See a brief outline here.
PHI3 stands for physics of human intention, physiology of human intention, and psychology of human intention. Here
at this web site, I tried to explain only the first part of PHI3.
December 22, 2008 Last updated: December 22, 2012 Today, 22.12.2011, I celebrate
fifteen years in Cyberspace. It seems to me that all major discoveries, which I am trying to unite under the roof of PHI3, were made in the good old
Deutschland: Otto Lilienthal, Hermann Minkowski, and Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried von Waldeyer-Hartz. If we discover the physics of the human brain (it was missing in the theory proposed by H.W.G. von Waldeyer-Hartz), we would perhaps understand the nature of 3-D space and its time, as one object called spacetime: "Nobody has ever noticed a place except at a time, or a time except at a place", says Hermann Minkowski. Then it may be possible to learn how to modify the inertial mass of our bodies and levitate them with our
brain. Have you noticed that we can "drive" our thoughts just like an UFO, without any inertial mass effects? Maybe what
we need most is new
mathematical ideas. On some more mundane affairs, I'm also interested in proactive management of emerging risks, type "black swans". They are usually accompanied by predictable and much smaller risks.  Consider John Wheeler's operational definition of time: "Time is Nature's way to keep everything from happening all at once". The emerging risks are not fully traceable to their roots. They emerge due to brand new developments which, prior to the instant of their inception, are still in the realm of 'the unknown unknown'. Prior to this instant, these brand new developments form an empty set; they simply don't exist in our knowledge. Hence the manner by which the "black swan" emerges will look like a bona fide non-unitary evolution. It would be like tossing a coin, and at some point you suddenly realize that you're already tossing a dice (e.g., you start with two predictable white swans, and end up with five white swans and one black swan, as depicted above). How can we handle such beast? If anything can help, it can only be the
UNdecidable quantum state. Perhaps a trained human brain can anticipate an emerging risk by its blurred, yet sufficiently clear, pattern (an example for risk-neutral, just blurred pattern is Lewis Carroll's Jabberwocky). Although people with substantial dowsing experience might sense the specific pattern of emerging risks, their proactive management will perhaps be more art than science. Perhaps this was what we needed to prevent 9/11. D.C. April 2, 2009 Last updated: December 22, 2011 ---- 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Lewis Carroll 
The paper wheel spins like a helicopter rotor, without any jittering. The kinetic energy is applied uniformly on the paper wheel en bloc, but you cannot trace back its origin, so you would call it "dark". Compare this demonstration with the levitation showed here and here. They look weird, just like Otto Lilienthal, right? One reason for looking "weird" is that people are conditioned to think about such phenomena in parapsychological terms, like some "psi energy", or "psi field", or some para-bio-quantum-gravitational-information ŕ la Dean Radin. Consequently, those who whish to perform it in public have no choice but to be camouflaged as "magicians" and, sure enough, they deliberately contaminate their demonstrations with "magic" tricks, as David Copperfield does. But make no mistake -- the real effects are produced with the human brain, and are fully reproducible, like a chemical reaction. The next step is to enhance the effect shown at the video above, and spin the rotor of a power station, without using any coal or nuclear energy. Compared to Otto Lilienthal, this would mean building a plane capable of crossing the Channel. If 'the universe as a whole' works like a brain, it should be possible. It sounds crazy, yes. Nobody took seriously Otto Lilienthal either. My Chinese colleagues are working very hard though. Just don't expect any announcement on CNN Breaking News. They don't have ego problems, and don't feel the need to convince the world that the future belongs to China. It's inevitable, and they know it. Only the math is unknown. Thank God, I don't need it, and have no intentions whatsoever to develop any engineering applications, like BCCP (brain-controlled cold plasma): at the moment you manage to entangle your brain with some distant "rotor", the physical system, embedded into your 'personal space', shifts into a plasma-like state, for a split of a second, after which you can control it just like you move your hand. Or twirl a hula-hoop. Simple, no?
To be specific, the Archimedean Axiom does not hold for 'the law of continuity'. One can find this ONE-state in Quantum Theory as well, Hope to see you next June in Prague, Sincerely, What is the intrinsic and inherent color of an octopus? It is not "contextual". No. It may have been "contextual" iff the Kochen-Specker Theorem was wrong, that is, if one could distill 'the quantum system' into a full set of context-dependent physical (colored) observables, all of which jointly possess well-defined values at particular instant, as read by your wristwatch.
