On May 12, 2005, at 3:51 PM, wrote:

Z: Then the general covariance of physical quantities is tightly linked
with the *objectivity* of those quantities in Einstein's theory, exactly
as I said. An "objective" quantity is a quantity that is not
intrinsically observer-dependent.

J: This was never a point of dispute. Technically all objective local
observables must be Diff(4) tensors. You can always make local
frame-invariant Diff(4) local scalar densities relative to a detector
with 4-velocity V(Detector) by contraction

e.g. Tuv(Matter at P)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) = Local Frame
Invariant Scalar Density at P.

P is a local physical event not a bare manifold point p. Rovelli
discusses this in his new book.


Z: That is the whole point of the 1918 papers on the GR "energy problem".

J: The tuv(Matter-Gravity) pseudo-tensor is not needed for anything
important.

tuv(Matter-Gravity)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) is not a local
frame invariant Diff(4) scalar density. It is, however, a T4 GLOBAL
FRAME invariant! Therefore, requirement of asymptotic flatness selecting
a subclass of possible space-times in which Ju = constant on a 3 + 1
foliation is APPROXIMATELY asymptotically possible like the IN-OUT
states in the S-Matrix model.

Z: Einstein thought a locally integrable density was needed to get
sensible conservation laws, and he thought this to be quite important.
And so have many others.

J: It's only there because of the arbitrary demand that

Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

be replaced by

Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0

Where, by definition we have the partial differential equations

(Corrected eqs )

tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v =

-{LC(Gravity)}u^l^vTlv(Matter) - {LC(Gravity)}l^l^vTuv(Matter)

In principle this is difficult problem to solve for
tuv(Matter-Gravity) explicitly.

There is no reason to do so, since it is a fictitious non-physical
quantity from asking the wrong question to begin with!

Z: So you now agree with Yilmaz that Einstein's 1916 pseudotensor
density is no good?

J: I never thought it was any good, but Yilmaz's idea is even worse. The
cure is worse than the disease, which is not at all fatal.

Z: OK.

The analogous eq. in flat space-time would be something like

A(x)u^,u = L(x)F(x)

Where L(x) and F(x) are independent functions.

Obviously though one needs to specify some kind of boundary condition,
e.g. asymptotic flatness for the GR problem.

Z: OK.


J: The tensor as a whole is LOCAL coordinate independent, but its
representations are NOT!

Z: ?

J: Your "?" proves my point.

What is the objective Diff(4) tensor Matter?

T(Matter at P) = {Tuv(Matter at P|~} = Equivalence Class of all local
coordinate-dependent tensor representations Tuv at P. The Equivalence
relation ~ is

Tu'v' at P ~ Tuv at SAME PHYSICAL EVENT P (could be different manifold
points p) IFF

Tu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)Tuv(P)

Xu'^u(P) is an element of the group Diff(4) at P.

Z: But then it follows that any objective local vacuum stress-energy
must be represented by a covariant tensor quantity. Which is exactly
Yilmaz's position. It was also Levi-Civita's and Lorentz' position ~
1918. So you now seem to have left the Einstein camp on the vacuum
energy issue. You seem to have "crossed the aisle".

J: No Paul. I have always been there. Your logic here is wrong. Yilmaz's
"cure" is worse than the disease.

tuv(Matter-Gravity) is NOT the energy of gravity in any sense! It is a
non Diff(4) tensor fragment FROM the MINIMAL COUPLING of gravity to
matter and, therefore, it has no meaning when matter in the ordinary
sense is absent.

Avoid all mention of tuv(Matter-Gravity) by simply using

Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

In those limited situations where that equation is true.

Einstein made a non-fatal blunder there, an error of informal language,
an error of interpretation.

Yilmaz gives a stupid answer to a stupid question. Yilmaz's cure is
worse than the disease.

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE MAINTENANCE
OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177

That's the Free Lunch from

tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

Bianchi identities, sans Shipov torsion, demand

Guv^;v = 0

where ;v = ,v + (LC)v

is MINIMAL COUPLING.

Einstein's LOCAL FRAME COVARIANT OBJECTIVE Diff(4) TENSOR field
equations then becomes

The Law of Free Lunch!

i.e. using Einstein's poetic imagery

Tuv(Marble) + Tuv(Wood) + Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0

"Marble" AKA Geometry AKA Gravity

"Wood" AKA ordinary matter and EM far-field radiation + EM near fields

Metric Engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon AKA W^3 as Next Step
Beyond C^3 begins where Bianchi identities end, i.e., neglect
Tuv(Matter) as a small perturbation.

Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time) + Tuv(Zero Point Energy) ~ 0

is Einstein's field equation.

The local conservation of current is

Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time)^;v = - Tuv(Zero Point Energy)^;v

where Tuv(Zero Point Energy) is easily controlled by Vacuum ODLRO phase
modulation (with a high-Tc probably nano-tech spintronic anyon 2D
system) with a few AAA Energizer Bunny batteries that just keep on
going, going ... ;-)

Seriously, flying saucers do not need a lot of on-board power
consumption. This is why Eric Davis's proposal to USAF for high-power
lasers for metric engineering is completely the wrong way to proceed to
the next step in "Black Ops" reverse engineering "The Visitor"
technology. Edgar Mitchell is correct that The Visitors from The
Universes Next Door are not way ahead of us. I mean some of them. It's a
Big Multiverse Out There.

The discovery of Dark Energy was The Cosmic Trigger.


J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the
energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) = 0
everywhere-when.


Z: But Pauli's J_u are not objective quantities unless they are (1) scalars

J: Ju are never Diff(4) scalars. They are never even Diff(4) GCT LOCAL
first-rank tensors. They are, however, GLOBAL first-rank T4 tensors.

Z: or (2) transform together as a GCT 4-vector -- which they do when
evaluated over the region enclosing the system, under the asymptotic
conditions on the line element.

J: You are totally confused on this last part. What you wrote is not
even wrong.
Ju is never a GCT 4-vector. It is a T4 4-vector - a big difference.

Einstein's field equations MEAN Sum of all local OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE
Diff(4) stress-energy density tensors from all causes exactly vanish.

Z: But then, objectively speaking, there is nowhere for the energy lost
from the moving masses through gravitational radiation to go.

J: Nonsense. Red Herring. In order to do gravity waves you split the guv
field into near fields and far fields.

Tuv(Near Field Gravity) + Tuv(Far Field Gravity Waves) + Tuv(Matter) +
Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0

How to make the "split" in strong curvature is the issue. For weak
curvature fields no problem.

Einstein had a peculiar failure of nerve in his own theory on this issue.

Z: You mean his leaving out the so-called "cosmological" term?

J: NO! Wake up Paul. Earth calling Paul! I mean, obviously, to anyone
following my clear logic, Einstein misinterpreting tuv(Matter-Gravity)
as tuv(Gravity) BECAUSE:

Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE MAINTENANCE
OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF
THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177

Einstein on cosmological constant /\ was not a blunder. Einstein
mistakenly thought he blundered. He did by not predicting Hubble
expansion prior to Hubble seeing it. But that just means he made his /\
too big and of the WRONG SIGN. No one expected /\ to be a cosmic
anti-gravity field that is 73% of the accelerating universe today!


Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.

Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to
"gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter) the
"gravity energy".


Z: Einstein needed a vacuum density to get sensible local conservation
laws for gravitating systems. His density did not yield such laws, and
he eventually gave up on it as a local physical quantity -- because it
was intrinsically observer-dependent.

J: Paul what you do not get is that the tuv Einstein used is not at all
a vacuum density. What it really is, is a coupling of vacuum to matter.
It is non-physical only because Einstein mistakenly thought he had to
stay with

Tuv(Matter)^,v rather than Tuv(Matter)^;v

;v = ,v + (LC)v

Only when you use T4 ",v" can you get GLOBAL conservation laws, i.e.,

Ju = constant on 3D space-like slices of 4D space-time

ONLY when T4 is the APPROXIMATE symmetry group, hence asymptotic
flatness required.


Z: This was in essence an admission of defeat. It was not a new
"discovery", as Penrose and others seem to want to represent it. It was
a failure. You seem to agree that Einstein's 1916 definition was a failure,

J: Correct

Z: but seem to be saying that the addition of your /\zpfguv term can
remedy this failure. Right?

J: Wrong. We do not need my /\zpfguv to solve the gravity energy problem
at all. What solves the gravity energy problem even when /\zpf = 0 is simply

tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)

where the universe is stabilized as a Free Lunch from the quantized
flux-withoutoflux changes of argVacuumODLRO Goldstone Phase = N2pi
around topological defects where

Higgs Field = |Vacuum ODLRO| - 0 as in the INITIAL SINGULARITY at
INFLATION 13.7 billion years ago when our universe was a BABY UNIVERSE
in the Multi-Verse.

