You should join one of Jack Sarfatti's mailing lists. He's one of the few
really high level
physicists whose available much like you are Alan ONLINE! he's pretty amazing.
and pretty humorous and very kooky often.. but always spouting bizarre equations
formulas etc. here's a typical post:
Synopsis
I. Lost Horizons
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential SSS metric appears to be
incapable of generalization to rotating sources with gravimagnetic
fields Hi = g0i, i = 1,2,3 e.g. Kerr vacuum metric in 1916 GR that
reduces to the NON-ISOTROPIC SSS Schwarzschild metric when a = J/mc ->
0 where M = 2Gm/c^2.
The Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric is
ds^2 = -(e^-2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (e^2M/r)[dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 +
sin^2thetadphi^2)]
Is ALLEGEDLY a solution to
Ruv - (1/2)Rguv = (8piG/c^4)Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM)
Note, unlike my theory
Yilmaz's tuv(VACUUM) =/= (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv (Sarfatti)
no one seems to be able to generalize this to the case J =/= 0, where
in contrast the Kerr metric of 1916 GR is in the WEAK FIELD limit (for
simplicity) is
ds^2 ~ -(1 - 2M/r)(cdt)^2 + (1 + 2M/r)dr^2 + r^2(dtheta^2 +
sin^2thetadphi^2)- (4a/r)sin^2theta(rdphi)(cdt)
Where the WEAK gravimagnetic field is the dimensionless weak
perturbation
g0phi = -4a/r << 1
There is nothing like this for the Dicke/Yilmaz/Puthoff type
exponential ISOTROPIC SSS metric I have seen. Hal Puthoff never sent
such a solution.
Also Hal says his metric is good even if M/r -> infinity! (strong
field). In contrast, the above 1916 GR metric is only good for r > 2M
outside the event horizon that Hal says does not exist. George Chapline
in his "dark energy star" theory also says lost horizon, but for a
completely different reason.
Note that in orthodox GR MTW epistemology the above metric
representations are only for static hovering non-geodesic LNIF
observers with non-gravity external forces holding them off-geodesic
paths at fixed r, theta, phi.
Note, the full Kerr-Newman 1916 GR metric solution to
Ruv = 0
r outside m & q
with source charge q is, with dimensionless metric tensor components
ds^2 = -[1 - (2Mr - Q^2)/r*^2](cdt)^2 - [(4Mr -
2Q^2)asin^2theta/r*^3](cdt)(r*dphi) + (r*^2/@)dr^2 + r*^2dtheta^2
+ [1 + (a/r)^2 + (2Mr - Q^2)(a/r)^2sin^2theta/r*^2]r^2sin^2thetadphi^2
@ = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
r*^2 = r^2 - 2Mr + a^2 + Q^2
[Gm^2] = [q^2]
[G^1/2m] = [q]
Q = (G^1/2/c^2)q
[Q] = length
a = J/mc = MACRO-QUANTUM COMPTON WAVELENGTH OF ROTATING GEOMAGNETIC
SOURCE
[a] = length
Solar J is 1.63 x 10^48 grams cm^2 sec^-1 (Wheeler & Ciufolini
"Gravitation and Inertia" p. 495)
Solar m is 2 x 1033 gm
a(Solar) ~ 10^48/10^33x3x10^10 = (1/3)10^5 cm
2Gm(solar)/c^2 = 0.88 cm
i.e. a >> M for our Sun
That is, if the Sun were to gravitationally collapse keeping fixed J &
m it would be a NAKED SINGULARITY without a horizon!
i.e. a < M is the CLASSICAL "Particle" rotating black hole with an
outer event horizon where time stops at infinite red shift for outside
observer. There is Hawking BB radiation T > 0
The inner and outer horizons for a < M are for
@ = 0
Outer event horizon is
r+ = M + (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
Inner event horizon is
r- = M - (M^2 - a^2)^1/2
a = M is the cutting edge (no Hawking radiation i.e. T = 0)
a > M is a VACUUM ODLRO MACRO-QUANTUM "WAVY" naked singularity -
negative temperature for Hawking radiation?
Note that when a > M the horizons have IMAGINARY part that means an
extended "antenna" in micro-wave engineering analog problem. See also
Alex Burinski's papers.
On May 3, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 2:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
No, you are garbling things there.
A&P are working at the level of the antisymmetric torsion tetradic
substratum level. The BILINEAR symmetric curved geometrodynamic
level is where Alex is working.
Yes, I know.
But Alex is defining alternate connections (metric-compatible LC and
metric-free "affine") on a raw manifold,
and allowing the properties of the connection to define the nature of
the manifold -- as is typical in modern
treatments.
I have Alex's GR17 paper in front of me. I cannot understand his
physical picture - what he really means by "FR" (Frame of Reference)?
I do not see how to relate it to MTW's "LIF" & "LNIF" for which I have
a clear and precise measurement epistemology and objective ontology.
Also, I do not understand formally his equation
Riemann Curvature = Affine Curvature - (Torsion +
Nonmetricity)Curvature
EEP demands (LC) = 0 in an LIF, since in his model
(LC) = (Affine) - (Torsion + Nonmetricity)
That is
(Affine) = (Torsion + Nonmetricity) in the LIF.
But is this simply an empty tautology like in
F = ma
before one posits a force law like
F_g = GMm/r^2 ?