Absolutely delicious. And they haven't changed the recipe since November 1998, as far as I can tell. But it is still a bit of a mystery. So, I decided to play Chinese and do some reverse-engineering, by trying a traditional Deep Fried Squid Rings (Calamari) Recipe offered here. Total failure: the Italian bread crumbs didn't stick to the squid. Tried with non-Italian bread crumbs -- same result. I don't need to know the physical and chemical details of the entire process -- just a working recipe, FAPP. Finally, I gathered some courage (that is, I accepted defeat) and asked the girl (I know her as Ms Lia -- charming girl with beautiful smile) who was delivering the fried squid about their secret. She gave me a very smart hint (I wouldn't like to share it here), and now I too can cook the best deep fried spicy squid ever known to mankind. Which reminded me of how people explore, study, and teach GR. You face a 'deep fried squid' made by Mother Nature, and try to apply some common-sense recipe for your reverse-engineering. If you believe have succeeded, at least to some extent (it depends on how much oil you'd accept to eat with the squid), you publish your findings in peer-reviewed journals, and eventually write up books, like Steven Weinberg. Your 'comma to semicolon' recipe sounds like this (p. 106): "Write the appropriate special-relativistic equations that hold in the absence of gravitation, replace n_mv with g_mv and replace all derivatives with covariant derivatives. The resulting equations will be generally covariant and true in the absence of gravitation, and therefore, according to the Principle of General Covariance, they will be true in the presence of gravitational fields, provided always that we work on a space-time scale sufficiently small compared with the scale of the gravitational field." Trouble is, the meaning of 'sufficiently small' is sheer poetry. Unlike cooking, you need to know the details of the whole story. That is, you need to know what happens in the infinitesimal neighborhood of an abstract "point" in the cases of (i) flat background Minkowski space and (ii) no background at all. Huge difference. Locally -- in the infinitesimal neighborhood of an abstract "point" -- it looks as if there were no difference between gravitational "force" and inertial "force" (cf. D. W. Sciama), as we all know from our experience with falling elevators. But in case (ii), what looks like "local" stuff is actually quasi-local. And if you want to "prove", with some smart reverse-engineering, that you are indeed dealing with strictly positive mass, and if you want to study the origin of inertial reaction "forces" pertinent to this positive mass, you need to include 'the whole spacetime', up to its non-trivial "borders" at which the universe is "spatially self-enclosed" [1]. The mundane comma-to-semicolon-like recipes won't work, because the mechanism by which matter 'there' influences inertia 'here' does not take place on a spacelike hypersurface, yet there is no violation of relativistic causality. Let me try to explain. To understand the crux of GR, recall Einstein's Principle of General Covariance: it "takes away from space and time the last remnant of physical objectivity" (Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Annalen der Physik 49 (1916) 769-822). What is meant by 'physical objectivity'? It is the case (i) above: you may imagine some fictitious flat background space, such that you can pick some abstract point from it, and find out that there has already been a perfectly local value of physical fields locked on it. It is like a colorful painting on a canvas -- every point from the underlying canvas is painted with its unique color. But in case (ii), there isn't such fixed background. Think about the values of physical fields at particular "point" from the spacetime in GR as the changing color at particular points from the skin of a perfect octopus. What is the intrinsic color of an octopus? It does have a skin, but the only way you can see the "skin" is through its color, that is, at the instant (cf. Escher's drawing below) at which it takes on some particular dynamical color. It doesn't possess some pre-existing color locked on particular pixel-point from its skin, as in case (i). The color of 'the skin per se' of our octopus has become 'potential reality'. Its real "color" is actually color-less. It is UNspeakable, like Platonic ideas. It is indeed real, only belongs to a wider form of reality -- potential reality. Going back to the analogy with the deep fried squid: in case (i), the point-like "colored breadcrumbs" are locked on every point from squid's skin, while in case (ii) these "colored breadcrumbs" have become dynamical, in the sense that they determine the "skin" (spacetime) at each and every instant from the Arrow of Space. Any time we look at the world around us, we see a particular snapshot from a dynamically colored "GR octopus". To uncover its intrinsic color-less "skin", we need to dwell on Quantum Theory. Surely there must be something that sticks the fleeting quasi-local "colored breadcrumbs" onto the "skin" of our
octopus: the universe as
ONE. If we think of a school of fish, it will be 'the school of fish as ONE' that determines the quasi-local state/color of each and every quasi-local fish. In GR parlance, "(1) Spacetime geometry steers fields and matter. (2) In turn, the combined field-plus-matter momentum-energy steers the geometry" (Ciufolini and Wheeler, p. 270). Such inherently non-linear bi-directional negotiation between every quasi-local fish (matter) and 'the school of fish as ONE' (geometry of space) is depicted with Escher's drawing below.
Most importantly, we can explain the origin of inertia: Mach's reference frame of 'fixed stars' (cf. Mach 11) is replaced with the reference fluid of GR (if the latter can be accessed with a human brain, it may be possible to cancel out the inertia of mass almost completely). To sum up, we can restore the physical objectivity of space and time, albeit not in the way imagined by Einstein, and (perhaps) extract energy from "empty" space (also known as "dynamic dark energy of we-do-not-know-it"). Not surprisingly, the gravitational energy is of dual nature: both local and non-local, or in brief 'quasi-local'. It springs from 'the school of fish as ONE' and gets smuggled into all quasi-local fish, camouflaged as "their" self-force. Which is why some (otherwise smart) people call it "dark". Oddly enough, this "dark" component is actually made of two tug-of-war effects (CDM vs DDE), which were vital for the genesis of our universe, but this is already a bit difficult to explain. Point is, did you expect to discover a perfect "octopus" in your GR textbooks? And you didn't at all expect that your good old wristwatch may be reading a bona fide quantum-gravitational phenomenon -- a continual chain of already-completed and already-linearized negotiations between the two sides of Einstein field equation, or did you? Not sure? Find your Ms Lia and ask, very politely, for advice. D. Chakalov
