On Tuesday, December 9, 2003, at 06:01 PM, Eric Davis wrote:

I second Hal on that!

Eric

On what? What, in your view, is Hal saying? It seems so vague as to be
meaningless. These simple word bytes simply will not do. We are not
watching MTV here with ADD - are we?

Does anyone , other than Eric's Zen-like One Hand Clapping emotive
remark of no technical content that I can discern,

1. Understand what Hal actually said below?

2. Agree with it?


Subject: Deconstructing Hal Puthoff's Metric Engineering II
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:23:47 EST


In a message dated 11/25/03 6:32:24 PM, writes:

JS: What is wrong with Puthoff's paradigm is that he has no idea of
"Vacuum
Coherence" in his informal thinking nor formalized in his
mathematics.


HP: The only thing wrong here is your statement. Just what do you
think a
change in vacuum polarizability K in the PV theory means? K tracks
degree of vacuum stiffness that derives from degree of vacuum
coherence. You've missed the whole point!

Hal

JS: I do not see how your idea of "vacuum coherence" is same as what I am
talking about?


HP: It is simply that we are talking about different aspects of the vacuum
when we use the word "stiffness." You use it to characterize how
difficult it
is for the stress-energy tensor to "bend" spacetime. I'm using it to
characterize how difficult it is to polarize virtual vacuum
electron-positron pairs
with an electric field. When the vacuum dielectric constant K rises near a
mass, it means that it is easier (less "stiffness" in my sense) for an
electric
field to separate charge. It is that sense that "vacuum coherence" effects
in the charge distribution are induced.

There is nothing wrong with what you say. You just missed the boat
when you
thought that there was something wrong with what I say, since you do not
think of the vacuum virtual charge pairs as having this special
"electrical" relat
ionship with spacetime effects. It is this latter interpretation that
distinguishes the PV approach from the standard.

BTW, to set another record straight, I do not explore PV as an absolute repl
acement for Einsteinian GR as you often attribute to me. (For example,
in PV
analysis of rotating dumbbells, they generate only 2/3rds of the radiation
power calculated from standard GR and inferred from observation of PSR
1913 +
16.) My interest is PV has to do with exploring certain geometries and
consequences from an engineering standpoint. A corollary of this is
that I also do
not approach "metric engineering" from the standpoint of the "brute force"
stress-energy tensor approach that you also attribute to me. Rather, I am
interesting in exploring the underlying EM aspects of spacetime that
undergird the
PV (but not usual GR) approach.

Hal Puthoff

I mean the problem needs to be made specific.
Nowhere in any of Hal's papers does he even write the words "vacuum
coherence".

Where in orthodox QED PV is there "vacuum coherence"?

Not that Hal does any QED in his papers on PV gravity.

Hal writes

K = e^2GM/c^2r

Where is there any quantum theory in that?

Where is there any "vacuum coherence"?

Am I missing something here?

If so, I wish someone would enlighten me with specifics and not cheer
leading one-liners. This is not a football came although there
are flying round objects in the sky. "Heads up" as Farley would say. ;-)

I am playing straight and with details. I wish Hal and Eric would do the
same with real details.

Remember that I did make a model

Grho is replaced by c^2/\zpf

So that for a sphere of exotic vacuum of radius r*

GM/c^2r is replaced by (mod 4pi's etc)

c^2/\zpfRr*^3/r

Where

/\zpf = Lp*^-2[Lp*^3|Vacuum Coherence|^2 - 1]

This is normalized so that vanishing vacuum coherence inside a "vortex
string core" will be stabilizing strongly attractive "dark matter"
explaining the cohesiveness (Poincare stress) of the spatially extended
electron as a micro-geon.

Lp*^2 = hG*/c^3

hc/Lp*^2 = String Tension

/\zpf 0 is attractive exotic vacuum dark matter

/\zpf 0 is repulsive exotic vacuum dark energy

Put the two together the way Herman Bondi suggested ~ 1960 and what do
you get?

Essentially you get the Alcubierre weightless warp drive.

That's what I get.

What do youse guys get to compare with what I just showed you?

Time to show your hands Boys. Play Poker!

Remember Bondi was Chief Scientist of the British Ministry of Defense
when he came to Cornell ~ 1960 to give his "saucer" talk with
Ivor Robinson that I attended in Newman Nuclear Lab with Hans Bethe and
all the Big Boys. Of course "saucers" were not explicitly mentioned.