Einstein did not know that his Guv is emergent from Bu^a ~ Pa on
argVacuumODLRO. That's why he NEEDLESSLY worried about the STABILITY OF
THE UNIVERSE AS A FREE LUNCH!

The VALUE ADDED of my /\zpfguv term is LOW-POWER PRACTICAL METRIC
ENGINEERING of WARP, WORMHOLE & WEAPON completely independent of the
MUDDLE on gravity energy.

And that's because of the USG fear that the flying saucers were a
national security threat that was allegedly covered up by CIA's late Top
Gun James Jesus Angleton & "MJ 12". This is partly what Dan Smith is all
about.

Z: Your /\zpf guv acts as a vacuum source field for G_uv?

J: Yes, for metric engineering. No for gravity energy.



Z: You were quite wrong in claiming that the J_i do not transform as a
GCT-covariant quantity. The whole point is that they do.

J: No they do not. What Pauli says is that the J_i are defined as T4
integrals OUTSIDE the DIff(4) GCT region. You are completely confused here.

Z: Also, the region of integration does not include the "flat"
asymptotic zone.

J: False. The 3D slices defining the T4 integrals J_i = constant are all
"outside B" as Pauli's text clearly says. You are inverting the meaning
of the text. Dyslexia? The line element for those integrals is "that of
special relativity" which MEANS asymptotically flat region "outside a
certain region B" p. 177. You have serious reading comprehension
dysfunction about this particular text Paul.

..

"Einstein calls the tuv the energy components of the gravitational
field." p. 176

That's Einstein's Blunder 1.

Z: OK.

J: tuv is, in fact, a COMPOSITE of the "marble", i.e. (LC)uv^l of the
gravitational field MULTIPLIED by the "wood", i.e Tuv(Matter).

When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES!

Z: T_uv; w = 0.

J: No Paul. What you just wrote is irrelevant. I meant exactly what I
said. When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES! Your neurons are
misfiring making these goofy inferences.v There is no tuv in pure
nonexotic vacuum theory where Ruv = 0 GLOBALLY as in the Wheeler geon of
"Mass without mass".


Z: OK. So you seem to agree that what is needed is an additional source
field -- separate from T_uv -- that produces G_uv =/= 0 in the
gravitational vacuum. Right?

J: NO! Completely wrong! You garbled two independent ideas. I explained
above. The gravity energy problem is solved even when /\zpf = 0
identically! /\zpf =/= 0 is the dark energy cherry on top of the whipped
cream!

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

That is

Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0

Z: Are you still saying that tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0 wherever T_uv = 0?

J: No! I am saying that the solution for tuv(Matter-Gravity) is an
integral over 4D space-time with a Green's function multiplying the
source, which is (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter). Therefore IF Tuv(Matter)
is IDENTICALLY zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in the 4D region of interest, obviously

tuv(Matter-Gravity) = 0 EVERYWHERE-WHEN

Z: Since Einstein's t_uv is a pseudotensor, this depends on the
coordinates. So what you are saying can't be true.

J: Look Genius what you just said is mathematically FALSE!

Z: OK, I see you are talking here about T_uv, w.

J: Still wrong. I am talking Tuv(Matter) = 0 globally, I don't give a
damn about its first order partial derivatives identically zero as well.
You have confused tuv = 0 in an LIF at P with tuv = 0 GLOBALLY i.e.
not existing.

Z: Obviously, if your vacuum energy depends on G_uv=/= 0 in an LNIF,
then in a coincident LIF for the same field it will not be zero -- which
violates Einstein's equivalence hypothesis.

J: Hogwash. Another totally goofy inference! There is no contradiction
with EEP!

Guv + /\zpfguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0

is derived FROM EEP by John Peacock on p. 26 of "Cosmological Physics".

You are completely wrong and befuddled here Paul.

EEP determines the Diff(4) tensor form /\zpfguv

There is nothing in EEP that demands a zero tensor vacuum energy!

Z: So you see this attacks the fundamentals of Einstein's 1916 theory.

J: False. You are profoundly confused here.

You are confused on a very fundamental point.

Take the (LC) field.

In say the SSS solution.

There is a real (LC) =/= 0 field even though choosing an event P and a
LIF at P

(LC) = 0 in LIF(P).

In the case of tuv(Matter-Gravity) - it depends on the product
(LC)T(Matter).

