Are you on this? What's the traffic? To be honest I have no idea what they're talking about but hey!
- Alan
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Lanny Quarles 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: <[email protected]> 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: <[email protected]> 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
two
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 between1991).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 EmmechewithAs analogly coded messages the organisms recognise and interactmessageseach other in the ecological space, while as digitally codedfertilisationthey (after eventual recombination through meiosis andtimein sexually reproducing species) are passively carried forward insurvival' .between generations. The essence of heredity is 'semioticus
The joint emergence on our planet of life and code-duality broughtfactfrom 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 inlastquite close to a sign in the sense of Peirce. Sebeok's prophesy that "a full understanding of the dynamics of semiosis may in theworthanalysis turn out to be no less than the definition of life" ismentioning in this connection (Sebeok 1979).
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. seehttp://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 )
( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt )
