I am cited in India Sunday Guardian on “Tic Tac” USS Nimitz

Insights about secret scientific research in the US

“Back in 2007, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, in which Area 51 is located, and who then chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, set up a new study group with the support of fellow Senators, Inouye and Stevens, under the name of AATIP (Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program) at the suggestion of his friend, billionaire Robert Bigelow, chairman of Bigelow Aerospace, a contractor to NASA which conducted research on UFOs and collected substantial evidence of the extraterrestrial presence.

Senator Reid wished to gather information on the secret work being carried out outside the purview of Congressional authorities and got an appropriation of $22 million for a five-year budget. The investigations were entrusted to Bigelow’s aerospace research division and coordinated by Earthtech of Austin, Texas, an R&D centre in frontier areas of science headed by Dr Harold Puthoff, formerly at Stanford Research Institute. AATIP under the stewardship of high-ranking intelligence officer Luis Elizondo, commissioned a still unissued 490-page report and collected 38 classified papers from a number of universities and research centres reflecting some of the goals pursued at the behest of the DIA (as Defense Intelligence Research Documents or DIRD) and other military intelligence bodies.

AATIP remained unknown to the public until both the New York Times and the Washington Post on 16 December 2017 published articles about it with the mandatory sceptical rumblings. They both, however, provided online links to a film taken in 2004 by Super Hornet jet pilots from the USS Nimitz, off the coast of Southern California, of a fleet of extremely fast flying objects, exhibiting performances far beyond the abilities of the most advanced aircraft, whose shapes suggested “tictacs” which became their moniker.

Physicist Jack Sarfatti, formerly at San Diego State University, has gone on record to say he is doing research on the propulsion system of the “tictac” by studying “alien” recovered metamaterials in the custody of Dr Puthoff’s Earthtech. The existence of those materials of non-earthly origin has been officially confirmed.

2+
avataravatar

23 thoughts on “I am cited in India Sunday Guardian on “Tic Tac” USS Nimitz”

  1. Does any part of the article run afoul of the Murray Gell Mann Amnesia Effect?

    Yes they mention you, but is anything else they mention bat guano crazy?

    For example, what are your thoughts on the “Element 115” discussion?

    0

  2. Jack Sarfatti:
    recovered metamaterials

    I am more interested in the metamaterials than I am in alien physics.   Could you please cite a solid place to read up on that?

    Congratulations for being recognized.

    1+
    avatar
  3. Richard Easton:
    Is the Queen an alien reptilian shape-shifter.  Inquiring minds need to know.

    Oh come on, if the Queen could shape-shift she’d look a lot more like Scarlett Johansson. And the correct term is lizard person.

    1+
    avatar
  4. Jack Sarfatti:
    Physicist Jack Sarfatti, formerly at San Diego State University, has gone on record to say he is doing research on the propulsion system of the “tictac” by studying “alien” recovered metamaterials in the custody of Dr Puthoff’s Earthtech. The existence of those materials of non-earthly origin has been officially confirmed.

    Sweet!  I look forward to reading up on the claims made.

    0

  5. THis is a press release wrapped in an editorial, mis-filed on the “news” page:

    How much more time and effort will it take for certain agencies in the US government to confess to the many ominous or mind-boggling secrets they have kept from the public, often in violation of constitutional principles and legal norms and procedures?

    That’s the voice of the article, not a quote within the article.

    0

  6. Doc, I’m happy to see you recognized within your field.  I’ll put up another post to discuss claims made in the Sunday Grauniad opinion piece.

    0

  7. [From VICE magazine 2011 years before release of Tic Tac info. Note reference to my idea on “metamaterials.” Note also in Guardian article reference to Phil Morrison who was one of my undergrad tutors at Cornell.

    Also note reference to me on friend’s private jet

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UV5WX0gl3k

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faUX_UuutKc

    heading to  Donald Trump’s Mar a Lago –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir1bckOhKsA

    remember this was written in 2011!

    Also note my appearance in this Russian News Video June 2016.

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

    I appear twice toward the end.