Its non-tensor property relative to Diff(4) of vanishing in a LIF at P
comes from its (LC) dependence in the source PRODUCT, but if T(Matter) =
0 GLOBALLY then, since T(Matter) is a Diff(4) tensor, tuv will be zero
in all local frames GLOBALLY, therefore there is no possibility of tuv
=/= 0 in such a case! tuv is a HYBRID of (LC) and T(Matter). That's what
you do not understand!

Z: No, this is fine. Actually I do understand this very well. The real
problem here is that if you make the vacuum energy depend on a tensor
like G_uv, then if it is not zero at a point in an LNIF, it will not be
zero at that point in a coincident LIF,

J: True

Z: which would violate Einstein's principles,

J: False

Z: because then you could locally distinguish a true gravitational field
from mere frame acceleration, which latter can't produce vacuum G_uv
where there is none.

J: You can measure tidal curvature locally from geodesic deviation also
Paul. Your argument here is completely bogus. EEP physically only means,
if you restrict your local measurements ONLY to g-force and exclude
everything else, then and only then, you cannot tell. The EEP then goes
on to say that the laws in the LIF are that of special relativity so
that Guv =/= 0 in LNIF at P - Gab =/= 0 in LIF at P and there is NO
PROBLEM!

Z: Do you see the problem? Do you see Einstein's dilemma?

J: You are seeing things that are not there.

....


Z: Then in fact you agree closely with Yilmaz.

J: No

Z: No, I think you do in fact. What you have been saying here agrees
very closely with Yilmaz's stated position.

J: No I do not have the math or the physical picture that Yilmaz has.
The similarity is very superficial.

Z: You even seem to have a vacuum source field for G_uv.

J: Of course.

Z: And you think that Einstein's pseudotensor t_uv was the result of a
"muddle".

J: Of course, but Yilmaz's excess baggage "Who ordered that?" piles more
muddle on muddle.

Yilmaz's tuv is NOT at all my tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv EEP derived
Diff(4) local tensor stress-energy density not for gravity, but for ZPF.

In vacuum of course

tuv(gravity) = - tuv(zpf)

in LNIF(P)

Which from EEP is simply

tab(gravity) = - tab(zpf)

You raised a Red Herring here.


Z: In addition to T_uv (matter), you have a locally defined parallel
tensor phi field (phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv) *in the vacuum* that is
itself a source of Einstein curvature G_uv.

J: No I do not have a metric form

guv = e^/\zpfguv

Your remark here is complete sloppy off-the-wall non-mathematical
nonsense.

Z: OK, superbrain, if your /\zpfguv term is not a tensor field, acting
as a T_uv-independent source of vacuum G_uv, then what is it?

J: It does that, but it does not obey any Yilmaz exponential metric
equation!

Yilmaz has guv ~ e^phiuv

Completely inconsistent with your still another goofy inference that

"phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv"

Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On May 12, 2005, at 3:51 PM, wrote:

Z: Then the general covariance of physical quantities is tightly
linked
with the *objectivity* of those quantities in Einstein's theory,
exactly
as I said. An "objective" quantity is a quantity that is not
intrinsically observer-dependent.

J: This was never a point of dispute. Technically all objective local

observables must be Diff(4) tensors. You can always make local
frame-invariant Diff(4) local scalar densities relative to a detector

with 4-velocity V(Detector) by contraction

e.g. Tuv(Matter at P)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) = Local
Frame
Invariant Scalar Density at P.

P is a local physical event not a bare manifold point p. Rovelli
discusses this in his new book.


Z: That is the whole point of the 1918 papers on the GR "energy
problem".

J: The tuv(Matter-Gravity) pseudo-tensor is not needed for anything

important.

tuv(Matter-Gravity)V^u(Detector at P)V^v(Detector at P) is not a
local
frame invariant Diff(4) scalar density. It is, however, a T4 GLOBAL
FRAME invariant! Therefore, requirement of asymptotic flatness
selecting
a subclass of possible space-times in which Ju = constant on a 3 + 1
foliation is APPROXIMATELY asymptotically possible like the IN-OUT
states in the S-Matrix model.

Z: Einstein thought a locally integrable density was needed to get
sensible conservation laws, and he thought this to be quite
important.
And so have many others.

J: It's only there because of the arbitrary demand that

Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

be replaced by

Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v = 0

Where, by definition we have the partial differential equations

(Corrected eqs )

tuv(Matter-Gravity)^,v =

-{LC(Gravity)}u^l^vTlv(Matter) - {LC(Gravity)}l^l^vTuv(Matter)

In principle this is difficult problem to solve for
tuv(Matter-Gravity) explicitly.