In such (highly contrived) case, the "number" φ , denoting the possible explications of octopus' color, will take the value 2 , yet its "intrinsic color" will be, again, UNdecidable, just as the state of the lamp in Thompson Lamp paradox: Imagine a lamp that is turned 'on' at some instant labeled with 0 , and is left 'on' for 1 min, then turned 'off' for 0.5 min, then 'on' for 0.25 min, etc., ad infinitum. Do we have a limit? Obviously yes: 2 min. There are obviously finite things around us, which build up the 3-D space, such as a table with length 1 m. Fine, but what is the state of the lamp in the instant/point labeled with '2 min'? And what was the state of 'the lamp per se' at the initial instant, 0 ? UNdecidable (recall Gödel's Theorem), like the intrinsic color-less octopus. It has always been present 'out there' as UNdecidable potential reality, along with the fleeting observable states of the lamp, cast on a perfect continuum: in the local mode of spacetime, the duration of our color-less octopus is zero. Zilch. Non-existent. The contemporary differential geometry says nothing about the UNdecidable potential reality, which we perceive as 'geometry'. People explore, study, and teach GR like 'bartenders'. Even with QM, which I believe is far less unclear, people tend to ignore the fundamental lesson from KS Theorem. Anyway, the point I wish to make here is this: the unique "number" φ , denoting the possible explications of 'potential reality', is not fixed. The comprehensible "value" of φ varies in the interval (2, aleph-null) — please see "Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall" here. Notice that the "values" of φ in this interval are pertinent to 'something we can comprehend'. If φ = 1, we will be unable to grasp the meaning of 'potential reality', because our brains use relational cognition: we can understand something, call it A , only if we can point to something else, not-A, with respect to which A makes sense. Thus, our brain needs at least two explications of 'potential reality', to make it comprehensible. We cannot understand φ = 1 or φ = 0. It is a Noumenon — 'the perfect monad without windows', after Leibniz. Or simply [John 1:1]. It can only be described mathematically. It is a special form of 'emptiness' or "zero", which is opposite to 'zero something'. The latter refers to something that has existed in some form or shape, while in our case we should perhaps use 'zero nothing'. I have denoted it, faute de mieux, with "zero", and have placed this 'zero nothing' in the l.h.s. of Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf. In summary, the unsolved problems of the full nonlinear GR, most notably those related to the energy conservation issue [2], stem from 'the laws of an instant' (Karel Kuchar). In the case of GR "octopus" (cf. (ii) above), the "instant" is quasi-local, in the sense that it encapsulates the nonlocal feedback and "dark" energy-momentum contributions from 'the whole school of fish'. There is no mathematical presentation of such bi-directional "negotiation" in current GR textbooks, simply because it does not, and cannot "happen" on a spacelike hypersurface: in the Escher drawing above, the "duration" of the bi-directional "negotiation" is zero, like the proper time of photon's flight "between" its emission-and-absorption (Kevin Brown). All this "happens" in an atemporal handshaking medium connected to the spacelike hypersurface "over a point" only; hence the "dark" energy-momentum contributions from 'the school of fish' are distributed smoothly [3] on the whole spacelike hypersurface en bloc (watch the video clip above). Which is why in QM textbooks there is no "source" of the quantum waves that is “waving” (Anthony Zee): the wave pattern results from the correlation of all 'spatially self-enclosed' (Einstein) quasi-local fish along the Arrow of Space, much like the wave pattern in the movement of centipede's legs; ditto for GWs. Notice that a fleeting, truly dynamical "color" at particular quasi-local point from octopus' skin does not exist as a fixed physical reality 'out there', as in case (i) above, which is why one can "remove" it by hand (modulo higher derivatives), as pointed out by Hermann Weyl. This is the essence of Einstein's Equivalence Principle -- recall 'the right answer to the wrong question' in MTW, p. 467. The right question to ask is this: surely gravitational effects exist (ibid.) as physicalized (transferred to the righthand side of Einstein's field equations) 'influence from geometry', but why is that the gravitational energy-momentum itself cannot be localized? Because, just like the Platonic ideas, it is 'potential reality' and lives in the reference fluid of GR (we cannot detect the 'influence from mind' on the human brain either, as we can only observe its "dark" physical effects embedded into the brain dynamics, or other physical systems). If the gravitational energy-momentum itself were possible to be localized as 'physical reality', this would have literally killed GR by exposing the underlying quantum-gravitational "ether" (Merced Montesinos). Stated differently, the gravitational energy-momentum itself does not possess "weight", and the inertial mass of an accelerating particle is not some simple "back-reaction to its own gravitational field" (Wolfgang Rindler), as we're accustomed to think after Newton's Third Law. We're dealing with an 'absolute structure': see James Anderson below. Just as we don't explain heat with some tiny little hot particles, it shouldn't be surprising that the very entity which endows matter with inertia does not have "weight", and of course "does not serve as a source term in the righthand side of Einstein's field equations" (MTW, p. 467). Locally, its lifetime or "duration" is zero — see Kevin Brown above. What we do not know is the origin of inertia, firstly because we lack mathematical presentation of the self-wrapping faculty of spacetime as "spatially self-enclosed" (Einstein). Hence the underlying reference fluid of GR — the color-less skin of our GR octopus — is still to be discovered. We cannot formulate the non-linear law of motion in GR from "energy-momentum conservation, which is itself a consequence of the field equations" [2], because the energy-momentum conservation is being dynamically adjusted in the reference fluid of GR along the Arrow of Space: each and every fleeting "horizontal" 3-D hypersurface — an absolute 'now' from the Arrow of Space — is an already-correlated universe in which the energy from the gravitational "field" is being almost exactly canceled (i.e., not exactly canceled to zero net energy, because the value of "dark energy" from "empty space" is miniscule yet finite) by the energy from the Type I matter fields, which in turn does not allow the exposure of quantum-gravitational "ether" (Merced Montesinos) or the reference fluid of GR. "See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?" (Sean Carroll). The mathematical basis of GR, offered by current differential geometry and topology, is inadequate and unclear — the fine structure of the "point" is missing. It is inherently quasi-local, and is cast on the ultimate "canvas" of the universe — the reference fluid of GR. It pertains to 'absolute structures' which do not obey the ‘generalized principle of action and reaction’ (James L. Anderson, Principles of Relativity Physics, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 339; see also p. 73). These 'absolute structures' cannot show up in GR in the form of the alleged "Dirac observables" (if any), because they do not belong to the realm of physical reality 'out there', as in the two cases (i) and (ii) above, which is why they can only be camouflaged as Diff(M)-related "gauge" (Domenico Giulini). Regrettably, there is no other way for the reference fluid of GR to show up in present-day GR. The latter is "merely a makeshift in order to give the general principle of relativity a preliminary closed expression. For it was essentially not anything more than a theory of the gravitational field, which was somewhat artificially isolated from a total field of as yet unknown structure" (A. Einstein). Don't blame GR; fix the math instead, and you may discover the Machian quantum gravity. D. Chakalov http://www.scribd.com/doc/48314966/Addendum http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Addendum.pdf
pp. 104-105: "In this section we consider the motion of a point particle of mass m subjected to its own gravitational field in addition to an external field. (...) In all cases the coupled problem of determining the field and the motion of the particle is nonlinear. (...) In general relativity the law of motion follows from energy-momentum conservation, which is itself a consequence of the field equations. "We shall describe a formal approach to this problem, based on the fiction that the spacetime of a point particle (cf. Bob Wald here — D.C.) can be constructed exactly in general relativity. (This is indeed a fiction, because it is known [141] that the metric of a point particle, as described by a Dirac distribution on a world line, is much too singular to be defined as a distribution in spacetime. ...)."
