The new discovery of dark energy completely changes the picture on time travel to the past via closed time-like world lines

Could you explain this a bit more for us lay people? I’m thinking “backreaction?”

There seems to be some leeway here in cosmic variance and tolerance, about how far? We would have to test them

See, even Elliot’s changing.

To time travel you would need a really nasty virus, one that does more that kill you , you would need one that wipes you out of existance, while boosting your vaccum energy, so your information can be read by a quantum computer, then you would entangle your self to a Qubit, throw it round a particle accelerator and into a blackhole or something like that.

Oh and the possibility of time travel attracts quantum jokers. They sort of take reality, make it imaginary, then change the overall paths, alter all the laws and make sure that the only way you can exist is by being wiped out of existance, then recreated it the most impossible way. Then again they don’t need to recreate you at all, they might just wipe you all out.

Can’t risk the universe over a few apes, that think they know what reality is. Can they?

I, of course could be wrong.

Cheers,

Elliot

Note that Waldyr has significantly toned down his initial comments made under duress from some “dozen important physicists” who did not particularly “like” him and who allegedly threatened the funding of his students. Note also that Waldyr explicitly mentions his pattern of critiquing other physicist’s archive papers for what he considers mathematical errors.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602022

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/0602022

From: Jack Sarfatti [view email]

Date (revised v12): Tue, 18 Apr 2006 20:18:39 GMT (998kb)
Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory

Authors: Jack Sarfatti
Comments: This 12th version adds a remark about DeSitter Space and Cartan forms. The formal math objections raised by Waldyr Rodrigues about the first version of this paper that I did not have 4 tetrads and 6 spin connections were based on his misreading of my notation. Professor Rodrigues wrote me that he has made similar formal objections about “twenty” other physicist’s papers. Needs Acrobat 6 or later to read

Abstract
I derive the Einstein 1915 classical field theory of gravity with what resembles both a massive torsion field and the Calabi Yau degrees of freedom from a conjectured eight Goldstone phases of the cosmic inflation field provided that the full Poincare group is locally gauged and its Lorentz subgroup is spontaneously broken in the vacuum. What looks like both the t Hooft Susskind world hologram conjecture of volume without volume and the quantization of area in Planck units given by Bekenstein and Hawking seem to be natural consequences of the conjecture. Just as the Michelson Morley experiment gave a null result, this model predicts that the LHC will never find any viable dark matter exotic particles as a matter of fundamental principle, neither will any other conceivable dark matter detector. The Cambridge IofA dark matter virial speed of 9km/sec is questioned. A way to detect pocket universes in the cosmic landscape beyond all types of horizons bounded by null geodesics is suggested based on the work of Antony Valentini.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602111

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract
gr-qc/0602111

From: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr. [view email]
Date (v1): Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:17:17 GMT (20kb)
Date (revised v2): Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:57:06 GMT (20kb)
A Comment on Emergent Gravity

Authors: Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr
Comments: 21 pages. In this version some misprints have been corrected, two new references have been added and some (eventual) offensive observations have been deleted

Abstract
This paper is a set of notes that we wrote concerning the first version of Emergent Gravity [gr-qc/0602022]. It is our version of an exercise that we proposed to some of our students. The idea was to find mathematical errors and inconsistencies on some recent articles published in scientific journals and in the arXiv, and we did.

I believe Mr. Sarfatti has suggested that UFO evidence supports time travel.

You be the judge.

Elliot

While we might have diverged from what the central issue is, I don’t think you should assume you are responsible?

That’s my thinking. That “alternatives” are less then entertained, if we had gone back and historically looked at what is proposed?

My problem is that there is a resulting outcome in regards to neutrinos and strangelets that have me wonder about your statements. I would fall under the guidance then of those better qualified to answer if they seem it appropriate and wanting, of maintaining the open dialogue of models , irregardless of the position of a string theorist, or, of another, who would offer their alternative.

I think moderation in this case would be up to cosmic variance to decide. Knowing they are “quite liberal” I still believe they would want us to remain close to what science is all about. [Policy # statement here?]

What would be the appropriate format for this, if not here? I speculate and wonder, if held in the Moderators eyes?

What can Physics learn from Continuum Mechanics?Alexander Unzicker

The second prejudice regards the compatibility of quantum mechanics with Einstein’ attempts of a unified field theory using teleparallelism. While there is no doubt that this theory presented in the stage around 1930 is wrong, I hope to have convinced the reader that it is worth to be studied as well. On the one hand, there is a very close relation -probably unknown to Einstein- to the theories of the incompressible aether, on the other hand Einstein’s theory anticipated the continuum theory of topological defects developed in the 1950s. Therefore, there is a clear possibility that quantum theory may emerge from the geometries Einstein

To me, bubble membrane(vacuum) seem really interesting if held to ways/analogies, in which to interpret the spacetime fabric. Yet even here there are difficulties.

this sounds like an oxymoron to this layperson.

1. I defend Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

2. I accept orthodox quantum theory in it’s domain of validity. Where to draw that line in the sand is the issue.

3. I accept the data of precison cosmology.

gr-qc/0602022 14th version including comment on the George Ellis astro-ph/0603266

Title: Emergent Gravity: String Theory Without String Theory
Authors: Jack Sarfatti
Comments: This 14th version corrects typos. It also addresses allegations of Waldyr Rodrigues Jr that do not apply to this version. George Ellis’s objection to Leonard Susskind’s theory of accessing information beyond the different types of horizons is addressed in a way that probably neither will accept, i.e. Antony Valentini’s “signal nonlocality” from the breakdown of “sub-quantal equilibrium” Born probability in emergent macro-quantum condensates with stiff long-range phase coherence

The inflation field is generalized as a local field with eight Goldstone
phases if the Lorentz group is spontaneously broken in the vacuum in addition to an internal symmetry group in the Planck era inflation quantum vacuum ODLRO phase transition. This permits the emergence of the Einstein Cartan tetrad field with the six extra dimensions of the Calabi Yau space associated with a massive torsion field when the full Poincare group is locally gauged. These conjectures also lead naturally to the quantization of area, the world hologram and the prediction that both the LHC and any other DM detectors imaginable will never find any legitimate dark matter particles as a matter of fundamental principle. The dark matter Cambridge estimate of a virial speed of 9km/sec is questioned.

Here’s a Kernel, From a Possible Future of the Notebook?

Finally, we are not going to turn this into a discussion of “censorship” by the arXivs. If you are banned from posting papers to the arXivs, you may have a legitimate grievance. But this is not the place to air such grievances. Again, such comments will be deleted.

Nice to know up front.

Nothing vague or lost in what might be the mood one day, might have been a resolve to maintain a certain reactive tone, on another?

Should one be so easily moved by the wind/weather, emotively like some ball bobbing on the water?

Such adherence to an open discussion had to have some ground rules, so moderation was not needed on every post to post basis. To have encouraged, more thoughtful/creative response, then statistical analysis of what makes numbers count on the flaming/warring dispositional hits, for tallying blog observation, other then, what should have been for science?

Oh, he was talking about arXivs. Oops.

Your Rule Four: ‘If you are banned from posting papers to the arXivs, you may have a legitimate grievance. But this is not the place to air such grievances.’ - http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000760.html#more