There is no reason to do so, since it is a fictitious non-physical
quantity from asking the wrong question to begin with!

Z: So you now agree with Yilmaz that Einstein's 1916 pseudotensor
density is no good?

J: I never thought it was any good, but Yilmaz's idea is even worse.
The
cure is worse than the disease, which is not at all fatal.

Z: OK.

The analogous eq. in flat space-time would be something like

A(x)u^,u = L(x)F(x)

Where L(x) and F(x) are independent functions.

Obviously though one needs to specify some kind of boundary
condition,
e.g. asymptotic flatness for the GR problem.

Z: OK.


J: The tensor as a whole is LOCAL coordinate independent, but its
representations are NOT!

Z: ?

J: Your "?" proves my point.

What is the objective Diff(4) tensor Matter?

T(Matter at P) = {Tuv(Matter at P|~} = Equivalence Class of all local

coordinate-dependent tensor representations Tuv at P. The Equivalence

relation ~ is

Tu'v' at P ~ Tuv at SAME PHYSICAL EVENT P (could be different
manifold
points p) IFF

Tu'v'(P) = Xu'^u(P)Xv'^v(P)Tuv(P)

Xu'^u(P) is an element of the group Diff(4) at P.

Z: But then it follows that any objective local vacuum stress-energy
must be represented by a covariant tensor quantity. Which is exactly
Yilmaz's position. It was also Levi-Civita's and Lorentz' position ~
1918. So you now seem to have left the Einstein camp on the vacuum
energy issue. You seem to have "crossed the aisle".

J: No Paul. I have always been there. Your logic here is wrong.
Yilmaz's
"cure" is worse than the disease.

tuv(Matter-Gravity) is NOT the energy of gravity in any sense! It is
a
non Diff(4) tensor fragment FROM the MINIMAL COUPLING of gravity to
matter and, therefore, it has no meaning when matter in the ordinary
sense is absent.

Avoid all mention of tuv(Matter-Gravity) by simply using

Tuv(Matter)^;v = 0

In those limited situations where that equation is true.

Einstein made a non-fatal blunder there, an error of informal
language,
an error of interpretation.

Yilmaz gives a stupid answer to a stupid question. Yilmaz's cure is
worse than the disease.

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE
MAINTENANCE
OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF
THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177

That's the Free Lunch from

tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)

Guv = Ruv - (1/2)Rguv

Bianchi identities, sans Shipov torsion, demand

Guv^;v = 0

where ;v = ,v + (LC)v

is MINIMAL COUPLING.

Einstein's LOCAL FRAME COVARIANT OBJECTIVE Diff(4) TENSOR field
equations then becomes

The Law of Free Lunch!

i.e. using Einstein's poetic imagery

Tuv(Marble) + Tuv(Wood) + Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0

"Marble" AKA Geometry AKA Gravity

"Wood" AKA ordinary matter and EM far-field radiation + EM near
fields

Metric Engineering of Warp, Wormhole & Weapon AKA W^3 as Next Step
Beyond C^3 begins where Bianchi identities end, i.e., neglect
Tuv(Matter) as a small perturbation.

Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time) + Tuv(Zero Point Energy) ~ 0

is Einstein's field equation.

The local conservation of current is

Tuv(Fabric of Space-Time)^;v = - Tuv(Zero Point Energy)^;v

where Tuv(Zero Point Energy) is easily controlled by Vacuum ODLRO
phase
modulation (with a high-Tc probably nano-tech spintronic anyon 2D
system) with a few AAA Energizer Bunny batteries that just keep on
going, going ... ;-)

Seriously, flying saucers do not need a lot of on-board power
consumption. This is why Eric Davis's proposal to USAF for high-power

lasers for metric engineering is completely the wrong way to proceed
to
the next step in "Black Ops" reverse engineering "The Visitor"
technology. Edgar Mitchell is correct that The Visitors from The
Universes Next Door are not way ahead of us. I mean some of them.
It's a
Big Multiverse Out There.

The discovery of Dark Energy was The Cosmic Trigger.


J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the
energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) =
0
everywhere-when.


Z: But Pauli's J_u are not objective quantities unless they are (1)
scalars

J: Ju are never Diff(4) scalars. They are never even Diff(4) GCT
LOCAL
first-rank tensors. They are, however, GLOBAL first-rank T4 tensors.