"Exotic matter is powerful stuff: Apart from possibly destroying the universe in a future “big rip” singularity [7], if the exotic matter clumps to any extent there is real risk of even more seriously bizarre behaviour — everything from violations of the positive mass condition (that is, objects with negative asymptotic mass), through traversable wormholes, to time warps [4, 14, 15, 16, 17]."
"They also make use of a type of energy which we do not understand, "Tensor energy, or Beam" which is space-time independent, for all their menial tasks and communications." The "direction" of the Arrow of Space is not along some 4th spatial axis, as depicted in the (highly misleading) balloon metaphor. If you can imagine an infinitesimal "point", call it O , in our 3-D space (local mode of spacetime), the "direction" of AOS would point to all possible directions in 3-D space, which can be explored from O . If it is a center of a sphere, 'all possible directions' will correspond to all possible radii of the sphere with center O . Regarding the "time field differentials" (Wilbert B. Smith), it is the infinitesimal "step" along AOS, in terms of 'elementary change of space'. By default, there is FAPP no residual "dark energy" -- it is almost entirely zero -- hence a 'dark energy vector' needed to induce "self-acting" (cf. below) along any of the radii/all possible directions in 3-D space is effectively zero. You'd perhaps imagine 3-D space around you as some collection of tightly packed (uncountably infinite) "points" -- the law of continuity, as defined in the standard calculus texts of the 1800's, must be obeyed: "the consecutive points of the same line succeed each other without any interval". Hence the "interval" ]between[ any two points in 3-D space is considered effectively zero, and so is its "dark energy". But what could happen if this generic "interval" is expanded? We will not notice any defect or puncture in the continuum, because this "interval" is always kept zero by the so-called speed of light, rendering our 3-D space (local mode of spacetime) a perfect continuum. Instead, we will let the holistic energy pertaining to 'the whole shoal' to show up or "enter" the physical space. I call this hypothetical phenomenon 'space polarization'. All you need is a trained brain; space is free. Can you imagine some object capable of "moving" simultaneously in all possible directions, from any point in 3-D space? That's "space-time independent", as the late Wilbert Smith tried to explain. In 3-D space, such infinitesimal object will be omnipresent, in the sense that it is 'everywhere in no time', and has 'nowhere else to go'. (A remote, and to some extent misleading, analogy with 2-D Flatlanders would give a sense of how a 3-D creature can "see" all points from their 2-D universe en bloc.) Such infinitesimal object, O , would possess the miniscule-yet-finite "dark" energy that is stored into every "point" from 3-D space. It is almost entirely zero. Again, because it is an infinitesimal object, it cannot display its infinite-dimensional nature in 3-D space. In 3-D space, it is inevitably 'at absolute rest', being just a 'geometrical point' & 'the universe as ONE', depending on the direction you're looking at it. It cannot be physically observed due to the rules of relativity theory which forbid any Lorentz-invariant state of such "ether". Which is why the energy release from it will be considered "dark" (Mike Turner). However, if you can somehow "expand" O , it may reveal to you all possible directions to fly in 3-D space, as well as the physicalized energy for your flight. [I cannot say anything more on this subject.] I called this hypothetical phenomenon 'space polarization' by a remote analogy with vacuum polarization. The object O should also be endowed with infinite-dimensional spin, a bit like the quantum hedgehog below. It doesn't "rotate" in 3-D space, of course. You can only see its blueprints. What looks like a purely geometrical point may be a "hedgehog" endowed with tremendous latent power which springs from the righthand side of Eq. 1 on p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf: by tweaking the phase of the two atemporal gravitational waves, one can perhaps induce non-destructive interference and literally create a finite amount of (-m) & (+m) out of 'zero nothing'. It is converted into physicalized, positive energy density "entering" the 3-D space in the form of "self-force": recall that we cannot trace back the holistic ("dark") energy of 'the whole universe as ONE', hence the dynamics of objects empowered by space polarization will indeed look like "self-acting". Stated differently, the holistic energy of 'the universe as ONE' may be camouflaged in 3-D space as "self-force". Just think about the self-force of your brain to act upon itself: you think about your brain, with your brain, without any "microphonic feedback" effect. Perhaps 'the universe as a brain' does it as well, without any "headaches". You should first learn how to include the three forms of mass in GR, of course. And if you manage to modulate the spacetime metric, you could perhaps levitate your Alien Visitor Craft (AVC) just "one meter" to cover the size of a galaxy. You won't notice your "speed", but you will notice that the space in front of you is running towards you, just as with the Alcubierre warp drive.