    The Russians from Channel 5 Saint Petersburg had previously filmed me a year or two earlier about all the physics stuff recently come to the fore in the Tic Tac release. Russians also were in contact when I helped formulate SDI (see David Kaiser’s book on me and Lawry Chickering for some of that story). I was also told that Vladimir Putin himself is interested in the ufo/quantum weird stuff. My first Russian interview was about this about Putin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAT2jsMjyM  that came out months after I was filmed on these topics. The Russian’s parting remark after the second interview about Donald Trump a week prior to his 70 birthday in June 2016 was “Jack, they really like you in Moscow.”]

    By Kevin Holmes
    |
    08 December 2011, 3:15pm

    Talking to the Future Humans – Dr Jack Sarfatti Thinks I’m an Idiot

    Post-quantum theoretical physicists are so hard to please.

    Dr Jack Sarfatti

    Dr Jack Sarfatti is a post-quantum theoretical physicist, which basically means he’s spent a lot of time thinking about what happened to the world when Schrödinger finally opened that up box he was dragging his dead cat around in. His brain drifts in the hinterland of scientific endeavour, where it explores the potentials of metamaterials (artificial super materials that take a giant shit on whatever Mother Nature’s sorry ass can muster), how the future can affect the present, the possibility of walking through a time-travelling wormhole in space-time and, of course, aliens. You know, the stuff we all ponder in the quieter moments of our day.Back in the 1970s he was part of a group of hippy physicists called the Fundamental Fysiks Group. They were like the Merry Pranksters of science, mixing esoteric philosophies with the occidental quantum flowerings of the Enlightenment. Initially dismissed by the mainstream science geeks, they have since been credited with turning the science community on to some of the mindmelting ideas that you’ll hear if you spend 40 minutes watching a BBC Horizon show about black holes.Dr Emmett Brown from Back to the Future is supposedly based on Dr Jack, who has conducted CIA-funded research into ESP [telepathy, clairvoyance, etc] and is part of the NASA and DARPA-supported 100 Year Starship study. It’s a privately funded project that looks at how, in the next 100 years, humanity can pilot a spaceship that can head off on long-term, long-distance interstellar travel. He’s the kind of man who might know a thing or two about what’s round the corner for humanity when we eventually fly back to the cosmic womb from whence we came, so I thought it would be a good idea to talk to him.But it was quite the struggle getting Dr Jack to part with the hidden mysteries of the universe – my first round of questions featured such gems as: ‘Your own theories talk about future causality, where the future can impact the present. Is this why Marty snogged his own mother in Back to the Future?’ But you don’t get to be a non-local lord of consciousness by answering dumbass questions like that. So I thought I might be able to tease some answers from Dr. Jack if I emailed him relentlessly for days on end. But then lots of answers came back telling me to: “See my book Destiny Matrix for details”, or to “See my website, Stardrive.org” and to “use Google”, and my hopes faded each time I pressed the send button. I think he didn’t totally hate me, because he also sent me a video of him flying in a friend’s private jet to Palm Beach to spend Thanksgiving at Donald Trump’s place, the Mar-A-Lago Club. Or maybe he was just trying to make me jealous.

    I struggled onwards. I knew the answer to the conundrum of the super cosmos that would help me break through the mask of maya and penetrate the simulacra of our false reality wasn’t going to be obtained easily. And so I ventured deeper into the cave of wisdom. Were those shadows dancing on the walls? Or was the cave just a construct of my own mind? It was hard to tell. All Dr Jack’s hints and pointers were leaving me ever more baffled.The more questions I asked, the more he seemed to get annoyed, wearily declaring: “I don’t have time to go back to square one on this,” while sending me PDFs of scientific papers full of pages of text that said things like:

    “Hermitian observables guarantee orthogonal sender base states that erase any nonlocal influence of the sender settings on the detection probabilities at the receiver.”

    But eventually I was able to muster up the slapdash of barely journalistic practices (it was more like harassment) that you can read below.

    VICE: Can you explain in layman’s terms how future causality works? Dr Jack Sarfatti:

    No, not in layman’s terms. Any simple explanation will be a fake. Mathematics is the language of physics. Asking questions about time, future causality etc. in the language of laymen is futile. Any such explanation will be bogus – simpler than is possible. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Non-scientists think they can grasp the mysteries with watered-down analogies. They can’t. It’s pandering to the lowest denominator – my opinion.”

