Discussion:
A defeated Lubos Motl leaves Harvard Physics Department
(too old to reply)
Jack Sarfatti
2007-02-24 02:29:00 UTC
Permalink
As Peter Woit has shown in his book "Not Even Wrong" judging an
important idea at the foundations of physics is subtle. His book also
points out deep differences in the values between creative theoretical
physicists and nit-picking mathematicians who prematurely give bad PR to
important ideas. Feynman would have met enormous resistance to the
development of his "diagrams" in today's repressive environment in which
theoretical physics has been taken over by formalists in theoretical
physicist's clothing. Most of the theory papers on the electronic
preprints in theoretical physics have no relation to experiment and
observation and are basically unhelpful to the experimental physicist.
Peter Woit goes into great detail on this. My work is in close contact
with real data: Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances, dark energy
repelling space from itself seen in Type Ia supernovae, dark matter
galactic halos, dark matter globs displaced from visible matter, lab
reports by Ken Shoulders of "charge clusters," Pioneer anomaly, gamma
ray bursts, John Cramer's retrocausal signal experiment (in progress),
consciousness, UFO (weightless warp drive) and remote viewing
(retrocausal signal nonlocality showing breakdown of quantum theory). Of
course my including of the latter three items as part of real
experimental physics explains most of the wrath leveled against me. So
be it. I ask no quarter, nor do I give it.

Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr
Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger
Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the
Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks
on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string
theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending
purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of
honor.


2-28-2006

Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity
for mathematical errors

"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a
potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all
claims of that paper."

On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the
paper by Rodrigues:

"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory
presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no
longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect
the key original new ideas found in the paper."


Updated on March 19, 2006

Dr. Jack Sarfatti revises paper (16th version!) on emergent gravity:

"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum
coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity
emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this
way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."

Comments from Sarfatti:

"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes
regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity
and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles
of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries"
in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse
on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr
Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David
Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information
beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that
probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal
nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born
probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range
phase coherence."
k***@yahoo.com
2007-02-24 02:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Sarfatti
As Peter Woit has shown in his book "Not Even Wrong" judging an
important idea at the foundations of physics is subtle. His book also
points out deep differences in the values between creative theoretical
physicists and nit-picking mathematicians who prematurely give bad PR to
important ideas. Feynman would have met enormous resistance to the
development of his "diagrams" in today's repressive environment in which
theoretical physics has been taken over by formalists in theoretical
physicist's clothing. Most of the theory papers on the electronic
preprints in theoretical physics have no relation to experiment and
observation and are basically unhelpful to the experimental physicist.
Peter Woit goes into great detail on this. My work is in close contact
with real data: Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances, dark energy
repelling space from itself seen in Type Ia supernovae, dark matter
galactic halos, dark matter globs displaced from visible matter, lab
reports by Ken Shoulders of "charge clusters," Pioneer anomaly, gamma
ray bursts, John Cramer's retrocausal signal experiment (in progress),
consciousness, UFO (weightless warp drive) and remote viewing
(retrocausal signal nonlocality showing breakdown of quantum theory). Of
course my including of the latter three items as part of real
experimental physics explains most of the wrath leveled against me. So
be it. I ask no quarter, nor do I give it.
Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr
Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger
Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the
Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks
on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string
theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending
purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of
honor.
2-28-2006
Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity
for mathematical errors
"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a
potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all
claims of that paper."
On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the
"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory
presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no
longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect
the key original new ideas found in the paper."
Updated on March 19, 2006
"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum
coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity
emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this
way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."
"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes
regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity
and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles
of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries"
in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse
on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr
Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David
Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information
beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that
probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal
nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born
probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range
phase coherence."
The standard "2.7 sarfatti"
Nomen Lapetos
2007-02-24 03:49:07 UTC
Permalink
<snip crap>
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Jack Sarfatti
"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes
regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity
and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles
of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries"
in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse
on the cosmic landscape.
<snip crap>
Post by k***@yahoo.com
The standard "2.7 sarfatti"
Sarfatti has "emergent gravity" from a micro black hole between the ears,
and his head caved in long ago.
Gib Bogle
2007-02-24 04:14:10 UTC
Permalink
"... addressed in a way that
probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal
nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born
probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range
phase coherence.
I don't know about everyone else, but _I_ can accept it right away. It
seems kind of obvious now that you say it.
Victor Eijkhout
2007-02-27 03:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Not quite James Harris, but it's getting there.

Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Peter Bowditch
2007-02-27 05:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Victor Eijkhout
Not quite James Harris, but it's getting there.
I would like to see a conference with James Harris, Jack Sarfatti,
George Hammond, Tony (the better than Heisenberg one) and perhaps Gene
Ray on the program. It would be better than a night out at Cirque du
Soleil.

On second thoughts, Gene Ray isn't crazy enough.
Post by Victor Eijkhout
Victor.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Rock Brentwood
2007-03-03 05:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Sarfatti
By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the
Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks
on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string
theorist Lenny Susskind.
Resigned from what? I thought he was some brash (but basically
clueless) 17 or 18 year old undergrad making a lot of noise on the
USENET with his string theory obsession? You mean he's actually NOT a
student? And he's old, on top of that?

Well, inflexible dotard rigid with cognitive ossification bordering on
parasitic modes ... impetuous newbie. Sometimes hard to tell the
difference.
JanPB
2007-03-27 17:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Sarfatti
As Peter Woit has shown in his book "Not Even Wrong" judging an
important idea at the foundations of physics is subtle. His book also
points out deep differences in the values between creative theoretical
physicists and nit-picking mathematicians who prematurely give bad PR to
important ideas. Feynman would have met enormous resistance to the
development of his "diagrams" in today's repressive environment in which
theoretical physics has been taken over by formalists in theoretical
physicist's clothing. Most of the theory papers on the electronic
preprints in theoretical physics have no relation to experiment and
observation and are basically unhelpful to the experimental physicist.
Peter Woit goes into great detail on this. My work is in close contact
with real data: Regge trajectories of hadronic resonances, dark energy
repelling space from itself seen in Type Ia supernovae, dark matter
galactic halos, dark matter globs displaced from visible matter, lab
reports by Ken Shoulders of "charge clusters," Pioneer anomaly, gamma
ray bursts, John Cramer's retrocausal signal experiment (in progress),
consciousness, UFO (weightless warp drive) and remote viewing
(retrocausal signal nonlocality showing breakdown of quantum theory). Of
course my including of the latter three items as part of real
experimental physics explains most of the wrath leveled against me. So
be it. I ask no quarter, nor do I give it.
Odd to say, my most vehement critic is not the mathematician Waldyr
Rodrigues (see below) but the string theorist and well-known blogger
Lubos Motl. By a stroke of Karma Lubos resigned under pressure from the
Harvard Physics Department because of his incendiary unbecoming attacks
on Sir Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Peter Woit and even fellow string
theorist Lenny Susskind. Therefore, I wear Lubos's snide condescending
purely polemical attacks on me (no physics in them at all) as a badge of
honor.
2-28-2006
Waldyr Rodrigues slams first draft of Sarfatti paper on emergent gravity
for mathematical errors
"Specifically we show that "Mathematics" used in Emergent Gravity is a
potpourri of nonsense. This fact, unfortunately invalidates almost all
claims of that paper."
On 2-28-2006 at 4:49 PM CST we received Jack Sarfatti's comment on the
"I appreciate Waldyr's corrections of minor formal details of my cursory
presentation of background material in the first version of my paper no
longer found in the current version. Waldyr's objections do not affect
the key original new ideas found in the paper."
Updated on March 19, 2006
"The beautiful idea is that Einstein's gravity emerges from the vacuum
coherent inflation field in the same way that the superfluid velocity
emerges from the coherent ground state. The pop book to read about this
way of thinking is Robert Laughlin's A Different Universe."
"This 16th version corrects typos adds references and clarifying notes
regarding the naturalness of the key ideas in both loop quantum gravity
and string theory in terms of the two reliable battle-tested principles
of local gauging and hiding of spontaneously broken "secret symmetries"
in the ground states of the parallel worlds of the conjectured megaverse
on the cosmic landscape. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr
Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis's and David
Gross's objections to Leonard Susskind's theory of accessing information
beyond the different types of horizons are addressed in a way that
probably few will accept right away, i.e. Antony Valentini's "signal
nonlocality" from the breakdown of "sub-quantal equilibrium" Born
probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range
phase coherence."
Problem I have with all this is that nihil novi sub sole. It has all
happened many times before, most recently in the 19th century (current
situation in physics in general is amazingly analogous to its 19th
century counterpart). Every 100-200 years or so the domain of activity
referred to as "science" reaches that standard stage in which:

1. it considers itself but a step away from the final resolution of
All Mysteries (Lord Kelvin, Stephen Hawking),
2. it focuses strongly on the enigma of consciousness (pretty much
everybody who was anybody since the Rennaissance),
3. it tries very hard to research the paranormal phenomena (Crookes,
Sarfatti (with apologies to Crookes)).

AFAICT Sarfatti does what he does to get grants. It apparently works
(which says something about the system).

--
Jan Bielawski

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...