Text Size


Tag » Making Starships and Star Gates
On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:20 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@gmail.com> wrote:

Page 8 chapter 3rd paragraph down

"The notion has gotten abroad since the advent of general relativity that inertia - the property of the massive objects that makes them resist acceleration by external forces - does not involve force."

Jim gives no reference in the literature back up this statement which to me seems totally bizarre red herring no one actually says anything like that.

He then goes on to make some obscure unintelligible remark about inertial forces.

In fact Einstein's general relativity says nothing at all about the origin of inertia where by the word "inertia" we mean resistance to external force.

That Einstein may have initially thought there was a connection is irrelevant because his final equations showed that there was no such connection after all.

Indeed, the role of the gravitational field is to provide force-free motions - the geodesics.
F^u = DP^u/ds = DmV^u/ds   is Newton's 2nd law of test particle motion.
m = "inertia" as resistance to proper tensor acceleration a^u = DV^u/ds measured locally with an accelerometer clamped to the test particle.
dV^u/ds = kinematical acceleration measured not locally with light signals using a Doppler radar located at the origin of the frame of reference. 
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
DV^u/ds = dV^u/ds - G^uvwV^vV^w
V^u = dx^u/ds  4-velocity of test particle relative to detector separated on a scale small compared to radii of curvature of spacetime if present.
Assume dm/ds = 0 for now.
G^uvw = G^uwv = symmetric torsionless Levi-Civita-Christoffel metric connection which includes ALL inertial forces.
G^uvw = 0 at the origin of a LIF, which by Einstein's historical definition is always in Cartesian coordinates
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2  for flat spacetine
where dt, dx, dy, dz have "immediate metrical significance" Einstein
Therefore, in Cartesian coordinates (inertial frame):
F^u = mdV^u/ds
F^u is a real force (primarily electromagnetic)
All fictitious "inertial" pseudo-forces (centrifugal, Coriolis ....) are zero.
Note if you use
ds^2 = c^2dt^2 - dr^2 - r^2(d@^2 + sin^2@d&^2)  for flat spacetime
@ = latitude (polar angle)
& = longitude (azimuthal angle)
g00 = 1
g11 = - 1
g22 = - r^2
g33 = - r^2sin^2@
x^0 = ct
x^1  = r
x^2 = @
x^3 = &
these are coordinate labels not powers
The only non-vanishing Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols here are:
G^122 = - r
G^233 = - sin@cos@
G^133 = - r sin^2@
G^313 = 1/r
G^323 = cot@
DV^1/ds = dV^1/ds - 2G^122V^2V^2 - 2G^133V^3V^3 
This is
D^2r/ds^2 = d^2r/ds^2 + 2r(d@/ds)^2 + 2rsin^2@(d&/ds)^2  
DV^2/ds = dV^2/ds - 2G^212V^1V2 - 2G^233V^3V^3
This is
D^2@/ds^2 = d^2@/ds^2 - (2/r)(dr/ds)(d@/ds) + 2sin@cos@(d&/ds)^2
DV^3/ds^2 = d^2V^3/ds^2 - 2G^313V^1V^3 - 2G^323V^2V^3
This is
D^2&/ds^2 = d^2&/ds^2 - 2(1/r)(dr/ds)(d&/ds) - 2cot@(d@/ds)(d&/ds)
DV^4/ds = dV^4/ds
D^2t/ds^2 = d^2t/ds^2 
What is the meaning of these fictitious force terms that only appear in the spacelike components of the proper acceleration?
The local frame in spherical coordinates is not inertial. The unit radial vector er is always pointed at the test particle's retarded position (as shown by a light signal).
If the test particle has constant "inertia" m then Newton's 2nd law becomes Newton's first law when the real force F^u = 0
The geodesic equations are then
0 = d^2t/ds^2 
Where the test particle geodesic orbit is r(t), @(t), &(t).
There is no Newton's third law here as yet. That requires additional physical assumptions.
In Newton's 2nd law F is the unbalanced net force on the test particle - no assumption about back-reaction on the source of F need be made yet.
What PURE general relativity does is to provide the global G^uvw fields for a given class of observers for the GEODESIC real force-free F = 0 test particle orbits.
inertia m of the test particles is nowhere to be seen at this classical level of pure gravity.
If we only had gravity all motions would be geodesics. However, we could not have stable sources Tuv with pure gravity.
The inertia of test particles canceled out of the geodesic equation of motion. Therefore by elementary logic gravity cannot explain the origin of the inertia of test particles.

The only exception would be Wheeler's wormhole geons mass without mass etc., but that also needs non-gravity quantum physics.