    OK, but does that mean that non-scientists can never grasp these mysteries, then?

    Yes, not fully. Ordinary experience is not good enough. They can only get an emotional glimpse through the glass darkly – not the kind of understanding that the mathematics gives. Brian Greene on NOVA and Michio Kaku et al come as close as possible for the public.”

    You supposedly had a VALIS-type experience [Philip K. Dick wrote the book VALIS because he thought a spaceship of that name was sending signals to his brain from the “Sirius star system”] when you were 13 years old, where something was trying to communicate with you. Was it a spacecraft from the future? What do you think it was?

    “Again, this is all covered in detail in my book Destiny Matrix (order it on Amazon) – there were witnesses, the cold metallic voice said it was a computer on a spacecraft. What it really was, who it was, I don’t know. However, what it predicted to happen 20 years in the future in 1973 did happen.”

    In your email you sent me a link about remote viewing and the CIA, which kind of spooked me, because it’s got nothing to do with staring at electronic devices for your TV and more about extra-sensory perception [ESP]. Can you remote view what I’m doing right now? And also, what were the conclusions to the CIA programme that you were involved with, called ESPionage, that looked into the phenomenon of ESP?

    I never said I could remote view. Look you have not done your homework here. Lots of stuff on web. Google “Hal Puthoff SRI CIA remote viewing” and Google “Daryl Bem, feeling the future”.

    [I googled them and came back with the following question]What did your role as “house theorist” involve when you were working for Stanford Research Institute, researching telepathy and ESP for the CIA?

    Remote viewing is real. The physics behind it is signal nonlocality. See the attachments.” 

    [The attachments contained the quote above about “Hermitian observables”.]

    Do you believe, like Timothy Leary did, in space migration?

    Yes. Tim and I knew each other and I stayed in his house in the Hollywood Hills.”

    Did you drop acid together?

    No, I did not do acid with Tim – this was after he was out of prison.” 

    You talk about metamaterials being able to slow light speed down to a crawl, which raises the possibility of a spacecraft using a warp drive to move faster than the speed of light. How long do you think before we see technology that can travel at warp speed?

    No one can predict that – depends on $ and whether we have captured ET craft that already have it.”

     You also talk about conscious robots that could be built using nanotechnologies. How will this work and is there any research or scientists at the moment who are exploring or attempting to build this?

    Not yet, specifically because they do not know what consciousness is physically – I do.

    Good for you. And lastly, what is time?

    Surely, you jest?”

    Yes indeed, Dr Jack. Yes indeed.

    See also
    Jack Sarfatti, incontro con lo scienziato eccentrico che ha ispirato “Doc” di “Ritorno al Futuro”

    Di Roberto Bonzio
    Inserito il 21 Ottobre 2015
    In Blog del libro

     https://italianidifrontiera.com/jack-sarfatti-lo-scienziato-eccentrico-che-ha-ispirato-doc-di-ritorno-al-futuro/

    My talk in Catania, Sicily May 24, 2014 at invitation of Enzo Bianco former Minister of Interior of Italy, then Mayor of Catania.

    “Bianco has been a member of the Chamber of Deputies from 1992 to 1993 with the Italian Republican Party and from 2001 to 2006 with The Olive Tree. He has then been Senator from 2006 to 2013 with the Democratic Party. Bianco has been Minister of interior from 1999 to 2001 in the D’Alema II Cabinet and in the Amato II Cabinet.[1]He has been for a short period Mayor of Catania from 1988 to 1989 and has been re-elected in 1993, becoming the first Mayor elected directly by the citizens of Catania, and in 1997, leaving the office in order to assume the charge of Minister of interior. After failing to be re-elected Mayor in 2005, he manages to be re-elected in 2013, holding the charge for 5 more years. At the 2018 comunal elections, he is defeated by the Forza Italia candidate Salvo Pogliese.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOwHb6h-I0&t=52s

    0

  8. Element 115 is nonsense of course. Guardian is left wing commie. The article is disinformation putting in a bunch of crap about Lazar and a few others to debunk the real work. Meantime Russians actively working on my approach and I suspect Iranians are as well because several hundred of them track my posts on Linkedin.

    It’s easy to make fun of this stuff because deep down it is scary, but it’s very real. Remember Orson Wells’s broadcast of “War of the Worlds.” It’s less scary to me because I understand the physics behind everything that’s happening.

