Will Facebook rules for electioneering and hate speech apply to Ratburger?

Mark Zuckerberg issued a statement calling for more government regulation for Internet speech.  The entire statement is at the link below, and begins:

I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators. By updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms.

As far as I can tell, it’s a proposal to move the Facebook Trust and Safety council work to a globally coordinated set of government agencies. Internet “providers” would be responsible for enforcing the speech policies specified by this group.  He has promised to support these agencies with Facebook’s current filtering software.

Am I wrong in thinking that, if this proposal is accepted as it seems to be intended, that the speech restrictions would apply not just to Facebook but to other Internet “providers” such as Ratburger?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/8756876/mark-zuckerberg-social-network-regulation-christchurch-watchdog/

3+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

We Want Beto!

Please  let him get the Dem nomination!

See,  here’s the thing: he’s never really had a job .  Doesn’t have one now, which is why he’s the only Dem out there on the hustings every day.  His wife runs a company they founded, Stanton Street Technologies, which designs websites.

Seems to me Trump oughta be able  to wipe the floor with him.

And he won’t have to  worry about sexism. (Unless he gives into the temptation to call him Betty O’Rourke…)

Also not about racism, since apparently it’s perfectly okay to malign Irish-Americans with the grossest stereotypes (see Kavanaugh, Brett).

yup, all things considered I think O’Rourke is our best beto.

5+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

It’s Not That Simple

My title is an anticipation of the likely response to this post.  Okay.  Very few issues  are  so “simple” that they can be dealt with in a few paragraphs.  Still I persist:

Trump  better hire some genius medical economist to come up with a healthcare plan and simultaneously explain why Ocare did not work.  (Which it really hasnt) McConnell has said he’s not gonna help,  which swells the music of the Dems’ chorus:”They have no plan!”    We gotta get one.

I think we should go back to private insurance, but regulate it.  Make it  illegal, period, to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.  Make the insurance  market nationally competitive.  There: we’ve leveled the playing field, let the vying for customers begin.

Also would somebody break it to middle-aged America that Medicare is not free?   Maybe it is you’ve got nothing, but if you do have assets, you’re penalized and they’ll take it outta your social security.

But that isn’t even the biggest thing.  We should be concentrating on care, not insurance. Instead, Ocare has made it more difficult to even get to the actual hands-on treatment stage.  You can’t get into a clinic without photo ID.  You can go to an ER without it, but such “facilities” are authorized to  charge a “facilities fee” just for entering the door, exactly like a cover charge, in addition to and possibly in excess of the fee for treatment. (But independent practitioners cant impose such a fee.)  And, is it still possible for a medical school graduate to set up his/her independent office?  I doubt that.  When my husband left his practice as a family doctor in 1998  as we moved to my mountains, it had already become impossible to pay the overhead.  He was prohibited from performing most medical tests like EKGs and throat cultures and drawing blood in his office: patients had to make a separate trip to the hospital lab, pay for that, and w.a.i.t…both to undergo the test then to obtain the results.  He was prohibited  from charging more than insurance would pay for work injuries and car  accidents, regardless of the services he rendered beyond those remittances.  He was prohibited from charging for the total cost to him of immunizations.   Let those rich doctors just absorb the costs!

Yeah, so,let’s scrap all that and start selling medical students again on how great it is to exercise their professional skills in an environment where, yes: they are god.  (WTF was wrong with that?  If you have ever been through, or been terrified by th prospect of, a deadly illness, you know that what you want from your physician is, precisely, a god-like certainty and confident prognostication. ) Then they’ll compete for patients, who will flock to the ones with the best results, the most accommodations in services, and yes, the best bedside manners.

Such competition was fierce! we used to joke about our fellow residents who set up an office in some fairly remote area, and were instantly “busier ‘n’ a one-armed paperhahger” ( i dky, But thAt was  the invariable  cliché)— until one other doc moved in, and the new practice was instantaneously halved!   It was riskier and harder, but much better in the long run,  to go to an already saturated area and carve out a space.  If you could make it there, you’d make it anywhere.

People  had no idea what they used to get outta their doctors.  Oh, BC (before Clinton, Hilary I mean) they did respect and kinda idolize them.  But they didn’t know how much work docs  did FOR FREE.  Weekends “on call” where the doctor was tethered to his practice area, likely to be interrupted at all hours of the day and night.  Hours on the phone after office hours ended,  explaining lab results to patients, answering their questions, calming their fears.

They didn’t charge for all this time, and the cost of the office visit, what, like, $30-35? surely  didn’t begin to cover it. IF the patients paid even that, which many regulars just..never did.   But I never once heard of any of our peers asking a patient to leave his/her practice because of failure to pay.

Hilary, and then the era of the HMOs ( capitalized mecicine) convinced America that doctors weren’t on their side, they were just greedy,self-important charlatans in white coats.  Well, when you knock a profession off its pedestal,  don’t expect its members to keep up the monumental standard.

If Trump can’t win 2020 without a healthcare revamp, then come on!  Find the right architect, now!  The man who rebuilt lower Manhattan can handle that!