Alex's torsion is SAME as Shipov's, but totally different from A&P's
at the "square root" tetrad level.
Then, very much like A&P, he derives algebraic relationships between
alternate connections, such as
LC = A - S
which is very similar to what A&P do with the alternate
curvature-free Weitzenboeck connection in their paper.
No, you are completely wrong about that. It's mixing apples & oranges.
Severe category error.
That was the point. I thought this comparison would help you to
understand Alex's mathematical model.
The relationship between the two levels is NONLINEAR
guv = (Iu^a + Bu^a)(Minkowski)ab(Iv^b + Bv^b)
Bu^a = Bu(Pa/ih)(Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase)
Vacuum ODLRO Goldstone Phase emerges from NON-PERTURBATIVE inflation
vacuum phase transition
y = (e^1/x)Step Function (-x)
x < 0 is Spontaneous Breakdown of Vacuum Symmetry causing Inflation.
x = 0 is starting point for perturbation theory, which is no good
for this problem.
Yes, of course I realize all this. See above.
Z.
On May 2, 2005, at 9:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, that's "Arcos & Pereira".
His approach is very similar to that taken in Arcos & Pereirez --
you alternately lay different connections on a raw manifold, and
define the mathematical relationships between them. This is what
A&P do with their teleparallel Weitzenboeck connection. That is
also what Alex does with the "affine connection" A in relation to
the LC connection.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Sondheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <WRYTING-L@listserv.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:56 PM
Subject: Re: Note towards a foundational phenomenology of analogic/discrete
Out of curiosity, actually in it, have you read Penrose? I recommend the
second book and The Road to Reality - I think you'd get a lot out of them.
I'm also going to try murking my way through Bohm's Quantum Mechanics at
least to learn not only what I don't know, but what I'm incapable of
learning... - Alan
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Lanny Quarles wrote:
I think its all in the approach. It seems like the approach within the
biosemiotics
community or what i've read is weighted towards traditional semiotics
discourse
which is essentially literary or as you say metaphorical/metaphysical, they
don't seem
to do too well with incorporating mathesis or physics as you do with Wolfram
(among many others)
who really sort of bridges the digital/analog with his computationalism (this
is probably wrong)
but they do bring in Kaufmann who is a noted proponent of "the new biology" I
think
but nowhere have i seen even a discrete discussion of something as common as
the Dorion Sagan's endosymbiotic origins of mitochondria discussed using
their own terms of "endosemiosis"
which seemingly could get into some pretty intriguing questions of
protoctistan omnisexuality
as a 'digital' constructionism of 'analogic' organism or some such.. this
leads essentially to what
i would call nested umwelts (ie the body as emergence) which certainly just
in the sense of lineages of organelles
could get very confusing ie calling the genetic system digital and the mobile
agency analog..
i really think wolframs computationalism destroys the distinction at the
environmental level
or perhaps i'm just seeing dancing pixies..
remedially
lq
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Sondheim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <WRYTING-L@listserv.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Note towards a foundational phenomenology of analogic/discrete
I don't know what to make of the article. For one thing, temporal
processes and histories do seem encoded in physics, Latour notwithstanding
- although I may be missing something of course. That's what cosmology is
all about, as well as any of the qm thought- or physical- experiments. On
the other hand, the essay speaks in such generalities for me that it seems
more metaphysical than anything; I'm not sure what function the approach
would have. But then every time I hear 'autopoesis' I get worried. I do
see a relation between all of this and catastrophe theory and the claims
of the latter, but again I'm probably wrong. On the other hand, I feel
that the metaphoric increasingly dominates here, but I'm not an nth-order
cyberneticist, not even a 1st, even with Bateson.
- Alan
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Lanny Quarles wrote:
isn't that a strange term? but do a google search
on it and you'll find a wealth of contexts for the term.
my guess is its fairly synonymous with analogical
here's another paper mentioning the "analogly coded"
which i take to mean in one sense "alive" though perhaps
it has more to do inside-outsides/outside-insides in a stricter
sense.. you tell me! :)
http://www.molbio.ku.dk/MolBioPages/abk/PersonalPages/Jesper/Surfaces.h
tml
I'm just not sure what 'analogly coded' actually means.
Thanks! - Alan
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Lanny Quarles wrote:
thought this bit about "code duality" and the biosemiotics take
on the analog and the digital might be of interest here.
Wonderful to read this kind of work Alan, Thanks!
lq
Life, then, exhibits a non-trivial, semiotic, interaction between
two
co-existing messages, the analogly coded message of the organism
itself and its redescription in the digital code of DNA. This
principle has been termed code-duality (Hoffmeyer and Emmeche
1991).
As analogly coded messages the organisms recognise and interact
with
each other in the ecological space, while as digitally coded
messages
they (after eventual recombination through meiosis and
fertilisation
in sexually reproducing species) are passively carried forward in
time
between generations. The essence of heredity is 'semiotic
survival' .
The joint emergence on our planet of life and code-duality brought
us
from the sphere of difference to the sphere of distinction, i.e.
information in the sense of Gregory Bateson's famous definition: "a
difference which makes a difference" (Bateson 1970), which is in
fact
quite close to a sign in the sense of Peirce. Sebeok's prophesy
that "a full understanding of the dynamics of semiosis may in the
last
analysis turn out to be no less than the definition of life" is
worth
mentioning in this connection (Sebeok 1979).
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see
http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