    0

  9. Jack Sarfatti:
    Element 115 is nonsense of course. Guardian is left wing commie. The article is disinformation putting in a bunch of crap about Lazar and a few others to debunk the real work. Meantime Russians actively working on my approach and I suspect Iranians are as well because several hundred of them track my posts on Linkedin.

    It’s easy to make fun of this stuff because deep down it is scary, but it’s very real. Remember Orson Wells’s broadcast of “War of the Worlds.” It’s less scary to me because I understand the physics behind everything that’s happening.

    This is not even The Guardian.  I have a post up (beginning) to de-bunk this meretricious article, which is probably a good thing, as you and I seem to agree that at least *much* of the article is bunk.

    There are 14 paragraphs in the article.  You have quoted paragraph number ten in your post here.  Would you mind indicating which paragraphs you find A) unobjectionable, B) partially objectionable, or C) disinformation?  I’ll simply agree that any passage which you find to be bunk is very likely bunk to me as well.

    Thank you!

    1+
    avatar
  10. Jack Sarfatti:
    I am cited in London Sunday Guardian

    Just caught this insertion of “London” into your post title.  You’ve made a slight but understandable mis-statement.  This Sunday Guardian is from India, running in Delhi and Mumbai — not London, and has nothing to do with the familiar, lamentably communist and prone-to-typographical-errors “Grauniad”.

    1+
    avatar
  11. I put the category “Extra Hot” on this post. I put that category on posts so people understand when I feel a post has gone into a robust discussion. We like challenging things at Ratburger.org.

    0

  12. 10 Cents:
    I put the category “Extra Hot” on this post. I put that category on posts so people understand when I feel a post has gone into a robust discussion. We like challenging things at Ratburger.org.

    It’s not my intent to push this post into “labelled” territory.  That’s why I wrote a different post about the paper.

    0

  13. Haakon Dahl:

    10 Cents:
    I put the category “Extra Hot” on this post. I put that category on posts so people understand when I feel a post has gone into a robust discussion. We like challenging things at Ratburger.org.

    It’s not my intent to push this post into “labelled” territory.  That’s why I wrote a different post about the paper.

    You didn’t push this post, Haakon. I think posts on UFOs are challenging and lend themselves to great discussions.

    2+
    avataravatar
  14. Kelly Kowalski

    Yeah, I was fooled by it. I thought it was the Sunday London Guardian. I was multi-tasking getting ready for Kelly Kowalski’s visit to  record me for a proposal on a documentary series pitched to NETFLIX.

    From: Kelly Kowalski
    Date: Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:04 PM
    To: Jack Sarfatti <jacksarfatti@gmail.com>
    Subject: Mind Over Matter

    Take a trip inside the mind of Andrija Puharich – doctor, inventor, scientist and alleged spy – on a topsy-turvy descent down the rabbit hole to the hidden world of extrasensory perception and mind control. Was he a genius or madman? Do you doubt him or believe? Travel back in time to the beginnings of covert intelligence operations, space exploration, and the new age movement – back to one man’s quest to scientifically prove the existence of the supernatural.

     

    So we all agree the article is very flawed and the real question is one of counter-intelligence why it was written to begin with?

    0

  15. Jack Sarfatti:Yeah, I was fooled by it. I thought it was the Sunday London Guardian. I was multi-tasking …

    So we all agree the article is very flawed and the real question is one of counter-intelligence why it was written to begin with?

    So it is your contention that Come Carpentier de Gourdon wrote the article specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or that TheSundayGuardian of India published it specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or both?

    That’s a might specific sort of an accusation to hurl.  That is your contention?

    0

  16. Haakon Dahl:

    Jack Sarfatti:Yeah, I was fooled by it. I thought it was the Sunday London Guardian. I was multi-tasking …

    So we all agree the article is very flawed and the real question is one of counter-intelligence why it was written to begin with?

    So it is your contention that Come Carpentier de Gourdon wrote the article specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or that TheSundayGuardian of India published it specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or both?

    That’s a might specific sort of an accusation to hurl.  That is your contention?

    After all, most of that article was about the Element-115 guy.

    Scarfatti: “Element 115 is nonsense of course.  … The article is disinformation putting in a bunch of crap about Lazar and a few others to debunk the real work.” 

    Lazar (115) and “a few others” being disinformation leaves only you as the “real work” mentioned in the article.

    1+
    avatar
  17. Jack, would you please change the title of this post? It was not in the London Sunday Guardian but the Sunday Guardian, a paper in India.

    1+
    avatar
  18. Haakon Dahl:
    Or that TheSundayGuardian of India published it specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?

    I don’t know about you, but I’m a bit suspicious of any newspaper that can only afford one stock photo of Theresa May!

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  19.  

    Jack, would you please change the title of this post? It was not in the London Sunday Guardian but the Sunday Guardian, a paper in India.

    Just saw that March 28 and changed it.

     

     

    0

  20. Haaken Dahl wrote:

    So it is your contention that Come Carpentier de Gourdon wrote the article specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or that The Sunday Guardian of India published it specifically to discredit you or ideas which you support?  Or both?

    After all, most of that article was about the Element-115 guy.

    Sarfatti: “Element 115 is nonsense of course.  … The article is disinformation putting in a bunch of crap about Lazar and a few others to debunk the real work.” 

    Lazar (115) and “a few others” being disinformation leaves only you as the “real work” mentioned in the article.

    Yes, that seems a plausible inference.

    0

  21.  

    I agree 100% with what Keith says. I have the same skepticism about my own ideas. Richard Feynman told me “Jack, always try to prove yourself wrong.”

     

    https://physics.fullerton.edu/component/zoo/item/dr-keith-h-wanser

     

     

    From: “Wanser, Keith” <kwanser@fullerton.edu>
    Date: Monday, April 1, 2019 at 6:27 PM
    Subject: Re: 31 March 2019

     

    Jim, (and Jack)

     

    Since we have not had a chance to talk in detail for several months, I must tell you that I have not “bought in” to Jack Sarfatti’s proposal.  However, I am trying to understand it and the possible ramifications that would underlie such a proposal.

     

    I understand what you are saying about where the c comes from in the usual procedure for determining the unknown coupling constant.  Two factors of c in deonominator of the LHS of Einstein’s equation come from second time derivative of the metric, 2 factors of c in the numerator of the RHS come from energy density times c^2 in stress energy tensor.  (note that there are no factors of c in the Newtonian limit, only -Gm/r for the potential.  These factors that are existing in the denom of the LHS and the numerator of the RHS end up making a factor of c^4 times the unknown coupling constant (call is kappa) when you take the Newtonian Limit (i.e. kappa c^4).  In order to get Newton’s Poisson type equation, i.e. del squared phi = 4Pi*G*rho (rho the matter density), this requires the coupling constant kappa to have a c^4 in the denominator.  What Jack is proposing involves the insertion of what he says is a generally covariant tensor of rank zero, which multiplies the stress energy tensor.

    Exactly. All my equations are:

    1. Consistent with Newtonian limit
    2. Obey special relativity locally
    3. Obeys general relativity locally via tetrad transformations between locally coincident (see Rovelli Ch 2 Quantum Gravity) inertial and non-inertial local frames.
    4. Consistent with Einstein’s Equivalence Principle
    5. Consistent with the Unruh effect, which is predicted to get magnified by n^4 in materials. Indeed, I seem to have a simple resolution of the Firewall Paradox.
    6. My index of refraction from covariant Maxwell’s theory is a zero-rank tensor for both special relativity and general relativity local frame transformations.


    This is plausible, provided you can find the appropriate generally covariant tensors to make up the zero-order tensor.  Obviously, this would have consequences for special relativity and its presumed metric.  The key is to go back and see what one can discover from Maxwell’s equations, in a dielectric medium and what they tell us if we have a specific model for four current in terms of the fields E and B.  Note that to insert a factor of n implies a macroscopic set of equations I.e. a microscopic average has been performed.  

     

    I have many questions and things I do not fully understand about Jack’s conjecture, but he has been reasonable in discussing it with me, and I think enough so to warrant further investigations on my part, despite having many reservations.  

