Jack,

I have been following recent exchanges of your email debate with Joe Firmage
and thought I would add my 2 cents worth (maybe just 1-cent worth :-) --
including
questions/comments on a couple of points of terminology in your more technical
post below, most all of which is beyond my ken mathematically and
terminologically.


I know that one of your main "beefs" with folks not familiar with math and
physics
vocabulary precision is the (mis)use of words which have a particular (or
sometimes
multiple) meaning(s) in colloquial usage but have a very precise meaning when
used in science. Perhaps no better example is the word "energy" to which
science
assigns very precise mathematical definitions, units, etc., as compared to its
uses, for example, by "New Age" types where its meaning is not precise and
dependent
on its context in confusing conversations.

But are there not also some confusing/imprecise definitions in use by physicists
that may contribute to problems in communication between disciplines?

For example, where you say "compactification scale of hyperspace", what exactly
is your definition of hyperspace? Is this to mean units of distance raised
to any power greater than 3, or limited to d^4?

I have a precision problem with the physics terminology used by some to effect
that "time is the 4th dimension", since by any reasonable use of words, distance
to first power is length, to second power is area, to third power is volume
(this describing our "3-dimensional universe", ie, the "third dimension is
volume"),
so by any proper logic it seems to me that properly used the "4th dimension"
(hyperspace?) would be expressed as units of distance to the 4th power, d^4,
and the notion that "time is the 4th dimension" is at least logically
inconsistent,
if not "pseudologica fantastica" :-) Why is there not commonly used in physics
a more precise vernacular where we might talk about both "dimensions of distance
and dimensions of time" where "dimension number" seems to most precisely equate
to exponent number, n, ie, d^n and t^n? Eg, units of acceleration being d/t^2,
ie, first "dimension" of distance divided by second "dimension" of time.

Also, on the question of the limitations of mathematics in modeling physics
concepts, I wonder about the implications of certain "mathematical conventions"
on this modeling process. For example, although certain physical measurement
parameters such as torque are calculated by a vector cross product multiplying
two perpendicular vectors (force, and "radius" -- why exactly radius is a vector
and how other than arbitrarily its direction is defined I'm not clear) to get
a torque value with amplitude and a direction perpendicular to the plane of
the other two by the "right hand rule" --- BUT when determing the value of the
square of a vector quantity, the direction of this "product" is deemed by
"mathematical
convention" to be "equal to one", ie, to have no directional component value.
For example if we square the speed of 10mi/hr we get 100mi^2/hr^2, but if we
square the vector of 10mi/hr-North we get 100mi^2/hr^2-(North)^2 and by
"mathematical
convention", (North)^2 is equal to 1.

In trying to use math in this case to describe physical models, isn't this the
same as saying "because we can't mentally grasp or understand what (North)^2
really means, we assume for all intents and purposes that it doesn't mean
anything"?
I know this is a crude and simplistic example but I wonder if and where, in
the more advanced physics and math than I understand, instances of accepting
such kinds of "mathematical conventions" (some seem to me more like compromises
about the nature of truth) might be a source of overlooked errors in physics?


In your below post where you say "10. Solution of mind-matter-consciousness
physics problem already at hand with these equations", of course anyone
following
your work understands that you have assigned to the words "mind" and
"consciousness"
particularly precise mathematical meanings that, analogous to the discussion
on the word "energy" above, may or may not reconcile exactly with other
definitions
of "consciousness" and "mind" as used in other disciplines such as psychology,
religious/spiritual studies, etc. While it is "not even wrong" :-) for
physics
to "co-opt" use of particular words when they are assigned particular
mathematical
definitions, many arguments can be avoided by folks understanding, for example,
that your use of "consciousness" (and claim that your equations describe it)
is "by definition" correct yet perhaps still somewhat short of describing the
broader definitions of consciousness as the word is used by others to describe
perhaps different or additional "functions of the 'human mind'".

By "narrowing" the definition of "consciousness", as it seems to me you are
doing in your precise usage of the word, are you ignoring the "mind-set" and
"faith/belief" aspects of "consciousness" as normally applied to this word ---
and the perhaps resultant "not-universally-duplicable" applications of
"consciousness"
due apparently to variations in "observer-identities" (faith/belief "mind-sets")
such as the "Geller effect", O'Leary's varying success "teaching" his "Second
Coming of Science" workshop participants to "bend spoons psychokinetically",
and other psi phenomena such as faith healing, "miracles", etc. --- or if not,
is there a "factor" in your equations that may be found to account for this
"variable observer effect" which seems to me is a major factor in the
"mind-matter-consciousness
physics problem" if the scope of physics indeed includes all of what is actually
happening in our reality and not just those things happening in the same way
for every person every time irrespective of "faith/belief mind-set". Certainly
you are not saying that explaining "psi phenomenae" is beyond the scope of a
comprehensive physics of consciousness theory?

My reading of Joe's "physics paradigm" underscores this problem, but in spite
of his mixed(-up?) usages of precise/scientific and colloquial terms, it seems
his points are wrestling with some key issues not well understood or describable
by any vocabulary terms in use today. Also some of your criticisms, if I may
say, might be tempered if you were aware of, accepted, some experimental
evidence
that apparently you still do not, eg, DePalma's "variations of gravitational
behavior of spinning objects", "space-drive", "anti-gravity", "incremental
overunity",
and "variable inertia" effects observed in experiments on his "force machines"
and n-machine, as well as the electrogravitic effects of John Searle's well
documented "anti-gravity" experiments where his electrogravitic devices showed
very vigorous lift.

Regarding what he might mean by the "fundamental spiral motion" concept, this
seems qualitatively to jibe with Tewari's Space Vortex Theory holding that
spinning
electrons are "vortices" interacting with "space" (ZPF?) as well as observed
experimental anomalies regarding properties of water in vorticular motion,
although
I don't understand Joe's idea on this well enough for any quantitative
comparison.


Jack, I am very grateful that you are doing such an amazing job as a theoretical
physicist (those "high-priests of science" who determine and tell us what "can
be true":-) in wrestling with these forefront issues, but I wonder if you are
as deeply aware of the purview limitations this places on you in
facing/accepting/acknowledging
real observations that do not square with your worldview composed of selections
of physics theories that you accept/understand/believe as "true". Might it
also be possible that you have overlooked areas of "theory" that may "allow"
the reality of some of these things Joe talks about, albeit in frustratingly
confusing terms? It seems to me that there are a lot of experimental
observations
that must be accounted for by valid physics but that you do not yet even accept
yet as real, eg, DePalma's, perhaps in part because they contradict current
theory and "therefore can't be true" or worth investigation in your view?

For example, you clearly stated in another recent email your catagorical
conviction
that there are no technologies now being developed covertly under black ops
utilizing practical ZPE or anti-gravity technologies and/because if there were
then for sure you would know about them.

Are you familiar with what both Bearden and Wood, as experienced and qualified
electrical engineers, regard as a key to understanding this, the original
quaternion
form of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism? If so, is there a connection
between those equations and your equations relating to the physics of
conscioiusness?
(Dr. Wood tells me from his understanding of this that there is not only a
ZPF component but also an "information field component" to the quantum vacuum
flux) If not, isn't it possible that black ops electrical engineers employing
this knowledge could in fact have made significant advances in zpe and anti-grav
tech that you are not aware of? My limited understanding of the secrecy
situation
indicates that when one has a security clearance along with it goes a secrecy
agreement. Do you have such level security clearance that you would be allowed
to be aware of what is being worked on in this area? If not, how can you say
that you "would know"? If so, how can your readers be convinced that you are
able to tell what you really know? Your rejection of this Disclosure Project
premise, to be fully evaluated, might need to be qualified with a yes or no
answer to this question. Are people who have executed
security-clearances/secrecy-agreements
with the US Govt allowed to say that they have done so?

With regard to the need to protect the Earth from hostile alien ET invasions,
and the weaponry you think needs to be developed to accomplish this, vs the
"they're all friendly" view, wouldn't a good parallel approach be to utilize
a comprehensive physics of consciousness understanding to enable
communication/understanding
to avert potential hostilities? I think you are minimizing a good bet that
your theory has applications for this area greater than for weapons. Of course
we still need a way to protect against asteroid-Earth collisions.

Perhaps of equivalent priority might be the applications of your physics of
consciousness understanding to help reconcile conflicting religious doctrines
at the root of so many hostilities around the world including in Israel right
now. In this matter might it not be important to address this (faith/belief
"mind-sets") "variable observer effect" which is clearly heightened between
ardent believers of seemingly conflicting religious doctrines that might be
reconcilable via a comprehensive physics of mind-matter-consciousness
understanding?


Although there are many ways that various disciplines try to uniquely "quantify
variations in the identities of observers", eg, genetics, education/training
parameters, psychological profiles, fingerprinting, voiceprinting, personality
tests, belief-system parameters, etc., I have seen nowhere yet in your physics
of consciousness theory where such variations would yield a quantitative
difference
in the computations of your equations, even if it were possible to determine
the "mathematically describable essence" of an "observer identity measurement
parameter" -- aside possibly from what would be called "variations of intention"
which induce variations in results?

Again I offer my contention that in an overlooked property of the "c" in E=mc^2
-- "c" as not just the "speed of light" but the "velocity of light oriented
relative to the identity of the observer" -- may lie a key to the answer of
some of the above questions. Whether it appears in units of "the second
dimension
of distance divided by the second dimension of time" as c^2 in this equivalence
equation, or in units of d^1/t^1 as "c" in Maxwell's equations and others, this
"c" seems to be the only "physical reality measurement parameter" in use in
modern science that is not "pegged" to the notion of an objective reality
reference
frame but rather is "pegged to the (relative, unique) identity of the observer".
Might not the nature of light itself, as described by "c" including this
"relative
reality factor", therefore be related to a deeper mathematically describable
understanding of this (faith/belief "mind-sets") "variable observer effect"?
I remember you told me a couple of years ago that this was a "not even wrong"
idea, but couldn't "not even wrong" mean "possibly right" in some view? :-)
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/tetron1.html
http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/history.html


David



----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
Newsgroups:
sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.skeptic,alt.ufo.reports,sci.astro

To: bruce maccabee ; Eric Davis ; John Brandenberg ; Pete Wright ; Saul-Paul
Sirag
Cc: Kim Burrafato ; Paul Zielinski ; Vladimir Poponin
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 8:37 AM
Subject: Interview on G*eometrodynamics



Interview with Jack Sarfatti on Post-Quantum G*eometrodynamics

> > Do you have ideas for how to test your theories?
I have explanations of key experimental data fundamental to physics, and
I have
now fairly rigorous criteria for what propellentless propulsion means.


1. Explanation of Regge plots

J ~ G*m^2/hc

2. Explanation of Blackett-Sirag-Sarfatti effect

e/m ~ G*^1/2 the real electro-gravitic connection

More exactly
From Regge equation for the electron

1/2 =G*m^2/hc = (1/2)137(e^2/hc)

h = hbar in usual notation

G*m^2 = (1/2)137e^2

e/m = (2/137)^1/2G*^1/2 = (2aG*)^1/2

In geometrodynamic units, charge and mass are lengths

charge = G*^1/2e/c^2

e = c^2 charge/G*^1/2

mass = G*m/c^2

m = c^2mass/G*

e/m = (c^2charge/G*^1/2)/(c^2mass/G*) = G*^1/2(charge/mass)

Therefore, Regge + Blackett + Salam give

G*^1/2(charge/mass) = (2aG*)^1/2

(charge/mass) = (2a)^1/2 Kaluza-Klein equation

charge = R compactification scale of hyperspace

mass = Lp* = lattice spacing of Kleinert's quantum gravity world crystal
lattice
model of the physical vacuum

R/Lp* = (2a)^1/2

Vacuum phase transitions to release ZPE and to form Star Gate Time Machines
as stimulated phase transitions in the world crystal.


3. Explanation of why cosmological constant is small from
Guv + [1/Lp*^2 - Lp*|psi|^2]guv = (Lp*^2/hc)Tuv

2nd terms on LHS is my way of doing what Modanese does with the action.


psi is the cohering of the quantum gravity ZPF not the EM ZPF of Bernie


This also explains anomalous acceleration of universe, and points way to
the
vacuum propeller.

4. Proper formulation of the spacetime stiffness barrier

G/c^4 = Lp^2/hc = 1/T = 1 fermi per 4 billion metric tons (Feynman) = 10^-33
per 10^28 ev

completely ignored by Eric in his MUFON paper and ignored by Hal Puthoff
in PV

5. Proper formulation of vacuum propeller necessary condition as

Tuv^;v =/= 0

role of topological dynamics "boundary of a boundary vanishes" -> Bianchi

identity

Guv^:v = 0

6. Then of course problems with PV-Yilmaz-trimetrics

7. Role of Kleinert's "world crystal lattice" whose broken symmetry gives
psi
the cohering of the quantum gravity ZPF as a variable lattice spacing Lp*
of
Kleinert's crystal!

Also analogy of world crystal strain with superfluid helium

v = h/m Grad (phase of psi) superfluid

u = Lp*^2 Grad (phase of psi) world crystal

u = infinitesimal distortion field of World Crystal

gij = (1/2)[ui,j + uj,i] ~ strain tensor of world crystal

Role of

ui,j - uj,i "rotation"

curvature as disclinations, torsion as dislocations in the world crystal


Hyperspace deformation of the world crystal

8. How to make a Star Gate? Not with Eric's high power laser pulses, but
with
low frequency microwave cavity resonances!

Role of induction near field not radiation.

Bernie does not understand that classical near EM fields are coherent
quantum

states of huge numbers of off-mass shell virtual photons - not only one
virtual
photon per field oscillator as in their Mickey Mouse SED approach.


9. Why electrons and quarks are extended strings of length ~ Lp*, yet appear
pointlike in scattering from local radial contraction of meter sticks in Salam
G*.
Fullfillment of Wheeler's "geometrodynamics of elementary particles" in Bohm
ontology.

10. Solution of mind-matter-consciousness physics problem already at hand
with these equations.


> An experiment to
> > distinguish between PV and GR? to vary the coupling to strong
> > gravity? Open a wormhole? Create a stargate?


> First one has to address the real issues,
> formulate the
> problem correctly which I have done with
>
> 1. stiffness
>
> 2. leakage
>
> 3. self-generated geodesic
>
> plus pointing out the serious problems in PV/Yilmaz
>
> I am not an engineer. There is no cheap solution. One theorist working

> alone
> cannot do what you ask. Short of capturing ET technology there is no

> fast
> solution to any of the objectives of Motion Science Oorganization.
>
http://stardrive.org/