In the E.Macer-Story model of the [box*box} machine ( expanding and contracting boxes of varying mass density side by side) there is a relationship between  micro-continua of varying C shift-activated density which puts the surfaces between those continua under reciprocal stress not unlike molecular oxidation/reduction. In terms of signal, and enhanced neural signal, acoustic fluctuations of the {box*box] machine may account for neural registry of non-local signal. There is material on this concept, with a new diagram as model, in Macer-Story's USPA 2001 Proceedings paper FLUIDICE ENHANCEMENTS: THE USE OF SPECIFIC MATERIAL DEVICES TO ENHANCE HUMAN COGNITION.

In a message dated 2/21/01 12:07:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@well.com writes:

<< reconstructed signal, causally connected to the
> forerunner rather than the bulk of the input signal, appears
> to move through the barrier faster than light. >>
Hi Gary & Jack--
I am glad the paper states "appears to move" for my "fluidice//traction fluidice" theory puts forward the idea of an additional, configuration energy mediating between continua.to cause superluminal effects. Of course, our equipment/eyes can only register the photons coherent within the continuum of the equipment. The transduction process is registered only as "it must have gone faster than light".No: not "faster" but as moving on a linear accordian pleat.We cannot register the folded part of the pleat on photon-based equipment.
Best--Eugenia Macer-Story  

Subj:       Re: boxbox--reply

Date:       12/28/00 8:48:20 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:      MagickMirr

To:          tsmith@innerx.net

 

In a message dated 12/28/00 10:12:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, tsmith@innerx.net writes:

 

<< Your description

     "... concentric 4 dim boxes of differing C (photon speed/mass) ..."

     is interesting to me.

     Although in my view, there is only one speed of light (c),

     I also feel that some things can go faster,

     so that c is not an absolute speed limit, so maybe when you

     say "differing c" you are talking about something that I would

     describe as something going faster than c,

     so maybe we are really saying the same thing.

  >>

Thanks, Tony--

   I think there is only one speed of light in each M-box but that coherent transduction can be made from one M-box to another M-box which has differing, coherent C. This happens by means of the contraction/expansion of the."fluidice" nucleus-component and is analagous to quantized atomic orbitals. The mass "jumps"into another coherent state which has a different, quantized C. Of course, this means that the atomic nuclei are entrained.

   Best--Eugenia Macer-Story

Subj:       boxbox

Date:       12/28/00 10:12:51 AM Eastern Standard Time

From:      tsmith@innerx.net (Tony Smith)

To:          MagickMirr@aol.com

CC:          tsmith@innerx.net

 

Eugenia, your boxbox idea does not bother me as much as

you say it seems to bother Kiehn. Here are some of my comments:

 

 

1 - You say "... Tony, in mentioning "4 of 27 dimensions" assumes

        that all dimensions will be qualitatively interrelated the same ..."

 

    No, I do not.

      Roughly (no math) here is how I see the 27 dimensions:

 

                8 are possible particles

 

 

                                  4 are possible spacetime frameworks

 

                                  4 are possible internal symmetry (color etc)

 

 

                8 are possible antiparticles

 

 

   1+1+1 sort of act as glue/communication lines between the other boxes.

 

 

( 8 + 4+4 + 8 + 1+1+1 = 27 )

 

 

 

 

2 - You say "... "fluidice " theory ...

            I do not mean these to be "ice cubes".

            They are flexible boxes with expand/contract

            in the nucleous of the atom. ...".

 

    To me, you fluidice boxes sound like the Compton Radius Vortex things

    that are (no math) what observable particles like the electron

    really are: swirling clouds of virtual Planck-size little-particles,

    that can breathe in and out. In the nucleus, there are a lot of

    those vortex-clouds, all swirling around in, out, and with each other.

 

 

 

3 - Your description

    "... concentric 4 dim boxes of differing C (photon speed/mass) ..."

    is interesting to me.

    Although in my view, there is only one speed of light (c),

    I also feel that some things can go faster,

    so that c is not an absolute speed limit, so maybe when you

    say "differing c" you are talking about something that I would

    describe as something going faster than c,

    so maybe we are really saying the same thing.

 

    As to the concentric boxes,

    some things in my view (which is pretty much conventional physics) is

    that at least two "fundamental" things have concentric onion-type

    layer structure:

      Kerr-Newman black holes - see the image on the page at URL

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/BlackHole.html#ergohor12ring

         and

      SU(5) GUT monopoles - see the image on the page at URL

http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/SU5GUT.html#monopolesu5

 

 

Tony       28 Dec 2000

 

 

 

 

-Subj: Re: The Story of Reality--chapter "box*box machine"
Date: 12/28/00 6:15:50 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MagickMirr
To: sarfatti@well.com, tsmith@innerx.net

In a message dated 12/27/00 4:29:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@well.com writes:

<< > because
> the 4 space-time complex dimensions of M
> correspond to
> 4 of the 27 complex dimensions of (first-order) Q.

I do not understand what you just said. My M is 3-dim spacelike geometrodynamic
field. It's configuration space is infinite dimensional. Therefore the landscape
Q of M inside H has an infinite number of dimensions if the geometrodynamic
field is continuous. This Q is a sub-Q of a much bigger one for the entire H.
Indeed the sub-Q of M is anholonomically constrained like in
http://stardrive.org/cartoon/clown2.html see Sommerfeld's "Mechanics" on a
rolling wheel that pivots without slipping.
>>
Good Morning Jack & Tony--
Here I will invoke my discussion tool entitled "box*box machine"--the discussion tool which has infuriated Kiehn.:-) The problem in this discussion is that Tony, in mentioning "4 of 27 dimensions" assumes that all dimensions will be qualitatively interrelated the same, and that the 4 dimensions of perceptible mass are a special case of the 27 only. My view is that the Minkowski 4dim space is a box which interfaces with other, similar boxes having different density characteristics. Boxes within boxes, if you will.
Jack's spacelike geometrodynamic field is the continuum within which the concentric 4 dim boxes of differing C (photon speed/mass) and density are nesting. The "box*box machine" can generate energy in jumping from density box to density box but each 4 dim box is self-contained. Thus, there are many more dimensions than 27 and the multiple is 6 rather than 3 because we are speaking of substance.Obviously this is part of my "fluidice " theory about interdimensional transduction. But I do not mean these to be "ice cubes".They are flexible boxes with expand/contract in the nucleous of the atom.
Call the cops!!! Kiehn will call the cops!!!I have reverted to the "box*box machine" again.

Subj:    Re: The Story of Reality

Date:    12/27/00 4:29:54 PM Eastern Standard Time

From:   sarfatti@well.com (Jack Sarfatti)

To:       tsmith@innerx.net (Tony Smith)

   

Tony Smith wrote:

 

> Jack,

> your general description of your physics model is interesting.

> You say:

>

> "... Reality is the Q/M duality.

>

>         Q = Quantum Proto-Mind ... an infinite number of "shadow yous" ...

 

Wait! Stop that frame. Rewind! I do not have "an infinite number of "shadow

yous"  placed there in my orginal. That is Deutsch's view not mine. There is

only one unique complex adaptive sentient "IGUS" (Gell-Mann) material "you" i.e.

an M-system point. The other mental worlds in the landscape are real but empty.

They are inactive quantum information. The unique real material you can move

over into them of course, both mental landscape and path of material you change

in this "two-way" self-organizing  co-evolutionary process.

 

>>         M = Matter-Geometry ... an infinite number of parallel ...

>                        universes floating in the ... sea of hyperspace ...".

>

> As you point out, the Deutsch Many-Shadow-Yous = Many-Shadow-Universes

> is equivalent to an extension of Bohm landscapes

> to include "... ensembles of simple systems ...",

> and

> I would add ensembles of any systems, or of possible Universes.

 

You are losing me. Distingush Deutsch Q "mental universes" i.e. minima in the

quantum-bit landscape of Wheeler's material M superspace, from the possibly

infinite number of material 3dim "visible universes" floating like Champagne

Fizz in 10-dim hyperspace H.

 

H is a material M. There is only ONE unique H. There are an infinity of 3-dim

visible universe inside that single H. We are currently stuck on one of them

like Flatlanders. It is our Manifest Destiny to "harness the cosmic energies"

(General Mac Arthur, 1962) to built Star Gates for instant travel to distant

parts of our own visible universe both past and future, and to hop to other

bubbles that are congenial. This is Super-Cosmos. Sagan's Cosmos was stuck in

only one of those bubbles.

 

>

>

> Given such a Deutsch-Bohm equivalence,

 

No, they are not equivalent. Bohm does not need an infinite number of M's like

Deutsch does.

 

>

> it seems to me that

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> in your model, the detailed geometry of Q and M are given as:

>

>         Q is a Bohm landscape, but I don't know that you have explicitly

>                            described the geometry of your Bohm landscape;

 

No I haven't. I don't know what it is. It is clearly complex. The key point is

to conceive it's existence. None of our simple toy models can capture it in its

fullness. It is the totality of mental existence. The "Aleph" of Cabala perhaps

with hyperspace H as the "Bayt" the "Vessel" or the "House" in which

"My Father's House has Many Mansions" "Rabbi Yeshua" of My Mystical Jews (Rashis

des Troyes et-al) who the Roman Catholics rightly worship as "Jesus Christ". In

the language of post-quantum 21st century theoretical physics:

 

The Mind of God pilots 10-dim Hyperspace. 10-dim Hyperspace has Many 3-dim

Visible Universes inside it.

 

We do not need "billions and billions" or even "zillions and zillions" of Shadow

Hyperspaces as Deutsch would have it. That is not parsimonious. It is as Wheeler

said "excess metaphysical baggage".

 

>

> and

>

>         M is an infinite number of parallel 3-dim Universes embedded

>                            in a superstring 10-dim hyperspace,

>                 but I am not sure exactly how your embedding works,

 

See Ch 12 of Kaku's Hyperspace. It's standard physics now I think?

 

>

>                     except that I think that you allow

>                     some of the universes to intersect others,

>                     so that

>                     "parallel" is probably not really an accurate term.

 

Yes, they can have transient Star Gate wormholes connecting them.

 

>

>

> As to the duality between Q and M,

> it does not seem to be fully worked out yet,

> because the geometry of Q is not fully specified,

 

It need not be to get the main idea.

 

>

> and therefore you cannot say exactly how Q is dual to M.

 

No so. I said it. One can see how it works in the simple Bohm causal model

 

Q -> M

 

for which all the equations are well known. You may be confused on "dual". I

just mean "two" in that context not stuff like "T-duality" from superstring

theory.

 

QM with collapse is not "dual". It only has Q without any M.

 

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> I would like to point out that the superstring theory that you

> use in constructing your detailed model is NOT the only theory

> that is consistent with your general description of your physics model.

 

Sure.

 

>

>

> In particular,

> my model (which is NOT a superstring model) also has the general structure:

>

>        Q = Quantum Proto-Mind ... an infinite number of "shadow yous"

 

You stuck that "infinite number of "shadow yous" there. IMO that's the wrong

place to put it. In fact, I do not use it at all at the TOE Mind of

God/Hyperspace level. It's only good bor Bohm's "causal" theory for particle

beams in scattering expeiments.

 

>

>

>        M = Matter-Geometry ... an infinite number of parallel ...

>                        universes floating in the ... sea of hyperspace

>

> In my model, the detailed geometry of Q and M are given as:

>

>         Q is a Deutsch-Bohm landscape, and at a first-order level

>           it is represented by the 27-complex-dimensional symmetric space

>                  E7 / E6 x U(1)

 

That would be fine. How do you falsify it? Why do you think it is a good

sub-program module to plug into the Big Program?

 

>

> and

>

>         M is an infinite number of 4-dim spacetime Universes,

 

NO! NO! Not "4-dim spacetime Universes", they are 3-dim visible universe

spacelike bubbles like 3-geometries in Wheeler superspace, dynamically changing

along 11th dim "hyper-time". That is, 10-dim Hyperspace and 11-dim

Hyperspace-time. OK you can take the 11-dim static view. I prefer the 10-dim

spacelike dynamic view. Can we make a global hypertime? That is not clear yet.

We can, in contrast, make a global cosmic time inside our 3-dim bubble as the

Hubble flow with the isotropic CMB.

 

>

>                embedded (somewhat like the horocycles of a unit disk)

>                in a 4-complex-diemnsional space that has as its

>                Shilov boundary S3 x S1 (spatial S3 3-sphere,

>                and cyclic time S1).

 

I don't understand any of what you just said. You need to explain it in much

more detail and justify why you think it is essential for the informal physical

picture that ordinary literate intelligent people who are not mathematicians

specializing in a narrow field can grok. You need to put it at the level of

Kaku's pop book "Hyperspace". Maybe Saul-Paul can rephrase it in more pop terms

so it will have the proper impact?

 

>

> Note that travel in the sea of hyperspace corresponds to travel

> in the complex part of M.