Z: or (2) transform together as a GCT 4-vector -- which they do when
evaluated over the region enclosing the system, under the asymptotic
conditions on the line element.

J: You are totally confused on this last part. What you wrote is not
even wrong.
Ju is never a GCT 4-vector. It is a T4 4-vector - a big difference.

Einstein's field equations MEAN Sum of all local OBJECTIVELY
MEASURABLE
Diff(4) stress-energy density tensors from all causes exactly vanish.

Z: But then, objectively speaking, there is nowhere for the energy
lost
from the moving masses through gravitational radiation to go.

J: Nonsense. Red Herring. In order to do gravity waves you split the
guv
field into near fields and far fields.

Tuv(Near Field Gravity) + Tuv(Far Field Gravity Waves) + Tuv(Matter)
+
Tuv(Zero Point Dark Energy/Matter) = 0

How to make the "split" in strong curvature is the issue. For weak
curvature fields no problem.

Einstein had a peculiar failure of nerve in his own theory on this
issue.

Z: You mean his leaving out the so-called "cosmological" term?

J: NO! Wake up Paul. Earth calling Paul! I mean, obviously, to anyone

following my clear logic, Einstein misinterpreting
tuv(Matter-Gravity)
as tuv(Gravity) BECAUSE:

Einstein feared that "The Universe is a Free Lunch" that "the total
energy of a closed system would always be zero, AND THAT THE
MAINTENANCE
OF THIS VALUE OF THE ENERGY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE CONTINUED EXISTENCE
OF
THE SYSTEM IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER." Pauli p.177

Einstein on cosmological constant /\ was not a blunder. Einstein
mistakenly thought he blundered. He did by not predicting Hubble
expansion prior to Hubble seeing it. But that just means he made his
/\
too big and of the WRONG SIGN. No one expected /\ to be a cosmic
anti-gravity field that is 73% of the accelerating universe today!


Also I have shown WHY BIG BANG is necessary!
The claims the "Big Bang never happened" are wrong.
You need the white hole singularity to
1. Explain the arrow of time (low entropy of early universe)
2. Energy without energy as in Wheeler geon.

Further clarification there are two meanings ("marble" & "wood") to
"gravity energy". Einstein made a muddle when he called tuv(matter)
the
"gravity energy".


Z: Einstein needed a vacuum density to get sensible local
conservation
laws for gravitating systems. His density did not yield such laws,
and
he eventually gave up on it as a local physical quantity -- because
it
was intrinsically observer-dependent.

J: Paul what you do not get is that the tuv Einstein used is not at
all
a vacuum density. What it really is, is a coupling of vacuum to
matter.
It is non-physical only because Einstein mistakenly thought he had to

stay with

Tuv(Matter)^,v rather than Tuv(Matter)^;v

;v = ,v + (LC)v

Only when you use T4 ",v" can you get GLOBAL conservation laws, i.e.,

Ju = constant on 3D space-like slices of 4D space-time

ONLY when T4 is the APPROXIMATE symmetry group, hence asymptotic
flatness required.


Z: This was in essence an admission of defeat. It was not a new
"discovery", as Penrose and others seem to want to represent it. It
was
a failure. You seem to agree that Einstein's 1916 definition was a
failure,

J: Correct

Z: but seem to be saying that the addition of your /\zpfguv term can
remedy this failure. Right?

J: Wrong. We do not need my /\zpfguv to solve the gravity energy
problem
at all. What solves the gravity energy problem even when /\zpf = 0 is
simply

tuv(Gravity) = (c^4/8piG)Guv(Gravity)

where the universe is stabilized as a Free Lunch from the quantized
flux-withoutoflux changes of argVacuumODLRO Goldstone Phase = N2pi
around topological defects where

Higgs Field = |Vacuum ODLRO| - 0 as in the INITIAL SINGULARITY at
INFLATION 13.7 billion years ago when our universe was a BABY
UNIVERSE
in the Multi-Verse.

Einstein did not know that his Guv is emergent from Bu^a ~ Pa on
argVacuumODLRO. That's why he NEEDLESSLY worried about the STABILITY
OF
THE UNIVERSE AS A FREE LUNCH!

The VALUE ADDED of my /\zpfguv term is LOW-POWER PRACTICAL METRIC
ENGINEERING of WARP, WORMHOLE & WEAPON completely independent of the
MUDDLE on gravity energy.

And that's because of the USG fear that the flying saucers were a
national security threat that was allegedly covered up by CIA's late
Top
Gun James Jesus Angleton & "MJ 12". This is partly what Dan Smith is
all
about.

Z: Your /\zpf guv acts as a vacuum source field for G_uv?

J: Yes, for metric engineering. No for gravity energy.



Z: You were quite wrong in claiming that the J_i do not transform as
a
GCT-covariant quantity. The whole point is that they do.

J: No they do not. What Pauli says is that the J_i are defined as T4
integrals OUTSIDE the DIff(4) GCT region. You are completely confused
here.

Z: Also, the region of integration does not include the "flat"
asymptotic zone.

J: False. The 3D slices defining the T4 integrals J_i = constant are
all
"outside B" as Pauli's text clearly says. You are inverting the
meaning
of the text. Dyslexia? The line element for those integrals is "that
of
special relativity" which MEANS asymptotically flat region "outside a

certain region B" p. 177. You have serious reading comprehension
dysfunction about this particular text Paul.

..

"Einstein calls the tuv the energy components of the gravitational
field." p. 176

That's Einstein's Blunder 1.

Z: OK.

J: tuv is, in fact, a COMPOSITE of the "marble", i.e. (LC)uv^l of
the
gravitational field MULTIPLIED by the "wood", i.e Tuv(Matter).

When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES!

Z: T_uv; w = 0.

J: No Paul. What you just wrote is irrelevant. I meant exactly what I

said. When Tuv(Matter) = 0 GLOBALLY then tuv VANISHES! Your neurons
are
misfiring making these goofy inferences.v There is no tuv in pure
nonexotic vacuum theory where Ruv = 0 GLOBALLY as in the Wheeler geon
of
"Mass without mass".


Z: OK. So you seem to agree that what is needed is an additional
source
field -- separate from T_uv -- that produces G_uv =/= 0 in the
gravitational vacuum. Right?

J: NO! Completely wrong! You garbled two independent ideas. I
explained
above. The gravity energy problem is solved even when /\zpf = 0
identically! /\zpf =/= 0 is the dark energy cherry on top of the
whipped
cream!

"The Question is: What is The Question?"

That is

Tuv(Matter)^;v = Tuv(Matter)^,v + tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0

Z: Are you still saying that tuv^,v(Matter-Gravity) = 0 wherever
T_uv = 0?

J: No! I am saying that the solution for tuv(Matter-Gravity) is an
integral over 4D space-time with a Green's function multiplying the
source, which is (LC Gravity)u^v^lTuv(Matter). Therefore IF
Tuv(Matter)
is IDENTICALLY zero EVERYWHERE-WHEN in the 4D region of interest,
obviously

tuv(Matter-Gravity) = 0 EVERYWHERE-WHEN

Z: Since Einstein's t_uv is a pseudotensor, this depends on the
coordinates. So what you are saying can't be true.

J: Look Genius what you just said is mathematically FALSE!

Z: OK, I see you are talking here about T_uv, w.

J: Still wrong. I am talking Tuv(Matter) = 0 globally, I don't give a

damn about its first order partial derivatives identically zero as
well.
You have confused tuv = 0 in an LIF at P with tuv = 0 GLOBALLY i.e.

not existing.

Z: Obviously, if your vacuum energy depends on G_uv=/= 0 in an LNIF,
then in a coincident LIF for the same field it will not be zero --
which
violates Einstein's equivalence hypothesis.

J: Hogwash. Another totally goofy inference! There is no
contradiction
with EEP!

Guv + /\zpfguv + (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter) = 0

is derived FROM EEP by John Peacock on p. 26 of "Cosmological
Physics".

You are completely wrong and befuddled here Paul.

EEP determines the Diff(4) tensor form /\zpfguv

There is nothing in EEP that demands a zero tensor vacuum energy!

Z: So you see this attacks the fundamentals of Einstein's 1916
theory.

J: False. You are profoundly confused here.

You are confused on a very fundamental point.

Take the (LC) field.

In say the SSS solution.

There is a real (LC) =/= 0 field even though choosing an event P
and a
LIF at P

(LC) = 0 in LIF(P).

In the case of tuv(Matter-Gravity) - it depends on the product
(LC)T(Matter).

Its non-tensor property relative to Diff(4) of vanishing in a LIF at
P
comes from its (LC) dependence in the source PRODUCT, but if
T(Matter) =
0 GLOBALLY then, since T(Matter) is a Diff(4) tensor, tuv will be
zero
in all local frames GLOBALLY, therefore there is no possibility of
tuv
=/= 0 in such a case! tuv is a HYBRID of (LC) and T(Matter). That's
what
you do not understand!