Again, please note the dual nature of the quantum "hedgehog" above: depending on the direction you're looking at it, it is both a 'geometrical point' and 'the universe as ONE'. Namely, it is the ultimate cutoff placed simultaneously "below" an infinitesimal point and "above" the expanding cosmological horizon. (To refute such dual object, you need to know the topology of space and the mechanism by which space is "self-enclosed".) From the perspective of Special Relativity, it may be envisaged as a geometrical point stretched to the dimensions of the entire universe, like some 'zero point energy transcendental tachyon' which bootstraps every geometrical point with 'the rest of points' from the universe, in line with the Bootstrap Principle of Geoffrey Chew. The end result is a self-correlated universe with relational ontology and Machian quantum gravity. As Lucretius pointed out some 2060 year ago, it exists 'without parts' -- you can't possibly divide the world into 'parts' if you can "see" all its 3-D parts en bloc, simultaneously, from all possible directions. You will also be endowed with infinite-dimensional (global) "time" which no physical clock could possibly read. And you will laugh at "the problem of time", of course. Am I talking moonshine? I honestly don't know. All I can say is that the hypothetical 'space polarization' is derived from the so-called BrainMonad. Please watch the video on YouTube, check out the GR "octopus", and bear in mind Christopher Columbus: If we don't leave for India, how can we discover America?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48877212/AVC
P.S. Excerpts from Bob Lazar:
"30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). I am happy to make these two claims and collect 80 points. John Baez believes that the first claim should be backed by "good evidence", and the second should provide "concrete testable predictions." He obviously knows nothing about the people among us, who are not born on our planet, firstly, and secondly -- I don't want to offer any testable predictions to people like J. Baez and his colleagues. I haven't met, since May 1988, any physicist, not even one, who would be interested in the legacy of Henry Margenau and Erwin Schrödinger. None. Just one example. Since July 2010, more than 150 theoretical physicists were informed about the implications from KS Theorem: the "contextual" quantum object which provides "quantum omniscience" cannot fit in any Hilbert space. In fact, Erwin Schrödinger had anticipated this fundamental result in November 1950. Yet nobody from the established theoretical physics community agreed to comment on this bold fact. They totally ignored my email messages, as if I was advertising cat food. What can you expect from people who wouldn't even mention Henry Margenau? Or from the alleged experts in GW "astronomy", who cannot understand the immediate consequences from their approximation, derived with reductio ad absurdum? They will only keep quiet and continue to waste taxpayers' money. They just don't care. It would be ridiculous to expect professional behavior from such people. They don't deserve any "concrete testable predictions", after ignoring Einstein, Weyl, Schrödinger, Margenau, and Pauli. Those who don't know, they talk; those who know, don't. As to those theoretical physicists who ask, 'what is your web site all about?', let me repeat: cat astrology. I also advertise custom-made cat food, as you may have noticed. What did you expect? Now, let me quote from: What's the Energy Density of the Vacuum? John Baez, April 5, 2010 "... you've come to the right place to get to the bottom of it all." Well, I think this is a typical crackpot statement. "Well, general relativity says that if the vacuum has energy density, it must also have pressure!" Nice exclamation mark. But energy density of ... what? Vacuum? What kind of stuff is kept in the vacuum, such that it supposedly has energy density? Is it some residual positive energy density, given the abundance of negative energy densities in QFT? Are you implying some hyper-fine tuning of the cancellation of the two opposite "densities"? And what does GR say about the gravitational energy density (MTW, p. 467) in the first place, so that you could trust the current formulation of GR and "get to the bottom of it all"? I think people like J. Baez and his colleagues enjoy total socialism. Their pay check is secured and nothing can disturb them, "crackpots" notwithstanding (cf. the last email from J. Baez below). They can play with their hobby as much as they wish to, and even get some extra cash. For example, $131,865 for "Categorifying Fundamental Physics." But on January 14, 2010, John Baez announced that "all this made me feel old and tired" and decided to quit categorical mathematical physics and switch to "slightly more practical things": "What I really want to do is help save our beleagured planet. (...) I'm good at math, physics, learning things, explaining them, and getting crowds of people interested in them." Beautiful words. This is what every noble academic scholar does from the bottom of his heart. Just don't forget to "get to the bottom of it all" and explain the mechanism of generating inertial "forces" pertaining to only one charge of mass, with "concrete testable predictions".
John Baez -- UC Riverside -- $131,865 --Categorifying Fundamental Physics "First, we are developing a version of quantum mechanics in which Hilbert spaces are replaced by purely combinatorial structures." On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:37:33 -0800 (PST), Subject: Re: Feedback? Message-ID: <200201150037.g0F0bXg06772@math-lw-n01.ucr.edu>, baez@math.ucr.edu wrote: [snip]
Subject: The mechanism of generating inertial "forces" Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:28:35 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: John <cramer@phys.washington.edu> Cc: [snip] Dear John, I wonder if you've tried to apply your handshaking TI to the mechanism of generating inertial "forces", by means of two atemporal quantum-gravitational "waves". My speculations can be read at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#AVC I believe the idea belongs to James F. Woodward (cf. below). It was published in 1998 and perhaps needs some updating, or maybe upgrading. Regards, Dimi ------- James F. Woodward, Gravitation: The Origin of Inertia, http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm "The act of pushing on something causes a disturbance in the gravitational field to go propagating off into the future. It makes stuff (the "absorber") out there wiggle. When the stuff wiggles it sends disturbances backward (and forward) in time. All the backward traveling disturbances converge on what we're pushing and generate the inertial reaction force we feel. No physical law is violated in any of this. And nothing moves faster than the speed of light. It only seems so because of the advanced waves traveling at the speed of light in the backward time direction." ---- "Such a drive would use a hypothetical form of thrust that does not require any outside force or net momentum exchange to produce linear motion, and therefore necessarily violates the conservation of momentum, a fundamental principle of all current understandings of physics. In addition it can be shown that conservation of energy is violated. (...) The fundamental scientific problem is one of momentum transfer. If there is no momentum transfer, the postulated device is classified as a "reactionless" drive and labeled a fraud." Here, the hypothetical thrust is DDE. Physically, the AVC will be seen as being