To appear in my book "Super Cosmos:"

Again Nick's book is an exciting read on the conventional technology and the Nazi history, but he stumbles seriously where knowledge of physics is really needed.

1. On the Aurora and the large triangular craft reported by NIDS near Area 51, Palmdale CA etc.

The Townsend-Brown effect is not "anti-gravity."

From basic physics a charged capacitor with equal and opposite electric charges on the two plates obeys Newton's 3rd law and there is no spontaneous acceleration of the capacitor's center of mass in a vacuum. This is in contrast to the ZPE "vacuum propeller" with /\zpf > 0 at the stern and equal and opposite /\zpf < 0 in the bow. Here, as shown by Herman Bondi in "negative matter propulsion" (review article by Robert Forward), there will be an acceleration of the center of mass. This is not a violation of Newton's third law, but is a consequence of it! Furthermore, one can metric engineer the exotic vacuum zero point field /\zpf in the fuselage of the saucer to fit Alcubierre's warp drive solution with zero g-force and effective faster-than-light travel even though the occupants inside the saucer are weightless like the astronauts in free float orbiting Earth with rockets off and no rotation about center of mass of the shuttle. This is real anti-gravity "acceleration field" (Paul Hill) "G-Engine" (George Trimble) breakthrough propulsion.

Now some kind of electrostatic charging may be used in Aurora for some purpose that has an advantage in flight through air. Perhaps some kind of MHD effect, but it is not zero g-force anti-gravity and it would not work in a vacuum.

Now to un-garble a key quote by Nick that appears at least twice.

"I ... found five possible pathways to antigravity: manipulating an object's mass and/or inertia; exploitation of the zero point energy field; perturbations of the space-time continuum; faster-than-light travel; and gravity shielding." p. 117

Let's take them one at a time:

1. manipulating an object's mass and/or inertia

This idea has been propounded by Puthoff & Co.

The idea is fundamentally confused as far as anti-gravity propulsion is concerned.

When one looks at Hal Puthoff's PV papers it becomes obvious that Hal waffles on some serious battle-tested ideas in mainstream physics.

1-1 Hal waffles on the principle of tensor covariance, i.e. that the map is not the territory - no intrinsic meaning to coordinates. Hal says tensors are not needed in his dielectric "engineering" model in which he uses the action of a point test particle from special relativity, but with a variable speed of light c' = c/K. He is not able to solve the problem of a rotating source with this scheme. That alone is enough to junk the model. However, he does write a SSS metric with goo = K^-1 and gxx = gyy = gzz = K = e^2GM/c^2r. Whether his g's obey a tensor law is not clear.

1-2 Hal is confused about the meaning of Einstein's equivalence principle. His model only works for asymptotically flat space times and he thinks the equivalence principle is nonlocal relating measurements at r --> infinity to those at finite r. Hal never considers the locality of the equivalence principle which connects instantaneously coincident inertial timelike geodesic LIF observers with non-inertial timelike non-geodesic LNIF observers BOTH at the same local event P, i.e. within a small neighborhood of P, small compared to the local radii of curvature of space-time. Mathematically this is the local tetrad map at P where LIF Alice's metric is that of special relativity nuv to a good approximation. Alice lives in the quasi-flat tangent space-time even though the 4th rank curvature tensor may not vanish in the LIF. LNIF Bob sees the curved metric guv. Bob's LNIF cousin Ray will see gu'v' where

gu'v' = Xu'^uXv'^vguv

You will find none of this battle-tested physics in any of Hal Puthoff's PV papers on metric engineering for interstellar flight. None of the NASA BPP managers seem to have enough basic physics understanding to have noticed this point either.

It's because Hal is confused on these basic ideas that he entertained the irrelevant idea of changing the inertia of the ship that Nick Cook alludes to above.

The idea is irrelevant because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Einstein's equivalence principle that the inertia completely cancels out of the problem in timelike geodesic motion with zero g-force and small tidal curvature force gradients. Indeed, even Galileo knew this in rudimentary form.

In terms of high school Newtonian physics:

Weight = W = Inertia x g-field of gravity = mg

W = mg

Any real anti-gravity propulsion leaves m alone, it merely changes g!

In fact it makes g = 0 even though the self-controlled timelike geodesic path of the saucer can make U turns that normally might look like 1000 g(surface of Earth) to the outside observer.

m will obey special relativity to the outside observer. Right now by "m" I mean what is felt on board the saucer. Think of "m" as the mass of an alien conscious AI "Gray" inside the saucer piloting it with its artificial brain micro-waves.

W = 0 for all objects inside the saucer when Nick Cook's "anti-gravity switch" is "ON."

m does not change at all!

Even if you could change m you do not want to do it because you then change e/m, and h/mc and you destroy the delicate balance of matter as explained by Sir Martin Rees in "Just Six Numbers", by Paul Davies in "Accidental Universe" and by John Barrow and Frank Tipler in "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle."

Michael Ibison tried to wipe some of the egg off Hal's face on this by writing to me that making m smaller would be an advantage in conventional rocket lifting. Ibison however took no account of what I just mentioned.

So even if you could change m, you do not want to do so because it would destroy the delicate metastability of all real matter! Also, you do not need to do it at all for real anti-gravity propulsion in the sense of George Trimble's "G-Engine" (1956) that Nick Cook is keen on and rightly so.

So trash (1) as a false lead and a very bad ill-conceived idea!

2. exploitation of the zero point energy field

Yes, that is the only idea that works. That is what my theory of the /\zpf field is all about.

The basic definition of the zero point energy field is my original equation not found in any previous physics paper or book by anyone from this Planet and this time:

/\zpf = (Quantum of Area)^-1[(Quantum of Volume)|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

The Quantum of Area and the Quantum of Volume come from Loop Quantum Gravity based on Roger Penrose's "spin networks" for Wheeler's "IT FROM BIT.'

The local zero point dark energy/matter stress tensor for exotic vacuum is

tuv(ZPE) = (Sakharov's Metric Elasticity)^-1/\zpfguv

Metric Elasticity = (String Tension)^-1

The ordinary "weightless vacuum" has /\zpf = 0 at the specified scale.

Experimentally

too(ZPE) ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc

e.g. "Measuring and Understanding the Universe" Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, Oct 2003, p. 1433 Freedman & Turner

This is an experimental measurement - a fact!

The scale here is that of the FLRW metric 10^2 - 10^4 megaparsecs

i.e. dark energy density Omega = 0.73 +- 0.04

Table I p. 1435

There are no measurements of the Planck scale. But if you make the guess that G(Newton) holds at all scales you get

too(ZPE) ~ 10^115 ergs/cc when Vacuum Coherence = 0

It is the vacuum coherence that solves the "Cosmological Constant Paradox," i.e. the 122 Powers of Ten discrepancy between these two numbers of 10^-7 ergs/cc and 10^115 ergs/cc.

3. perturbations of the space-time continuum

This is a mirage. I mean it is already included in 2. It is not a "linearly independent" basic idea. In other words it is redundant. Nick, in his ignorance of the physics, has made a false distinction. It is of the very essence of "metric engineering" to shape the space-time continuum to our will like Q in Star Trek! So it is with what M. Kaku calls "The Masters of Hyperspace" visiting us in their saucers like Gulliver visited the Lilliputans. ;-)

4. faster-than-light travel

This is a consequence of 2 as explained by Alcubierre. Aliens who get here in their flying saucers do it globally faster than light even though locally they are, in effect, standing still.

5. gravity shielding

Like 3 this is a redundant idea already included in 2.

Therefore, of Nick's 5 ideas above. The first is simply a bad idea that shows a deep misunderstanding of what Einstein's great idea is all about. 3 and 5 are false distinctions already included in 2, which is the correct idea. 4 is a consequence of 2. Therefore, of Nick's 5 ideas, only one is needed to understand George Trimble's "G-Engine."

I will address Berkant's information about Bjorken's comments on Volovik's theory

of emergent gravity later.

On Apr 13, 2004, at 1:37 AM, SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com wrote:

________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10

Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 00:32:52 -0000

From: "trixcleverspacealien" <terr6180@mwt.net>

Subject: Gedanken spacecraft that operates using the quantum vacuum - 2012

[time posted on SSS 04-12-04 07:34p.m.]

[06:28p.m. 04-12-04]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/message/5187.

From: Jack Sarfatti <Sarfatti@P...>

Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:36 pm

Subject: Re: Dr Hal E Puthoff weighs in on Zero Point Energy for

deep space travel!

Victor

Please circulate my rebuttal of this disinformation you sent out to

your list.

ETC.

+++++++++++++++++

[06:56p.m. 04-12-04]

t.c.s.a. writes:

Jack in regards the Casimir Effect, in the past you have invoked

Robert Forward, Hal Puthoff, and Marc Millis but never have I read

a reference to Jordan Maclay in regards the Casimir Effect? [ I am

thinking you are lumping Millis, Maclay, Forward and Puthoff

altogether as they all have written papers on the Casimir Effect in

regards Breakthrough Space Propulsion. [in AVIATION WEEK it said

that Marc Millis founder and former project manager of the BPP effort

the the program sponsored G. Jordan Maclay, chief scientist for

Hal's PV model of gravity is wrong for many reasons that I detailed in my book

Space-Time and Beyond II (2002) available from Amazon and all major on-line book stores and any book store on order.

I will have more to say about Hal's errors in the theoretical physics of zero point energy and gravity in "Super Cosmos" in my

discussion of Nick Cook's "The Hunt for Zero Point" and Aviation Week's March 1, 2004 "To The Stars" propaganda puff piece with no mention at all of the 1999-2003 Type 1a supernovae "accelerating universe" discovery of the anti-gravity field of 'dark energy" as ~ 3/4 of the large-scale stuff of the Universe. That is a lot of egg on the face of Aviation Week due directly to Hal Puthoff's less than candid interview where he hid the most important information because he would have had to credit me for it. For the record, my two books in 2002 show that I was the first to connect the dots between the discovery of dark energy and the quest for George Trimble's "G-Engine" in 1956, i.e. NASA BPP and all that. Hal Puthoff to this moment has not connected those dots and has not properly cited me for it.

But now for some precise technical points:

1. Hal bases his PV model on the well-known limited fragmentary superficial analogy of Einstein's gravity theory to the propagation of light in a dielectric medium.

A dielectric is an emergent collective physical system illustrating P.W. Anderson's "More is different" so that gravity must be emergent in the dielectric picture in Andrei Sakharov's sense from 1967.

Hal pays lip service to that, but in his PV papers has no explicit discussion of how that comes about.

When Hal thinks about "zero point energy" he does so in a very limited way thinking only of the 2 far field transverse polarizations of the electromagnetic field.

He does not include the near field longitudinal mode relevant to all the "Tesla" talk on the WEB.

Hal also does not include the all-important virtual electron-positron(hole) pairs in the Fermi sea whose negative energy "beach front" is at -mc^2.

How ironic since in QED it is precisely these off-mass-shell pairs that make the PV (Polarized Vacuum) corrections. Hence, there is no PV in Hal's PV! ;-)

We need the lepto-quarks as a whole and all the gauge force bosons ultimately.

It is important for all of you to understand that both Einstein's gravity and the unified field of both anti-gravitating dark energy and gravitating dark matter ALL EMERGE from the giant vacuum wave of the virtual electron-positron pairs. Each virtual pair is glued together into a bound state by the virtual longitudinal photon that Hal & Co (including Haisch, Rueda, Marshall, Cole and maybe Maclay?) all neglect! The centers of mass of these pairs all macroscopically occupy the same single-boson wavepacket that extends over the entire universe. Of course bound-state virtual pairs are continually created and destroyed, as demanded by Heisenberg, into and out of this smooth coherent vacuum superfluid and it is this random "normal fluid" noise on the coherent signal that is the /\zpf field of both dark energy and dark matter with Einstein's smooth gravity from the "rigid" coherent phase field of the superfluid. The ebb and flow into and out of the vacuum condensate enforce the "phase rigidity" or "space-time stiffness" or "string tension" complementary to Andrei Sakharov's "metric elasticity." Puthoff has none of these ideas in any of his writings on the subject of metric engineering of NASA BPP objectives Ad Astra.

The analogy is to neutral HeIII fermion-pair superfluid worked out independently of me by G.E. Volovik and endorsed by J. Bjorken at SLAC.

Puthoff & Co's physics is simpler than is possible in Einstein's sense. It is not "bogus," but it is "bad."

Hal has no understanding of what I mean by "vacuum coherence" and he has never used the idea in any of his papers relevant to the Aviation Week article on March 1, 2004.

Quantum Fields LLC, was "to look at getting more empirical evidence to

flesh-out what this vacuum energy stuff"really is. Maclay performed a

precise measurement of attractive Casimir forces and was, and was

working to quantify repulsive forces when BPP funding was deleted

from NASA'S Fiscal 2003 budget the BPP program has been on hold

since then. Through private funding, Puthoff and his team [question

is Maclay on Puthoff's team???] have secured patents on converting

ZPE to "miniarture ball lightening

micron sized lightening using a very small traveling wave tube. etc.]

Ian Peterson of the University at Coventry in UK has correctly shown why all of these attempts are wrongly conceived

and cannot work. It is no wonder Puthoff says he has not been able to scale up the Casimir force effects. You cannot power

a ship with weak Van Der Waals forces.

GENDANKEN SPACECRAFT :

In this regards have you read Jordan Maclay's "A Gendanken spacecraft

paper? Also if not does anything he says give any insight into what

Hal Puthoff is thinking, is Hal and Jordan's ideas identical? Perhaps

Jordan's ideas do include your ideas of Vacuum coherance? etc.

I do not think that Maclay knows about my idea of vacuum coherence.

I will check again.

I see Maclay's URL address IS below in SSS

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SarfattiScienceSeminars/message/5187.

http://www.quantumfields.com/articles.htm

J. Maclay, R.L. Forward, "A Gedanken spacecraft that operates using

the quantum vacuum (Dynamic Casimir effect)," Foundations of Physics

(to be published March issue 2004)

Will look at it.

CERN but what about TESLA??

ALSO WHAT IS YOUR OPINION IN REGARDS the year 2012 and AVIATION WEEK?

What do you mean?

[recall DESY'S - TESLA goes online sometime during or after 2011 to

simulate the Big Bang.

Is this a meaningless trivial coincidence? note: Cornell is involved

with Desy's TESLA.]

SPECULATION:

I wonder if the author of AVIATION WEEK'S "TO THE STARS" was aware of

TESLA'S going online sometime after 2011.

I wonder what he would say in that regards? Of course his thinking

would have to be in regards the POWER OF TESLA as an instrument to

beget anything meaningful leading to a ZPE breakthough.

IF he was he never mentioned it.

IN YOUR OPINION :

Will the TESLA Linear accelerator to simulate the beginnings of the

Cosmos [Big Bang] 2011 - 2012 yeild any information that will LEAD

too the ZPE breakthough? Do you have an opinion on that subject?

[projection]

I doubt it, but I could be wrong. You do not need high energy for

zero point powered induced gravity flight.