this is great...thanks -jUStin
On 5/11/05, Lanny Quarles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ) > > >
