Metric Engineering the Fabric of Space-Time Debate
Jack Sarfatti
Look, if your position is simply that anything that is not isomorphic
with GR is wrong then you are entitled to that opinion.
JS: Yes, I think experiment has shown that within the same domain of
empirical testing that PV as given by Hal purports to describe. I think
Hal's version of PV as published to this date is rightly considered as a
false theory or a wrong theory. Therefore, it should not be puffed up in
pop articles like Nick Cook's book or Willam Austin's Aviation Week
article, or at STAIF meetings and similar venues as a plausible viable
theory for the next generations of aerospace advanced flight systems
that use "metric engineering" in the sense of George Trimble's
"G-Engine" (see Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Point" with the
panache of Jane's Defence Weekly giving it credibility in the corridors
of defense planning). That is my large purpose here - not some small
pedantic detail of academia. Remember Churchill in the 1930's arguing
for the Spitfire.
MI: If in addition you believe that such theories are not worthy of
discussion or investigation then let us come to a close on this topic.
Please say which is the case.
JS: I certainly think your paper should have been published. That is
another form of vile censorship like we see with what is happening on
the Cornell archive. It is important to publish papers on wrong theories
so that we can appreciate the correct ones that survive this Darwinian
process of natural selection of continually filtering out noise from the
signal - error correcting.
On May 9, 2004, at 9:38 PM, michael ibison wrote:
Jack, I am not addressing Hal’s claims about PV, I am leaving that up to
him The waters are getting unnecessarily muddied because you are not
making this distinction. Please ask him about his claims.
I have. He refuses to answer them adequately.
On May 9, 2004, at 9:25 AM, michael ibison wrote:
JS: 1. Hal says PV is a contender for metric engineering.
2. Prove it. Start with the 2 problems I suggest that are obviously
relevant to the issue of metric engineering. I am doing it for GR. Now
you show how to do it for PV. Then we can compare. Capische?
Mike: I’ll let Hal handle that claim. I was not addressing that; the
purpose of my note was to clarify the differences between de Felice GR
and PV.
JS: The main issue is Hal's claims about metric engineering in Nick
Cook's book from Jane's, in March 1 2004 Aviation Week W. Austin's
article "To The Stars" in STAIF and similar venues that influence big
money decisions in Aerospace and Pentagon. Hal's claims based entirely
on fringe HRP ZPE and PV ideas are way out of the mainstream, but are
presented as inside the mainstream and my challenges based much closer
to mainstream theory and observed facts go ignored. Indeed, I just had a
STAIF person question me on well-known empirical results "space is flat"
(in large-scale 3D FRW k = 0 inflation confirmed by NASA WMAP ) and
"dark matter in the Galactic Halo." This aerospace engineer has not kept
up with what's well known in modern astronomy and cosmology - yet Hal's
PV has no trouble getting into those STAIF sessions - so much for "peer
review"!
JS: Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong
i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff
MI: That analogy isn’t so bad.
JS: Then you do not understand either.
Kirchoff is a limiting case of Maxwell.
GR is a limiting case of PV at least in the SSS example.
MI: That’s not how I understood Hal’s analogy. I believe he meant it
in the sense of an approximation, not as a limiting case.
JS: What's the difference?
MI: On the issue of a limiting case, one can regard an exponential e^x
as a limiting case of 1+x+x^2/2 just as easily as the other way around.
Either tends to the other as x->0. And from the position that GR is
correct, one must take the view that PV is a limiting case of GR.
JS: No, I say you are wrong in your logic here.
Hal says K = e^2GM/c^2r holds in the limit
…
Therefore, Hal's real claim, if done conceptually consistently is that
GR is wrong, i.e. it is only approximately correct in the weak field
limit and that PV is the correct strong field theory with NO event horizons!
Therefore, PV covers GR just as GR covers SR, with global SR as
limiting case of GR as curvature field -> 0.
What I said above is relevant. I did not bring up event horizons in this
discussion. That issue is only relevant if there is a discussion of PV
holding in the strong field limit.
That's what I am talking about and more. Let's not whittle down the
focus so narrowly that it becomes irrelevant to the key issue:
Is PV a viable model for metric engineering? ALL relevant things considered.
JS: PV is the covering theory of GR there. GR emerges from PV only in
weak field limit of PV.
MI: That is not correct. See above.
JS: Your argument above is wrong. It makes no sense to me at all.
The decisive factor is Hal claims NO BLACK HOLE EVENT HORIZONS …
Again, this conversation will go nowhere if you cannot distinguish
between what I said in the last 2 emails with conversations you have had
with Hal.
Your focus here is too narrow as explained above.
Hal says no event horizon.
MI: That is a strong field consequence of PV, and therefore outside
the domain of the ‘limiting case’ comparison above.
No, as I explained in earlier messages. The issue is which is the
correct theory PV or GR? This means, which has the larger domain of
validity? That will be settled by the strong field case, assuming that
PV and GR give the same weak field results, which also may not be so.
In any case, the theory with the larger domain of empirical validity
covers the remaining one. Maxwell covers Kirchoff etc.
JS: No point arguing further. You do not understand what I mean by a
"covering theory" or the "more general theory." Hal claims for PV a
larger domain of empirical validity than for GR and that is what is
important here. According to Hal:
PV domain of validity = weak field + strong field
GR domain of validity = weak field
Again, same point.
Look, I joined in this discussion because of possible misconceptions
about de Felice versus PV. I am not getting drawn into a conversation
that you and Hal are having about which is the covering theory.
I don't care about some minor pedantic detail. My interest is in blowing
the whistle on inaccurate information in influential media on metric
engineering that can cause bad decisions down the line like we see now
in our bungled Iraqi policy based on false intelligence and the neocon's
waging the dog in the Pentagon's OSP and at MI6 in Charing Cross and at
10 Downing set up by Wolfowitz. Of course that is much more serious than
the present issue here. I am looking at the Big Picture here in context
of Nick Cook's book from Jane's Defence Weekly and William Austin's
article in March 1, 2004 Aviation Week and similar pieces.
MI: Although one describe the behavior of matter & radiation as if in a
curved space-time with metric g_PV, that metric is not a tensor, it does
not transform as you have given.
JS: Good we got that straight and that is enough to explain why your
PV cosmology paper was rejected by a mainstream journal. PV is not real
physics for that reason alone.
MI: Well that was not the reason given. It was that PV predicts the
wrong decay rate for binary pulsars.
JS: Which you said in your paper. So then they should have published it?
MI: But in any case, I am not trying to sell PV. My write up of it was
for the benefit of setting the record straight on its predictions. If
that means the theory has shortcomings, I think that is a useful story
to tell, and that science should be informed. The editors (after much
thought) thought otherwise.
JS: I agree with you 100% there.
MI: You appear to mistake my motives
JS: No, not at all.
MI: and my understanding of PV’s status.
JS: Yes, on the covering issue Maxwell -> Kirchoff analogy.
MI: g_PV is constructed from a single scalar field, and therefore has
just one functional DOF. That field (call it K) transforms as a
relativistic scalar field K(x) ->K(Lx) where L is a Lorentz transformation.
JS: Not good enough. You must be able to explain what Alice and Bob in
arbitrary timelike relative motion to each other momentarily coincident
in neighborhood of event P see for same events in the neighborhood of P
at their momentary near collision or crossing. You cannot do that ONLY
with the Lorentz group and THAT'S THE POINT!
MI: Anyone can write an action that is Lorentz invariant and has fields
that allegedly describe the action of gravity. GCT invariance may or may
not be a necessary property required to accurately describe nature. But
nonetheless, such actions exist, can be explored, and can be tested. If
they are wrong, then let nature decide. GCT invariance is not a religion.
JS: Sure. But nature has already decided. It's a done deal. There is
plenty of evidence for GCT. As Wheeler said "GR is battle tested."
That's why I said PV is not viable in 2004 for that reason alone.
2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors
MI: This is not a property of PV.
JS: Sufficient grounds to reject PV as a viable physical theory in
2004 along with philogiston, epicycles etc.
Exactly, so you just contradicted yourself above in 1 & 2.
MI: No I do not think I have. GCT invariance is not a necessary property
of a metric theory and therefore of a weak-equivalence theory. See the
above.
JS: You cannot limit physics to weak gravity fields on a globally flat
space-time back ground. Again you need GCT to compare measurements of
same processes by local observers in arbitrary motion not only in
geodesic "inertial" motion with "geodesics" limited to the globally flat
background metric of say quantum field theory.
MI: Then PV is not an acceptable theory. To some that is automatically
true if there is no GCT invariance.
JS: Exactly my point. By your own admission, PV is indefensible by
modern standards of minimal requirements for a theory of space-time.
You cannot answer the following question.