8+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

This Week’s Book Review – Gray Day

I write a weekly book review for the Daily News of Galveston County. (It is not the biggest daily newspaper in Texas, but it is the oldest.) My review normally appears Wednesdays. When it appears, I post the review here on the following Sunday.

Book Review

‘Gray Day’ details uncovering a cyber spy

By MARK LARDAS

Mar 25, 2019

“Gray Day: My Undercover Mission to Expose America’s First Cyber Spy,” by Eric O’Neill, Crown, 304 pages, 2019, $27

In 2000, FBI agent Eric O’Neill’s career was in eclipse. He had married a German foreign national. She was from the former East Germany and viewed as a potential security risk. Germany might have reunified and the Soviet Union gone, but Russia was still there. Because of that he got tapped for the biggest case of his career.

“Gray Day: My Undercover Mission to Expose America’s First Cyber Spy,” by Eric O’Neill recounts what happens next.

Robert Hanssen was selling secrets to Russia and earlier the Soviet Union. The FBI needed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. They wanted him in prison. He had been betraying the United States for decades and his revelations had led to the execution of several spies working for the United States. He was going to retire in April 2001.

The FBI set a trap for Hanssen. They put him in charge of a new FBI cybersecurity group, offering Hanssen a new batch of secrets to sell. They wanted O’Neill to be his deputy, to spy on Hanssen. O’Neill agreed.

The book follows the effort to trap Hanssen, as seen through the eyes of O’Neill. Despite Hanssen’s new posting being an FBI deception, as O’Neill shows, it filled a desperate need. The FBI entered the 21st century with its computer technology mired in the early 1980s and organizational attitudes toward computers from the 1960s. Hanssen’s spying exploited that.

“Gray Day” (Hanssen’s code name in the investigation) shows O’Neill cope with the pressure of juggling an abusive boss (Hanssen), keeping up with his schoolwork (O’Neill was a law student) and keeping his marriage intact — while secretly investigating his boss.

The book reads like a John Le Carre spy novel, but the events happened. Some names are disguised. O’Neill walks readers through the methods the FBI used to weave a net around Hanssen, including success and failures. He also shows the personal cost to him. His marriage started unravelling due to the pressures of the investigation.

“Gray Day” is a book that keeps readers on the edge of their seat, and contains an important message about data security.

Mark Lardas, an engineer, freelance writer, amateur historian, and model-maker, lives in League City. His website is marklardas.com.

4+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

“They had 80 % of the industry.”

The title refers to Hanna-Barbera. I had no idea how much content this animation studio had put out till I saw this video. In the video there is a story of a would be killer of Fred Flintstone. I bet you won’t guess who that was.

(The video is about 20 minutes. For those who were hooked on these cartoons in youth it will be hard to stop watching it.)

5+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Heartland of Mine

I spent all day at the parade in Girardville, Pa. Probably no one ever heard of it except that  one year when Bill Clinton went, so, that’s a long time ago.   They had it March 30 this year because it’s been snowed upon the  last 2 years closer to St Patrick’s Day. (Good move; it was about 6oF today.)

But here’s what I want to tell you, O Ratty:  I saw many Trump banners, big flags, carried by young people.  Some said TRUMP: No More Bulls—t.  Others said Trump-Pence 2020.  They were everywhere.

Pennsylvania is the land of my heart.  And also the land of mines.  One float said “Trump digs coal”.

I wish I could make you feel what a wonderful day I had!  Breakfast in a friend’s home in Girardville, the homestead of his miner family.  I had made scones, (okay,  from a mix, baking not my forté) and they were well received! The walk down the hill to Main Street where we set up our lawn chairs. The pipers, The pipers, the pipers! ( I mean, really for St Patrick’s it should be harps, but that isn’t very good  parade music.)  Then meandering over to Hibernian House,  which was frequented by members of  the Mollie Maguires gang, to shake hands with Black Jack Kehoe’s great grandson.  ( please watch the movie The Mollie Maguires with Sean Connery and Richard Harris, if you haven’t…) and to hear more  music.

Right behind me in the crowd, a boy approached a man wearing a Vietnam Veteran cap, shook his hand, and said, “ I want to take the time to thank you, sir.”

This is America at home.  And she is warm, hospitable, respectful,  funloving.  And she ain’t puttin up with no bull.

11+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Libertarian Thursday: Nobody knows how to make a pencil!

“And wonder, most of all, at the everyday miracles
made possible by a political and economic system that dares to have faith in free men.”

Do you think you know how to make a pencil?  This libertarian classic explains why you probably don’t, and why you don’t need to in order to buy a nice writing instrument for a few cents.

https://www.disciplenations.org/media/I-Pencil_Read1.pdf

And as always, no better explicator than Ronaldus Magus’ favorite economist, libertarian Milton Friedman.

3+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Nick Herbert calls it “The Sarfatti Box”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sarfatti-box-nick-herbert-jack-sarfatti

Nick Herbert: “Of course by “testing Jack’s conjecture” I don’t mean actually doing a real experiment. Thought experiments are a lot cheaper and put the burden where it should be — inside the head of the person making the conjecture.

If Jack claims that regions where the phase velocity of light is small, the rigidity of spacetime also becomes small, then he should use his mighty mind to calculate the rigidity of spacetime inside an optical cavity. This is the kind of calculation we should naturally expect from a real physicist rather than pompous press agency of the “I alone have solved the riddle of alien spacecraft propulsion.”

If Jack carries out such a calculation for the optical cavity (I don’t believe he ever will) it could open up many futuristic possibilities.

One such possibility is that if spacetime inside the cavity becomes flexible enough the spacetime curvature inside the cavity caused by small bits of matter — two hydrogen atoms for instance — might be so large that their gravitational attraction will outweigh their electrostatic repulsion and tabletop cold fusion could be attained. Every household could have such a device and be independent of the electrical grid. No doubt the Sarfatti Box could be engineered to use ordinary water rather than hydrogen and free mankind from reliance on fossil fuels. Just in time since in a few hundred years oil and gas will become exceedingly expensive.

Automobiles, airplanes and ships all powered by water converted to energy inside a superflexible spacetime Sarfatti Box.

All this and much more could be the outcome of a single equation which certainly will become more famous than Einstein’s mass/energy relation — the Sarfatti Equation for the rigidity of spacetime in an optical cavity, the invention that changed the world.

I am tempted to tell Jack to “Shut up and calculate.” but I know he will never shut up.

Just calculate, amigo.”

Keith Wanser “It seems like “nonsense” to you because you completey misunderstand what he is saying.   Your strawman suggested experiment is not expected to produce anything measurable from Jack’s proposal. … Nick, apparently  you read (?) and do not understand.  Let me make it real simple why your notion of phase velocity does not apply to what Jack is saying and thus leads you to absurd conclusions. … By the way Nick, the c for the vacuum that appears in Einstein’s equation is indeed the phase velocity of a unidirectional wave.  On your reasoning, it should be replaced by zero in a standing wave cavity, obviously wrong! … Nick, the rest of your ridicule of Jack’s idea is really the result of your misunderstanding of what he is saying combined with your misunderstanding of phase velocity.  I must admit Jacks conjecture sounds pretty far fetched, but I am sure that non-radiating stationary states also sounded pretty far fetched at the time Bohr proposed them, with no really good justification for why they would not radiate.  (a lot of physicists do not understand to this day that stationary state charge densities and current densities are static (i.e. time independent) and so do not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations when plugged back in to them. …

The point is to pursue a promising hypothesis or theory, despite much criticism and lack of full understanding, and then propose experiments.  Armchair mental gymnastics are not the way to discover how the real world works.  One must do experiments to confirm scientific hypothesis. 

PS  Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a magic “Sarfatti box” that could do all the things you thought of?”

End Notes

From:“Wanser, Keith” <kwanser@fullerton.edu>
Date: Saturday, March 30, 2019 at 2:02 PM
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: Typo correction! Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Yet another typo correction!  Was talking about standing waves in the cavity for the E(x,t)^2 that goes in the stress energy tensor T.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=(E0^2)*[1-Cos[2kx-2wt]]/2

The above is for a traveling wave.  What I meant to show was for a standing wave, appropriate for a standing wave in an ideal cavity.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx)*Sin(wt)^2=(E0^2)*{[1-Cos[2kx]]/2}*(Sin[wt])^2=(E0^2)*{[1-Cos[2kx]]/2}*{[1-Cos[2wt]]/2}=(E0^2)*{1-Cos[2wt]-Cos[2kx]+Cos[2kx]*Cos[2wt]}/4=

=(E0^2)*{1-Cos[2wt]-Cos[2kx]+(Cos[2kx-2wt]+Cos[2kx+2wt])/2}/4                 CORRECTION

This latter form clearly shows the k=0, +2k, -2k spatial Fourier components, and the w=0, +2w, and -2w temporal Fourier components of T (stress energy) for the standing wave in the cavity.  It also shows the two oppositely directed traveling energy terms at 2k and 2w (the last 2).

Keith

Jack: Remember you have to multiply these squared electric fields (volts/meter in SI) by SI permittivity of free space multiplied by 3 million for the Korean stuff.

PS  Sorry for the typos, but this is what happens when you are in a hurry to get to the rec. center to go swimming.  I spent way too much precious time on this email.

From: Wanser, Keith
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:13:45 PM
To:nick herbert
Subject:Typo correction! Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Typo corrections in my yellow highlighted first paragraph below.

E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=[1-Cos[2kz-2wt]]/2

This should read  E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=E0^2*[1-Cos[2kx-2wt]]/2

I forgot to carry forward the E0^2 and interchanged x and z.  The E^2 appears in the EM stress energy tensor on the RHS of the Einstein field equations.

Keith

PS  This is the zero order ideal cavity field without the gravitational back reaction (i.e. metric distortion effects corrections on E)

From:Wanser, Keith
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 1:02 PM
To:nick herbert
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

>>It is indeed true that the wave in a cavity is the superposition of two waves with finite phase velocity but the END RESULT is what counts.<<

Nick, and that is precisely what you are not thinking thru, the end result.  In Jack’s theory, to get the total matter response, one must back Fourier space time transform the coupling “constant” and the stress energy tensor T.  That will pick up the two oppositely directed traveling wave Fourier components, since one sums over all wave vectors, in 1D, both positive and negative propagation.  That is also picked up (in a nonlinear way, in the stress energy tensor associated with the two E(k,w) field components, or if you want, the individual k components of T(k,w) that must be summed over to get the END RESULT! (Note that the ideal cavity E^2=(E0*Sin(kx-wt))^2=[1-Cos[2kz-2wt]]/2, which produces a k=0 (spatailly uniform term) and a +2k and -2k terms.  These all get summed in the energy momentum tensor in the spatial domain, assuming n is flat over the region of interest so we don’t have to worry about a complicated Fourier back transform integral, and as the paper Art found points out, the material with the highest value of n so far is very broadband (non-resonant) in its response.

>>Metamaterials work the same way: Deep down they are superpositions of waves traveling at the normal speed of light with a normal phase velocity. But due to vast amounts of superposition the END RESULT of all this scattering from specially engineered scatterers of perfectly normal light is a macroscopic wave with anomalous dispersion.<<

Metamaterials, as commonly used, are simply periodic systems, like a dielectric stack coating.  These were studied long before periodic, photonic band structures in periodic solids and layered dielectric coatings for filters and anti-reflection.   They are also used in fiber Bragg gratings, which I have published papers on and have a US patent on multimode fiber gratings.  The multiple scattering has nothing to do with the argument.  There is an index of refraction ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL.  It may or may not be the same in the reverse direction, depending on it the material is non-reciprocal (like Faraday effect and non-linear Kerr effect, or time dependent fluctuations in the dielelctric constant, etc.)  The point is the index of refraction itself is defined in terms of a single direction of travel.

Think about it Nick how n is defined (and thus the phase velocity c’=[w(k)/k]), n = (Speed of light in vacuum)/(Speed of light in free space).  This obviously can be different for different frequency light waves (i.e temporal dispersion), but that is not the point.

Nick, Jack says for non-dispersive media, Modify Coupling factor in front of Stress Energy Tensor T from (8*Pi*G/c^4)->(8*Pi*G*n^4/c^4), where n is the index of refraction, DEFINED FOR PROPAGATION IN A SINGLE DIRECTION.  THE CONCEPT OF AN INDEX OF REFRACTION IS MACROSCOPIC, AND INVOLVES AVERAGING OVER A MACROSCOPIC VOLUME.  IN OPTICS, THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF RADIATORS/SCATTERERS IN THE AVERAGING VOLUME, THE INDEX FOR A GIVEN MATERIAL IS THEN THE SAME THROUGHOUT (i.e. a sample of glass).  Building in periodic structures with attendant multiple reflections does not change the fact that there is both forward and backward propagating modes (for example a fiber optic Bragg grating), and when an index can be defined, it is associated with a single direction of propagation.  Including the effects of spatial dispersion and multiple scattering does not change this one iota.  It might help you if we replaced c’=w(k)/k, using the definition of a phase velocity.  You only need look at the band structures of phonons and electrons in crystals to understand this fact.  You are too hung up on metamaterials and their resonant behavior.

From the paper that Art found, the material is highly broadband, contrary to ordinary metamaterials, and the index much higher  (i.e. the index remains nearly constant for 8.5 to 12GHz in the graph of the paper, and they claim does not vary strongly below that all the way from zero frequency.  This broadband, extremely high index material is quite different in its operation than the resonant response happening with metamaterials when the probe wavelengh approaches the size of the underlying periodic structure.  In fact the higher frequency (1.55um) response was resonant, but with a much, much lower peak (Real part) refractive index of only about 17.  I highly suggest that you read the paper carefully, it should clear up a number of misconceptions you seem to have.

>>Thank you for your astute analysis which helps to cement the essential sameness of these two ways of achieving extremely low phase velocities.<<

Nick, apparently  you read(?) and do not understand.  Let me make it real simple why your notion of phase velocity does not apply to what Jack is saying and thus leads you to absurd conclusions.

As pointed out above, Jack says use Coupling constant (8*Pi*G*n^4/c^4), for simplified cases with no dispersion of n, i.e. n sensibly constant over a broad frequency range as in most ordinary materials, including the Korean paper material.  (with dispersion, we just have to work in Fourier (k,w) domain).

Nick claims that for an empty cavity with no material, (for which n=1 on all accounts), the phase velocity is zero.  However, that is not what Jack’s formula says, for the case of n=1, (vacuum cavity), Jack’s formula reduces to the ordinary Einstein formula for the coupling constant, i.e. (8*Pi*G*(1)^4/c^4).  For the case of a cavity with the Korean n=1800 material in it, Jack’s formula says the coupling constant is

(8*Pi*G*(1800)^4/c^4)=(1.05*10^13)*(8*Pi*G*(1)^4/c^4), or 13 orders of magnitude larger.  Simple as that.  Your characterization of what Jack is saying is false. 

For what Nick asserts to be true, that the empty cavity produces an overall phase velocity of zero, he would need n->infinity in the vacuum cavity, or (n=1), c->0, since the vacuum speed of light is not zero in a vacuum cavity.

By the way Nick, the c for the vacuum that appears in Einstein’s equation is indeed the phase velocity of a unidirectional wave.  On your reasoning, it should be replaced by zero in a standing wave cavity, obviously wrong!

When we talk about the phase speed of light, we are not talking about the speed of the superposition of two waves.   If you want to get technical and talk about multiple scattering, fine, then average over  some small length along the direction of propagation that is large compared to the scatterers, and define the phase speed of propagation between input and output of a unidirectional input wave as v=c/n=w/k (I know Jack wants more than this contribution, but I am just talking about the main, conventional contribution for the sake of discusson).  One operational way is to define k for a slab of material of thickness L is measure the frequency dependent phase shift between input and output waves for a time harmonic input  traveling in the positive x direction,  phi(w), define k=phi(w)/L  (this definition allows for multiple scattering and disordered materials inside the slab).  From this k(w), define the phase speed as v=w/k(w).  There are other ways, but this is operationally how one can do it.  You always use unidirectional waves to define what is meant by the underlying wave parameters, like n for example.

All this is well known in S matrix theory of microwave components Nick.

>>Zero phase velocity is easy to achieve. The ball, as they say, is now in Jack’s court.<<

Nick, if it is so easy, why don’t you publish your ideas about zero phase velocity and try to get a paper in Nature that gives an even higher value to the refractive index than the value of n=1800 in the paper Art Wagner found?

Keith Wanser

PS  Peace and Love — V V

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 30, 2019 9:21:47 AM
To:Wanser, Keith
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Keith–

It is indeed true that the wave in a cavity is the superposition of two waves with finite phase velocity but the END RESULT is what counts.

Metamaterials work the same way: Deep down they are superpositions of waves traveling at the normal speed of light with a normal phase velocity. But due to vast amounts of superposition the END RESULT of all this scattering from specially engineered scatterers of perfectly normal light is a macroscopic wave with anomalous dispersion.

The only difference between a cavity and a metamaterial ( or glass for that matter) is the number of interfering ordinary waves that produce the macroscopic END RESULT.

The cavity uses a superposition of only two normal waves to produce zero overall phase velocity.

The metamaterial uses a superposition of an essentially infinite number of normal waves to produce its overall low phase velocity.

The optical cavity is equivalent to a metamaterial achieved by special boundary conditions rather than by an array of special scatterers.

Thank you for your astute analysis which helps to cement the essential sameness of these two ways of achieving extremely low phase velocities.

Now the opportunity lies wide open for Jack to CALCULATE the Sarfatti Cavity Equation and to achieve world fame via the Sarfatti Box universal power source.

Zero phase velocity is easy to achieve. The ball, as they say, is now in Jack’s court.

Nick

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 30, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Wanser, Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu> wrote:

>>I still maintain that for an optical cavity, both the group and phase velocity are zero. The field energy just oscillates at any location in the cavity between electric and magnetic forms at the resonant frequency. Depending on what mode is excited there may even be nodes in the cavity where both E and H fields are zero. And these nodes do not move. The optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial that’s achieved by controlling the boundary conditions.<<

Come on Nick, this is really basic stuff.  A standing wave in a cavity consists of two traveling waves in opposite directions with velocity v phase for each component.  This is basic 1D wave equation 101.

i.e. general solution of 1D wave equation is u(x,t) = [f(x-vt)+g(x+vt)], in the case of no dispersion, and v=w/k, the phase velocity.  Phase velocity is how you move on a surface of constant phase and applies to a single traveling wave component.  Case with dispersion, just deal with individual spatial Fourier Components, each traveling with their respective phase velocities.   i.e. Real solutions are Cos(kx-wt+delta) (traveling in plus x), Cos(kx+wt+delta), (traveling in minus x).  These can obviously be written as Cos[k(x-vt)+delta] and Cos[k(x+vt)+delta], where v=w/k is the phase velocity for each wave.  The phase velocity makes no sense when you are talking about multiple Fourier Components.  Note that {Cos[kx-wt+delta]-Cos[kx+wt+delta]}/2={Sin[kx+delta]*Sin[wt]}, i.e. two waves traveling in opposite directions with the same phase speed (v=w/k, w and k both positive here, can take Re[k] if damped waves) produce a standing wave, that appears to stand still (i.e nodes and antinodes do not move to the left or right on a string).

Jack explicitly was talking about individual Fourier (or Wavelet) components in his paper on the subject, as you have to since in general the index of refraction is dispersive.  It does not matter that a standing wave on a string simply goes up and down at a single spatial location and nodes and antinodes do not move.  There is still an underlying phase velocity associated with each spatial Fourier component of the wave, and that is what appears in what Jack has conjectured.  He has said 8*Pi*G/(c’)^4, where c’=c/n, and n is in general a function of frequency (and he also allows for spatial dispersion so one has n(k,w).)Just watch an ocean wave coming in to a cliff wall and watch the reflected wave going back as it collides with a new incoming wave, pretty impressive where the two crests, traveling in opposite directions meet.

Any kid with a jump rope tied to a garage door handle and shaking the rope up and down at different rates learns about superposition of traveling waves going in different directions produce standing waves.

>>So it would seem that if Jack needs a metamaterial with a vanishingly small phase or group velocity, he need look no further than the familiar optical cavity which is well – characterized theoretically and exists in many physical realizations including hi-Q superconducting cavities.<<

No, no, no Nick.  This is completely wrong!  The cavity is a superposition of 2 components with non-zero phase velocities.  Otherwise you could have an empty cavity doing the same thing as a high index one and it would make no difference, since both would have a very small “phase velocity” in your way of thinking.

Here is the killer for your idea Nick.  An empty cavity would have n=1.  However, you think the phase velocity (which would be c in free space in this case) goes to zero in Einsteins equations??  No, that is not what Jack is saying, and a moments reflection on your part would have considered a cavity with and without dielectric and compared the two.  Without dielectric, n=1, Jack agrees with Einstein.  With dielectric present with very large dielectric constant, Jack says (for the case of the Korean material with n=1800, the coupling constant in the Einstein equation is increased by a factor of (1800)^4=1.05*10^13.  Now, that is a huge amount, and so a cavity filled with that kind of material, one could then calculate the GRT effects for the two standing wave components, how the metric inside is modified, and how this would be manifest in various experimental measured situations. 

Nick, the rest of your ridicule of Jack’s idea is really the result of your misunderstanding of what he is saying combined with your misunderstanding of phase velocity.  I must admit Jacks conjecture sounds pretty far fetched, but I am sure that non-radiating stationary states also sounded pretty far fetched at the time Bohr proposed them, with no really good justification for why they would not radiate.  (a lot of physicists do not understand to this day that stationary state charge densities and current densities are static (i.e. time independent) and so do not radiate according to Maxwell’s equations when plugged back in to them.

The point is to pursue a promising hypothesis or theory, despite much criticism and lack of full understanding, and then propose experiments.  Armchair mental gymnastics are not the way to discover how the real world works.  One must do experiments to confirm scientific hypothesis. Keith Wanser

PS  Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a magic “Sarfatti box” that could do all the things you thought of?

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Friday, March 29, 2019 8:58:16 PM
To:Wanser, Keith

Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Keith–

Thanks for your comments.

I still maintain that for an optical cavity, both the group and phase velocity are zero. The field energy just oscillates at any location in the cavity between electric and magnetic forms at the resonant frequency. Depending on what mode is excited there may even be nodes in the cavity where both E and H fields are zero. And these nodes do not move. The optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial that’s achieved by controlling the boundary conditions.

So it would seem that if Jack needs a metamaterial with a vanishingly small phase or group velocity, he need look no further than the familiar optical cavity which is well – characterized theoretically and exists in many physical realizations including hi-Q superconducting cavities.

For proof of principle there is no need to invoke exotic metamaterials to test Jack’s conjecture. A simple optical cavity will suffice.

Of course by “testing Jack’s conjecture” I don’t mean actually doing a real experiment. Thought experiments are a lot cheaper and put the burden where it should be — inside the head of the person making the conjecture.

If Jack claims that regions where the phase velocity of light is small, the rigidity of spacetime also becomes small, then he should use his mighty mind to calculate the rigidity of spacetime inside an optical cavity. This is the kind of calculation we should naturally expect from a real physicist rather than pompous press agency of the “I alone have solved the riddle of alien spacecraft propulsion.”

If Jack carries out such a calculation for the optical cavity (I don’t believe he ever will) it could open up many futuristic possibilities.

One such possibility is that if spacetime inside the cavity becomes flexible enough the spacetime curvature inside the cavity caused by small bits of matter — two hydrogen atoms for instance — might be so large that their gravitational attraction will outweigh their electrostatic repulsion and tabletop cold fusion could be attained. Every household could have such a device and be independent of the electrical grid. No doubt the Sarfatti Box could be engineered to use ordinary water rather than hydrogen and free mankind from reliance on fossil fuels. Just in time since in a few hundred years oil and gas will become exceedingly expensive.

Automobiles, airplanes and ships all powered by water converted to energy inside a superflexible spacetime Sarfatti Box.

All this and much more could be the outcome of a single equation which certainly will become more famous than Einstein’s mass/energy relation — the Sarfatti Equation for the rigidity of spacetime in an optical cavity, the invention that changed the world.

I am tempted to tell Jack to “Shut up and calculate.” but I know he will never shut up.

Just calculate, amigo.

Nick Herbert to Jack via Keith Wanser

Sent from my iPadOn Mar 28, 2019, at 7:56 PM, Wanser, Keith <kwanser@fullerton.edu> wrote:

Nick,

Sarfatti clearly is using c’=c/n as the velocity in the medium.  The enhancement of the gravitational coupling to the energy momentum tensor is only in the region of the small c’ (i.e. large n).  It has nothing to do with group velocity.  The confusion was initially caused by the reference to the “slow light” work others had done, and that indeed used only the group velocity.  Turns out that is NOT what Sarfatti is referring to.

Read the Nature paper Art Wagner dug up on actual giant index n (as high as 1800 at about 0.3 Thz) in an artificial material.

Your reference to a zero group velocity for a standing wave is irrelevant.  The phase velocity of each Fourier component is still c’=c/n.  For a gas cavity, the n is near one.  Ordinary solid state laser, still not very large n.  There will be no orders of magnitude enhancement of gravitational effects in the vicinity of an optical cavity that has an “ordinary” size refractive index.

>>But perhaps Jack does not really believe

that whenever the group velocity of light is small

the spacetime continuum becomes more squishy.<<

I’ll let Jack speak for himself, but as I now understand his conjecture (not the confusion caused by the large group delay of a pulse in the case of the “slow light” work), why would he believe that the group velocity has anything to do with his hypothesis.  It is completely irrelevant.

>>It seems like a nonsense conjecture to me

but I would become a true believer if your cavity calculation

yielded a result that was measurable via conventional gravimeters<<

It seems like “nonsense” to you because you completey misunderstand what he is saying.   Your strawman suggested experiment is not expected to produce anything measurable from Jack’s proposal.

>>Jack seems to believe that only when metamaterials reduce the light speed

will the Sarfatti Effect be manifest.

Does he not realize that an optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial

achieved by altering the boundary conditions?<<

His theory only says that if c’=c/n becomes small, then the effective gravitational coupling constant 8*Pi*G/(c’)^4 becomes orders of magnitude larger, thus making gravitational effects due to stress energy (INSIDE THE MATERAL WITH THE LARGE n) much, much larger.  (outside the material, n=1). For the Nature paper example, this is an enhancement factor of n^4=(1800)^4=1.05*10^13, with existing technology from 2016!!!!!

Although a huge enhancement, because the effects are primarily inside the high n material, it is still hard to detect them at this level, because electromagnetic effects are still about 12 orders of magnitude stronger.

Keith Wanser

From:nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 7:15:41 PM
To:Jack Sarfatti
Subject:Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

For a standing wave in an optical cavity the group velocity of light is zero. This is a much simpler way to achieve zero speed than using metamaterials. If the Sarfatti conjecture is true spacetime rigidity should be reduced in the vicinity of an optical cavity. Then the only question remaining is what is the magnitude of this effect?

One might imagine that the strength of the alleged Sarfatti Effect would scale as some power of the cavity’s Q number.

Since Jack believes in the existence of this effect he’s the one who should do the calculation. But perhaps Jack does not really believe that whenever the group velocity of light is small the spacetime continuum becomes more squishy. It seems like a nonsense conjecture to me but I would become a true believer if your cavity calculation yielded a result that was measurable via conventional gravimeters Jack seems to believe that only when metamaterials reduce the light speed will the Sarfatti Effect be manifest. Does he not realize that an optical cavity is a kind of metamaterial achieved by altering the boundary conditions?

Doctor Jabir

Imam of Radio Beach

Protector of Vegetation

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 28, 2019, at 2:13 PM, Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@hotmail.com> wrote:

I think Nick Herbert and Brian Josephson have a lot of eggs on their faces. 😉

What I propose may turn out wrong, but to call it “nonsense” is clearly wrong.

Well if the CIA, Pentagon guys had any brains they would give this top priority.

The Russians are keenly translating all my ideas and they insinuated that Vladimir Putin himself is interested in all this weird spooky physics stuff.

Note, I appear in this June 2016 video twice toward the end.

https://www.5-tv.ru/glavnoe/broadcasts/509155/476/?fbclid=IwAR2JHhn4pqN8jT9XINB63X-62-8VIOxJv2wrMbdRiIqED5yI95nepQiYe-o

They also did a 2-hour video of me on the physics stuff previously.

From: “Wanser, Keith” <kwanser@fullerton.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 12:38 PM
To: JACK SARFATTI <jsarfatti@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

Jack,

Art sent this to me also, and I just sent a brief response to you about it.This is great news, however, the largest values are broadband (even better than resonant!) and the resonant peak in the one graph is for a much lower value of n at 1.55um (in the near IR/optical region). The amazing thing about this paper is that it teaches how to make broadband very large n. You need to propose some experiments that can be done with this factor of 10^13 enhancement of the effective grav. coupling constant to test you conjecture.

Keith

From:JACK SARFATTI <jsarfatti@aol.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 28, 2019 9:21:40 AM
To:JACK SARFATTI
Subject:Index of refraction giant resonances – key to low power warp drive

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12661.pdf

0

Politically Correct Fast Food

I can’t believe people want to kick out a fast food chain from airports and cities. What is going on there? Is love for a chicken sandwich the “the love that dare not speak its name”?

I think it is good to be inclusive but I don’t like when the 1 % (or even less) want to rule my life or their virtue signalling fellow travelers.

5+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Watch Out Jessie!

I just heard of a dastardly plot perpetrated by alt-right (obviously) individuals against Jessie Smollet.

Apparently two black bodybuilders ( not from Nigeria) have been recruited via Craigslist to tail the ex-Empire actor next winter in Chicago. They are supposed to ambush him on any cold night and rough him up.

These men are said to be equipped with red hats and a bottle of bleach and a short rope provided to them by these despicable plotters, who have dubbed themselves the WolfCryBoys. Apparently the plan is to replicate for real what the actor claimed happened. Chicago police declined to comment but say they are “investigating”.

0

Robot Ostriches in the Warehouse

Boston Dynamics have just released a video of their Handle robot performing a package picking and pallet stacking task in a warehouse.  The packages in the video weigh around 5 kg, but the company says the robot can handle items as heavy as 15 kg.  It uses on-board vision to identify packages and force feedback to pack them tightly together on the pallet.  It can handle pallets as large as 1.2 metres on an edge stacked 1.7 metres tall.

The Handle has two wheels and balances by pivoting its body to control the centre of gravity.  It has just ten actuated joints, and is thus substantially simpler and less expensive than their bipedal or quadruped robots.  It uses both electric and hydraulic actuators, powered by an on-board battery which gives it a range of around 24 km on one charge.  The robot stands 2 metres tall and weighs 105 kg.

It does not require a US$ 15/hour minimum wage and is guaranteed not to vote to join a union.

Here is another video demonstrating the agility of Handle.

9+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

The Zombie Car Phenomenon

Several years ago, while I waited on the curb at the San Diego airport watching traffic flow by, I noticed something about the cars. They were different from the local vehicles in Northwest Montana, and although I’d lived in San Diego for twenty years, I had never made the connection. It wasn’t just the obvious preference for SUV’s and Subarus in the rugged north—no, it was something else, too: the city vehicles were shiny and updated. Many of them looked high-end. I thought of the beaters I often spotted in my Montana town—the 80’s sedans, the classic trucks, and the boxy early style of Subaru—and it made me realize the degree to which residents of my town make do with what they have. I was proud to be one of them.

In recent months, this trend toward junky vehicles seems to have gotten worse—or better, however you choose to look at it. Before I explain, however, I have to admit that my own little red car has its own issues. I will remove the log from my own eye first. This is a beloved vehicle that won’t quit, even though we’re at 198,000 miles. Each blemish tells a story. The longish dent on the driver’s side—that was a tangle with a tall stand of bamboo at the side of our driveway when we were in San Diego. My husband could not understand how I did that, as I had backed down our long, steep driveway a couple thousand times by then. I could understand, because I had backed down that impossible driveway two thousand times without incident, and it was only a matter of time before it got me, especially now that there was a giant, unforgiving stand of bamboo to complicate things.

Similarly, the dust-up with the deer happened because it had to, because a decade had gone by with no incidents in a landscape dense with these thick creatures (or thick with these dense creatures, if you prefer). My daughter and I were deep in an interesting discussion when she said, “Mom, deer!” By the time my brain processed the emergency, it was too late to stop. I had, however slowed down enough to give a witless, fleeing animal a good bump with the front of the car and a quick but frenzied backwards sprint when she got caught on my side mirror for a few moments. To my relief, she and her compatriots then dashed off into the woods and there was no need to bring anyone back to the site with a gun. The encounter had left a visible dent, however. Later, a friend helpfully brought attention to it by inscribing “Bambi” in the layer of dust coating my car.

Even with its dents, dimples, and rusted out spots, my vehicle does not yet resemble what I would call a “zombie car.” Zombie cars are vehicles still in service that are so badly damaged they look uncannily like animated car corpses. An obviously totaled vehicle will swing by in the turn lane, with damage so telling that one could do an accurate play-by-play of the accident, and the visceral reaction is “Whoa!”

I understand not taking one’s car to the body shop after being creamed in an intersection. One, it’s expensive. It makes more sense financially to just drive your older car into the ground. Not only are your insurance rates stable, but your permanent registration is still working for you. Two, body shops are pricey. No matter what the problem is, no matter how subtle the damage, the employees always announce that they have to order the whole piece from the manufacturer, and that item always costs a healthy percentage of the car’s current value. (I’ve experienced when they opted to not order the piece, when a teenager hit our parked car and was liable. I learned that it’s best to believe what they say and let them order away. In this case, someone at the body shop had whaled away on our panel with a hammer and then painted over that, leaving a mass of stipples. It gave me the heebie-jeebies.) Three, it costs a lot to have your car fixed, and it’s not a sensible expense given how brutal this area is on vehicles—potholes, dirt roads, salt, filthy slush, and impatient drivers at intersections all take their toll. It’s better to pay the rent than maintain a sleek, gleaming car.

Other mutilations I’ve noted lately: gaping, sightless holes where headlights should be, missing back windows crisscrossed with duct tape, a hood (and possibly the whole left front of the vehicle) secured with a rope. Cars go nonchalantly by with driver-side doors caved in, whole sections hideously ripped off, mangled bumpers. Rope, tape, tarp, and other materials at hand are pressed into service to make the thing driveable as soon as possible. My favorite fix is on a small, grey car that just happens to be in our church parking lot every day. Apparently, the front and back bumpers were having a problem severe enough to necessitate the use of black zip-ties as stitches. There are small series of them, front and back, in a careful ‘X’-shaped pattern. One can’t help but appreciate the resourcefulness of whoever saw fit to do this. And he did a nice job.*

I know our area has come a long way since the eighties, when more families subsisted on venison, and residents had to drive all the way to Missoula for Easter dresses. That’s what I’ve heard from native Montanans, anyway. Now our town offers Costco, Target, REI, many grocery stores, chic shops, a grand movie theater, chain restaurants, quiet planned neighborhoods, multi-million-dollar estates, Internet everywhere—almost anything you could get in urban California. But the sordid state of our region’s vehicles show that perhaps Montanans haven’t changed all that much. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

*Not to be sexist, but of course it was a “he.”

7+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar