Nick Cook's "Hunt for the Zero Point"

http://www.salon.com/books/review/20.../zero_gravity/

On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 03:12 PM, wigstonmagna wrote:

--- In , Jack Sarfatti
sarfatti@w... wrote:
How about this from a PhD physicist, in the minority, who has
studied the UFO subject:

"I did some investigating and interviewed retired senior USG
executives
who laid the Nazi flying saucer (disguised as UFOs) claim (a la
Cook's book) to rest - it didn't exist and it didn't fly."

Which is pretty much what I have also been saying about Cook's
book BTW.

I'm interested in any debunkery of Cook's book. What did this Ph.D.
fellow discover precisely?

You need to ask him. I have bcc'd him on this. He can reveal his ID if
he wishes. He has USG Intelligence connections for information.

The point is that we at ISSO 1999-2000 at checked out many of the bogus
claims on zero point energy by fringe people and found them to be
essentially worthless.
Creon Levit on leave from NASA Ames did a very thorough job on several
of the claims. More information on this is in my two books from 2002
"Destiny Matrix" and "Space-Time and Beyond II" and in my semi-popular
Oct 24, 2003 Austin Texas talk "What Is The Universe Made Of" to the
Society for Literature and Science
http://qedcorp.com/APS/StarGate1.mov

Note of clarification I do not include the Haisch-Puthoff zero point
energy program nor Puthoff's PV gravity program in the same crackpot
category as ALL the other work mentioned by Nick Cook in his book. My
objections to the HRP program are that they do not ask the right
questions, are basically superficial in their formulations, make some
errors of interpretation of their formalisms and most importantly have
not led to any testable predictions nor any clarifying explanations of
significant problems and mysteries, e.g the UFO. They are not "bogus"
physics simply "wrong" physics in my humble opinion.

A few specifics:

1. On the zero point origin of inertia - it is a mistake to look only at
the virtual photons. It is the virtual electron-positrons that is most
important.

2. There is no "vacuum coherence" in their idea set. That throws the
baby out with the bathwater because guv Einstein's metric field for
curved spacetime emerges from that non-perturbative vacuum coherence of
the virtual electron-positron pairs primarily. So does the dark
energy/matter that is 96% of the universe that does not appear anywhere
in their models. They have been working on this for almost 20 years with
little to show really.

3. There is no PV (i.e. no quantum polarized fluctuations) in Puthoff's
PV math.

4. Puthoff and Ibison mis-interpret the physical meaning of their
isotropic radial r coordinate in their toy model K = e^2GM/c^r

Puthoff is very interested in UFOs and that is a primary motivation for
this zero point gravity work. Nowhere do Puthoff and Haisch et-al
squarely face the number

String Tension = c^4/8piG = 10^19 Gev per 10^-33 cm which prevents any
plausible explanation of UFO "metric engineering" with their brute force
approach. Space-time geometry is simply too stiff to bend with the
energy schemes they have in their paradigm. They are missing some very
essential new concepts.

Cook is a very approachable fellow; have
you cross-checked with him also?

-Andrew

Cook contacted me before he wrote the book. He did not like what I told
him about the flaky stuff he was pushing so he
erased me from his book. That told me he was not intellectually honest,
but had some hidden non-scientific agenda. I
find this disturbing since he is associated with Jane's Defence Weekly
in UK.