endowed with the faculty of 'self-acting', because the "thrust" is undetectable due to the very rules of relativity theory, which explicitly forbid any Lorentz-invariant manifestation of "ether". Surely the conservation of energy will seem to be violated in the local mode of spacetime. It can be conserved only in the global mode (Eq. 1, p. 35 from ExplanatoryNote.pdf). To quote again from Wiki: "Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in such physical theories as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time." In the present formulation of GR, the "finite systems" are not well-defined concept. In one sentence, from Sean Carroll: "Energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does." That wasn’t so hard, was it? D.C. March 21, 2011 ================================== Subject: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe: Matter, Antimatter and Dark Matter Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:51:11 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe <info@keshefoundation.com> Dear Dr. Keshe, It is beyond any doubt that you're onto something truly important. I wish I could learn more about your theory of 'Matter, Antimatter and Dark Matter', http://keshefoundation.com/keshe_gravity.html http://www.youtube.com/user/keshefoundation#p/u/4/wtf5bp76ArE Perhaps the theoretical physics community has already declared that you're "talking moonshine" (Ernest Rutherford), http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#AVC http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#CF Please let me know where I could read your scientific papers about 'Matter, Antimatter and Dark Matter'. I am not at all interested in any engineering details; just the theory. The reason for my curiosity is that the so-called cold dark matter (CDM) and "dark energy of [whatever]" are considered to be a tug-of-war effect of gravity at large scales, and I have no idea how your theory could incorporate such effect. Yours sincerely, Dimi Chakalov ------ Note: Regarding the hypotheses of Mehran Keshe about the nature of inertia and gravity: the promised demonstrations just didn't happen: Projected Date of presentation Asia : on 21.3. 2010. North or South America : on 21.4.2010 Europe : on 21.5.2010 --------- There could be various reasons for the cancellation of these public events. It cannot be ruled out that Mehran Keshe has discovered some new effect of something (I don't know what this 'something' could be) that he simply doesn't want to share with the public. Let's not dismiss his claims and give him a chance to levitate a potato. Or a blond girl, like David Copperfield. The whole issue about inertia and gravity is incredibly complicated. For example, check out Eq. 30, p. 7, in Joseph Sultana and Demosthenes Kazanas, The Problem of Inertia in Friedmann Universes, arXiv:1104.1306v1 [astro-ph.CO] And p. 9: "Finally, by integrating this force over all matter in the universe we computed the gravitational force of the latter on a body of mass m in relative acceleration (with the universe!). This force is proportional to the acceleration a with a coefficient that depends on the cosmological parameters, in (philosophical) agreement with Mach’s principle." Sounds like cold fusion, no? Happy reading. D. Chakalov April 9, 2011 P.S. Yesterday, I joined the Keshe forum (user name:
dchakalov), and would like to inform all interested individuals about the chance to purchase a "portable 3-4 KW power systems on DC and AC 24 hours a day supply for the value of 5000 euros." D.C. April 10, 2011 ----[beginning of quote]---- Re: 'Our dream is a small fusion power generator in each house' by MTKeshe » Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:19 am The Foundation has not changed its mind, The power units to be released are advance version of what was planed to be manufactured this year in Antwerp plant of General Motor in Belgium and as we were blocked now we divert the production to a third country. The Foundation needs to provide for its up coming international space institute and still keep its independence, to this effect the Foundation as of this week has started the release and commercialisation process of more advanced systems for production of energy as we have done with our medical systems in the last weeks. To finance our progress and being able to support the students from third world or from the west whom can not afford the fee and living cost but can be beneficial to the gross of the institute in the future, we are preparing ourselves to be able to found some of our future students and the running of institute independently. To achieve this, we have decided as of this week to releases our energy technology as we have done with the MS 200 . The Foundation submits for sale as of today for delivery early next year the following: Portable 3-4 KW power systems on DC and AC 24 hours a day supply for the value of 5000 euros. The systems total annual cost of running, maintenance and fuelling will be 100 euros per year for period of 30 years contract, and the supply of any fuel and maintenance for systems will be done by the Foundation. We will try to make these system versatile that they can be used for electric motor cars as well as for home use. In 2012 we are only prepared to supply limited number of up to 10000 units. These units will comply with European standard. The Foundation will not be responsible for entry custom taxes and transportation of the units to the country of destination (transport cost about 100-200 euros). The power output will be set to be for domestic use only and we will not initially release commercial units. We will produce the units under the Foundation control and in the future we will transfer the know-how through our students to their country of origin that the proceeds will stay within the Foundation and each nation, for the internal development and education in that country as is stated in the mandate of the Foundation in Netherlands. For the ones whom are interested to reserve a unit, they can fill in the reservation form which will be posted on the energy section of the Foundation later and one unit per individual and family will be provided.The Foundation gives priority to its forum members. Comparison with present cost of a 3-4 KW Windmill technology, (when there is wind to produce energy) 10000-15000 euros Solar cell technology (when there is sunshine that the system can generate energy) 15000-19000 euros ----[end of quote]--------- ========================
Subject: Re: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe: Matter, Antimatter and Dark Matter Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:34:09 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe <mtkeshe@keshefoundation.com>, Mehran Tavakoli Keshe <info@keshefoundation.com> Hello Mr. Keshe, I wonder why you blocked my access to the forum (cf. attached). Sincerely, D. Chakalov ----------- Note: Perhaps I
was banned because I tried to open a thread at
Keshe forum regarding his failed promise to demonstrate
[whatever] in Europe on
21.5.2010. Most importantly, notice his startling statement in
an email interview conducted on April 7, 2011 (source
here):
----[beginning of quote]----
7) Is there any additional information about Iran's saucer you can provide? A: Watch the Iranian space release. I reckon the first landing on Earth display will be in Jerusalem as I have explained before and if you understand the political language of Middle East. ----[end of quote]--------- Of course we understand
the "political language" of Middle East. But is Mehran Tavakoli Keshe
helping
Iran to attack Israel?