Z: No, this is fine. Actually I do understand this very well. The
real
problem here is that if you make the vacuum energy depend on a tensor

like G_uv, then if it is not zero at a point in an LNIF, it will not
be
zero at that point in a coincident LIF,

J: True

Z: which would violate Einstein's principles,

J: False

Z: because then you could locally distinguish a true gravitational
field
from mere frame acceleration, which latter can't produce vacuum G_uv
where there is none.

J: You can measure tidal curvature locally from geodesic deviation
also
Paul. Your argument here is completely bogus. EEP physically only
means,
if you restrict your local measurements ONLY to g-force and exclude
everything else, then and only then, you cannot tell. The EEP then
goes
on to say that the laws in the LIF are that of special relativity so
that Guv =/= 0 in LNIF at P - Gab =/= 0 in LIF at P and there is NO

PROBLEM!

Z: Do you see the problem? Do you see Einstein's dilemma?

J: You are seeing things that are not there.

...


Z: Then in fact you agree closely with Yilmaz.

J: No

Z: No, I think you do in fact. What you have been saying here agrees

very closely with Yilmaz's stated position.

J: No I do not have the math or the physical picture that Yilmaz has.

The similarity is very superficial.

Z: You even seem to have a vacuum source field for G_uv.

J: Of course.

Z: And you think that Einstein's pseudotensor t_uv was the result of
a
"muddle".

J: Of course, but Yilmaz's excess baggage "Who ordered that?" piles
more
muddle on muddle.

Yilmaz's tuv is NOT at all my tuv(zpf) = (c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv EEP
derived
Diff(4) local tensor stress-energy density not for gravity, but for
ZPF.

In vacuum of course

tuv(gravity) = - tuv(zpf)

in LNIF(P)

Which from EEP is simply

tab(gravity) = - tab(zpf)

You raised a Red Herring here.


Z: In addition to T_uv (matter), you have a locally defined parallel
tensor phi field (phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv) *in the vacuum* that is

itself a source of Einstein curvature G_uv.

J: No I do not have a metric form

guv = e^/\zpfguv

Your remark here is complete sloppy off-the-wall non-mathematical
nonsense.

Z: OK, superbrain, if your /\zpfguv term is not a tensor field,
acting
as a T_uv-independent source of vacuum G_uv, then what is it?

J: It does that, but it does not obey any Yilmaz exponential metric
equation!

Yilmaz has guv ~ e^phiuv

Completely inconsistent with your still another goofy inference that

"phi_uv = c^4/8piG)/\zpfguv"

xxein: Ah! Equilibrium maintenance without inner or outer bounds.

I see, here, that Jack espouses the Copenhagenshkeul formality
that results in many universes, fuzzee logeek & schroedinger's joke-cat
(which is extremely putrid at this point it time --
don't open that box).

thus quoth:
The Law of Free Lunch!

Seriously, flying saucers do not need a lot of on-board power
consumption. This is why Eric Davis's proposal to USAF for high-power
lasers for metric engineering is completely the wrong way to proceed to

the next step in "Black Ops" reverse engineering "The Visitor"
technology. Edgar Mitchell is correct that The Visitors from The
Universes Next Door are not way ahead of us. I mean some of them. It's
a
Big Multiverse Out There.

The discovery of Dark Energy was The Cosmic Trigger.

J: Einstein unfortunately misidentified tuv(Matter-Gravity) as the
energy of the gravity field. In fact this tuv = 0 when Tuv(Matter) = 0
everywhere-when.

Z: But Pauli's J_u are not objective quantities unless they are (1)
scalars

thus:
as I thought I explained,
quaternions is nothimg more than inner & outer products,
combined, since that's how WRH defined them;
Gibbs took them apart.

I think this is covered in Crowe's book on the history of vectors,
if that's his name.

in Lacczos, it's just "3+1 dimensional spacetime."

thus:
so, has anyone seen my result, before,
on autoheptality?... perhaps a better word for it exists, but
it's a direct analogy to autoduality.

Amadeus Train-Owwell Zirconium wrote:
my guess is that this is related
to the autoheptality of the hexahedron (or
"kyoob"). this is akin to the autoduality
of the tetrahedron. (I could have been

--ils ducs d'Enron!
http://tarpley.net/bush7.htm
http://larouchepub.com=20
http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac