On Jul 29, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Ron Stahl wrote:
Jack,
I'm sure we all know many of the intelligence services around the world indulge in counterintelligence scams. I am however curious if this incomprehensible math is what is famously called "Russian Torsion physics".
I immediately thought of that also because their electro-mechanical device reminds one of Shipov's, but on closer examination it's not at all what Shipov proposes. Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova use Ray Chiao's gravimagnetism g0i, which was one reason at first I took it seriously. Torsion is different - it's a new connection tensor field in addition to the non-tensor Levi-Civita-Christoffel field for parallel transport.
In ordinary GR parallel transport a vector around a parallelogram formed from two non-collinear infinitesimal displacements. If there is curvature the orientation angle of the transported vector is different from when it started, but the parallelogram of one displacement by the other closes without a gap. With torsion there is a gap.
in terms of crystal physics see Hagen Kleinert's homepage
curvature = disclination defect density in 4D world crystal lattice
torsion = dislocation defect density " "
in terms of local gauge theory Einstein-Cartan extension of Einstein GR has curvature and torsion as the Cartan 2-forms from the induced compensating Cartan 1-form connection fields from localizing the 4 translations and the 6 space-time rotations - using the local tetrad frames.
The Cartan 1-form basis of four tetrads e^I represent a zero g-force Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that is not rotating about its origin and that follows a timelike geodesic inside the local light cone - in the absence of torsion.
e^0 is the timelike 4-vector (i.e. actual tangent vector of the local detector making measurements)
e^1, e^2, e^3 are the three orthogonal spacelike 4-vectors
note that the flat Minkowski metric is
nIJ = eI.eJ
A locally coincident non-zero g-force accelerating (including rotating) local non-inertial frame (LNIF) has base set
e^u
Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) in this formalism is the LIF <--> LNIF tetrad map
e^I(LIF) = e^Iue^u(LNIF) and its inverse
the curvilinear metric measured by translationally accelerating/rotating detectors is
guv(LNIF) = eu.ev
for example, the gravimagnetic field is
g0i = e0(LNIF).ei(LNIF)
i = 1,2,3
Note there are also the complex Newman-Penrose "null tetrads" that include Wheeler-Feynman advanced and retarded signals
e0 + er and e0 - er
for spacelike local spherical coordinates with etheta and ephi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman
there is also a geometric relation here to Pauli 2-spinors of quantum theory.
Exactly George, I agree with your assessment. :-)
On Jul 29, 2011, at 6:31 PM, George Hathaway look wrote:
John & Jack,
I echo the tenor of John’s email albeit not the details, as I do not know all of them. I do know that we in the West had to dutifully check out all but the MOST outrageous claims of the Russians during and even after the Cold War. I know Podkletnov returned to Russia after finishing his doctorate in Materials Science in Tampere under Prof. Kettunen (in fact, he went back and forth several times) but as far as I know, it was for immigration and employment reasons, not because the KGB yanked him back to the Institute for High Temperatures in Moscow. This is speculation, however. I was quite close to Podkletnov until we published our null result in 2003 at which time he completely stopped all contact with me, claiming I had sabotaged the experiment as an intelligence agent of the US government in the secret service (with the rank of Major, no less!). It would not surprise me, however, if the KGB or other agency did haul Podkletnov “on the carpet” to explain why he sullied the reputation of Russian science. I inquired of several Russian academicians at the time who, to a man, condemned Podkletnov’s methods, results and interpretation.
I also suggest not expending too much time on the Rabounski and Borissova paper as nothing has come out of it so far due to its arcane and generally inscrutable mathematics amongst other reasons.
Cheers - George
From: John Brandenburg [mailto:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 6:32 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti;
Subject: RE: The new Russian paper on the Podkletnov Effect
Dear Jack,
As a veteran of several “snipe hunts” during the Cold War, caused by the Russians publishing something outrageous -which we then dutifully had to check out when I was a grad student at LLNL - I would counsel you not invest much time on this Russian article. When the “Pod” first published his stuff , he was working in Finland. The first thing that happened was that the KGB ( with shiney new badges) showed up and took him back to Moscow as if he was an escaped inmate of an asylum ( or cement factory in Siberia- whatever) . We have heard nothing from Podletnikov , since that happened, that makes any sense. I have learned since then, that rattling the intellectual cages of foreigners is not Marxist, it is actually part of the Russian character. They are messing with us and seeing if we respond with anything interesting.
Consider, If Boris and Ivan had actually gotten gravity modification technology from Podletnikov, the last thing they would actually do is publish yet another paper debunking it. The Russians would instead secretly use the gravity modification technology to move Damansky Island closer to the Russian Bank of the Amur river.
We have encountered this shocking “20th century behavior” by the Russians in the Morningstar Searl investigations. They have a strange sense of humor. Where is James Jesus Angleton when we need him?
John E. Brandenburg Ph.D.
Senior Propulsion Scientist
Orbital Technologies Corporation
1212 Fourier Drive
Madison Wisconsin 53717
(608)-827-5000-x2790
From: Jack Sarfatti [mailto:
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: The new Russian paper on the Podkletnov Effect
I'm not going to waste more time on it unless some thinks they understand it etc
On Jul 29, 2011, at 8:36 AM,
They also do not reference George Hathaway's non-replication experiment published in the same journal that Podkletnov originally published in (G. Hathaway, "Gravity Modification Experiment using a Rotating Superconducting Disk and Radio Frequency Fields", Physica C 385 (2003) 488-500). And George had Pod as a consultant!
Bottom line: “Using equipment 50 times more sensitive than available to Podkletnov, the group found no evidence of a gravity-like force.” Not a good sign.
Hal
In a message dated 7/29/2011 1:41:23 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
I am having second thoughts. It's a very strange paper. Some of their statements seem off the wall and make no sense to me.
e.g. section 2.1 on "topology" and "drift fields"
The Russian advanced propulsion paper re-evaluated
- Details
- Category: Jack Sarfatti Blog
©
2024 - 2020
Internet Science Education Project