 

Perhaps. That's an interesting idea that Gray is also implicit in his 1988 US

Navy Surface Weapons Monograph. Gray was also researching UFO's like Bruce

Maccabee also a US Navy physicist.

 

>

>

> As to the duality between Q and M,

> it CAN be explicitly worked out in the first-order case,

 

See my clarification of "duality" above. What do you mean by it here?

 

 

>

> because

> the 4 space-time complex dimensions of M

> correspond to

> 4 of the 27 complex dimensions of (first-order) Q.

 

I do not understand what you just said. My M is 3-dim spacelike geometrodynamic

field. It's configuration space is infinite dimensional. Therefore the landscape

Q of M inside H has an infinite number of dimensions if the geometrodynamic

field is continuous. This Q is a sub-Q of a much bigger one for the entire H.

Indeed the sub-Q of M is anholonomically constrained like in

http://stardrive.org/cartoon/clown2.html  see Sommerfeld's "Mechanics" on a

rolling wheel that pivots without slipping.

 

>

>

> (The other 23 dimensions of Q are also explicit,

>  and are related to such things as color internal symmetry, etc.)

 

I do not understand what these finite dimensions you attribute to Q are? Some

kind of Weyl reflection group skeleton of the infinite-dimensional continuous

group of deformations of Q perhaps? See e.g. Weyl's QM Gorup theory book on

symmetric permutation group SN and continuous Lie groups. Also Saul-Paul's

papers on stardrive.

 

>

>

> It is interesting that in my model,

> the Q of consciousness is directly related to the E7 that Saul-Paul

> uses for consciousness in his models.

 

Yes, why don't you and Saul-Paul try to explain this better. How does Q get the

E7 structure? That must come from the superstring theory which in the low energy

limit gives the geometrodynamic field from the closed superstrings?

 

>

>

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> In summary, Jack,

> I generally agree with the outline of what you are doing,

> but

> I think that the details will work out better if you quit using

> superstring theory as the foundation for your work.

 

I am using Bohm as the foundation. I am also using the intuitive pictures of

Kaku because it fits data we have suggesting real Star Gate phenomenena. Also

using Aug 2000 Sci Am p.62 led me to

 

G' = G(1 + (R/r)^7)

 

Is E7 connected with the 7 extra space dimensions? If so, that is M not Q!

 

which is a very interesting toy model to play with in context of elementary

particles as tiny blackholes which are also equivalent to rotating 1 dim strings

i.e. Blackett-Wesson astronomical data.

 

Blackett is Q = G^1/2M

 

Wesson is J = pM^2  for rotating 1-dim strings/Kerr-Newman nonradiating extremal

blackholes

 

There are also rotating 2 dim disks and rotating 3 dim spheres with different

exponents.

 

Meantime you have to explain how the E7 structure fits with Bohm's Q much more

explicitly. I do see qualitatively that V I Arnold's singularity theory will

describe global topology changes in all the structures material H or M and

mental Q. E7 is only a part of that.

 

>

>

> On the other hand,

> the superstring lobby is strong and its publicity machine is effective,

> and

> superstring people like Greene and Kaku have a large public following,

> so

> if you value popular acclaim above detailed results,

> then you should stay with superstring theory.

 

I can picture superstring theory and come up with new equations to try. I cannot

yet picture what you propose. I cannot do anything with it as yet. You need to

explain it more physically and less formally. The formalism is OK as long as

there is some physical picture to go with it.

 

--

CREATE, COMMUNICATE, COLLABORATE

http://stardrive.org

 Subj: Re: Apparent superluminal behavior abstract physics/0009055--response
Date: 2/21/01 10:36:29 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: MagickMirr
To: sarfatti@well.com, gbekkum@mediaone.net

In a message dated 2/21/01 12:07:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarfatti@well.com writes:

<< reconstructed signal, causally connected to the
> forerunner rather than the bulk of the input signal, appears
> to move through the barrier faster than light. >>
Hi Gary & Jack--
I am glad the paper states "appears to move" for my "fluidice//traction fluidice" theory puts forward the idea of an additional, configuration energy mediating between continua.to cause superluminal effects. Of course, our equipment/eyes can only register the photons coherent within the continuum of the equipment. The transduction process is registered only as "it must have gone faster than light".No: not "faster" but as moving on a linear accordian pleat.We cannot register the folded part of the pleat on photon-based equipment.
Best--Eugenia Macer-Story