Alice and Bob are two local observers momentarily very close to
space-time event P, but in arbitrary timelike relative motion to each
other. How do they compare there measurements of the same events in the
neighborhood of P?
MI: I can. The answer is that the 4-vectors (eg velocities) and
2-tensors (e.g. EM force-tensor) get transformed in the usual way and
the K-field gets transformed as a relativistic scalar field. The physics
still satisfies weak equivalence in the new frame because one can still
describe the behavior of matter and radiation in g-fields through a
metric tensor, which still has the PV-mandated form of
g=diag{K,-1/K,-1/K ,-1/K}. i.e. g-> diag{K’,-1/K’,-1/K’ ,-1/K’} under a
Lorentz transformation, where
K’(x)=K(L^-1(x)).
JS: Lorentz transformations cannot describe transformations to arbitrary
frames. That's why Einstein had to invoke GCT after ten years of hard
work from 1905 to 1915. You cannot have a viable theory of gravity based
only on the 10 parameter Poincare group used in quantum field theory of
the standard model of particle physics. You need to locally gauge the
4-parameter translation sub-group of Poincare group and that gives you GCT!
If you also, go beyond Einstein 1915, and locally gauge the 6-parameter
Lorentz group you get the torsion field coupled to spinning matter and
also maybe to some vacuum modes?
You may even want to locally gauge the entire 15 parameter conformal
group, which I think is what Tony Smith is doing?
JS: The equation
gu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)guv(P)
is the answer to that question in GR.
MI: You say you have no answer in PV.I don’t know what Hal said, but I
didn’t say that at all. My answer is given above.
JS: Yes, but it is a wrong answer. Lorentz group only connects a special
class of globally flat space-time timelike geodesic observers and does
not begin to answer the physical operational question I posed to you.
JS: Your answer is wrong because you have not answered my question at
all. The use of global Lorentz transformations only works for a
privileged class of inertial observers Eve and Ted in relative UNIFORM
MOTION to each other in a globally flat 4D space-time free of any
gravitation effect. You cannot use the Lorentz transformations to
connect the observations of Alice and Bob as defined above. Indeed, this
incompleteness in global SR from 1905 is what it took Einstein 10 years
to 1915 to correct with GR. What you have above is a fundamentally
incomplete description of the physical world. All this was settled by
Einstein by 1915 and to claim otherwise is devolution not progress. It's
like Usama Bin Ladin wanting to take civilization back to the 11th
Century! (Maybe a wee bit too strong, but it makes the point. ;-)) This
is, perhaps, the fundamental issue in regard to my refutation of Hal's
whole paradigm for metric engineering which is having undue influence in
the mass media without any healthy debate on these issues.
MI: You don’t understand what I am saying. I am not making a claim about
PV being right or wrong, only how it describes gravity and how it
transforms. It may be wrong, but that is what it does, K is a scalar
field and gets transformed accordingly. Bob and Alice use the same
physics in both frames. It is not GR Jack. It is a scalar field, like
temperature.
JS: You do not appear to understand the question I asked. You are
stretching the domain of validity of the 6-parameter Lorentz group to a
region of physical procedures where it cannot go. To answer my physical
question you need to locally gauge the 4-parameter translation group to
get GCT. Only GCT is equipped to answer the question. It took Einstein
10 years to realize that, although he did not use the modern idea of
local gauge invariance with local compensating fields that lead
effectively to pseudo-Riemannian geometry with tensor fields and GCT as
the local symmetry group replacing the rigid translation group of
Fourier transforms. Indeed, I think GCT has a natural CWT (Continuous
Wavelet Transform) description - I am working on that idea, where the
scale s of the adaptive windows of the CWT for zoom in and zoom out are
enslaved to the local radii of curvature of the Riemann-Christoffel
curvature tensor. This is in response to Wheeler's remark in
"Geometrodynamics" that you cannot use Fourier transforms in GR.
He said that in the 1950's before the Gabor transform leading to modern
ideas of wavelet transforms that should also replace the
Schwinger-Feynman Green's function/Propagators in momentum space to do
quantum field theory on a curved space-time background that emerges
Sakharov style NOT out of the random ZPE (spin 1 and spin 1/2 PV), but
out of the vacuum coherence missing in all the mainstream ideas.
On May 9, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
clarification
MI: “That’s not how I understood Hal’s analogy. I believe he meant it in
the sense of an approximation, not as a limiting case.”
JS: What's the difference?
MI: “ On the issue of a limiting case, one can regard an exponential e^x
as a limiting case of 1+x+x^2/2 just as easily as the other way around.
Either tends to the other as x-> 0. And from the position that GR is
correct, one must take the view that PV is a limiting case of GR.”
JS: No, I say you are wrong in your logic here. From the position of GR
one must take the view that PV is fundamentally wrong as a strong field
theory!
John Smith
warpeophysikverfasser.
FÜGEN Sie, ADHD und jenseits, Sagen hinzu, was wieder?
"schauen Sie, wenn Ihre Position einfach ist, daß alles, das nicht das barfo
ist, das mit monkyvision metrisch ist, Unrecht ist, dann, das Sie zu dieser
Meinung erlaubt werden. Ja denke ich, daß Experiment gezeigt hat, daß
innerhalb des gleichen Gebietes von empirischem die Prüfung dieses
monkyvision, wie von Hal gegeben behauptet, zu beschreiben. Ich denke
Version als Hals an monkyvision, wie zu diesem Datum veröffentlicht mit
Recht eine falsche Theorie oder eine falsche Theorie betrachtet wird.
Folglich sollte es nicht oben in den Knallartikeln wie monkyvision- oder
monkyvisionartikel Willam oder an STAIF Sitzungen und ähnliche Schauplätze
als plausible entwicklungsfähige Theorie für die folgenden Erzeugungen der
vorgerückten Flugluftfahrtsysteme luftgestoßen werden, die "metrische
Technik" in der Richtung von monkyvision "verwenden (sehen Sie Buch des
Einschnittkochs" das null für Jagd vom sinnlosen "mit dem panache von
monkyvision ihm Crockibility in den Fluren der Verteidigungplanung gebend).
Der ist mein großer Zweck hier - nicht irgendein kleines pedantic Detail der
Akademie. Erinnern Sie sich an monkyvision. MI: Von wenn zusätzlich Sie
glauben, daß solche Theorien nicht Diskussion oder Untersuchung dann
angemessen sind, lassen Sie uns zu einem Ende auf diesem Thema kommen.
Bitte Sagen, das der Fall ist. JS: Ich denke zweifellos, daß Ihr Papier
veröffentlicht worden sein sollte. Die ist eine andere Form der vile
Zensur, wie wir sehen mit, was auf dem Archiv Dornell geschieht. Es ist
wichtig, Papiere auf falschen Theorien zu veröffentlichen, damit wir die
korrekten schätzen können, die dieser Prozeß Darwinian der natürlichen
Vorwähler von aus Geräuschen vom Signal - Störungsbeheben fortwährend
filtern überleben. monkyvision adressiere ich nicht Ansprüche Hal?s über
monkyvision, ich lasse das bis zu ihm, den das Wasser unnötigerweise muddied
erhält, weil Sie nicht diese Unterscheidung treffen. Bitte fragen Sie ihn
nach seinen Ansprüchen. Ich habe monkyvision ablehne, sie ausreichend zu
beantworten. monkyvision sagt, daß PV ein Kämpfer für metrische Technik
ist. 2. Prüfen Sie es. Anfang mit den 2 Problemen, die ich vorschlage,
die zur Ausgabe der metrischen Technik offensichtlich relevant sind. Ich
tue sie für monkyvision. Jetzt zeigen Sie, wie zu es für monkyvision tun
Sie. Dann können wir monkyvisionhandgriff vergleichen, die behaupten. Ich
adressierte nicht den; der Zweck meiner Anmerkung war, zu erklären die
Unterschiede zwischen Entscheidungen de in Monkyvisionmoney Aerospace und
Pentagon. Die Ansprüche Hals, die aus dem Mainstream heraus monkyvisionway
sind, aber werden dargestellt, wie innerhalb das Mainstream und meine
Herausforderungen viel näeher an Hauptströmungstheorie gründete und
Tatsachen beobachtete zu gehen ignoriert. In der Tat ließ ich gerade eine
STAIF-Person mich auf weithin bekanntem empirischem Resultatsmonkyvision
fragen.", Dieser Luftfahrtingenieur hat oben nicht gehalten mit, was in
moderne Astronomie und cosmology - dennoch Lernabschnitte des
monkyvisionthose STAIF - soviel für "Gleichen Bericht" weithin bekannt ist!
Yea, ist es aller Bullshit!
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarf...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:TcOnc.65731$3v5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...