If not, why did he
cancel the public demo in Europe on
21.5.2010?
Not surprisingly, I was
immediately banned from his "forum".
D. Chakalov
April 14, 2011 P.S. A reply to
my email above was received today (cf.
below). There was no reference to my original email in the
header (my Message-ID issued automatically by Google gmail), yet the
subject was "RE: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe: Matter, Antimatter and Dark
Matter". Here's an excerpt:
Subject: RE: Mehran
Tavakoli Keshe: Matter, Antimatter and Dark Matter
From: <mtkeshe@keshefoundation.com> X-Originating-IP: 178.118.253.174 client-ip=173.201.192.36 To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:03:07 -0700 On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:03 AM, <mtkeshe@keshefoundation.com> wrote: [snip] > Our space technology has been shown not by us but by the people > whom we have hand the know-how to and we do not enter into this > arena again unless is done by the national government. [snip] The person who wrote
this email, IP 173.201.192.36, could have been located in
Scottsdale, AZ 85260, USA. If so, "the national government" may be
the one in Washington D.C.
Or not. You never know
with "the
twelfth Imam".
I wish all this were
some stupid joke. Sadly, it isn't.
D.C.
April 15, 2011
=======================================
Subject:
PESWiki
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 02:01:01 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Sterling D Allan <sterlingda@pureenergysystems.com> Cc: Mehran Tavakoli Keshe <mtkeshe@keshefoundation.com>, Mehran Tavakoli Keshe <info@keshefoundation.com> Dear Dr. Allan, I noticed that your colleague has offered the following comment at http://www.keshefoundation.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=303 "We have offered Mr sterling a proper interview option instead of his half cooked misinformation garbage..." I consider such comments 'abusive' and 'slanderous', in violations of the rules of his forum. He has recently banned me from access to his so-called "forum", http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#Keshe_Iran Please feel free to distribute the link above to your colleagues. I mean, the real ones. Yours sincerely, Dimi Chakalov ======================================= Subject: "The energetic vacuum: Implications for energy research" Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:31:11 +0200 Message-ID: <AANLkTin3tx4B6_aiQoiuKkrvCeaRifq15V9VfA9cvbue@mail.gmail.com> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Hal <puthoff@earthtech.org> Cc: bjd@icrl.org, ewdavis@earthtech.org, ibison@earthtech.org, marcgmillis@wowway.com, macseehear@mac.com, gar@ias-spes.org, len@energeticstech.com, dave.goodwin@science.doe.gov Hal, Regarding your 1997 article, check out http://www.god-does-not-play- As far as I remember from JSE, just 0.3% from those 80.000+ pages of documents from SRI International were declassified, none of which showed your PK studies since 1972, if not earlier. Who was the winner from this idiotic secrecy (pardon my French)? I wrote a letter to Brenda in January 1994 (I believe it was dated January 31, 1994), in which I stated that I am ready to perform experiments at PEAR. She replied in May (no typo), saying that they have their own program, and are very busy. Meanwhile I wrote to DoE in March 1994, stressing the need for re-examination of vacuum energy, but the sole response from DoE came from Walter M. Polansky, letter dated April 8, 1994, in which he suggested that I should read physics textbooks. I received, since 1994, many more insulting remarks and statements, while people like you decided to keep quiet. Which is why now I can only offer you the text at the link above, and nothing more. BTW I think Walter Polansky is Russian, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/russian.html What do you think? Dimi ------- Note: Excerpt from H. E. Puthoff, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 10(1) 63-76 (1996), p. 65: "Prior to Swann's visit (in June 1972 - D.C.), I arranged for access to a well-shielded magnetometer used in a quark-detection experiment in the Physics Department at Stanford University. During our visit to this laboratory, sprung as a surprise to Swann, he appeared to perturb the operation of the magnetometer, located in a vault below the floor of the building and shielded by μ-metal shielding, an aluminum container, copper shielding and a superconducting shield." Compared it to the shielding of the paper wheel above. D.C. March 21, 2011 ========================================= Subject: CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity, arXiv:1103.4937v1 [gr-qc] Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:29:39 +0300 Message-ID: <AANLkTikQX1Qw_An0vs7F1G91K57ye_Nf9SL31vBBC6Tc@mail.gmail.com> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: Massimo Villata <villata@oato.inaf.it> Cc: Erasmo Recami <recami@mi.infn.it>, H Pierre Noyes <noyes@slac.stanford.edu>, Dragan Hajdukovic <dragan.hajdukovic@cern.ch>, Edward Kapuscik <Edward.Kapuscik@ifj.edu.pl>, Daniil Yerokhin <denyerokhin@gmail.com>, Michael Schreiber <schreiber@physik.tu-chemnitz.de>, Adam Helfer <adam@math.missouri.edu>, Laszlo Szabados <lbszab@rmki.kfki.hu> Dear Dr. Villata, It is a real pleasure to read your latest arXiv:1103.4937v1 [gr-qc]. I am very glad it will be published in EPL [Ref. 1]. May I share my comments. I don't believe in the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation, nor in the CPT theorem in "curved" spacetime. Instead, I try to pinpoint the negative mass in the very mechanism by which the observable/positive mass becomes *quasi-local* in GR, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#shoal The first off problem is, how to assign energy to vacuum without introducing the notion of ”ether”: we obviously do not wish to introduce 'absolute rest' and 'motion relative to the vacuum' in the 3-D space of GR, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Gerardus2 http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/about.html#DDE http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Ellis Also, I think one should remove the notion of "traveling backwards in time" in Feynman-Stückelberg: http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#atemporal There is no consensus on how this can be done -- the three forms of mass [Ref. 2] are still outside the applicable limits of GR. I believe we need Machian quantum gravity, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html#MQG Please don't take this as criticism to your *very* important article. You have explored GR 'as is', while I am trying to make sense of the notions of 'energy density' and 'energy conservation' in GR. All the best, Dimi Chakalov --------- [Ref. 1] Massimo Villata, CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity, arXiv:1103.4937v1 [gr-qc] http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4937 Expected online publication: April 2011 http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/page/Forthcoming articles "In particular, we assume that matter and antimatter, inertial and gravitational masses are all positive definite, together with the related energy densities, as usually requested. Moreover, we assume that general relativity is CPT invariant, even though the CPT theorem [21], well established in flat space-time, has not been demonstrated in curved space-time. .... "This time inversion of antimatter is in agreement with the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation [22-24] that antiparticles are nothing else than the corresponding particles traveling backwards in time. Hence, when we deal with a physical system composed of both matter and antimatter, the antimatter component may be interpreted and treated as a CPT-transformed component of normal matter, since, besides applying the obvious C operation, we must reverse its time due to our observation from the opposite time direction, and the additional P operation is requested by CPT symmetry; i.e. as if antimatter were matter “living” in a totally inverted space-time. (...) Even if one does not believe in the Feynman-Stückelberg interpretation, CPT is in any case the only law-invariant transformation for replacing matter with antimatter in a given physical system. .... "This CPT invariance assures that antimatter is gravitationally attracted by antimatter exactly in the same way as matter is attracted by matter, but it says nothing on the interaction between matter and antimatter. .... p. 4: "In the gravitational equations of the general theory of relativity, one of the most evident mathematical differences is that all tensor ranks of potentials (XXX), fields (XXX), and currents (XXX) are increased by one with respect to the corresponding electromagnetic quantities. This matches the fact that here the charge is no longer a scalar, but the energy-momentum four-vector p^m = mdx^m/d_tau. ...... "In the Einstein field equation [Eq. 7], both sides are clearly even (there are only scalars and rank-2 tensors), again similarly to eq. (4). This (C)PT invariance of the field equation implies that an antimatter energy-momentum tensor generates a gravitational field (or space-time curvature) in the same way as matter does; but, as already pointed out in electrodynamics and also in eq. (6), with inverted charges and fields, which are both (C)PT-odd. ..... p. 5: "The minus sign assigned to the gravitational mass in eq. (9) must not be misinterpreted. It does not mean that m(g) has become negative, since, according to our assumptions, i.e. CPT invariance and weak equivalence principle, all masses are and remain positive definite. ..... See Eq. 10, and footnote 2, p. 5: "However, this does not imply any negative-energy problem, since the energy density T00 is (P)T-even and remains positive, being quadratic in dt/d_tau, see eq. (6)." [Ref. 2] Yakov P. Terletskii, Paradoxes in the Theory of Relativity, Springer, 1968, Ch. VI. http://www.directtextbook.com/prices/9780306303296 ---------- Note: Look at the drawing below, from Hermann Bondi, in: G. Chardin and A. Benoit-Lévy, A symmetric matter-antimatter Milne Universe, ICRANet, Pescara, March 3-4, 2008, Chardin.pdf, p. 15:  Is it possible to modify the Milne model with a new version of Finite Infinity and "atemporal" quantum-gravitational waves ? Perhaps we should start from Gabriel Chardin (t1119_1.pdf, p. 8): "Il semble donc impossible de distinguer par une expérience locale la matičre de l'antimatičre en Relativité Générale… " Locally, the "dark" torsion connection effect and the negative mass are FAPP zero -- check out the note on AVC above. So, how do we trigger the emergence of physicalized energy and positive mass from the vacuum? Perhaps the trick involves altering the macroscopic boundary conditions of something that is ... well, I really don't know. ========================================= Subject: Re: 9/11 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 02:39:44 +0200 Message-ID: <AANLkTim2oJ6XSY0C3LjGcsn_DaGzxYRLGpxRiaFW+ZEy@mail.gmail.com> From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> To: [snip] Dear Colleagues, On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:45:19 +0200 (cf. below), I emailed a number of people, stressing the need for proactive management of emerging risks, type "black swan". An update on 9/11 and related issues is available at http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation The theory of my proposal is outlined at http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Margenau.html http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Leydesdorff It is about Machian quantum gravity and modeling the whole universe as a 'brain'. It does *not* involve any "direct mind-matter interaction", Dean Radin, Ph.D on Quantum Physics 2 of 3, 6:05-6:08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDaxdblImQI nor Buddhism, or any analogies with Möbius strip, Dean Radin: A Quantum View of the World http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssO3uhvF73o If you're interested, please feel free to write me back. Wishing you a very Merry Christmas, Dimi Chakalov ------ Subject: 9/11 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:45:19 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at> Message-ID: <3E1DDF5F.861BB844@surfeu.at> To: [snip] CC: [snip] BCC: [snip] Dear Colleagues: More than an hour before a jet hit World Trade Tower I, a peak of the activity of our collective consciousness was recorded. [Ref. 1] As acknowledged by Dean Radin, "There is no easy answer for why the peak in this curve occurred before the terrorist attack; the observable fact is that it did." [Ref. 2] [snip] ================================
I found today a better analogy. Consider Paul Blair's world record of most hula hoops twirled at once, set on November 11, 2009: 132.
D. Chakalov
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/page/1313.html
Deepwater Horizon, April 20, 2010
The helicopter deck isn't stolen or shipped to China for scrap. It is somewhere on the sea floor, but who will elevate it for forensic examination?
|
