STAIF & NASA BPP "To the Stars"
Jack Sarfatti
On May 8, 2004, at 1:18 PM, michael ibison wrote:
The de Felice work is a re-casting of GR action on EM via a vacuum
tensor polarizability (‘generalized constitutive relations’, involving
time components as well as space components in a generalized permittivity).
Good start. However, what you and Hal need to do at this point is to
write a clear pedagogical review of all that and apply it to rotating
superconducting disks (Podkletnov & Ning Li) and gravimagnetic frame
drag as I suggested.
Also you should explain to Hal how he got his analogy wrong
i.e. PV covers GR like Maxwell covers Kirchoff
Also make clear exactly how PV treats:
1. Local principle of equivalence in sense of MTW
2. Local general coordinate transformations with local tensors
3. Issue of active diffeomorphisms
4. Acknowledge my heads up priority on relevance of dark energy
observations to the metric engineering issue - as of 2002 in two books.
You have no publications on that connection prior to that.
(It should be pointed out that neither the de Felice epistemology of
Einstein nor PV attempt to describe the gravitational action on matter
by these means: there is no explanation for the geodesics of matter in
terms of a modified vacuum polarization. To achieve this would require a
description of mass as based upon / originating from EM interactions.)
This seems to be a fatal flaw in Hal's whole program? Again this gets
back to my point that problems easy in Einstein's orthodox
geometrodynamical picture using local tensor fields are hard in the PV
dielectric picture? Do you agree?
Apart from the generalization from scalar refractive index to tensor
permittivity, there are two important properties that distinguish the de
Felice approach from scalar PV:
i) The permittivity tensor is reverse engineered so
that it guarantees the agreement with Einstein GR in its predictions.
Yes, and this is why I call it "PV without PV" (alluding of course to
Wheeler's "Mass without mass." Hal should not even use "PV" until he
makes a clear mathematical connection with QED! There is no h in any PV
paper, not even a connection to his previous attempt at a EM ZPE
Sakharov derivation of G/c^4.
BTW None of you mention G* as a running coupling like in renormalization
group flows allowing
G* ~ 10^40 G on scale of 1 fermi, which BTW solves a lot of problems
like stability of a spatially extended electron!
e.g. my papers of 1973 & Abdus Salam's f-gravity -> new hyperspace
versions (G. Dvali et-al) giving same physical idea we had 30 years ago
for gravity origin of universal Regge slope (1Gev)^-2 of hadronic
resonances - the only contact of string theory with facts BTW.
Hence, for example, for a singular point mass, the effective metric
(induced by the permittivity on light) agrees with Schwarzschild.
But this means little unless it is connected to QED. Adler does that in
1982 RMP for example. It plays no role in Hal's PV and it should.
This is one reason that the de Felice presentation cannot be
considered a generalization of PV. Dicke made a choice in his papers
that culminated in an exponential metric in this case. He need not have
done so – his choice was based on aesthetics, given that the action on
EM fields was via the vacuum polarizability. By contrast, in GR (hence
de Felice) the expression for grr and the g00 in terms of the refractive
index of the vacuum is extremely cumbersome, suggesting that it is a
force-fit.
Very nice. Develop that more in a review paper.
ii) PV differs from GR in the gravitational action of
the field itself as a differential function of the metric. That is, if
one computes the Ricci scalar from the PV metric one gets a different
gravitational field action from that proposed by Dicke. The difference
is not small: in the case of the Friedmann equation, the (da/dt)^2 term
appears with a different sign. Hence the completely different PV cosmology.
Ditto. All this must be spelled out with all the math.
Again what about local general coordinate transformations in the PV
paradigm?
Michael Ibison
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:sarf...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 12:35 PM
To: SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com
Cc: Sarfatti_Phy...@yahoogroups.com; ItalianPhysicsCenter
Subject: STAIFF & Puthoff's PV for metric engineering NASA BPP
On May 8, 2004, at 10:12 AM, Put...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/8/04 11:51:02 AM, sarf...@pacbell.net writes:
<<Meantime unless you have PV version of Kerr solution you got nothing
really. Why is this such a hard problem for you to solve?>>
Who says it's hard? It just takes the inclusion of off-diagonal terms
in the vacuum dielectric tensor (i.e., go from scalar PV to tensor PV).
It's essentially done in other publications, both for standard
Einsteinian GR metrics and for more general metrics. See, e.g.,
F. de Felice, "On the gravitational field acting as an optical
medium," Gen. Rel. and Grav., vol. 2, pp. 347-357 (1971)
A. M. Volkov, A. A. Izmest'ev, and G. V. Skrotskiy, "The propagation
of electromagnetic waves in a Riemannian space," Sov. Phys. JETP, vol.
32, pp. 686-689 (1971).
Hal Puthoff
Then spell it out in detail in your terms if it's so easy.
Solve the Podkletnov/Ning Li problem of rotating superconducting disks
in terms of PV.
Also show PV prediction of NASA EINSTEIN for gravimagnetic inertial
frame drag in terms of PV vs GR.
PV is a covering theory for GR not other way round as you claimed.
Those are real experiments right?
What are you waiting for?
You have redone Dicke's original 1961 work a jillion times in very
similar papers all over the place, so why are you so reluctant to write
a relevant PV paper on rotating disks now if the above authors already
have done the hard part for you?
Clearly the Podkletnov and Ning Li allegations are relevant to metric
engineering right? In that case what does PV say about that?
Spell it out in detail and soon, say from the next STAIFF meeting?
I have shown my theory for this Podkletnov stuff. Now let's see yours.