Sent from my iPad speaking to Siri


On Mar 12, 2014, at 2:26 AM, jfwoodward@juno.com wrote:


I wouldn't have spent my time writing the book if I didn't think that there is a reasonable chance we will eventually be able to build starships and stargates.  And, truth be told, leaving the details of the enabling physics aside, it seems to me obvious that the only way to create a Jupiter mass of exotic matter in a structure with the dimensions of meters is to find a way to transform normal matter into the exotic matter needed in situ.  As I say in the book, I do not claim that the ADM electron model is a substitute for the standard model of RQFT.  But it sure has a lot of desirable features to recommend it -- like includng gravity without having to assume that gravity at short range miraculously becomes decades of orders of magnitude stronger than it is at all other scales.  And I really like Asim Barut's lepton quantization scheme.



My Review of James F. Woodward’s book “Making Starships and Stargates” Springer 2013 V2

Jack Sarfatti

John G. Cramer, proponent of the transactional interpretation of orthodox quantum theory based on the Wheeler-Feynman back-from-the-future advanced potential of classical electromagnetism, endorses Woodward’s theory in the “Foreword”[i] I will play Devil’s Advocate usually assigned to Wolfgang Pauli. I pretty much agree with most of Woodward’s “Preface” except for his short shrift for the reality of flying saucers operated by an advanced intelligence. I mean, “advanced” in two senses including the back-from-the-future meaning. So I will home in on what I think are Woodward’s mistakes in his theory. I have nothing intelligent to say about his experiments except that scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory seemingly refuted them about fourteen years ago and that Woodward has not succeeded in getting a small model to fly under its own power in those fourteen years. Neither have any of his competitors in the fringe physics propellantless propulsion world.


Of course, we Pirates of Penzance are all on the same side against the establishment pundits of physics who, in Cramer’s words:


“Erect a ‘picket fence’ around those solutions of Einstein’s equations … to place stable traversable wormholes, faster-than-light warp drives, and time machines in the forbidden area outside the fence … it is presumed that nature does not allow such disreputable objects to exist.”


Woodward professes that “both inertial reaction forces and mass itself” have a “gravitational origin.” (p.xviii) He hedges on whether his approach will allow us to manufacture practical stargates (i.e., traversable wormholes without event horizons that do not pinch off killing the traveler and destroying any message in a signal) but is more optimistic that “at least a means of propellant-free propulsion can be created using Mach effects.”(p.xix) Using orthodox theory assuming Newton’s G requires an impossible Jupiter mass of exotic negative mass matter to make a stargate of few tens of meters across. Woodward invokes the classical 1960 ADM model. Curiously, I was a graduate student in physics at Brandeis in 1960 when Deser was there creating that model.  Woodward does not seem to realize that he needs David Bohm’s hidden variable picture of classical particles piloted by a quantum information field in order for the ADM model to make sense. Niels Bohr’s “Copenhagen interpretation” with its magical collapse of the state does not even allow such a picture as ADM suggest. Since I am partial to Bohm’s picture, this is not a bad thing.  Woodward alleges that the ADM model “when fixed” shows that there is a lot of negative energy matter locked inside ordinary matter like the electron. Of course, we now know since 1998 that about 68% of our observable universe’s stuff is exotic “dark energy” exactly what we need. However, its energy density 6.7 x 10-10 Joules/meter3 is way too small for our purpose unless we can amplify it by many powers of ten. Perhaps, the advanced intelligences in the flying saucers are doing just that? Woodward claims that the negative exotic matter creating universally repelling antigravity is screened at a distance by distant matter by. This is definitely not mainstream textbook physics taught in the top universities. He proposes a kind of catalytic avalanche effect, like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or the butterfly wing flapping creating a super storm across the world, a pistol shot causing an avalanche. [ii] What is disturbing, however, is Woodward’s Frankenstein Monster supposing he were on the right track, fortunately my bet is that he is not, but I could be wrong. Woodward intends to expose a Jupiter mass of exotic matter as his end product, and to concentrate it in a region a few meters across. If this isn’t madness I don’t what is. ;-)



[i] “Woodward extended the work of Sciama in investigating the origins of inertia in the framework of general relativity by consideration of time-dependent effects that occur when energy is in flow while an object is being accelerated. … It predicts large time-dependent variations in inertia, the tendency of matter to resist acceleration. … The inertial transient effects … have G in the denominator, and dividing by a small number produces a large effect. … he has been able to demonstrate tens of micronewton-level thrusts … they represent convincing evidence that Woodward-Sciama inertial transients are a real physical phenomenon and that the underlying calculations behind them should be taken seriously … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out … The … inertial transient … second term, which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … could … be used to provide the ‘exotic mass’ needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives. ” P.ix


[ii] “Exotic matter is available in everyday matter, normally screened by the gravitational interaction with chiefly distant matter in the universe. … exposure can be achieved by cancelling the gravitational effect of the chiefly distant matter with nearby exotic, negative rest mass matter. The amount … needed to trigger this is miniscule in comparison with the Jupiter mass that results from exposure.  Mach effects … produce the exotic matter required … for exposure.” P.xix



On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

Z: I think Addinall's remarks and suggestions make sense, with the main exception that Jack is not talking about Einstein's theory, he's talking about Wheeler's theory.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on dynamical acceleration and geodesic structure since these are the features of GR that are physically the most interesting.

