Paul makes sense when he is not talking about his own nutty ideas that
there is a gravity force in Einstein's theory, or other's nutty ideas
like Hal Puthoff's, but when he talks about mine. ;-)

On Aug 12, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Here I think Jack has a point. The traditional spin-2 models for gravity
have serious problems.
Feynman for one broke his teeth on them.

The ODLRO model does appear to overcome or at least avoid a lot of these
problems. Whether
it is the correct model for the gravitational field is another question.
That of course is ultimately an
empirical matter.

Z.

Vacuum ODLRO gives Einstein's field equations as simply as Helium ground
state ODLRO gives superfluid hydrodynamics. Einstein's gravity is simply
topological defect structure in a 4D relativistic supersolid. Remember I
predicted the supersolid in 1969 ahead of Tony Leggett in a peer
reviewed journal.

e = 1 + A invariant scalar contraction of 4 tetrads

dA ~ dTheta/\dPhi Susskind's "world hologram"

Theta & Phi are Goldstone phases of inflation vacuum ODLRO field of
"Higgs" type.

This is enough to get Einstein's vacuum

Ruv = 0 of 1915

dA ~ (Quantum of Area) dTheta/\dPhi

gives Hawking-Bekenstein in surface integrals around point defects.

is like

v = (Quantum of Circulation)d(Theta) in superfluid helium hydrodynamics



Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Gravity is unrenormalizable i.e. gravitons do not exist if there is no
quantum field theory from classical gravity top -- down.

In my theory gravity is emergent bottom --- up from a ODLRO condensate.
There are no spin 2 gravitons since the condensate is from spin 1/2,
spin 1 quanta of the false vacuum. There are classical gravity waves.


On Aug 12, 2006, at 5:58 AM, Dan Smith wrote:



Paul,



Why is it that Jack needs to de-objectify the gravitational field?


A false red herring. I have done nothing of the kind.



Is he thereby denying the possibility of gravitons? How does this
relate to his Bohmian views?





Dan





From: Paul Zielinski ]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:54 PM
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Dan Smith
Subject: Jack's blind faith in ODLRO (O' LORD!??)



Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:




Jack, what are you going to say when I show you an e-mail from Wheeler
agreeing with me?

" 'General Relativity' is the *name* Einstein gave to his theory of
gravitation." -- John Archibald Wheeler

That INNOCUOUS statement by Wheeler has nothing to do with your dingbat
delusions!

None so blind as those who will not see.

Jack, you have painted yourself into a very tight corner. You are forced
to take the nutty position that the effective
g-force felt by a heavy object on the Earth's surface is not connected
causally and objectively with the physical presence
of the Earth, since you refuse to admit that any part of the Einstein
g-field is objective and causally connected to the
source of the gravitational field.


It's not. When you construct the hovering "shell frame" (Wheeler) then
one finds the relationship

g = -m/r^2

to keep hovering at fixed r in a nongeodesic worldline. That is a fixed
point on the Bucky geodesic dome surrounding the SSS source.





Do you really think that Wheeler also believes that? Of course he
understands that there is an objective physical
component in the Einstein g-field that depends only on the presence of
the source, and not on the motion of any
observer. This is precisely what you have to deny in order to defend
Einstein's "equivalence" thesis, which has been
falsely blown up by the true believers from a mere *heuristic device*
into a profound statement about the nature of
physical reality.

""Gravitation is not the same as frame acceleration." -- Ohanian and
Ruffini.


Correct! That proves my point Paul not yours. g-force as in g = - m/r^2
is 100% "frame acceleration" and "gravitation" there means "curvature."
There is no g-force (no frame acceleration) on a geodesic and curvature
is "geodesic deviation" - frame accelerations are foreign to the
measurement of curvature - they are systematic errors to be eliminated.

You are so divorced from reality, and so brainwashed by Einsteinian
propaganda, that you didn't even recognize that
in 1916 GR the weight of an object is *completely frame-independent*.
And that's not just my interpretation of
the theory: the mathematical formalism of the theory itself shows that
this is the case, since the weight depends only
on the mass of the object, and the objectively defined geodesics for the
gravitational field and for gravity-free spacetime
respectively.

You and others have confused a mere correspondence principle with an
*ontological thesis*.

The only reason anyone ever took the idea seriously that the physical
g-field is literally *annihilated* in free-fall is the need
to support the absolute 100% physical equivalence of Einstein's frames K
and K', in order to arrive at a form of "general
relativity" conceived as an extension of the 1905 relativity principle
to arbitrary observer motion, as Einstein quite clearly
and consistently explained in his writings on the subject. The fact of
the matter is that this program has failed, and the
Einstein's original idea is simply not supported by the math of the 1916
theory.

What we actually have now, given 1916 GR, is a *correspondence*
principle, which simply says that cancellation
of the *effects* of the physical g-field by the effects of observer
frame acceleration allows us to locally *model* the physics
in such frames, for certain limited purposes, *as if* they are SR
inertial frames -- that is, as if there is no physical g-field --
but the reality is that in 1916 GR they are not really SR inertial
frames at all, either globally or locally.

All we can really say is that the motion of a test body along a physical
geodesic is unforced. But this has nothing to do with
any observer's frame of reference. In 1916 GR this is all completely
objective.

So what we are talking about here is the difference between a serious
physical model, and a *fictitious* physical model. It's
just like the difference between real physical forces and fictitious
frame-dependent forces in Newtonian theory. It's the
difference between physical reality and *make-believe*.

Can you tell the difference? At this point I have to wonder.

Z.



When are you finally going to pull your head out of the sand?! You are
in the grip of a delusion. No one
who matters in spacetime physics actually believes in Einstein's
"general relativity" any more.

It is you who is out of touch on this, not me. I was simply trying to
explain to you why this is so.

Z.

Jack Sarfatti wrote:



On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:38 AM, Dan Smith wrote:






Jack,



Dan your ideas here are completely useless - counter-productive. They
are religious not scientific and delusional.



No, it is you who are advocating a blind faith in physicalism.



I advocate rationalism. The claim of rationalism is just this: the
human mind is modeled after the cosmic mind and so it has access to all
universal truths.



Almost all theoretical physicists, including especially Einstein, have
been Pythagoreans. They subscribe to the view that the underlying
structure of the world is mathematical in nature. The catch phrase for
this view is that God is a mathematician. This is a coherent, though
severely truncated, view of the world.



But this is not what you advocate. You advocate a quantum mechanism,
ODLRO (off-diagonal long-range order), as the one mechanism that can
explain all the irreducible aspects of the world, and especially you
claim that it can explain the mental aspect of reality.



OK, then, smarty pants, answer this question: does ODLRO explain
mathematics? If ODLRO cannot explain mathematics, then clearly it
cannot explain the mathematical power of the human mind.





Dan