=demo&no_html=1&id=2108

How about turning StarDrive into a state of the science research and news site? This would be a good template. Of course, your work and writings would be prominently featured, but we could get lots of others to contribute.




#14610 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:58 pm
Subject: Puthoff
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Puthoff works on this sort of phenomenon.

On Nov 15, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:


Effects of Vacuum Fluctuation Suppression on Atomic Decay Rates

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


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



#14609 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:41 pm
Subject: Z's latest crank comment on meaning of "physical objectivity"
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

On Nov 15, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

If reference frames are represented by basis vectors instead of coordinate systems,
as they are in the tetrad model, then covariance no longer has any logical relationship
to physical objectivity (expressed in 1916 GR as frame invariance).

not even wrong

"physical objectivity" MEANS

1) covariance of the field equations (i.e. preservation of form as Alice ---> Bob)

e.g.

Guv(Alice) = 0 ---> Gu'v'(Bob) = 0


2) Alice and Bob compute same invariants when they measure same events - limited by quantum uncertainty for non-commuting observables.


PS As Rovelli shows there are two distinct spacetime groups in Einstein's GR connecting locally coincident frames (detectors)

"ii" LIF(Alice) --> LIF(Bob)    SO1,3(x)


"iii" LNIF(Carol) --> LNIF(Ted)   T4(x) 

The 16 tetrad components e^LIFLNIF connect Alice to Carol or Bob to Ted, or Alice to Ted or Bob to Carol.

The four tetrad 1-forms e^LIF =  e^LIFLNIF e(LNIF)  are iii invariants and form a first rank SO1,3(x)  tensor.

The six spin-connection 1-forms are also iii invariants but are inhomogeneous connections under SO1,3(x).

The fundamental gravity fields are these 10 Cartan 1-forms each of which are GCT invariant hence objective.

The EEP in this language is

ds^2 = (MinkowskiLIF)IJe^I(LIF)e^J(LIF) = guv(LNIF)e^u(LNIF)e^v(LNIF)

The LC connection (a complicated function of the tetrads and the spin connections) is about the LNIF measuring frame not the test particle being measured. It encodes the inertial force on detectors rigidly attached to the non-inertial frame.

There is zero g-force on the test particle in the geodesic equation

d^2x^u(test)/ds^2 + LC^uvw(LNIF)(dx^v(test)/ds)(dx^w(test)/ds) = 0

There is a non-gravity force on the LNIF ~ LC^itt, i = x,y,z.

A g-force is the test whether something is really accelerating or not in the objective tensor sense.

Einstein's 1915 GR field equations relate measurements of the same events between locally coincident Alice and Bob each of which may be accelerating or not. Whether what they measure is accelerating or not is irrelevant here. In contrast, Einstein's 1905 SR only relates the measurements when Alice and Bob are each not accelerating. 



#14608 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
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




#14607 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 6:04 pm
Subject: Woodward cites Sciama to refute, W Rodrigues, Poltorak & Zielinsky's "neo-Newtonian nonsense" on local gravity energy
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Thanks James

Begin forwarded message:

From: james f woodward <jfwoodward@...>
Date: November 15, 2009 9:40:04 AM PST
Subject: Re: covariant derivatives & connections

This conversation is headed in a direction where it seems that anything I
have to say isn't going to count for much -- which is fine.  Rather than
finish the few pages that I started on the other day, at this point I'm
just going to summarize my remarks on the EEP and attach a few slides
from my Cramer Symposium presentation that excerpt a couple of pages from
Ken Nordtvedt's outstanding paper on gravitomagnetism in the 1988 issue
of IJTP.  The summary:

1.  Gravitomagnetism -- already in the vector approximation of GR -- has
large effects not contemplated before Ken Nordtvedt pointed them out in
1988.

2.  When the gravitomagnetic field in a LNIF is calculated, it has a part
dependent on the acceleration of the frame with a coefficient that
depends on the total scalar gravitational potential divided by c^2.
(This was already shown by Sciama in his doctoral work with Dirac in the
early '50s.)  If the coefficient of this term = 1, then the term gives a
gravitational field that IS the inertial reaction force (IRF) on comoving
masses in the LNIF.


3.  Since WMAP we know that the condition for coefficient = 1 obtains as
a matter of fact.  So, in our present epoch, IRFs ARE gravitational if GR
is correct.  (It is.)

4.  For the coefficient of the IRF term to be independent of epoch and
location, the total scalar gravitational potential must be a locally
measured invariant (like c) -- and accordingly gravitational potential
energy cannot be localizable, exactly as prescribed by the EEP
.  Were the
EEP and GR wrong about this, one would see IRFs elsewhere and/or at other
times that violate Newton's 3rd law.  They are not observed.

By the way, Carl Brans' 1962 argument was the first realization that
point 4 is correct.  Please, no more neo-Newtonian nonsense.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:03:12 -0800 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
writes:


Begin forwarded message:


Here is the real scoop on connections and covariant derivatives
for  
experimental physicists.

Alice and Bob observer-participators relate to each other by
groups  
of frame transformations.

A frame is roughly Bohr's "total experimental arrangement".

Alice and Bob look at the same events and need to compare their
data  
by computing invariant numbers given by the theory.

The observables are tensors and spinors (multi-linear maps  
connecting Alice to Bob) and also non-tensor connections.

All of the forces of nature are these non-tensor connections  
relative to different groups of frame transformations connecting  
Alice to Bob.
e.g. universal Poincare group, non-universal internal groups U1,  
SU2, SU3.

Gravity is only from the universal Poincare group (and possibly
its  
extension the conformal group).

EEP = universality of the space-time symmetry groups - same
minimal  
coupling to all matter fields

Given a connection we have a covariant derivativeD  in terms of
that  
connection, i.e.

D = d + QA

Q = "charge"

e.g. for the EM force the connection is the vector potential A 1-
form and e^loop integral A.dr is non-integrable Wu-Yang phase
factor  
(Wilson loop) (anholonomic path-dependent encircling singularities

in the Goldstone phases where A ~ d(singular Goldstone phase) --->
F  
= dA =/= 0 from the singularity - note for SU2 & SU3

F = DA = dA + QA/\A (internal indices supressed)

In terms of tensors (not Cartan forms) DuTn = T'n+1  where
subscript  
is rank of the tensor relative to the group of frame
transformations  
connecting Alice to Bob.

Spinors are Dirac square roots of tensors - double-valued irreps
of  
the group connecting Alice to Bob.


____________________________________________________________


1 of 1 File(s)


#14606 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:43 am
Subject: Z's latest serving of word salad
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Z's remarks below are not-even-wrong word salad in my opinion.

Here is the real scoop on connections and covariant derivatives for experimental physicists who actually do things in the lab and do not count imaginary angels and demons on their own pin heads.

Alice and Bob observer-participators relate to each other by groups of frame transformations.

A frame is roughly Bohr's "total experimental arrangement".

Alice and Bob look at the same events and need to compare their data by computing invariant numbers given by the theory.

The observables are tensors and spinors (multi-linear maps connecting Alice to Bob) and also non-tensor connections.

All of the forces of nature are these non-tensor connections relative to different groups of frame transformations connecting Alice to Bob.
e.g. universal Poincare group, non-universal internal groups U1, SU2, SU3.

Gravity is only from the universal Poincare group (and possibly its extension the conformal group).

EEP = universality of the space-time symmetry groups - same minimal coupling to all matter fields 

Given a connection we have a covariant derivativeD  in terms of that connection, i.e.

D = d + QA

Q = "charge"

e.g. for the EM force the connection is the vector potential A 1-form and e^loop integral A.dr is non-integrable Wu-Yang phase factor (Wilson loop) (anholonomic path-dependent encircling singularities in the Goldstone phases where A ~ d(singular Goldstone phase) ---> F = dA =/= 0 from the singularity - note for SU2 & SU3

F = DA = dA + QA/\A (internal indices supressed)

In terms of tensors (not Cartan forms) DuTn = T'n+1  where subscript is rank of the tensor relative to the group of frame transformations connecting Alice to Bob.

Spinors are Dirac square roots of tensors - double-valued irreps of the group connecting Alice to Bob.


On Nov 14, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

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.
*



#14605 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sun Nov 15, 2009 4:22 am
Subject: Re: Kiehn makes false allegation about my position on quantum gravity
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I certainly am open to the idea that pre-metrical topological notions in the sense of Klein Erlanger Programme 1872 are relevant to the problem of quantum gravity. Clearly, however, Einstein's 1915 GR metric theory is consistent with all the experiments so far including dark matter and dark energy in my model for them as w = -1 ZPF fluctuations (virtual fermion-antifermion loops for dark matter mimicing w = 0 CDM & virtual bosons for dark energy). Also in my emergent tetrad/spin connection model there is no quantum gravity foam in Wheeler's sense. So far this seems to be consistent with observations - except possibly the "hologram noise" gravity wave data?

On Nov 14, 2009, at 11:57 AM, rkiehn2352@... wrote:

 

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.

Apparently there is a t'Hooft operator Hodge dual to the Wilson loop that describes Kleinert's multi-valued singular transformations e.g. my singular vacuum condensate Goldstone phase 0-forms that have non-vanishing derived 2-forms as well as 1-form compensating local gauge potential connections for parallel transport. There is also a connection to the Berry phase that needs to be explored.
 
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
 
 
*
 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>


#14604 From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:17 am
Subject: Re: Kiehn makes false allegation about my position
adastra1@...
Send Email Send Email
 
PPS in my theory there is no quantum gravity in the orthodox top ---> down i.e. classical to quantum sense.
My theory is bottom ---> up emergent gravity.

Gravity comes from the same partial cohering of the pre-inflation false vacuum's virtual lepton and quark closed loops and virtual photons that give the eight QCD gluon post-inflation vacuum condensates as well as the 4 tetrads and the six spin connections. There is no Wheeler quantum gravity foam here because when the vacuum coherence Higgs field order parameter vanish what you have left is the false vacuum again i.e. only the virtual leptons and quark loops and virtual photons - the vacuum condensates that give space-time curvature simply vanish. That's the qualitative idea.
In other words gravity is a collective excitation of cohered virtual fermion-antifermion zero point vacuum polarization loops and virtual photons that simply vanishes like when a superconductor undergoes a phase transition to a normal metal.


On Nov 13, 2009, at 7:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


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.




#14603 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 3:08 am
Subject: Re: Kiehn makes false allegation about my position
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

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.



#14602 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:37 am
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
yes it is, that is essentially exactly what it is about
that' the essence of the principle of relativity in operational terms
the relation between the observers gets more subtle as the theory generalizes
1905 SR is only when Alice and Bob are in uniform relative motion without g-force on either of them.
Of course they can describe test particles that are accelerating under the action of forces.
1915 GR allows Alice and Bob to be in arbitrary individual motions with g-forces.
It also requires that Alice and Bob be locally coincident even if they are measuring distant events on or inside their almost common past light cones.


On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Paul Murad wrote:


Jack:
 
Relativity is NOT how different observers compare measurements?  Really?....
Ufoguy...
 
 

--- On Fri, 11/13/09, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...> wrote:

From: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
To: "Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars" <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>
PS on Zielinsky's not even wrong thesis.

Relativity is about how different observers compare their measurements of the same events. Therefore, we have a creative tension with Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty limits for non-commuting observables.

There is not a good reason to introduce multiple connections into gravity theory.
If you do, you must give good physical reason in operational terms for doing so, and you must not confound what you are proposing as merely another way of looking at Einstein's GR, and if you do introduce such a Rube Goldberg device you must not say, as Zielinsky does say, that Einstein was wrong or did not understand what he is doing. Zielinsky does all of the above.

Extended theories of gravity only use ONE connection, but the connection gets larger - more terms from localizing larger universal spacetime symmetry groups.

Einstein 1915 localizes T4 -> T4(x) ---> tetrad ---> LC connection with constraint of zero torsion

Einstein-Cartan localizes P10 -> P10(x) ---> tetrad + independent spin connection ---> LC connection + torsion tensor in sense of T4(x) locally coincident LNIF --> LNIF' (Rovelli's iii in Ch 2 of his Quantum Gravity)

On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:51 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The local gauge principle explains both gravity and the internal forces in a conceptually unified way at the classical level.

The fundamental quantity is the connection for parallel transport of geometric objects.

The connections are induced by localizing the symmetry groups of the actions of the fermion matter fields (leptons and quarks).

Gravity is unique because it is universal. That is the essential meaning of the equivalence principle because all matter fields see the connections induced by localizing the spacetime symmetry groups common to all fermion matter fields.  In contrast, the U1, SU2, SU3 connections are not seen by all matter fields, i.e. the leptons do not see the SU3 connection directly.

As a matter of fact Einstein's 1915 GR is the local gauge theory of only T4 with a adhoc constraint of zero torsion.

This gives the curvature only limit (i.e. disclination without dislocation defects in Hagen Kleinert's sense).

The fundamental connection in that particular case are the non-trivial parts of the 4 tetrad Cartan 1-forms that give the disclination-only 6 spin connection 1-forms (Rovelli's 2.89) from which the curvature 2-form is calculated.

The Levi-Civita connection is secondary.

"Tensor" ("Spinor") are relative to the choice of symmetry group. Each symmetry group has its own space of tensors.

Tensors are multi-linear maps under the elements of the symmetry group.

So one need alway be careful of which "tensors" they mean.

The elements of the symmetry group must always be defined operationally in Bohr's terms "total experimental arrangement" i.e. "frame transformations" in terms of detectors that an experimental physicist can understand and design an experiment around - otherwise it is pseudo-physics - or pure mathematics of no interest to real physicists who are concerned with actual phenomena not mathematical fantasies no matter how enticing. Math for math's sake is the opium of the theoretical physicist, e.g. string theory.


On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:13 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

 

Memorandum for the record

 I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.

That is ridiculous. I am NOT a proponent of any such thing. Where Kiehn got that notion I don't know.

As a matter of fact, Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory of gravity and it works. 
If Kiehn has an alternative theory of gravity that explains all the experiments that Einstein's does, then the burden of proof is on him.
However, I never say that such an alternative theory is impossible. However, I have yet to see one.

On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:38 AM, RKiehn2352@aol. com wrote:

 
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.
*
Note that the Lie differential is not (necessarily) the same as the
covariant derivative or the affine derivative.  The Lie differential on
exterior differential forms works even though the space has a T0
topology, which is NOT metrizable!
*
Cohomology works on T0 non-metrizable topologies.  This implies that
there are period integrals
(hence quantum ideas of Spin, Topological Torsion, irreversible dissipation. .)
that are completely free of metric constraints.
  
 
It would appear that gravity based on metric
will never be (fully) compatible with Quantum Mechanics,
unless non-metrizable features of gravity are discovered, and employed.
 
If the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,
the I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.
 
AS an example of Topological (non-metrizable) Torsion, consider the photo
of a twisted fiber-bundle that cannot be embedded in R2.
It is a stabile spin 3/2 Moebius Torus.
 
<Untitled.jpg>
Compare to an untwisted fiber bundle that lies flat
on the plane (embeddable)  
<Untitled.jpg>
If the untwisted fiber bundle (the torus) is formed into a figure 8, 
it is not stable, and upon release will force itself to return to the flat state.
 
RMK
<Koszul.pdf>







#14601 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
PS on Zielinsky's not even wrong thesis.

Relativity is about how different observers compare their measurements of the same events. Therefore, we have a creative tension with Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty limits for non-commuting observables.

There is not a good reason to introduce multiple connections into gravity theory.
If you do, you must give good physical reason in operational terms for doing so, and you must not confound what you are proposing as merely another way of looking at Einstein's GR, and if you do introduce such a Rube Goldberg device you must not say, as Zielinsky does say, that Einstein was wrong or did not understand what he is doing. Zielinsky does all of the above.

Extended theories of gravity only use ONE connection, but the connection gets larger - more terms from localizing larger universal spacetime symmetry groups.

Einstein 1915 localizes T4 -> T4(x) ---> tetrad ---> LC connection with constraint of zero torsion

Einstein-Cartan localizes P10 -> P10(x) ---> tetrad + independent spin connection ---> LC connection + torsion tensor in sense of T4(x) locally coincident LNIF --> LNIF' (Rovelli's iii in Ch 2 of his Quantum Gravity)

On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:51 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

The local gauge principle explains both gravity and the internal forces in a conceptually unified way at the classical level.

The fundamental quantity is the connection for parallel transport of geometric objects.

The connections are induced by localizing the symmetry groups of the actions of the fermion matter fields (leptons and quarks).

Gravity is unique because it is universal. That is the essential meaning of the equivalence principle because all matter fields see the connections induced by localizing the spacetime symmetry groups common to all fermion matter fields.  In contrast, the U1, SU2, SU3 connections are not seen by all matter fields, i.e. the leptons do not see the SU3 connection directly.

As a matter of fact Einstein's 1915 GR is the local gauge theory of only T4 with a adhoc constraint of zero torsion.

This gives the curvature only limit (i.e. disclination without dislocation defects in Hagen Kleinert's sense).

The fundamental connection in that particular case are the non-trivial parts of the 4 tetrad Cartan 1-forms that give the disclination-only 6 spin connection 1-forms (Rovelli's 2.89) from which the curvature 2-form is calculated.

The Levi-Civita connection is secondary.

"Tensor" ("Spinor") are relative to the choice of symmetry group. Each symmetry group has its own space of tensors.

Tensors are multi-linear maps under the elements of the symmetry group.

So one need alway be careful of which "tensors" they mean.

The elements of the symmetry group must always be defined operationally in Bohr's terms "total experimental arrangement" i.e. "frame transformations" in terms of detectors that an experimental physicist can understand and design an experiment around - otherwise it is pseudo-physics - or pure mathematics of no interest to real physicists who are concerned with actual phenomena not mathematical fantasies no matter how enticing. Math for math's sake is the opium of the theoretical physicist, e.g. string theory.


On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:13 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

 

Memorandum for the record

 I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.

That is ridiculous. I am NOT a proponent of any such thing. Where Kiehn got that notion I don't know.

As a matter of fact, Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory of gravity and it works. 
If Kiehn has an alternative theory of gravity that explains all the experiments that Einstein's does, then the burden of proof is on him.
However, I never say that such an alternative theory is impossible. However, I have yet to see one.

On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:38 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:

 
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.
*
Note that the Lie differential is not (necessarily) the same as the
covariant derivative or the affine derivative.  The Lie differential on
exterior differential forms works even though the space has a T0
topology, which is NOT metrizable!
*
Cohomology works on T0 non-metrizable topologies.  This implies that
there are period integrals
(hence quantum ideas of Spin, Topological Torsion, irreversible dissipation..)
that are completely free of metric constraints.
  
 
It would appear that gravity based on metric
will never be (fully) compatible with Quantum Mechanics,
unless non-metrizable features of gravity are discovered, and employed.
 
If the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,
the I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.
 
AS an example of Topological (non-metrizable) Torsion, consider the photo
of a twisted fiber-bundle that cannot be embedded in R2.
It is a stabile spin 3/2 Moebius Torus.
 
<Untitled.jpg>
Compare to an untwisted fiber bundle that lies flat
on the plane (embeddable)  
<Untitled.jpg>
If the untwisted fiber bundle (the torus) is formed into a figure 8, 
it is not stable, and upon release will force itself to return to the flat state.
 
RMK
<Koszul.pdf>





#14600 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:51 pm
Subject: My actual position on gravity theories
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
The local gauge principle explains both gravity and the internal forces in a conceptually unified way at the classical level.

The fundamental quantity is the connection for parallel transport of geometric objects.

The connections are induced by localizing the symmetry groups of the actions of the fermion matter fields (leptons and quarks).

Gravity is unique because it is universal. That is the essential meaning of the equivalence principle because all matter fields see the connections induced by localizing the spacetime symmetry groups common to all fermion matter fields.  In contrast, the U1, SU2, SU3 connections are not seen by all matter fields, i.e. the leptons do not see the SU3 connection directly.

As a matter of fact Einstein's 1915 GR is the local gauge theory of only T4 with a adhoc constraint of zero torsion.

This gives the curvature only limit (i.e. disclination without dislocation defects in Hagen Kleinert's sense).

The fundamental connection in that particular case are the non-trivial parts of the 4 tetrad Cartan 1-forms that give the disclination-only 6 spin connection 1-forms (Rovelli's 2.89) from which the curvature 2-form is calculated.

The Levi-Civita connection is secondary.

"Tensor" ("Spinor") are relative to the choice of symmetry group. Each symmetry group has its own space of tensors.

Tensors are multi-linear maps under the elements of the symmetry group.

So one need alway be careful of which "tensors" they mean.

The elements of the symmetry group must always be defined operationally in Bohr's terms "total experimental arrangement" i.e. "frame transformations" in terms of detectors that an experimental physicist can understand and design an experiment around - otherwise it is pseudo-physics - or pure mathematics of no interest to real physicists who are concerned with actual phenomena not mathematical fantasies no matter how enticing. Math for math's sake is the opium of the theoretical physicist, e.g. string theory.


On Nov 13, 2009, at 6:13 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

 

Memorandum for the record

 I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.

That is ridiculous. I am NOT a proponent of any such thing. Where Kiehn got that notion I don't know.

As a matter of fact, Einstein's 1915 GR is a metric theory of gravity and it works. 
If Kiehn has an alternative theory of gravity that explains all the experiments that Einstein's does, then the burden of proof is on him.
However, I never say that such an alternative theory is impossible. However, I have yet to see one.

On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:38 AM, RKiehn2352@aol.com wrote:

 
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.
*
Note that the Lie differential is not (necessarily) the same as the
covariant derivative or the affine derivative.  The Lie differential on
exterior differential forms works even though the space has a T0
topology, which is NOT metrizable!
*
Cohomology works on T0 non-metrizable topologies.  This implies that
there are period integrals
(hence quantum ideas of Spin, Topological Torsion, irreversible dissipation..)
that are completely free of metric constraints.
  
 
It would appear that gravity based on metric
will never be (fully) compatible with Quantum Mechanics,
unless non-metrizable features of gravity are discovered, and employed.
 
If the ultimate theory of gravity is to be found, and if it MUST be compatible with QM,
the I must disagree with Sarfatti, who is a proponent that metric alone develops an adequate theory.
 
AS an example of Topological (non-metrizable) Torsion, consider the photo
of a twisted fiber-bundle that cannot be embedded in R2.
It is a stabile spin 3/2 Moebius Torus.
 
<Untitled.jpg>
Compare to an untwisted fiber bundle that lies flat
on the plane (embeddable)  
<Untitled.jpg>
If the untwisted fiber bundle (the torus) is formed into a figure 8, 
it is not stable, and upon release will force itself to return to the flat state.
 
RMK
<Koszul.pdf>




#14599 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:48 am
Subject: The Pioneer Anomaly - a dark matter effect - gravity monopole at center of Sun?
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I don't fully explain it of course - as yet
I am playing with the idea that it is a dark matter (virtual fermion-antifermion pair dominance inside exotic vacuum) gravity hedgehog monopole effect.
Basically two concentric spherical surfaces with Sun at center with dark matter in between - as in a hedgehog magnetic monopole topological defect - but this for the gravity field not the electromagnetic field - note the inner hollow hole  - the gravity arrows point inward

g = c^2/RH ~ 1 nanometer/sec^2

the appearance of the Hubble scale RH on this small scale must be a retrocausal hologram effect from our future event horizon.



On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Dave Williams wrote:

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.



#14598 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:25 am
Subject: Hawking's first name
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
e not a
Stephen
will fix in v4
On Nov 12, 2009, at 5:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

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.




#14597 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:21 am
Subject: Sarfatti Lectures on Einstein's Gravity and Beyond dedicated to Paul Zielinski & Waldyr Rodrigues Jr
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
see attached v3 under construction - with a new preface!

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.



1 of 1 File(s)


#14596 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:36 am
Subject: Fwd: "Exopolitics World Network (EWN) & United States Network (EUSN)" sent you a message on Facebook...
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 


Begin forwarded message:

From: Facebook <notification+m554xnnr@...>
Date: November 12, 2009 12:03:18 PM PST
To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
Subject: "Exopolitics World Network (EWN) & United States Network (EUSN)" sent you a message on Facebook...
Reply-To: noreply <noreply@...>

Michael Salla sent a message to the members of Exopolitics World Network (EWN) & United States Network (EUSN).

--------------------
Subject: Vatican prepares for extraterrestrial disclosure

[Honolulu Exopolitics Examiner - 11/12/09]

The Vatican has just completed a five day conference on astrobiology where scientists convened to discuss the detection and implications of extraterrestrial life. A major driving force behind the conference was the Director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit priest Father Gabriel Funes. In May 2008, Funes gave an interview to the Vaticans LOsservatore Romano newspaper saying that the existence of intelligent extraterrestrials posed no problems to Catholic theology. The conference itself was officially convened by the Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences, chaired by its religious leader Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, and was held on private Vatican grounds. Together with Funes 2008 interview and subsequent public comments by him, the conference demonstrates a welcome openness by the Vatican on the possibility and implications of extraterrestrial life.  The Vaticans openness to discussion of extraterrestrial life is no accident. It is part of an openness policy secretly adopted by the United Nations in February 2008. In fact, the Vatican is playing a leading role in preparing the world for extraterrestrial disclosure.


cont: http://www.facebook.com/l/a794e;tinyurl.com/ylxnu54
--------------------

To reply to this message, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?inbox%2Freadmessage.php&t=1077787244548&mid=1666734G2ac4fac2G3da1670G0

___
This message was intended for sarfatti@.... Want to control which emails you receive from Facebook? Go to:
http://www.facebook.com/editaccount.php?notifications=1&mid=1666734G2ac4fac2G3da1670G0
Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304.



#14595 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:37 am
Subject: Re: John Cramer & Woodward nonlocalizable gravity energy & EEP "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" -
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
attached v2 - expanded

On Nov 10, 2009, at 8:27 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Please change your address books to include
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:

Date: November 4, 2009 7:12:02 PM PST
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
>>>
>









1 of 1 File(s)


#14594 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:58 pm
Subject: Re: Your APS April Meeting Abstract (Dr. Quantum)
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:45 PM, messages@... wrote:

> Dear April APS Meeting presenter,
>
> My colleagues and I are working to publicize the upcoming 2010
> April APS meeting in Washington, DC (February 13-16). In order
> to foster coverage of the meeting for print, broadcast, and
> internet news outlets, we're contacting each meeting presenter in
> an attempt to identify the research that will most appeal to the
> journalists who will be covering the meeting.
>
> As soon as you have a chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you
> could take a moment to answer a few questions (if you are already
> in touch with one of the media relations people at the APS or the
> American Institute of Physics, please feel free to ignore this email).
> Your responses will help us determine whether we should include
> information about your abstract in our press materials.
>
> -What is the title of your talk?
Emergent Gravity - unification with the strong force?
>
> -In your opinion, how newsworthy is the research you will be
> presenting at the April meeting (not newsworthy, fairly newsworthy,
> exceedingly newsworthy)?

Exceedingly newsworthy.
>
> -Please briefly explain your research as though you were describing
> it to a non-physicist.  (Imagine presenting your work to a high
> school physics class or a non-physics college class)

In this model, Einstein's gravity, the strong QCD SU3 force, and
possibly the weak SU2 force emerge at the moment of inflation from the
partial cohering of the lepton, quark and photon zero point vacuum
fluctuations of the false vacuum. Wheeler's quantum gravity foam does
not exist in this model. The residual un-cohered pre-inflation w = -1
in 3D +1 off-shell vacuum fluctuations correspond to both dark energy
and dark matter. Attractive dark matter comes from the clumping of
virtual fermion-antifermion pairs whose density dominates the virtual
bosons responsible for repulsive dark energy spreading out to larger
scales. The virtual fermion-antifermion pairs mimic w = 0 on-shell
CDM. The t' Hooft-Susskind hologram conjecture, that implies that we
are 3D animated conscious hologram images, is satisfied with the 2D
hologram as our observer-dependent future event horizon of about
10^122 Bekenstein-Hawking BITs as partially explained in the 2004
Ph.D. dissertation of Tamara Davis. In this model the dark energy
density from our future horizon ~ (area of the horizon)^-1 is the
Planck energy density cut down by the factor of ~ 10^122 . This,
however requires the reintroduction of Wheeler-Feynman-Hoyle-Narlikar
retro-causality in the sense of John Cramer's "transactional
interpretation" supplemented by Antony Valentini's "signal
nonlocality" violation of orthodox quantum theory's unitarity
postulate. The Bohm hidden variable intepretation is needed to make
sense of the latter statement.
>
> -Are there any superlatives you could use in describing your
> research? (first, largest, smallest, fastest, strongest, hottest,
> coldest, best, etc.)

first, weirdest
>
> - Do you have any attractive graphics or video that we could share
> with members of the media to help illustrate the research you will
> be presenting at the April meeting? (Even if you feel your research
> is not newsworthy, we would appreciate seeing any interesting
> graphics and videos you might have.)
Images from Tamara Davis's 2004 dissertation University of New South
Wales Figs 1.1 & 5.1
>
> -What funding sources supported your research?

Private
>
> Some of you might be wondering when your presentations have been
> scheduled. The APS Meetings Department is working very hard to
> schedule the sessions and the April Meeting Program Committee is
> currently reviewing the program and making changes. You'll receive
> your session assignment on or about November 30.
>
> Thank you for your time. I can't guarantee that we will be able to
> respond to everyone, but we will read every email we receive. I
> look forward to learning about your research.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> James Riordon
> Media Relations
> American Physical Society
>
>

1 of 1 File(s)


#14593 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:28 pm
Subject: Re: New GRG Test This Friday
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#14592 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 4:27 am
Subject: Re: John Cramer & Woodward nonlocalizable gravity energy & EEP "Frontiers of Propulsion Science" -
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Please change your address books to include
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.


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:

Date: November 4, 2009 7:12:02 PM PST
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
>>>
>








1 of 1 File(s)


#14591 From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am
Subject: Re: Today's San Jose Mercury News
adastra1@...
Send Email Send Email
 
yeah it's good.
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Michael Sarfatti wrote:

Now THAT"S funny! ;-)

Jack - your turn. Hard to beat.


From: nick herbert <quanta@...>
To: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>

Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 5:37:43 PM
Subject: Today's San Jose Mercury News



Mere Coincidence? I think not.




#14590 From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:40 am
Subject: Re: Today's San Jose Mercury News
adastra1@...
Send Email Send Email
 
nice photoshop work Nick
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:37 PM, nick herbert wrote:

>
>
> Mere Coincidence? I think not.
>
> <RadicalCleric.jpg>

#14589 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am
Subject: Re: Today's San Jose Mercury News - seeing is not believing
jacobsarfatti
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

 

Sponsored Links

  1. San jose mercury news

    Mercury News Sunday Delivery Deal:
    Special Price for Sunday Customers
    www.MercuryNews.net/GoogleOffer

See your ad here »

Your search - san jose mercury news achmed al zarafat - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

  • Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
  • Try different keywords.
  • Try more general keywords.
  • Try fewer keywords.
    On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:37 PM, nick herbert wrote:



    Mere Coincidence? I think not.

    Right it's your misinformation. Impressive photoshop Nick. Have you tried printing counterfeit money yet? ;-)




    1. Universal Digital Library

      Risala Zarafat Vol No 2 by Bulaqi Dass L: Urdu, Y: 1916, S: Literature, 66 pgs ... Risalai Gumnaam Azhar Al Hadai by Shaik Ahmed ...
      www.ulib.org/.../ULIBAdvSearch.cgi?...Cached - Similar - 
    2. Basic

      Dec 14, 2008 ... and accompanied some of the most prestigious musicians of the Arabic world including Egyptian violinist Aboud Abdel Al... and Egyptian violinist Ahmed Hafnawai.... 10/4: Badri Bada, 7/8: Draj, 13/8: Samaii Zarafat ...
      najibbio.homestead.com/basic.htmlCached - Similar - 
    3. Director Information - Listings al - Number of Directors 38001 to ...

      Director Information, Companies containing al, AZ listings of Companies House information with ... ZARAFAT ALI. WEST MIDLANDS B67 7PP, (ID:17833557) ...
      www.checksure.biz/directors-al-76.htm - Cached - Similar - 
    4. Department Faculty Members Details - University of Delhi

      Badruddin Al-Hafiz. July 2002, Fikr-e-Iqbal Ke mashriqi Masadir ... 8) Sir Syed Ahmed Khan aur Iqbal, “Alami Sahara” Magazine, New Delhi, 27 Oct. 2007. ... 6) Iqbal Ki Zarafat, seminar organized by Bazm-e-Adab, Kirorimal College, ...
      www.du.ac.in/faculty_member_details.htm?id=677Cached - Similar - 
    5. The Poetry of Dilawar Figar : ALL THINGS PAKISTAN

      May 30, 2008 ... He is known as Shehansha-e-Zarafat and Akbar-e-Sani for his satirical and rich humor writings. ... Al-e-Raza, Hashim Raza Shan-ul-Haq Haqqi, Mehshar Badayuni ...Saleem Ahmed (also famous Dramatist) Qamar Jalalwi ...
      pakistaniat.com/2008/05/30/dilawar-figar/Cached - Similar - 
    6. [PDF] 

      ACCOUNT, 9, 1

      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
      Iftikhar Ahmed. Daalat Al i. Hena Chowdhury. Mohammed Habeebullah. Abid Hussain. Shabir Hussain. Amna Mir. Zarafat Mohammed. Mohammed Sheraz. Zahir Siddique ...
      www.charity-commission.gov.uk/.../Ends44%5C0001003644_ac_20051231 _e_c.pdf -Similar - 
    7. Guy Schalom - Shop

      “Sheik” Taha: quarter-tone accordion. Ahmed El Saidi: oriental sax. Adam Warne: duff, riq & mazhar ... Bint Al Balad (Baladi) 7. Mkadeir (Khaligy) ... El Zarafat. 24. Muhajar. 25. The Final Countdown (Darabuka / Riq Duet). 26. Darig ...
      www.guyschalom.com/index.php?Itemid=27&option... - Cached - Similar - 
    8. Indo Muslim Cultures in Transition

      ... has been offered by another member of the Angare quartet, Ahmed Ali (1910- 1994), ...Fasana-e Azad began as a series of humorous sketches titled zarafat... to secure an audience with Naser al-Din Shah in London and, in 1882, ...
      www.humanities.uci.edu/arthistory/.../Abstracts.htmlCached - Similar - 
    9. Zia-Ul-Haq Qasmi ! ضيا ا لحق قاسمی -

      18 posts - 6 authors - Last post: Nov 12, 2006
      Ahmed Nadeem Qasmi aur Zia ul Haq Qasmi ka iss dunya se chale jana Urdu adab aur ... iss hawale se risala ZARAFAT ki ashaa'at b unn ka bada karnama hai. .... Ikramchoudhry, Imrans, Mohsinkhan, Zaalim, Saadmcs, Al-Qaida ...
      www.urdupages.com/showthread.php?t=48328Cached - Similar - 
    10. Drake Memorial Library- Islam Bibliography

      CONTENTS: Beirut hal zarafat / B. El Khoury, Rabhani Brothers -- Ya mina el habayeb / Rahbani Bros. -- Amman / S. Akl, Rahbani Bros. -- Al Kuwait ; Hamaltu ...
      www.brockport.edu/~library3/islambib.htmCached - Similar - 

    Did you mean to search for: ahmed al zarafat  




      #14588 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
      Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:41 pm
      Subject: Re: Wormhole Spaces Space-Time & Beyond Dr. Quantum
      jacobsarfatti
      Offline Offline
      Send Email Send Email
       
      this basic idea wormholes/EPR link is in Space-Time and Beyond 1974
      will scan relevant passages 
      On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:40 AM, art wagner wrote:

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



      #14587 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
      Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 9:13 pm
      Subject: Re: Science Moles
      jacobsarfatti
      Offline Offline
      Send Email Send Email
       
      I am the Alpha and the Zeta Omega - the Feynman Zig-Zag Man of the Cosmic Transaction
      I am The Once and Future Madhi Man
      I AM WHAT I AM.
      popeye.gif

      On Nov 10, 2009, at 12:36 PM, nick herbert wrote:

      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.





      #14586 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
      Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:07 pm
      Subject: Fwd: New books reviewed by Physics Today
      jacobsarfatti
      Offline Offline
      Send Email Send Email
       


      Begin forwarded message:

      From: "Physics Today" <pt@...>
      Date: November 10, 2009 8:36:19 AM PST
      To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
      Subject: New books reviewed by Physics Today
      Reply-To: <pt@...>

      November 2009
        

      Elsevier

      Take a break and view the latest books reviewed in the pages of PHYSICS TODAY. Grab a latt and see what's new.


       

      Fermilab: Physics, the Frontier, and Megascience 
      U. Chicago Press, Chicago, 2008. $45.00 (497 pp.). ISBN 978-0-226-34623-6
      Lillian Hoddeson, Adrienne W. Kolb, Catherine Westfall
      Reviewed by Charles Thorpe

      Charles Thorpe is an associate professor in the department of sociology and a member of the science studies program at the University of California, San Diego. He is author of Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect (University of Chicago Press, 2006).

      Collider: The Search for the World's Smallest Particles
      Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2009. $27.95 (260 pp.). ISBN 978-0-470-28620-3
      Paul Halpern
      Reviewed by Tom Ferbel

      Entropy and the Time Evolution of Macroscopic Systems
      Oxford U. Press, New York, 2008. $110.00 (209 pp.). ISBN 978-0-19-954617-6
      Walter T. Grandy Jr
      Reviewed by Peter Salamon

      Boulevard of Broken Symmetries: Effective Field Theories of Condensed Matter 
      World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2008. $79.00 (390 pp.). ISBN 978-981-281-390-9
      Adriaan M. J. Schakel
      Reviewed by Piers Coleman

      Theoretical Femtosecond Physics: Atoms and Molecules in Strong Laser Fields 
      Springer, Berlin, 2008. $149.95 (214 pp.). ISBN 978-3-540-77896-7
      Frank Grossmann
      Reviewed by Franz X. Krtner

       

      Guzik

       

      The Day We Found the Universe
      Marcia Bartusiak, Reviewed by Robert Kirshner
      Pantheon Books, New York, 2009. $27.95 (3377 pp.). ISBN 978-0-375-42429-8

      Discovering the Expanding Universe
      Harry Nussbaumer and Lydia Bieri, Reviewed by Robert Kirshner
      Cambridge U. Press, New York, 2009. $59.00 (226 pp.). ISBN 978-0-521-51484-2

      The Strangest Man: The Hidden Life of Paul Dirac, Mystic of the Atom
      Graham Farmelo, Reviewed by Babak Ashrafi
      Basic Books, New York, 2009. $29.95 (512 pp.). ISBN 978-0-571-22278-0

      The Sun Recorded Through History: Scientific Data Extracted from Historical Documents
      J.M. Vaquero and M. Vsquez, Reviewed by Paul Charbonneau
      Springer, New York, 2009. $179.00 (382 pp.). ISBN 978-0-387-92789-3

      General Relativity and the Einstein Equations
      Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat, Reviewed by Kayll Lake
      Oxford U. Press, New York, 2009. $130.00 (840 pp.). ISBN 978-0-19-923072-3

      CRC Press

      You are currently subscribed to receive PHYSICS TODAY BOOKS alert e-mail. You can unsubscribe at any time by visiting our site at http://www.physicstoday.org/alert.html

      Please read our privacy policy.


      Springer

      Cambridge University Press




      #14585 From: JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@...>
      Date: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:37 am
      Subject: A private buffoom
      jacobsarfatti
      Offline Offline
      Send Email Send Email
       
      this is the pro-version
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDmFf59VIc
      On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:35 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

      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
      13,316 views
      2,107 views
      8,154 views
      30,843 views
      118,671 views
      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.htmlCached - 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.htmlCached - 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/RachiCached - 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=2468094Similar - 
        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/pg1Cached - Similar - 



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

        Dr Sultan Sarafat


        Nick Herbert's alter ego is Dr Jabir










        Messages 14585 - 14614 of 14792   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
        Advanced
        Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

        Copyright 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
        Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help