However, anyone who wants to understand the Machian interpretation of GR (which doesn't mean that they have to agree with it) needs to recognize the basic
differences between Einstein's version of GR and Wheeler's.

RA: I do understand some of the historical debate, and that at least Einstein's initial interpretation of the equivalence principle is different from the modern one (and that Jim is working from Einstein's original EP).
JS: I'm not so sure about that. I think Einstein got it right, but the historians of physics have muddled it. The main problem is keeping clear when Einstein is talking about Newton's artificial gravity force fields - the subject of EEP and when he is talking about his new conception of real gravity force fields as curvature. Sure if you go back to 1907 he is not yet clear on curvature until perhaps 1915. 
Newton's artificial gravity force fields exist in real curvature gravity fields (and even in zero curvature). In, e.g., the real static gravity near field of a spherical mass M
g00 = 1 - 2GM/c^2r  etc
2GM/c^2r < 1
with real Einstein gravity field curvature components ~  GM/c^2r^3 ~ Ahorizon^1/2/r^3
radii of curvature A(r)^1/2 ~ (c^2r^3/GM)^1/2 ~ square root of thermodynamic entropy
(based on local Rindler horizon version of EEP - see Ted Jacobson's papers)
Newton's artifical gravity force field per unit mass is the unbalanced quantum electrical force (mostly molecular Van der Waals)
Fe/m = +(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2GMr/r^3
needed to keep the test mass m stationary at fixed r in the curved spacetime g00 etc.
Note that this static electrical reaction force is classically infinite at the black hole horizon.
If you make the horizon Lp thick in sense of r-coordinate thickness not proper thickness, doing Taylor series to first order
1 - A^1/2/(A^1/2 + Lp) ~  1 - 1/(1 + Lp/A^1/2) ~ 1 - 1 + Lp/A^1/2 ~ Lp/A^1/2
(1 - 2GM/c^2r)^-1/2 ~ A^1/4/Lp^1/2 >> 1
(GM/c^2)r/r^3 ~ A^-1/2
(Fe/m)max ~ c^2/(A^1/2Lp)^1/2
A = area-entropy of the corresponding black hole horizon with Hawking temperature T
kBT ~ hc/(A^1/2Lp)^1/2
T ---> infinity in the classical limit Lp = (hG/c^3)^1/2 ---> 0
RA: Jack has expressed an interest in avoiding the historical debate, so my suggestions to him were based on that.
That's why in my second set of points (the first set are numbered 1 to 6, the second 1 to 5) I suggested that Jack describe Einstein's theory in point 3, and move on to focusing the reader on dynamical frames in point 5. I could be missing something, but I didn't find Jack's simplified description of Einstein's GR terribly controversial. It's when Jack moves to dynamical frames and electrical contact forces that he's non-Machian.
JS: I am not Machian in the sense that Jim Woodward understand's Mach - yes. Whether Jim, or Sciama properly understood Mach is another story. Perhaps, perhaps not.

RA: With regard to the apple falling on Newton's head - well, as far as I can gather it's correct to say that the apple is moving inertially on a timelike geodesic (it is in a LIF) and Newton is accelerating (in a LNIF). Earth's mass determines that the geodesics will be curved.
JS: Correct.

RA: Frame dragging doesn't seem important over a relatively short distance.
JS: Correct, for Jim to invoke frame dragging as necessary for Newton's third law seems totally off the wall. Jim's handwaving is unintelligible to me when he mentions frame dragging a very tiny effect hard to measure e.g. Gravity B NASA.

RA: My impression is that the Machian question comes into play in determining why the apple immediately goes into a LIF... is the rest of the matter in the universe the origin of the inertia? Or is it just an intrinsic property - something will move along a geodesic until it is forced off it?
JS: This is the confusion apples and oranges.
apples = "inertia" as geodesic pattern for the apple's path
oranges = "inertia" as rest masses
Mach only meant apples.
In a vague sense of apples and Wheeler's "voting power", sure the universe as a whole determines inertia. But that's not very useful.
RA: This is different than Mach's and Jim's example of standing in place and then spinning around and having your arms pulled out to your sides - that is a more convincing Machian argument. However, the apple falling seems to work in either a Machian or non-Machian interpretation.
JS: The whirling dervish - Newton's rotating bucket is also a confusion. In modern GR the rotation is simply and off geodesic motion relative to the local geodesics. There is no mystery.
Rotation is relative to the local geodesic field. Of course the local geodesic field is partly determined by distant matter (at least in its past light cone) via Einstein's field equations, propagators and all that.
Please explain the distinctions in greater detail if I'm still confused.
On Oct 12, 2013, at 4:20 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:


On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:17 PM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail.com> wrote:

I think Addinall's remarks and suggestions make sense,
Yes, unlike most of yours! Addinall is a smart fellow.

This is a good example of a trite waste of time quibble. I made it very clear that for my purpose I don't give a damn about the historical ups and downs of Einstein's rocky road to his 1916 final version except for his later clarifications with action-reaction and other issues in the 1920s till his death. The action-reaction idea is key to my work in quantum theory and beyond as well as in geometrodynamics.
Wheeler's version is the one most useful for experimental physicists and engineers.

So why do you waste every one's time with red herrings?

differences between Einstein's version of GR and Wheeler's.
The important points for the proper understanding of Jim's proposal is
1) "inertia" means the pattern of zero-g force timelike geodesics for Mach' principle (also light cones). It does not mean computing rest masses of actual elementary particles.
2) phi = c^2 is not even wrong in my opinion in the context of modern cosmology.
3) Sciama's vector theory is way too simplistic. My bet is that what Jim sees in the lab is a systematic error like the faster than light neutrino at OPERA. I could be wrong, but that is my bet.

On 10/12/2013 2:01 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

On Oct 12, 2013, at 12:14 AM, Robert Addinall <beowulfr@interlog.com> wrote:

In terms of audience you seem to have decided to increase your focus on engineers and people from various other fields interested in UFOs or building stargates.

  This version seems a lot better towards that end – it is a lot simpler/clearer (with the emphasis on avoiding difficult math). 

My overall comments:

1.       There were points that emerged from the e-mail discussion of the last week or two which seemed quite clear to me.  I suggest that you might include versions of these statements at key points:

2.       Z’s description that you want to focus on “dynamical frames, such that all local frame acceleration in GR is defined with reference to the geodesics.”

I keep emphasizing that. The geodesics are physically privileged, i.e. zero g-force weightlessness as measured locally by real accelerometers. They are mathematically not privileged i.e. the classical local differential equations for the natural laws can be written in any real set of possible physical frames on timelike worldlines geodesic or not - makes no difference. That is what the tensor calculus does for any theory including Newton's Galilean limit and the limit of special relativity.
Mach's Principle is all about zero g-force geodesics - that's what he means by "inertia" not "rest mass." In Wheeler's language, Mach's principle is "100 % voting power" - however Jim's phi = c^2 is not an adequate consequence of that in my opinion.
1916 GR -> 1905 SR -> Newton's mechanics


3.       Your response that focusing on dynamical frames is “good physics… physics should be about real things – phenomena and how they are measured… real accelerometers etc.”

Yes, this is the Cornell 1950's 60's disiderata for good physics - keep the math to a minimum.
If you look at archive today things going in opposite direction. Mathematics is the opiate of the theoretical physicist.


4.       You could also use the version of the statement in #3 from another email: “good physics                   is about real phenomena measured with real instruments… keep it simple stupid… but not simpler than possible.”

Key theme in my philosophy of physics - from Mach, Einstein, Dirac, Wheeler, Feynman ...


5.       Your statement that: “Einstein’s proper tensor acceleration = Newton’s apparent acceleration – fictitious LNIF inertial pseudo fictitious forces per unit test particle rest mass = real applied force to the test particle per unit test particle mass.”

This is in words what in Einstein's math is (sans tensor indices)
DP/ds = dP/ds - {Levi-Civita connection}VP = F(electro-weak-strong)
P = mV (test particle)
{Levi-Civita connection} describes the detector not the test particle
it is zero for a LIF detector - that is EEP.


6.       Your observation that: “What is lacking – except in the Wheeler-Thorne books is a clear description of GR measurement theory – how the symbols connect to real lab procedures” is also good – you seem to have started to include this in the latest version of the chapter.  I suggest finding more detailed examples to use to round out the chapter as you progress.

Of course. 


An observation of my own: I find that, apart from when theory absolutely demands otherwise, it’s easiest to explain things by simply following the historical sequence of events.  My phd is interdisciplinary in military history and political science.  When I’m writing as a historian this is usually pretty easy.  When I’m writing as a political scientist it gets more difficult.  Nonetheless, taking the above six points into account, I suggest that you organize things as follows:

1.       Explain Newton’s theory.

2.       Explain how Einstein’s theory is different.

3.       Explain, in very basic terms, as you have done below, the question that Einstein’s theory answers as well as how it answers it.

4.       Explain the difficulty of the math and how it causes even experienced physicists to have difficulties.

5.       Focus on getting the reader to understand: (a) dynamical frames; (b) how to connect GR theory to real lab procedures.

6.       Provide detailed examples of lab procedures.

I made a few comments in red and blue as I read over the chapter, based on where I had to stop and re-read something a couple of times.  These were either minor stylistic grammar points, or places where as a non-expert in physics I didn’t quite follow the argument.  If you find my comments useful let me know and I’ll comment in the future when I have time.  If you don’t like my style and don’t find anything useful tell me and I won’t comment again.  I’m trying not to interfere with your stream of consciousness “beat” point of view, but simply to provide input on how to organize your comments enough that you can keep the engineers reading.
Like some of the engineers, my interest is in ideas that could be experimentally tested within a feasible budget in order to build starships and stargates.  That’s why I find Jim’s work interesting.  If your book inspires people to test the Bose-Einstein condensate and Einstein-Cartan curvature + torsion with anti-gravitating dark energy term ideas, I’ll be happy.
That actually reminds me: in the overall introduction to the book, in addition to the section “what is a stargate?”, you might want to state the BEC and Einstein-Cartan ideas as your two main proposed solutions to the task of figuring out how stargates work.  This will get the attention of experimental physicists and engineers who will then keep reading because there is something they might actually get to build and play around with.
Right - I have not gotten yet to the actual stargate stuff these are just the preliminaries.

updated V2 Oct 12, 2013

Chapter 1 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell

“I was dissatisfied with the special theory of relativity, since the theory was restricted to frames of reference moving with constant velocity relative to each other and could not be applied to the general motion of a reference frame. I struggled to remove this restriction and wanted to formulate the problem in the general case.”  Albert Einstein[i]


“Nowhere has a precise definition of the term ‘gravitational field’ been given --- nor will one be given. Many different mathematical entities are associated with gravitation; the metric, the Riemann curvature tensor, the curvature scalar … Each of these plays an important role in gravitation theory, and none is so much more central than the others that it deserves the name ‘gravitational field.’[ii]


The physical meaning of Einstein’s relativity, both special (1905) and general (1916) is quite simple in contrast to the mathematics, which quickly gets very difficult. Except for the books by John Archibald Wheeler and his students like Kip Thorne, most books on the general theory get too mathematical leaving the physical meaning obscure.


“The Question is: What is The Question?” John Archibald Wheeler


The question that Einstein’s relativity is the answer to is this: Alice and Bob have measuring instruments and they decide as voyeurs to watch Eve’s dance. How do they compare their data?  Relativity is an algorithm, a set of rules, which takes the raw measurement data input and processes it to give a set of “invariant” output real numbers. If Alice and Bob get the same set of invariants, then they can be quite confident, in the sense of Bayesean probability estimates, that they measured the same set of events and that their measurements were good within the accuracy and precision limits of the technology of their measuring instruments. This is basically classical because Heisenberg’s quantum uncertainty principle will provide a barrier when Alice and Bob attempt to measure the same individual quantum events.

Einstein’s 1905 special theory of relativity at first only considered inertial frames of reference. What is a frame of reference? Basically it is a local set of detectors. What kind of detector? It’s necessary that an accelerometer, like the scales we weigh ourselves with, be included along with other devices like telescopes, Doppler radars etc. The test for an inertial frame is simple, the pointer of the accelerometer reads zero. Every object in the inertial frame is weightless in free-float like the astronauts in the International Space Station shown in the movie “Gravity.”  In this case of free-float zero g-force, we say that the center of mass of the local inertial frame (LIF) moves on a timelike geodesic world line in Einstein’s four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Therefore, we here on Earth are not in inertial frames. We are in non-inertial frames. Unfortunately, Newton defined the word “inertial frame” differently from Einstein and this continues to lead to much confusion when physicists attempt to communicate with each other because Newton’s theory is in closer accord with our common sense. Einstein’s relativity is counter-intuitive.  In Newton’s theory, points on the surface of Earth are approximate inertial frames if we ignore its rotation about the poles. However, in Einstein’s theory, any point on Earth, approximated as an ideal non-rotating spherical surface has a real local objective tensor proper acceleration pointing radially outward from the center of the sphere. Of course, we are not moving relative to the center of the idealized spherical Earth yet we are accelerating and this is counter-intuitive violating common sense. It only makes sense in the curved space non-Euclidean differential geometries of Karl Friedrich Gauss and Bernard Riemann. Proper dynamical acceleration is what accelerometers measure. There is also the apparent kinematical acceleration that Doppler radars measure. Therefore, these two quantities can be measured independently by different kinds of detectors. Ideally in principle must be accelerometers on both the test particle and the detector.  In addition, the detector is equipped with Doppler radar to measure both the kinematic velocity and kinematic acceleration of the test particle relative to the detector. The general rule is:


Proper dynamical local acceleration of a test particle = Kinematical nonlocal acceleration of a test particle – Proper local dynamical acceleration of the detector.

With the additional rule:

Proper dynamical acceleration of the detector = Fictitious pseudo-acceleration on the test particle = Levi-Civita connection terms

= Real force on detector per detector mass


Let us consider all four physically interesting possibilities.

1)   Accelerometer on test particle shows zero, accelerometer on detector shows zero. This is then a geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an on-geodesic LIF detector. Of course, these are two different geodesics in general.

2)   Accelerometer on test particle shows zero, accelerometer on detector shows not-zero. This is then a geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an off-geodesic LNIF detector. The LNIF observer looking at his Doppler radar tracks mistakenly thinks that there is some kind of universal force on the test particle proportional to its mass causing it to move in a curve at different speeds along it. Indeed, Newton called this “gravitational force” when he looked at the parabolic orbits of apples falling off trees and cannon balls, especially the latter to see a good parabola. Similarly for the elliptical orbits of the planets about the Sun. The Coriolis and centrifugal motions are essentially the same as Newton’s gravity force field because they too are universal proportional to the mass of the test particle. Newton could not have conceived that his apple was on a timelike geodesic straightest possible world line in Einstein’s future idea of the curved four-dimensional spacetime continuum. Newton could not have conceived that it was him who was really accelerating to the apple, which was not really accelerating at all!  Indeed, many engineers and ordinary people – and even some physicists still cannot properly and consistently conceive of it so stuck are they in the persistent illusions of common sense.


Both 1) and 2) correspond to Newton’s first timelike geodesic law of test particle motion:


We are only interested in the center of mass of the test particle and ignore rotations about some axis through its center of mass.


3)   Accelerometer on test particle shows not-zero, accelerometer on detector shows zero. This is then an off-geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an on-geodesic LIF detector.

4)   Accelerometer on test particle shows not-zero, accelerometer on detector shows not-zero. This is then an off-geodesic test particle whose motion is measured by an off-geodesic LNIF detector.

Both 3) and 4) correspond to Newton’s second off-geodesic law of test particle motion whose equation in words is


Real local force on test particle per mass of test particle.


The proper tensor acceleration of any object is described by the “covariant derivative of the velocity tensor of the object with respect to proper time along the world line of the object in four-dimensional spacetime.


Einstein’s 1905 special relativity showed that if Alice and Bob were each on different zero g-force timelike geodesics, then they would measure the same invariant speed of light c ~ 3 x 108 meters per second in vacuum. However, Alice looking at Bob’s clock would see it running slow (time dilation) and vice versa. A moving meter stick shrinks along its direction of motion relative to the observer for simultaneous measurements of the edges of the meter stick by the observer. However, a more careful analysis of light rays coming from a fast moving object by Richard Terrell in the 1950’s revealed that the object looks rotated rather than contracted.


We all know about E = mc2 and I will not dwell on the details of special relativity here. What is not well known however, even by physicists is that one can use special relativity to deal with properly accelerating frames of reference. However, to do so, one must use the full tensor language of Einstein’s 1916 general relativity. The only difference is that the curvature tensor computed from the “covariant curl” of the Levi-Civita connection with itself vanishes everywhere. Special relativity still works for artificial Newtonian gravity fields without curvature that appear in a rotating space station for example where the normally fictitious centrifugal pseudo force balances a real quantum electrical force in a rigid constraint connecting the test object to its detector.


Alice and Bob working together do the actual measurement of the local spacetime curvature tensor field. It’s important that they are both on timelike geodesics and what they measure is their relative kinetic acceleration from each other (aka “geodesic deviation”) in different spatial orientations to get all ten components of the Weyl tensor in space. The Weyl tensor causes stretch-squeeze elliptical distortions in a set of geodesic test particles initially configured in a circle.  There are also ten other components of the Ricci tensor coincident with mass-energy sources, but that is harder for Alice and Bob to directly measure.  The Ricci tensor causes the radius of the circle of geodesic test particles to contract for positive mass-energy sources and to expand for the negative mass-energy exotic sources needed for warp-wormhole advanced super-technology. The full Riemann curvature tensor in four-dimensional spacetime is the sum of the Weyl vacuum and the Ricci matter tensors.


Curvature introduces a severe restriction on measurements not found in Minkowski spacetime empty of real gravity fields. When the curvature is not zero Alice and Bob, both watching Eve’s activities, must be “physically coincident” in order to compare their data by calculating invariants. This means that the actual physical separations between Alice and Bob must be less than the smallest radius of curvature in the components of the Riemann curvature tensor. Eve, however, can be arbitrarily far away with Alice and and Bob getting light signals and/or cosmic rays from her.  The mathematics of tensor general coordinate transformations only connects physically coincident local frames of reference. In fact there are three groups of these reversible coincident frame transformations.

1)   LNIF  à LNIF’ general coordinate transformations corresponding to the local translation group T4(x).

2)   LIF  à LIF’ local Lorentz transformations corresponding to the local Lorentz group SO(1,3)

3)   LIF à LNIF tetrad transformations corresponding to Einstein’s equivalence principle (EEP) for cancellation of Newton’s artificial gravity force field. Of course there is no cancellation of Einstein’s real gravity curvature field.

[i] How I created the theory of relativity, Albert Einstein, Translated by

Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, pp. 45-47 (August 1982) cited by Peter Brown in http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0204044v2.pdf


[ii] Gravitation, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, (W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973)



Excerpt from my Starship book (in progress)

On Oct 10, 2013, at 10:39 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Of direct importance to the advanced super-technology of warp drive and wormhole star gates from our alleged visitors from our own future is the problem of classical curvature singularities in Einstein’s 1916 battle-tested standard geometrodynamics of the gravitational field.

“Together with the great theoretical and experimental successes of Einstein standard geometrodynamics, come two main conceptual problems.[i] First, the theory predicts the occurrence of spacetime singularities, events which are not part of a smooth spacetime manifold,[ii] where usually the curvature diverges and where the Einstein field equation and the known physical theories cease to be valid. Second, Einstein’s theory of gravitation, unlike the other fundamental interactions, has not yet been successfully quantized.”

Einstein’s 1916 classical GR geometrodynamics in the weak field first order perturbation approximation against the non-dynamical globally flat Minkowski spacetime of his 1905 special relativity has “achieved an experimental triumph” with “direct confirmations” of gravitational time dilation, gravitational bending of light (lensing), lunar laser ranging, de Sitter geodetic effect, GPS. Transverse polarized far field gravity waves have been indirectly detected from the orbital energy loss of binary pulsar PSR 1913 + 16. Gravimagnetism, a very weak effect, has recently been measured in NASA’s Gravity B space experiment.

“the concept of gravimagnetic field generated by mass currents, in partial analogy with electrodynamics, … its measurement of the dragging of inertial frames” constitutes “direct experimental evidence against an absolute inertial frame of reference and … experimentally displays the basic role in nature of the local inertial frames.” [iii]

[i] Enrico Rodrigo’s Stargate book updates the singularity problem and shows that there are now several ways of dealing with it since the classical energy conditions assumed by Penrose and Hawking are actually false in quantum theory. The discovery of anti-gravity dark energy accelerating the space expansion of our observable universe (aka “causal diamond”) also is a game changer.

[ii] My “Destiny Matrix” conjecture that we live inside of a hologram conscious computer simulation has the “brane of GOD(D)” (I. J. Good’s “superluminal telepathic” cosmic consciousness) at our future de Sitter event horizon of asymptotic area-entropy A. The dark energy we see now in our past light cone is actually gravitationally redshifted back-from-the-future (as in Yakir Aharonov’s post-selected destiny quantum wave and John Cramer’s TI) Wheeler-Feynman Hawking black body gravity wave radiation from the Planck length thickness of that future horizon. The surface of the horizon is discrete pixelated into quantum area bits whose images are voxelated quantum volume bits of what Hagen Kleinert calls the World Crystal Lattice. However, the 3D lattice spacing is only Fermi 10-15 meters not the 2D lattice pixel spacing of 10-35 meters. The problem here is that we need w = pressure/energy density < - 1/3 for dark energy, whilst blackbody radiation has w = +1/3. This is because of the Einstein factor (energy density)(1 + 3w) in the stress-energy current density source of his geometrodynamic field equation. When w < - 1/3 the positive energy density giving universally attractive gravity switches over to the “exotic matter” regime of universally repulsive antigravity, which stops the crunch to oblivion of the black hole singularity. Now it may well be that back-from-the-future advanced Hawking radiation does have w < - 1/3 from the kinds of EPR correlations that Lenny Susskind talks about that cause deviations away from the Planck black body spectrum preserving the unitarity of the S-Matrix of the world. This is still, speculation of course. Another approach is the Unruh effect, which says w = -1 random zero point quantum vacuum fluctuations seen in LIFs morph to w = +1/3 black body radiation in a coincident LNIF and vice versa. The effective LNIF that we see in our detectors has a Hawking temperature that when raised to the fourth power according to Stefan-Boltzmann’s law gives the correct number measured for dark energy density in the anomalous redshift data from Type 1a supernovae.

[iii] The recent book Making Starships by James Woodward (Springer-Verlag) proposes a theory with an actual experiment based on Dennis Sciama’s 1950’s “vector theory of gravity”. I consider this model to be ill-posed, too simplistic, and from what I can understand of it, it presupposes an absolute inertial frame that conflicts with the gravimagnetism of Einstein’s GR.


My torsion field warp drive-stargate time travel equations.
Like ·  · Share

    Sent from my iPhone






    The exact part of the spin connection 1-form

    Sexact = df

    f = 0-form


    It's really SIJ and RIJ , but KI and eI

    corresponds to artificial Newtonian gravity fields in Minkowski space

    Technically GR in a nutshell

    e is set of four tetrad Cartan 1-forms

    S is the spin connection 1-form

    The affine metric connection in general is

    A = S + K

    K = De = de + S/e 


    R = DS = dS + S/S 
    = curvature 2-form

    Einstein's 1916 GR is the limit

    K = 0

    Which gives LC = 0 in LIF EEP


    D*R = 0 Bianchi identity


    * = Hodge duality operator





    A = area-entropy 


    Gauge transformations (corresponding to general coordinate transformations) are

    d^2 = 0

    S -> S' = S + df'

    S/f = 0

    R = DS --> R' = DS' 

    R' = dS' + S'/S'



    / is antisymmetric

    df'/df' = 0



    Physically, the GR gauge transformations are



    Zielinski wrote:






Making Star Trek Real

Jack Sarfatti
Like ·  · Share
  • Laird Racette likes this.
  • Jack Sarfatti Preface

  • Jack Sarfatti Chapter 1 Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a Nutshell









  • Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_saucer 
    ...See More
  • Jack Sarfatti http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_curvature_tensor 
    Newton’s particle mechanics and Einstein’s 1905 special theory of rel
    ...See More
    Using Jim's notation:

    g00 = 1 + phi/c^2

    phi = - 2r^2/A

    A is the area of our future horizon

    we are located at r = 0


    Jim's equation:


    phi/c^2 << 1
    Begin forwarded message:

    From: Jonathan Post <jvospost3@gmail.com>

    In any case, the universe is NOT flat:
    Originally published: 
    Sep 11 2013 - 5:00pm
    Charles Q. Choi, ISNS Contributor


John Cramer's paper in Jim Woodward's Starship book
Like ·  · Share


    [ii] Special relativity works in a LIF.




    F = external real 4-force on starship’s center of mass




So Jim means frame invariant rest mass m by "inertia" in the quote below. He does not mean the global geodesic pattern solution of Einstein's GR field equations in matter
Guv + (8piG(index of refraction)^4/c^4)Tuv = 0.
Now Jim claims a bare mass cosmological screening.
m is from Higgs field, + Quantum Chromodynamica + Low Energy Nuclear + Atomic + Molecular + Solid State Physics.
Jim claims
m* = m(Cosmological Screening Factor) = mC
C =/= c = speed of light in vacuum.
and his Mach Effect Thruster claims to control C.
Personally I think, MY BIAS, this is astrology and that his effect in the lab is simply bad measurement. However, I may be wrong, and since I am writing my own book and my review of his book will be the in it - I continue.
We now know that Einstein was naive about the Origin of Inertia, Mach even more so. We have come a long way since those pre-quantum theory days.
The Origin of Inertia is
1) Higgs vacuum coherent Glauber state field post-inflation
2) SU(3) strong force Quantum Chromodynamics & it's low energy tail - Nuclear Physics
3) Atomic, Molecular, Solid State Many Body Problem - models of binding energies on different scales.
Inertia m is a FREE PARAMETER in Einstein's GR which is a local gauge theory of the T4 group.
The origin of inertia needs the U1, SU2 & SU3 internal groups + Higgs-Goldstone-Anderson "More is different" emergence of order in the spontaneous breakdown of symmetries in the ground states of complex many particle systems both real and virtual.
to be continued
Like · · Share
Jack Sarfatti There is no way to change the internal energies by a large fraction without destroying the material!

I fundamentally disagree with Jim Woodward .The inertia of the starship has nothing to do with real warp drive or the construction of a benign wormhole star gate time travel machine.

to be continued