     

    Remember I also had and still have many reservations about your work Jim.  Nevertheless, that does not prevent me from trying to understand it better and also remember, I published a paper proving that in time varying mechanics, an osciallating system with time varying masses can have a non-zero center of mass acceleration, without violating momentum conservation, a major objection that many people had to you work.  I undertook that investigation in order to prove for myself, one way or the other, if your proposal was even possible.  That work in my paper was general enough to be independent of the mechanism for time varying masses, and only relied on time varying masses that transferred no momentum.

     

    Keith please send that paper. This was major objection against Moscow physicist Gennady Shipov’s scheme that Joe Firmage financed in 1999-2000 that he is still pushing to this day 2019.

     

    It is in my nature to seek after truth, and that allows me to entertain hypothesis that go against currently accepted theories.  That does not mean I buy into the conjecture(s), it just means I am adopting them as a working hypothesis and exploring their consequences, until and unless I can find a fatal flaw in them.    I did this for your work Jim, and I am doing the same thing for Jack’s conjecture, namely, pursuing them as if true, and trying to calculate explicit things that can be tested with experiments.

     

    Jack’s work requires a complete re-evaluation of what we think we know about Lorentz invariance inside materials, at least in my opinion. 

     

    Absolutely, yes.

     

    I have been going back to where we got Lorentz invariance from in the first place, and I think is more fundamental than Lorentz invariance, and that is Maxwells equations with material media.

     

    There is a fundamental objection to the form presumed for the linear response having to do with accelerated frames that I have not resolved yet, but I put that aside for now until I resolve or understand other issues I deem of higher importance.

     

    The reason I even entertain Jack’s conjecture as a possibility is because the consequences are so huge if it is correct!  That alone justifies some serious time on my part, despite all the sad pandas.

     

    Keith



    Subject: Re: 31 March 2019

     

    Jack,

     

    Just for the record, I gave a response to Jim in my previous email a few minutes ago, which clarifies my position about your conjecture(s).

     

    >>Your colleague in your own physics department at Cal State Fullerton Keith Wanser understands what I am proposing.<<

     

    You give me too much credit Jack, I understand in principle what you are proposing, and some of the crucial details, however, there are many details that I need to work out in order to say I “really” understand it.  

     

    Same with me. I am “sleepwalking” through all this. (Arthur Koestler’s book). Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff call this “precognitive remote viewing.”  😉

     

    However, I have adopted what I think is a provisional understanding, and as I explained to Jim about my views on his work, I adopt new proposals as true as a working hypothesis when they have something, either experiments, or theory that seems plausible to me, and then I go about trying to find out if they are true, one way or the other. 

     

    Same for me always. That’s why naïve people accuse me of being a “true believer” they don’t know the difference between science based on observation and religion based on faith. Science and religion both use reason e.g. Saint Thomas Aquinas.

     

    I do not just play devil’s advocate, I also try to prove if something “could be” true, like proving that variable mass mechanics allows for Jim Woodward’s propellantless propulsion to work, provided one has the right type of variable mass.    I showed that is was not impossible, i.e. that it does not violate momentum conservation, which concept must be extended for variable mass mechanics.  (this is not just the rocket equation type generalization). 

    Yeah, I need to see your paper with all the math on this.

     

    That does not mean that the Mach effect as proposed by Jim is true, but a version of it is possible. (Likely the Hoyle Narlikar version Heidi was working on.  Heidi removed Hawking’s famous objection to Hoyle Narlikar as a viable cosmology (without the c field) by incorporating the accelerating universe.  This was a very significant paper of hers in my opinion).

    I am partial to Hoyle-Narlikar of course – back from the future teleological “Feynman influence functional.” Hoyle was a frequent visitor to UCSD La Jolla 1960s when I was there with the Benford twins. Hoyle was the inspiration for their sci fi novel Timescape.

     

    So, that said, I must go back to a lot of papers I have on the relativistic theories of dielectric materials, in order to refresh myself what is and what is not “Lorentz invariance” , and if it can be generalized to when one is inside a dielectric.  (i.e a microscopically averaged new type of Lorentz transformation for inside a dielectric, yes, I know it sounds strange, but until one explores the concept, it cannot be fully ruled out).

     

    Richard Tolman’s 1930s Cal Tech classic on relativity thermos and cosmology is a useful reference.

     

    Keith

     

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply