Talk:Jack Sarfatti/Archive 1

Much material pasted here on 23 September 2005 by User:JackSarfatti
''The following material was pasted into this page unsigned and out of logical order on 17:28, 23 September 2005 by User:JackSarfatti. It contains unindented verbatim quotes from emails and so forth. I inserted header and this comment to try to keep this talk page semi-coherent.''---00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Look you little twits, I don't know how to use this talk thing, but you are all going to wind up behind the 8-ball ground up in a USG counter-terrorist investigation if you continue to smear me in Wiki with false negative information. Why? Because there is somethng else going on that you have all blundered into making yourselves all into suspects on this other thing. Chris Hillman in particular is stepping on dynamite. Every correction I put in is the damn truth and Chris STOP putting in your own false info. This IS Jack Sarfatti sarfatti@pacbell.net I know my own life, how dare any of you call me a "vandal" when I am defending myself from the smears of twits?

From: Jack Sarfatti  Date: September 23, 2005 4:59:12 PM PDT To: hillman@math.washington.edu

Memorandum for the Record Here is the acceptable balanced version of the Wiki article that is OK with me that Chris Hillman keeps replacing with his inaccurate decidedly more negative smear of me:

Jack Sarfatti From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jack Sarfatti is a frequent poster to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, are notable for their originality and imaginative writing. Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins:

Can be seen in the sci.* groups and alt.consciousness. A small collection of posts is available. *Not* a "crackpot" in the classic sense; has a Ph.D. in physics and understands the field quite well - but tends to use it to delve into philosophical concepts and outre' theories rather deeper than many other physicists care to read about. Also posts on and off to sci.psychology about connectionism and perception, and the neuro-psychological implications thereof.

Sarfatti's websites (See external links below.)

Sarfatti has an academic background in theoretical physics. He earned an undergraduate degree from Cornell University in 1960, where he wrote an honor's thesis under the guidance of Hans Bethe. He went on to earn a MS from UCSD in 1967 and a Ph.D from UCR in 1969 writing a thesis on local gauge symmetry in superfluids under the direction of Fred Cummings. He taught at San Diego State and was a Research Fellow with David Bohm at the University of London, 1971 and with Abdus Salam [ICTP, 1973-74] before venturing into non-academic pursuits as told in detail in his autobiography "Destiny Matrix." Sarfatti predicted the recently observed "supersolid" in a peer-reviewed publication months before Nobel Laureate Tony Leggett did. Ed Teller's protege George Chapline, Jr. and Lenny Susskind, inventor of string theory, Professor of Physics at Stanford will all vouch for Sarfatti's bona-fides as a theoretical physicist. Sarfatti's paper (1967) "Goldstone Theorem and the Jahn-Teller Effect" (Proc Physical Society of London), with Marshall Stoneham at UKAERE Harwell, is cited as an important paper in AIP "Resource Letter on Symmetry in Physics." Ray Chiao UCB Physics, credits Sarfatti with providing useful input for his early experiments on self-trapped laser filaments." Sarfatti claims to have derived Einstein's theory of General Relativity from the standard model's Higgs mechanism. His key formula for the curved part of the Einstein-Cartan tetrad is

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase of Higgs Field)

"d" denotes phase singularities like Dirac strings and Abrikosov branch cut phase jumps 2piN, where N is the winding integer. See also Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformations).

Einstein's metric tensor is then the local frame-invariant symmetric bilinear form of the EEP

g = (1 + B)(flat metric)(1 + B)

George Chapline, who according to http://www.wyp-ptm.org/lecturers.html#chapline "... received the U.S. Department of Energy E.O. Lawrence Award in 1983 and served as Science Advisor to the Associate Lab Director for Defense Programs at the Los Alamos National Labs in 2000 and 2001 ..." wrote on 16 February 2005, saying in part: "... Jack, Your solid He4 superfluid paper is wonderful! ... This paper is a precursor to quantum gravity, and much more important in that regard than string theory ( you can quote me). george ..."

Leonard Susskind, a co-inventor of string theory, professor of physics at Stanford, will confirm Sarfatti's essential role in his first published paper on quantum phase operators at Cornell in 1964. David Finkelstein, from Georgia Tech congratulated Sarfatti on his prediction of the ODLRO supersolid in Physics Letters A decades before it was seen in the lab.

In various writings over the years, Sarfatti has apparently made numerous claims about his activities, easily corroborated by serious historians, including these:

* at age 13, received "phone calls from the future" informing him of his special destiny, * founded a "Physics-Consciousness Research Group" with Werner Erhard, the founder of Esalen, and others, * consulted for U.S. intelligence agencies on the so-called "physics" of remote-viewing, * consulted for the U.S. Department of Defense on the Strategic Defense Initiative, * has worked or is working under 'deep cover' (allegedly explaining the small number of his published research papers), * involved in the publication of a controversial memoir by former K.G.B. agent Pavel Sudoplatov, * taught math and physics for the U.S. Navy at sea (on board aircraft carriers) Sarfatti has had three books published by Author House since 2002, Destiny Matrix, Space-Time and Beyond II & Super Cosmos. He was awarded the Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award in December 2004 by the denizens of the alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup. [edit]

See also

* Usenet, an article about the Usenet in general

[edit]

External links

* Reality check], an essay by the late physicist Milton Rothman, reviewing for the skeptic group CSICOP the website of something called the Internet Science Education Project, a "corporation" apparently created by Jack Sarfatti * Crank dot net, a very extensive list of cranky websites * Part 1 of the net-legends FAQ * Is Jack Sarfatti a kook or a genius.., a thread from sci.physics * Disformation (an interview of Sarfatti) * A Sarfatti website * a Sarfatti web page containing some snippets of autobiography by Sarfatti, including photographs of himself literally at sea (on the flight deck of a carrier); see what appears to be Sarfatti's own account of the phone calls mentioned above * a Sarfatti website * a Sarfatti blog

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti"

Categories: Usenet people

On Sep 23, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Chris Hillman (PhD in math from University of Washington it appears) refuses to stop vandalizing the information on me on Wiki with his own inaccuracies. He accuses me, his victim, of being the vandal. The Wiki Board must stop Hillman's vicious campaign of misinformation against me. Hillman is using shocking Nazi-like tactics systematically deleting positive factual information and replacing them with same false smears and personal attacks. Why Hillman keeps doing this needs investigation in the light of a concurrent hate-mail campaign against me accusing me of murder, with stories similar to the charges against Ira Einhorn, from unsigned letters sent from Springfield, MO on Sept 17,2005. I shall add Chris Hillman's name as a possible suspect in my impending complaint to the FBI and the US Postal Inspectors.

On Sep 23, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

OK one of the offenders slandering me with deliberate lies and exaggerations removing all positive information about me from other physicists is John Baez's buddy Chris Hillman from the University of Washington Data Compression Department. He was hiding his ID on Wiki, but it did not take long to find out. Mr. Hillman should cease and desist intentional vilification and smearing of me or face the legal consequences. His personal attacks and removing of quotes by famous physicists like David Finkelstein, George Chapline and Leonard Susskind and replacing them with inaccurate smears from non-entities e.g. like I received a PhD from UCSD in 1967 (it was from UCR 1969, the MS was UCSD 1967) although that is fairly innocuous Hillman keeps putting in his wrong info after I have corrected it.

On Sep 23, 2005, at 2:01 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

The page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sarfatti was "... last modified 19:57, 23 September 2005 ..." and stated, on the last line before [edit]: "... Jack Sarfatti is a well known crackpot. ...".

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Sarfatti&diff=23856312&oldid=2385 3763 that line was added by 68.123.140.70

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.123.14 0.70 the history of 68.123.140.70 editing the Jack Sarfatti page is -- vicious lies & disinformation) --
 * 19:24, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 19:10, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 19:09, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 18:41, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti (Deletion of
 * 18:30, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 16:47, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 16:04, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti
 * 15:45, 23 September 2005 (hist) (diff) Jack Sarfatti

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:68.123.140.70&action=edit Wikipedia does not yet have a User page called 68.123.140.70.

Jack, I don't know an easy way to control such malicious anonymous editing with respect to wikipedia if it permits anybody to edit anything.

However, if wiki were to require that any change in your page be approved by you using a username/password that only you have, that might solve your problem.

Also, you could demand that wiki remove any biographical page about you, and then if they did not, you might be able to hold them responsible for any defamation.

There might be some problems about holding wiki responsible if you consent to wiki having a page about you, and you know, or should know, that wiki policy permits anybody to edit any page, including allowing you to remove anything.

In that case, wiki might say that it is your responsibility to keep your page "clean", and that wiki has given you the editing means to do so, and that you have failed to do so.

My thoughts above are NOT based on a clear understanding of whatever wiki's official policies might be. Of course, if they allow defamatory material in violation of their own policies, maybe that might make them liable for defamatory material.

wiki does have a "Policies and Guidelines" page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and it says in part: "... Some policies are also enforced by temporary blocks (notably as a mechanism for dealing with vandalism) by admins. In extreme cases the Arbitration Committee may make a ruling to deal with highly disruptive situations, as part of the general dispute resolution procedure. ...".

A page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Avoidance describes a multi-step procedure for dispute resolution, and says "... If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, request Arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. ...".

A page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration has a lot of material about arbitration.

A page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy has material about arbitration policy.

Also, you might request protection under wiki procedure described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection is a page that discusses requests for protection of pages from vandalism. It lists some such current requests, including: "... Ted Kennedy Constant vandalism by removal of entire paragraphs ...".

All this stuff seems to me to be very burdensome bureaucratic bullshit, which is why I think that wiki is very seriously flawed, except as a repository for uncontroversial facts, such as who is buried in Grant's tomb (OK, maybe in today's world even that might be controversial).

Tony

Content of the article
This article is causing some problems at the moment. I propose cutting it back to a minimal bio stub, then slowing adding material to it after it has been checked and has valid sources. What do others think? --Apyule 07:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, are you a theoretical physicist? What are your credentials?
 * Sarfatti has all the degrees from good universities Cornell & University of California all in physics. He has had influential publications easily documented. Someone has even had the arrogance to suggest censoring him because they did not like the title of his autobiography "Destiny Matrix". What is going on here? Two prominent physicists Leonard Susskind of Stanford, one of the inventors of string theory and George Chapline of Lawrence Livermore (asst to Ed Teller for years) will testify to Sarfatti's creativity in physics. For people without any credentials in the field to try to censor the presentation of Sarfatti's ideas on the emergence of Einstein's gravity from the quantum substratum is shameful. Since Sarfatti has been prominent in US Intelligence operations one wonders about the motivations of these non-physicists.


 * (Unsigned comment by User:Adastra, who may or may not be none other than Jack Sarfatti. Adastra, please avoid confusion about who said what by using indentation and signing your comments!  It would be helpful if you provided some information about your physics background and identify on your user page. ---22:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC))

Hypocrite. Why does not Chris Hillman give his e-mail and ID himself? Why don't all of you ID yourselves? This is Jack Sarfatti.

Editorial comment, moved from article to this talk page
I dispute the use of "alternative" here. That is not accurate at all. Sarfatti only used mainstream physics, i.e. Einstein's general theory of relativity, quantum field theory and standard ideas from soft-condensed matter physics. Where are examples of Sarfatti using "alternative physics"? On the contrary, Sarfatti has criticized Hal Puthoff & Bernie Haisch who really use "alternative physics" ,e.g. the so-called "PV" and "Yilmaz" challenges to Einstein's GR and the so-called Stochastic ED "origin of inertia".

(Editorial comment by anon editor, moved here from article by CH (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

Disputed tag
I am removing the disputed tag after the good work by CH. --Apyule 02:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Edits by anonymous editor from 67.124.118.41
You said in the edit line that you felt that my revision of the article failed to maintain NPOV since it began by saying that many feel Sarfatti's posts are inoherent and that he has been labeled a crank. I disagree. The article would indeed have been NPOV if it had read Sarfatti is a crank who frequently posts incoherent articles to certain newsgroups, but instead it says that many readers have stated that they find his posts incoherent and that Sarfatti has been labeled a crank. That is actually NPOV, because it states verifiable fact. For example, as pointed out in the article, Sarfatti has earned the "crankiest" rating from the crank.dot website. Searching Google, you can find occasional posts in which posters say things like "is it just me, or is this utter nonsense?".

I reverted to the original order of statements because Sarfatti has a biography here on the basis of being a Usenet personablity, not on the basis of his academic background in physics. Obscure persons with physics Ph.D.s do not warrant biographies on that ground alone, as you probably appreciate. Sarfatti's claim to fame are his zillions of postings. You'd have a very very hard time justifying any claim that he is highly regarded by physicists as a physicist. OTH, I can justify my claim that say Roger Penrose is highly regarded by citing numerous review articles published in leading journals stressing the importance of his many contributions, by citing zillions of citations of his research papers in research papers by other physicists, etc.

You added some claims about Sarfatti's alleged contribs to some popular books. I deleted those claims because so far no-one has verified them, and I don't even know what they mean. Was he quoted in the books? Was he a copy editor working for the publisher? What?

If you want to reply, it would be helpful that you create a user account and provide some information about your physics background and identity. (Since Jack Sarfatti's recent posts originate from a Pac Bell account, and 67.124.118.41 is currently registered to Pac Bell, you can perhaps see why we are curious about your identity.) ---22:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC) (by User:Hillman)


 * Interesting discussion going on here....here's my 2cents. I think this is pretty NPOV; Hillman is correct in asserting that the person's notability is almost completely here on the basis of his perceived crankhood, rather than any merit to his theories.  His physics background makes his postings more technical than that of the usual crank and that does add to his notoriety.


 * On the other hand, there are definitely problems with POV in this article. I've already changed this twice, and Hillman has changed it back twice, so I will explain what the problem is.  The sentence "Unlike most who have been labeled crackpots, Sarfatti does have an academic background in theoretical physic." is definitely not NPOV.  The "DOES have" emphasizes that it is somehow amazing that Sarfatti has a degree in physics.  I feel there's some "OMG he has a Ph.D. in physics!!!" sentiment leaking through.  Implicitly the reader is supposed to recognize that knowledge in physics and such postings by Sarfatti is at odds somehow; consequently this is a judgment on Sarfatti by the article rather than others mentioned in the article.  I will delete "does" and hopefully Hillman will leave that alone.


 * I also feel that the "unlike" comment is rather dubious. It definitely appears to me that there are plenty of educated cranks in physics.  I think such an unverifiable quantitative statement should be avoided, but it's not really a big deal I guess.  I'll remove that too and if Hillman disagrees he can put it back.  --C S 08:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Chan Ho: of course I agree that simply earning a Ph.D. in physics is not notable. I don't feel it is neccessary to remove the "does", since I was simply trying to make the repetition of the statement that Sarfatti has an academic background which was made in the quote from the FAQ less awkward. However, I will bow to your wishes. I am about to edit my recent revert of the latest vandalism to see if I can find another graceful transition which cannot be interpreted as implying that simply earning a Ph.D. is somehow notable.---CH (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit by Rwill9955
I have noticed that Rwill9955 edits in an extreamly similar way to Adastra, and I suspect some sockpuppet activity here. --Apyule 05:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I noted the following:
 * some of the anons, such as 68.123.140.70, actually referred to Jack Sarfatti in the first person,
 * Jack Sarfatti's recent signed posts originate from a Pac Bell account, and this machine and the others with similar IP addies are owned by Pac Bell,
 * these machines have been used only to edit the Sarfatti bio,
 * Jack Sarfatti's typical response to critisms in personal web pages or in the newsgroups has been to threaten legal action, and some of these anon edits threaten legal action.
 * several of the anons have added bizarre claims using technical buzzwards in a style which is very characteristic of Jack Sarfatti and in fact are extremely similar to claims in recent posts by Jack Sarfatti.


 * So I think it's pretty obvious what is going on here.


 * I also noticed that Rwill9955 stated that physicist Milton Rothman... like Heinz Pagels, allegedly died shortly after dissing Sarfatti. Maybe some admin can drop by an warn Rwill9955 to avoid making statements which could be construed as threats?


 * The most recent vandal, 131.111.8.102, appended to the bottom Jack Sarfatti is a well known crackpot; one possible explanation is that JS himself recalled the legal definition of libel and himself added this line so he could more credibly threaten legal action against Wikimedia, but this might also have been someone completely different who simply wants to further roil these troubled waters (ughgh).  Again, maybe some admin can warn this user not to engage in vandalism.---CH  (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * P.S. This Usenet article, posted under "Jack Sarfatti", is essentially identical to one of the anonymously vandalized versions noted above.---CH (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Update: just reverted another vandalism by 68.123.140.248 (another machine owned by Jack Sarfatti's ISP). Maybe we should pursue having the page protected until such time as our anon loses interest in vandalizing it?  So far he has done all of the following at least once:

We seem to be over the 3 revert limit. Comments? Suggestions?---CH (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) deleted the entire article
 * 2) threatened lawsuits


 * Oh, wow, just look at the threat he just placed on my user talk page. Apparently I should expect to be raided by black helicopters, or possibly even to die suddenly :-/  (See the possible veiled threat noted above)---CH  (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I just requested on the requests for admins page for the page to be protected (after possibly reverting any changes by Sarfatti). Hopefully this should keep things stable for a while.  Sarfatti, if you're reading this, your behavior (threats, reverts, etc.) is just making it easier for people to stop you from contributing to this article.  --C S 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on intro paragraph
This is to establish the consensus on the intro paragraph dispute that has been occurring. Several people have reverted changes by what appears to be the same anon. The nature of the change is that the anon does not believe the opening should start by describing Sarfatti's Usenet notoriety, but instead the paragraph about his educational background.

People who believe it should start with Usenet stuff:
 * User:Hillman -- has made his view explicit
 * User:C S -- has made view explicit
 * User:Apyule -- has reverted anon edit back to Hillman version, implicit agreement

People who believe it should start with educational stuff:
 * User: 67.124.118.41 -- has made 2 edits indicating his/her view

Both:
 * User:RoyBoy -- he earned a PhD, that's gotta count for something. Mention (the PhD) in the lead, and follow it with the existing text.

Thus it appears to me that the consensus, such as it is, is for starting with Sarfatti's notorious postings on Usenet. The anon who believes otherwise should be aware that it is pointless, and fruitless, to keep reverting/changing this, without participating in the discussion which has already started above. --C S 10:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * RoyBoy, I understand where you're coming from, but let me clarify my position and hopefully convince you. Take a look at Richard Feynman or Albert Einstein.  The intro paragraphs for these articles do not mention their Ph.D.s (or equivalent, in the case of Einstein).  Why not?  Because 1) The earning of a Ph.D. while a laudable accomplishment, does not make one especially notable.  Many academics (famous and non-famous) have earned one.  2) They have notable accomplishments which deserve to be mentioned before the mentioning of a mere earning of a Ph.D.  3) People reading the article are not really interested in learning that they earned doctorates, but rather interested in other aspects, some of which are connected to their physics background of course.


 * Now this situation is somewhat different, I realize. Sarfatti is notable not for any recognized accomplishment other than that of being considered a big crank by the Usenet community.  However, following the idea, which is implicit in the Feynman and Einstein articles, of outlining what makes the person notable, means that we should explain what makes Sarfatti interesting.  And his strange behavior and postings are what makes him interesting to almost everyone he encounters on the Internet.


 * To put the argument another way, notice that Feynman's educational background is in an "education" section. The reason for that section is that educational details are considered to be of secondary importance.  The primary info is in the intro paragraph.  Imagine if the Sarfatti page becomes more developed into a full-length bio.  Why would we put his educational info in the lead paragraph?  Obviously we should keep only the primary stuff in the intro.  --C S 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got a couple hard ciders in me, but I'd like to address this prior to the weekend officially beginning. :"D Feynman and Einstein are notable for much larger things than crankery; and their accomplishments and expertise speak for themselves re: their education. The comparison, as of now, to me, is a false starter. Your compromise is all well and good, but to not mention a PhD or to not include the two letters "Dr." is unfair IMO. Why? Well precisely because he is labeled a crank etc... there needs to be some semblance of balance in the lead. Furthermore, I hail from Dundas, Ontario... where is that? It's NOWHERE, but despite that a creationist neighbour of mine gave me a book called "Refuting Evolution" written by Sarfatti. I read it and spent several hours debuking/clarifying it (my neighbour is still a creationist), but that's how I was introduced to Sarfatti, and it sure as heck clarifies the world... nor Sarfatti's notability revolves around Usenet. In other words, the lead isn't the only thing that needs changing... which translates into a severe overhaul. (The book and one AiG article is the only exposure I've had to Sarfatti, his Usenet antics isn't even on my radar... and it certainly isn't for the majority of readers out there.) Systamatic bias, yup... that's what it looks like. - RoyBoy 800 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Refuting Evolution" is by Jonathan Sarfatti. I have seen no reason to say this the same person as Jack Sarfatti, unless you can give me one. GangofOne 21:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I just assumed it was the same guy. My bad, apologies. - RoyBoy 800 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you do not intend the word "balance", but something else. After all, NPOV is not about "balance", e.g. 1 "kilogram" of criticism need not be balanced by 1 "kilogram" of positive remarks.  NPOV is about making sure all viewpoints are expressed neutrally with an eye toward giving the most coverage to the most predominant viewpoints.  Without knowing what you really meant, I can't add much more except to say that it is really the case that my wording of "is a physicist" is far more favorable to Sarfatti than "has a Ph. D.".  The former indicates he is among the company of those others who are recognized to be physicists.  It is a homage to the fact that he has written papers in academic journals in physics (as it appears to me, can someone verify this?).  A dean of some law school that has never done research beyond the thesis and would not be labeled a physicist could well have a Ph.D. in physics.


 * Also, on your claim of bias, I don't find your evidence convincing. Your introduction to Sarfatti cannot be called typical merely because you say so.  As far as I can tell, my intro to Sarfatti is far more typical...but that is not definitive also.  That the "majority of readers out there" are unfamiliar with Sarfatti's Usenet antics (as you claim) would only be relevant if the "majority" were indeed familiar with the book you name.  This I doubt.  --C S 07:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first paragraph, disagree with the second. The point is, usenet is a marginal forum... though that is changing of late with rapid connectivity to the internet; prior to that people had to get by with other media, like books. My point is entirely relevant without the "majority" being familiar with the book, since its the notability of the book that counts (and it is notable for creationists), and my contention is more (not majority) of people have encountered Sarfatti through the book and his articles than from usenet. Even if you insist on disagreeing with that; being the author of a creationist book seems more notable to me than usenet crankery. - RoyBoy 800 16:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is primarily to appease those who share RoyBoy's view that some mention of his background should be in the lead paragraph about his Usenet contributions. I think the best way to do it is not to mention the details, such as his Ph.D. and when where he earned it etc, but to mention he is a physicist. So I suggest the intro start with: Jack Sarfatti is a physicist who is well-known for his frequent posts to certain Usenet groups, such as sci.physics. His contributions, which are notable for their extensive use of technical buzzwords, are often regarded as incoherent. Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins:


 * Well, given recent comments, here's my current version...how's that?

Jack Sarfatti is a creationist author and physicist, known for his Internet writings and Usenet postings explaining his theories. His works show his physics background by making extensive use of technical terms but are often regarded as incorrect or unintelligible by others in Internet discussions.

[This is Woody Marble, I know Jack Sarfatti and he is not Jonathan Sarfatti who lives in Australia. Jack Sarfatti is NOT THAT PERSON AT ALL! This shows the danger of sloppy reporting in which the real Jack Sarfatti is falsely accused. No wonder he gets angry at such incompetence and lack of due diilgence.]


 * Let's be clear here, it was my mistake, and this is a discussion page. Not the article. Discussion here allows for due diligence, and in time high quality articles. Even if you don't like what they say. - RoyBoy 800 04:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins:

--C S 21:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratch 'creationist'. See above. GangofOne 21:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Then the details of his education be left later on in an education section. --C S 04:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is Jack Horner at woodymarble.com. Jack Sarfatti asked me to repeat that he did not teach at the University of London as Hillman keeps saying. Jack was a Research Fellow 1971 under David Bohm as Basil Hiley at Birkbeck can confirm. Jack also worked for Abdus Salam at ICTP 1973-74. Hillman says he is not interested in quantum theory, which is Jack's field as well as General Relativity.


 * (unsigned message left 19:59, 24 September 2005 by User:JackHorner)


 * The above comment was actually left on my user talk page and moved here by me. Yeah, of course I realize that JackHorner may or may not be a sock puppet of JackSarfatti (the indefinitely blocked Wikipedia user), but I'm inclined to give the Jacks a chance to reform.


 * JackHorner, if you are reading this, thanks for the correction (which I hope another user can independently confirm), since we certainly want to provide factually accurate information regarding the much discussed academic background of Jack Sarfatti (the net legend). I gather you are fairly new to Wikipedia so let me provide a few helpful hints.  This page, the page you are currently reading is the talk page for the article Jack Sarfatti, and it is the appropriate place to discuss this particular article.  In general you should just go ahead and make factual corrections to an article if you see an error and can verify that your corrrection is accurate; in this case, however, as you will see if you look at the article, right now that page is locked (cannot be modified).  Thus, we can't make the correction yet.  In such cases (which are rather rare), noting the correction on the talk page for future reference is the way to go.  When the page is eventually unlocked, no doubt someone will remove the mention of the University of London.


 * A hint for making comments in talk pages like this one (to repeat something I already told JackSarfatti, the user): comments on talk pages should be signed, dated and indented appropriately to distinguish your own comment from those made by other users. For example, when I type

":::A sample comment---~"


 * and hit show preview, I see the following output:


 * A sample comment---CH (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here, the initial three colons indents that paragraph by three tabs, and the four tildes signs and dates the message. Pretty easy, huh? The preview feature allows you to make sure your message is properly formatted before saving it, using save page.---CH  (talk) 07:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus version
Ok, things are looking messy so I made a subsection here to contain what I believe is the consensus version of the intro paragraph:

Jack Sarfatti is a physicist, known for his Internet writings and Usenet postings explaining his theories. His works show his physics background by making extensive use of technical terms but are often regarded as incorrect or unintelligible by others in Internet discussions. Sarfatti's entry in the net-legends FAQ begins: (excerpt from FAQ etc.) [Start education section here with details of Ph.D. and so forth]

I've incorporated my discussions with RoyBoy, who I believe has indicated he agrees with my viewpoints on physicist vs. Ph.D. Also, I've delayed until the second sentence, the observation that others regard Sarfatti's theories as untenable. I think this is more than fair and is a very NPOV intro. It describes who he is, why he is known, characteristics of his works, and what many people who've engaged in discussion with Sarfatti think. And it does this all factually and neutrally.

I think I'm going to lay off this for a while...this is kind of starting to bore me and I have work to do :-) But I hope others will feel free to jump in and offer comments, their versions, etc.  One last thing: there is plenty of room in the article for any good comments made about any of Sarfatti's work by well-known physicists.  Sarfatti has indicated there are such.  But better documentation needs to be provided (by Sarfatti perhaps?) before a reasonable paragraph or two can be written about that.  --C S 08:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Another thought...It may be best to omit the net-legends FAQ excerpt completely from the article for now. It really doesn't serve a purpose; a well-written article should fill in  a lot of the blanks already and no need is needed for this POV-exerpt.  The best thing to do is put it as an external link.


 * Note that even though I've broken my vow of abstinence (from this page) today :-), I really can't work on this anymore. I should prepare stuff for a paper and talk.  --C S 13:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Attn Jack Sarfatti
Jack, thank you for using your own user account a few minutes ago to revert my reversion, but please take a deep breath and read the following pages: After you have familarized yourself with basic Wikipedia behavioral standards and terminology, I stand ready to discuss with you why I feel that my revision of the biography, to which you apparently have objections, is NPOV and is not slanderous or a personal attack.
 * [Five Pillars of Wikipedia]
 * [No Personal Attacks]
 * [point of view Neutral Point of View]
 * [Vandalism]

Wikipedia is a communal product. If you are willing to discuss your complaint about the content/tone of the article with other members of the community, you will probably find us willing to make some changes to include some of the features you want to see, while remaining consistent with NPOV and verifiable factual accuracy. Please refrain from anonymous edits and from using sock puppets in this dispute. OK?---CH (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not done any anonymous edits. I simply unfamiliar with how the damn thing works that's all. DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT change my corrections to false info. Also DO NOT DELETE POSITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT ME BY OTHER PEOPLE. You really do not want to be investigated by the FBI and other agencies swept up into something a lot bigger than you can all imagine because of your very bad timing.


 * (Unsigned comment by User:JackSarfatti)


 * Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with something prior to writing in it or about it. That goes for the variety of scientific topics you've misrepresented as well. So lets stick with Wikipedia for simplicities sake, threats will get you nowhere fast; especially when you create blatantly POV versions of the article and post them on Usenet... which just further strengthens the case against putting your education in the lead. That of course would be used as an effective rebuttal to any complaint made in Florida. Misuse of the public commons, for shame Dr. Sarfatti. For shame. - RoyBoy 800 01:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Jack, glad to hear you have not engaged in anonymous editing. Here is how to indent and sign your comments on talk pages. Typing in this text:


 * A sample comment.---~

gives this indented and signed comment:


 * A sample comment.---CH (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Typing n initial colons tabs the paragraph over n tabs, and adding four tildes at the end signs and dates it. Please use indentation to distinguish your comments from other text. Please use italics (by typing italics ) to quote a short phrase. This will help others tell who said what.

You have made legal threats against me and others on my user page, my user talk page, and other places, in some cases after being requested not to do this by an administrator. Please cease making this kind of threat; it is a violation of Wikipedia policy and could get you banned. I am still willing to discuss your concerns about the article Jack Sarfatti with you here. Please not that while the article has been temporarily locked, you can still discuss its contents here, and at some point in the future, the article can be unblocked and its content modified. OK?---CH (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I stand corrected by User:JackHorner (see next section, although his contribution is unsigned, unedited and not easy to read). It seems that User:JackSarfatti was indeed blocked shortly after I wrote the above. After reading the stuff in the next section, I tend to agree with User:Func that it is probably best not to reply to future sock or anon edits to this page until the situation has stabilized.---CH (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

P.P.S. A clarification, in the spirit of Assume Good Faith: JackSarfatti, the user, apparently did make numerous anonymous edits, but this appears to have the result of wikin00bism (now there is a neologism!). Looks like Sarfatti came here from his Pac Bell account, but was too upset (or too inexperienced in the ways of Wiki) to log in properly before making some of his edits. The fact that the edits originate from several different IP addies is what you'd expect for dynamic IP addies supplied by this ISP for different logon sessions (for internet access). So Jack might be telling the truth when he says he did not knowingly make anonymous editing.---CH (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Response by JackHorner
No he can't. Sarfatti has been blocked from this page. He is not making a threat he has already acted and contacted some of the relevant USG CI officers he knows about all this. Hello all, this is woodymarble@mac.com if you want to contact me. Anyway, Jack Sarfatti has been blocked from defending himself and he asked me to forward the notice that he is going to the FBI next Monday. Here is the BIG PICTURE, the context: Please note the following:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net Date: September 23, 2005 7:25:09 PM PDT To: ANTIGRAY@cs.com Subject: Re: Islamo-fascist hate-mail from Springfield MO update & Ira Einhorn's new book

Exactly what crossed my mind! I will go to FBI on Monday with the letters. One cannot be too careful. It may also have something to  do with my friendship with Michael Savage - not to mention that Ira Einhorn was my book agent. Now I have this guy Chris Hillman (a  mathematician) from Wikepedia (a Florida corporation I think) on my   tail. All this happening at once, Ira's book out now, my book out now, anonymous attacks using US Mail across state lines and using the anonymity of the Wiki Foundation. Hillman and others tried to  hide their true ID BTW.

On Sep 23, 2005, at 1:16 PM, ANTIGRAY@cs.com wrote: Hi Jack, I suggest you contact your attorney and the FBI at this point because whoever is sending the letters is trying to make a  "federal case" against you. They are spreading information far and wide, even on Wikipedia, that you are a crackpot Dr. Evil who is a  crazed serial killer of women, etc. Their next step could be   something like they kill an important woman or women in your life and leave evidence at the crime scenes implicating you, or put the body in your car trunk or garage, and then make an anonymous call that you were seen putting a body in the trunk or garage. There are a lot of ways you could be set up. Have your attorney also contact the FBI and get them involved before any of the people out to get you really do get you. The Feds need to investigate everybody who has been attacking you because they could all be  tied together. This is not a run of the mill communist conspiracy to overthrow the government. You as an individual have become the target of a "group." The Feds can tie them all together with phone and email records, and incriminating information on their computer hard drives. The commies are working with the Islamo-fascists big time these days to accomplish their ends. If you check out the anti-war rallies, they are a coalition of commies and Islamo- crazies protesting together. Remember Dennis Mitryzk, one of your attackers online, is an anarchist protester / activist in San Francisco? Read his background (below) again. He is supported by  Islamo-fascist groups. And it gets worse. The Muslim group that supports him is tied into the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild, both communist orgs. http://www.amuslimvoice.or

Continuation
FYI GangofOne 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ira-einhorn/message/346 message from JS Sept 22, 2005
 * see Ira Einhorn if you are unfamiliar with him
 * see http://antigray.tripod.com/ antigray's home page


 * Please note a gross error by I think Hillman or possibly Hall Monitor in the completely unjust false statement that Sarfatti's derivation of B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase) is "generally considered nonsense", indeed the reference

to that "1" is Sarfatti calling someone else's work "nonsense". The person writing that had no understanding of what he was reading! Physicist Tony Smith pointed this out and has been blocked. There is something not kosher going on here defaming Sarfatti with misinformation. My e-mail is woodymarble@mac.com


 * (unsigned undated comment left on 19:15, 24 September 2005 by User:JackHorner)


 * This is the kind of objection which is best discussed on this talk page before changing that sentence in the article (see my comment under your other comment just below this one). Experience shows that this process can zero in on some compromise acceptable to all.


 * If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense, and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense is verifiable factual information.  Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong.  OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement, followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense.  Would that be OK by you?  Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important.  Fair enough?---CH  (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is Jack Horner at woodymarble.com. Jack Sarfatti asked me to repeat that he did not teach at the University of London as Hillman keeps saying. Jack was a Research Fellow 1971 under David Bohm as Basil Hiley at Birrkbeck can confirm. Jack also worked for Abdus Salam at ICTP 1973-74. Hillman says he is not interested in quantum theory, which is Jack's field as well as General Relativity.


 * (unsigned undated comment left on 19:59, 24 September 2005 by User:Jackhorner)


 * Hi, Jackhorner, I moved the above comment from my user talk page, where you left it, to this talk page, where it belongs. Since you seem to be new, let me make a few requests: in future, please sign, date, and indent your comments to distinguish them from comments of other users.  (Curiously enough, one of the most notable features of posts by Jack Sarfatti, the usenet legend, is his utter inability to properly indicate quoted text, which is part of the reason, but also only part, for their typically incoherent appearance.)  This is very easy to do.  Example: when I type


 * A sample comment. ---~


 * and hit "show preview", see this:


 * A sample comment. ---CH (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here, an inital n colons indents the paragraph by n tab marks, and four tildes signs and dates the comment. Pretty easy, huh?  So please use these features in the future.  Also, all comments on this article should go to this page.


 * As you probably know, the article itself has been locked until the vandalism (or content dispute, if you prefer) is resolved. Therefore, we cannot correct the article.  At some point in the future, it will probably be unblocked (this will happen faster if Jack Sarfatti, the Usenet legend, announces his intention to abide by Wikipedia behavorial standards in the future), and then anyone can correct factual information.  Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway, again) we very much want to have our facts straight in Wikipedia articles.  I took the claim about Jack's education from his self-described "official website", but most of us would probably agree that Jack Sarfatti may not be the best source of information about Jack Sarfatti, so I would appreciate it if someone can look up students of Fred Cummings in a suitable professional directory and if possible provide a link to an 'offical body' type web page.  But please limit yourself to content neutral factual corrections which others can independently verify.  Where Sarfatti recieved his Ph.D. is a good example of content neutral factual information.  OTH, some Jack or another suggested somewhere that any good historian can verify that someone said something, which in fact is the kind of thing which historians often cannot verify; just see any scholarly biography!  Verifiability is an important component of the kind of factual information good Wikipedia articles provide.  Citations or links to legitimate websites with relevant information can be useful here.  But 'citation spamming' is frowned upon.  If you want to make a change you suspect might prove controversial, your best bet is to explain on this talk page what change you want to see and why you feel it is justified.  Thanks in advance for your cooperation in following Wikipedia policies and guidelines in your future edits!---CH  (talk) 09:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is Jack Horner. What you say about Burinski is nonsense. You do not understand the content. Burinski works WITH JACK SARFATTI! Burinski will be contacted about this. Indeed it looks like Burinski's mail has been modified to make it appear that he is calling Jack Sarfatti's formula nonsense. ... SIGNED woodymarble@mac.com How come Chris Hillman keeps his ID & e-mail secret.


 * Jack Horner: Are you saying you think that someone conflated an email or post from Burinski with an email or post from someone else? If so, you should probably blame Jack Sarfatti's above mentioned utter inability to properly quote material, which tends to lead to exactly this sort of confusion.  I notice that despite my attempts to tutor you, you (Jack Horner, the user) still have not learned to properly indent, date and sign your comments here.  All the four tildes will do is produce something like what you see in my signatures, only with "CH" replaced by "Jackhorner".  It won't reveal any information about yourself, such as your own email address, if that is your concern, the sig just will date the message and point to your user talk page here at Wikipedia.  Really!  Don't be so paranoid.  As the main page says, your privacy will be better protected (if that is a concern) if you use the features provided for all users.  If do you want to reveal your email address, which is apparently the case, you can change the preferences or put this in the body of your user page.  And again, please indent, sign and date your comments to avoid the kind of confusion you are complaining about re Burinski.  TIA---CH  (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This is Jack Horner. Jack Sarfatti was only quoting Tony Smith. Alexander Burinski is a theoretical physicist in Moscow who collaborates with Jack Sarfatti and would NEVER write what was attributed to him by Chris Hillman et-al. Indeed Burinski bur@ibrae.ac.ru will write on this himself in due course. Look we do not know about all this "signature trivia" that you guys are so immeshed in. We are into substance, ideas not formal syntax. Here is Sarfatti's latest to about 100 key people in the media and in physics. Also Jack said he will not be contacting Attorney General of Florida about Wiki, but is taking the whole thing to the FBI about this other snail mail thing from Springfield MO the home of a Federal Prison for the Criminally Insane. It appears that the author of those letters is or was an inmate there. All this nonsense from Hillman, Hall Monitor et-al happened to happen at around the same time. Public Statement by Nobel Prize Physicist Brian Josephson

On Sep 25, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:

"It seems to me from what I have seen that Hillman's state of mind must be in a distinctly worse state than that of JS, and hence not qualified to judge the latter. Does Wikepedia not have precautions on line to adopt against this kind of eventuality?  LM to his credit agreed to withdraw inaccurate comment recently and Hillman should do the same.

Brian Josephson"


 * Is LM Lubos Motl? If not, who?  If Josephson is reading this, he should be aware that the "precautions on line" is exactly this talk page and page protection.  If Josephson is interested in really participating in this dicussion, he should just participate directly, rather than have his email excerpts (stripped of context) put on this talk page as a "public statement".  --C S 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

-- --On Saturday, September 24, 2005 7:26 am -0700 Andrew Beckwith  wrote:

I will periodically be checking in on that entry from time to time. I hope someone gets the message.Over and out.


 * FYI, this appears to be the same Andrew Beckwith who was in the same organization as several cranks such as James Harris (notable for being a sci.math crank), who I've knowledge about. Beckwith fiercely defended Harris's antics and crackpot mathematics in a sci.math discussion a couple years ago.  --C S 13:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

--

Doc Savage  wrote:

Dear Dr. Hillman Why, may I ask, are you, it seems to many, intentionally writing false information about Jack Sarfatti in your Wikepedia hit piece on him and deleting the corrections of your factual errors? He did not teach at the University of London. Jack was a Research Fellow there under David Bohm. You keep deleting that true information. Why? And can you please explain to all the people above exactly why you keep deleting the following true positive information about Sarfatti? To wit:


 * * * * * * *   Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
 * Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., Madingley Rd, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
 * Unification *  voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
 * Project  *       WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

On the "nonsense" here for the record is:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti  Date: September 25, 2005 2:52:28 PM PDT

Memorandum for the Historical Record

See reference to John Baez below and additional technical comments. Also note the Chris Hillman says he is "not interested" in quantum theory and my formula combines quantum theory with General Relativity in a new way he has never seen before. Chris Hillman is what Colin Bennett calls a "Victorian Station Master", what John Nash called a "hack mind", what Ayn Rand in "The Fountainhead" called a "second hander". Feynman cautioned against "rigor mortis" where mathematicians like John Baez and even Ed Witten, masquerade in theoretical physicist's clothing. Indeed the whole field of theoretical physics has been hijacked by these Math-Goths. None of Feynman's diagrams nor path integrals were mathematically rigorous and probably are not so to this day, nevertheless they are useful and are used.

OK here is why Chris Hillman and his gang of non-credentialled In-Wikitors defame me as a "crackpot" and "kook" spouting "nonsense" (read "what they cannot understand because it's too original and has not been handed down to them as gospel" or, alternatively, they have no education in the subject at all, as the case may be).

What is the basic issue here? It is the generalized Stoke's theorem:

(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)

I use Dirac notation in which the "ket" |p) is a Cartan p-form i.e. the thing integrated.

The bra (p+1| is a Cartan p+1 co-form or p-dimensional manifold of integration. When it is multiply-connected with "wormholes" (so to speak) it has a non-trivial co-homology quotient group of cosets Hp = {(p+1)-cycles}/{bounding (p+1)-cycles}, where the denominator is a normal subgroup of the numerator under a composition rule. See Baez's text book for more formal details.

The dual operators & and d are like a & a* in second quantization with Fermi-Dirac statistics in which

aa = a*a* = 0  (Pauli exclusion principle)

aa* + a*a = 1

& is the boundary operator on co-cycles.

&(co-cycle) = 0

&^2 = 0 is Wheeler's famous "Boundary of a boundary is zero".

Similarly for d^2 = 0

Note that Maxwell's EM eqs. are

F = dA

dF = 0

from d^2 = 0

&

d*F = *J


 * is the Hodge dual. Again see Baez's book cited below for details.

Local conservation of electric current density is

d^2*F = d*J = 0

A the "vector 4-potential" comes from locally gauging the global abelian EM U(1) internal symmetry group.

If you have a non-Abelian "Yang-Mills" internal symmetry group, e.g. G = SU(2) or SU(3)

Then you must replace d with the covariant

D = d + A/\

See Baez for definition of /\ the exterior product.

The Yang-Mills equations, where the gauge fields carry the same charges as the sources (not in U(1) EM) are then

F' = DA

DF' = 0 also called loosely a "Bianchi identity"

D*F' = *J'

D*J' = 0

Now we can do Einstein's 1915 GR in exactly the same way!

Notice that everything here is automatically local frame invariant! We never really need to go to a particular local frame of reference and write out indices.

e = 1 + B

is the Einstein-Cartan tetrad.

Einstein's metric tensor field g(curved) is not an ANTISYMMETRIC Cartan form. It is a SYMMETRIC bi-linear form

g(curved) = (1 + B)n(flat)(1 + B)

No "/\" in the above formula.

this is the local Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP).

When B = 0, we have global special relativity of 1905.

B is the curved part of the tetrad.

1 is the "identity"

B is to the translation group T4 as A is to the U(1) EM group, or as A' is to the weak force SU(2) and the strong force SU(3) SAME IDEA that Chris Hillman says is "nonsense".

According to Chris Hillman, who boasts he has no interest in quantum theory, the battle-tested Principle of Local Gauge Invariance is "nonsense".

OK Einstein's 1915 GR in modern intrinsic notation is simply

T = D"e = 0

T is the torsion 2-form where

D" = d + W/\

Where W is the 1-form spin-connection.

B determines W via the equation

T = de + W/\e = 0

i.e.

d(1 + B) + W/\(1 + B) = 0

i.e.

dB + W/\(1 + B) = 0

The curvature 2-form is

R = D"W = dW + W/\W

Einstein's vacuum field equation with cosmological constant /\zpf (do not confuse with /\ for exterior multiplication) is

R/\e + /\zpfe/\e/\e = 0

See Rovelli's "Quantum Gravity" Ch 2 free online for details.

D"R = 0 is the "Bianchi identity"

D"*R = *J

is essentially Einstein's

Guv = (8piG/c^4)Tuv(Matter)

and

D"^2*R = D"*J = 0

is

Tuv^;v(Matter) = 0

Now we can go on to Gennady Shipov's torsion field theory by

e' = e + S

S is from locally gauging the Lorentz group O(1,3) not done in 1915 GR, but done by Utiyama & Kibble in 1960's after Einstein died in 1955.

Now we have

T = dS + W/\S + S/\(1 + B + S)

the torsion 2-form T =/= 0 when S =/= 0

More on this another time.

My ANSATZ for which Chris Hillman wants to burn me at the stake is to invoke the spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetry for the SU(2)hypercharge group of the standard model to say

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)

"Goldstone Phase" here in sense of "mean phase" associated with SU(2).

Details in text books and I will provide them later.

The above is the intuitive idea.

On Sep 25, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is misrepresenting what you allegedly said about my formula

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)

Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense". Hillman, or some one else, may have deliberately changed what you did say. Please clarify for the official record here.

Here is what you are cited by Chris Hillman as saying:


 * If you read the history page, you can see who wrote the sentence you are objecting to: This "derivation" is generally regarded as nonsense, and you can see who added the link to the post by Burinskii (who I believe is either a Ph.D. physicist or mathematician, BTW), stating that he considers the alleged 'derivation' to be nonsense, as I do, and as do other knowledgeable scholars I know who have seen it. Since searching Google allows anyone to verify that responses to your 'derivation' was included 'this is nonsense', stating the alleged derivation is considered by at least some commentators to be nonsense is verifiable factual information.  Arguably, you might be right that the current statement is a tad too strong.  OTH, while this is harder to verify, I know I am knowledgeable, and I consider the alleged derivation to be utter bosh, so all in all I propose to change this sentence to this alleged derivation is considered by at least some knowledgeable commentators to be rubbish; not suprisingly, Sarfatti strongly disagrees with this judgement, followed by links to your post giving the alleged derivation and to a post by a knowledgeable reader calling it nonsense.  Would that be OK by you?  Please note that according to my proposal, readers will easily be able to examine your alleged derivation and an objection and to make up their own minds about the likelihood of your derivation being meaningful or important.  Fair enough?---CH  (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jack_Sarfatti

BTW: If Chris Hillman were honest, which he obviously is not, he would give a detailed refutation of why he considers

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)

nonsense and not simply smear it without justification.

Note that John Baez's book has an example in which d acting on a zero form has a jump phase singularity.

"Flux without flux", i.e. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY of Bohm-Aharonov effect, that Chris Hillman eschews. Pardon me, but who is really the "crackpot" and "kook" here? However, I will keep the "Victor Von Frankenstein Prize for Weird Physics"! ;-)

Go to p. 130 of John Baez's "Gauge Fields. Knots and Gravity" where Baez writes:

"funny things can happen in regions of space that are not simply connected ...'

Baez uses "theta" where I use "Goldstone Phase"

"d"theta = (xdy - ydx)/(x^2 + y^2)

Baez writes: "the coordinate 'theta', in addition to being ill-defined on the z-axis, is really only defined modulo 2pi. Nonetheless it is customary to define the one form "dtheta".

In effect then one gets from the Stoke's theorem

(p+1|dp) = (&(p+1)|p)

->

(2|d1) = (&2|1) = 2piN

N = 0, +-1, +- 2, ... number of flux quanta


 * 1) = B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)

The important thing here is to see the intuitive idea, THE BIG PICTURE, and not get lost in Feynman's "rigor mortis".

Note gravity is macro-quantum emergent from SU(2)hypercharge broken vacuum symmetry, i.e. ODLRO.

No gravity when h -> 0.

No gravity when c -> infinity

Even when G =/= 0

The broken SU(2) hypercharge local Vacuum ODLRO order parameter is the INFLATION FIELD for the creation of the universe.

Macro-spacetime physics is local because of the locality of ODLRO and the Arrow of Time is explained because ODLRO lowers the phase space volume of the pre-inflation "false vacuum".

And this is what Chris Hillman calls "nonsense" and for this I am a "crackpot" and a "kook".

See "Dirac string" & Hagen Kleinert's "multi-valued gauge transformation".

Since there are knowledgeable people on the list above, integrity demands that Hillman give his reasons in detail.

Note also:

On Sep 25, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Andrew Beckwith wrote:

"I met Jack in the SSI 2005 conference at  the Stanford Linear accelerator complex and consider him to be a very self controlled person, who was in a quite disciplined way taking in lecture after lecture which was dumped in two weeks of talks by different gravitational wave physics researchers. Jack also asked some of the best questions I observed in that summer school. He sat near the front, with a lap top, taking in the entire set of lectures, which incidently wore me out. I have a whole NOTEBOOK full of notes from those speakers who presented what they did. Several HUNDRED PAGES of notes on gravitational physics were handed out, and from what I observed of his questions, Jack knew a lot of their material well already. There were a number of genuinely crazy people there AT that school, who at times were disruptive. I saw Jack conferring several times with several of the speakers, some of whom he appeared to know personally. None of what I saw Jack do in SSI 2005 is consistent with a fringe crack pot. And I saw at least three of that genre in SSI 2005, one of whom had to be told quite bluntly to shut the hell up, or else LEAVE. If Jack were sans his marbles, I would have spotted it IMMEDIATELY." projectbeckwith2@yahoo.com

on public lists &

On Sep 25, 2005, at 8:19 AM, caryn anscomb nyracum@yahoo.com wrote:

Doc Wrote: I suspect, to Jack's anger and concern about those letters setting him up the way Ira Einhorn was and the implied danger to women he knows<<< "I do not wish to get involved in the Wikepedia debate, as I’m not qualified to comment on that. However I would like to make one point concerning Jack’s alleged threat to woman. I have met Jack on two occasions; he behaved like the perfect gentleman on both of these occasions. I’m a pretty good judge of character once in the physical presence of a person, and if I had thought Jack to be a potential threat I would have made sure that I had an escort with me at all times. I did not, for one moment, think that necessary with Jack. If anyone should require a written testimony to that effect I will be more than happy to provide it. Caryn."

Doc Savage  wrote:I think Brian is simply referring to the way Hillman systematically deleted detailed positive factual information about Sarfatti from Tony Smith and then had Tony Smith blocked and spun his edits to make Sarfatti look as crackpot as possible. Indeed, on the discussion page someone falsely accuses Jack of being the "creationist" Jonathan Sarfatti who lives in Australia. Jack never met him nor communicated with him. Brian is also referring, I suspect, to Jack's anger and concern about those letters setting him up the way Ira Einhorn was and the implied danger to women he knows. That the personal attacks on Sarfatti from Hillman, Hall Monitor et-all came at same time as these letters from Springfield, MO (Sept 17, 2005) the home of Federal Psychiatric Prison, has certainly excited some paranoia in Jack, understandable, and Brian is probably referring to some of Jack's angry responses on the discussion part as to his state of mind that is justifiably disturbed with good cause.

On Sep 25, 2005, at 3:21 AM, Colin Bennett sharkley1@panzerben1.fsworld.co.uk wrote:

> Brian, >            Would you please  explain in a little more detail what you > mean by "Hillman's state of must be in a distinctly worse state than > that of JS." Does this mean that Jack Sarfatti's mind is in a bad > state? > Colin > Author, London > Politics of the Imagination > An American Demonology > www.combat-diaries.co.uk >

On Sep 25, 2005, at 5:06 AM, Gennady Shipov shipov@aha.ru wrote:

- Original Message - From: Andrew Beckwith Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 9:07 PM Subject: Re: inaccuracies in your Wikepedia smear of Jack Sarfatti Andrew Beckwith wrote "Gentlemen, What particularly caught my eye is the insistance of the poster to that on line free reference to put in something from the AUK group. That AUK group is, from my own personal experience, LOATHED by systems admins at universities, and considered to be a serious source of abuse in its own right. The "weird science" award of that group is a monikor slapped on Jack by people who never took a Quantum field theory course, never attempted to do research publications, and never, NEVER even bothered to consider relativity on a research physics level. Jack is EXTREMELY knowledgeable about certain physics issues. Any person who is so enamored as to putting in a judgement by non scientists who have not done research work themselves, which is true of almost all of the AUK regulars, is inadvertantly tar brushing himself, NOT Jack, in the process. The least that our favorite EDU contributor to that free encyclopedia can do is to remove the reference of the AUK backed "award" from that website entry. If that is not done, he has compromised himself as a purveyor of trash talk gossip, and not of science. It is up to him. And I mean this as a put up or shut up remark. So long as that person insists upon a gossips groups judgement of a PhD being put in a website entry, that person has ruined his own credibility in the process.COMPLETELY." Gennady Shipov wrote: Gentlemen,

"Do not shoot at the pianist - he plays as he can. I am personally struck by Jack's operability and his skills to understand the most complicated problems of modern physics." OK over and out for now

--- SIGNED Jack Horner woodymarble@mac.com

PS "TROLLING"? No way Jose. Simply righteous indignation over unjust defamations. --- signed Jack Horner

There you go again Dr. Hillman defaming Jack Sarfatti as a liar when you say he "may be telling the truth". Jack ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH to the best of his knowledge. You do not. For example you continue to say Jack "taught" at the University of London when repeatedly you were corrected that he was a "Research Fellow" there. With you and others Jack is automatically guilty in your double standard. SIGNED Jack Horner woodymarble@mac.com

Minor typo correction to Doc Savage's remark

---SIGNED Jack Horner

Dr. Hillman are you really so insensitive to your defamatory remarks about Jack Sarfatti? Is it simply your arrogance? Your double standard that you do not apply to yourself? I mean your

"I took the claim about Jack's education from his self-described "official website", but most of us would probably agree that Jack Sarfatti may not be the best source of information about Jack Sarfatti"

again your blatant insinuation that Jack is a liar, some kind of criminal who must be assumed is guilty and must continually prove his innocence. You cannot point out even one factual lie about himself on anything he has ever written. As to his not using quotes for other people's remarks that is generally not true at all. It may happen inadvertently but only rarely in my experience. Sarfatti is in a position of great trust with some important people and for you and others to casually defame him as not to be trusted on factual information is really legally damaging. You should check your own sources and apply your own criteria to yourself. Also give your e-mail and real ID. I give my e-mail. SIGNED Jack Horner woodymarble@mac.com 4:40 PM Sunday Sept 25, 2005

RoyBoy E-mail
Received this tasty morsel @ Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:22:38 -0400 (EDT):


 * Hey you Moron THAT IS NOT JACK SARFATTI! He did not write any book on CREATIONISM you CRETIN! Do your homework before defaming him with more lies. How dare you?


 * woodymarble@mac.com

I simply got the names confused, it wasn't a "lie"; it was a mistake, you of course understand what a mistake is... considering you insult the very people who might be willing to tweak the article so that its more sympathetic to its subject matter. I already clarified my mistake here prior to that e-mail being sent; so thanks for beating a dead horse with your capslock, classy. - RoyBoy 800 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you someone's "Toy Boy"? Is that what your alias alludes to? What right have you with no physics credentials to dare to judge a PhD in physics with 45 years in the field? The world is growing stupid. Anti-Gray wrote about the Wikitors

"YOU MIGHT BE A PSEUDOSCIENTIST IF:

1) You believe your subscription to Analog provides the necessary background to argue with PhD scientists.

2) You think "real" science is mostly developed in garages or hobby rooms.

3) You think scientists are inflexible to changing paradigms (using one of pseudoscientists' favorite terms). See definition of "Science."

4) You think the government, big business, or traditional scientists are in a conspiracy to prevent the pseudoscientists from showing the "truth" to the rest of the world, motivated by such movies as "Chain Reaction."

5) You think science is purely to start a business and make money.

6) You think it's cool to announce impossible-sounding claims to the media without a peer review process (see #4 above), expository discussion, or other legitimizing process. You may believe the US Patent Office is a legitimizing process, if they aren't in conspiracy with #4 above.

7) You're aiming for the Einsteinian turn-science-upside-down revolution of thought and universal understanding, based on your two years of high school physics and a copy of Omni magazine.

8) You think highly suspicious behavior is actually the way people protect themselves from intellectual theft.

9) Your ego is large enough to tell the world that its understanding of the universe has always been wrong, and your fantastic, undocumented, unverified, unrecorded, and unreproducable experiment proves it.

10) Your college degree (if you have one) and your pseudoscientist interests have absolutely nothing in common. For instance, you may be arguing about fusion with a PhD in nuclear physics (and inflating your ego by doing so), while you only have a degree in zoology."

Latest from Sarfatti about the Ira Einhorn case

jpg of CIA Memo of 1963 by Richard Helms on Soviet Paranormal R&D and Clandestine Services

"Most of Ira's book is like reading Casanova, about his erotic exploits with women in Ireland. I have no doubt they are true, but the tales, though entertaining at first quickly grow weary if one is not a teenager or an Oprah addict. They are irrelevant, except to prove that Ira did not smell. Women were attracted to him. He did not smell at all when I met him in 1974. Ira's understanding of "free energy" and his reference to Tom Bearden are not to my liking because the physics is wrong. However, his connections to the Yugoslavs in 1977 when Holly was murdered, the Shah of Iran's family and many of his political activities made him many powerful enemies with the motive and opportunity to frame him and to weaken the movement he was spearheading. Ira's account of a UFO close encounter rings true. Note Ira's mention of Michael Murphy, Kit Green and Jacques Vallee.

For "free energy" read "zero point vacuum energy". Ira is not a physicist and he was fooled by disinformation agent Colonel Tom Bearden whose claims are worthless. At that time I had not yet figured out the physics of what Ira was after. He was my book agent and I was one of his network of "300" that corresponds also to http://stardrive.org/cartoon/spectra.html

I would not solve the paranormal physics Russian psychotronics weapons problem of DCI Richard Helms until the mid 1990's, i.e. the necessity of signal nonlocality from "two way relation" between pilot BIT wave and IT particle "hidden variable" and the consequent replacement of micro-quantum theory with the macro-quantum theory of "More is different" emergent systems.

I would not solve the UFO problem until 2001 when the meaning of "dark energy" for "metric engineering warp and wormhole" dawned on me as through the glass darkly. The glass is getting less opaque."

A copy of Sarfatti's PhD degree is in open directory http://qedcorp.com/APS/

-SIGNED BY Jack Horner no more sitting in The Corner on Sept 25, 2005 10:20 PM Pacific Coast Time


 * No to "Toy Boy"... and what gives me (and other editors who follow it) the right to argue with a PhD about science (something I haven't done here as yet, nor do I intend to given your behavior), is by cross checking opinions, consensus and arguments of other PhD's. Especially the ones who do not demean and/or filibuster their opponents. Wiki, as the term literally means, is quick to correct mistakes and reflect changing/new paradigms which show promise. I found the list amusing, but this is a big Wiki; so I'm unsure how applicable or helpful it is (as Wiki can control their own, ironically through discussion pages to hash things out)... especially since I can come up with a few more definitions of "PSEUDOSCIENTIST" which are a bit more inclusive and less age specific; but we digress. - RoyBoy 800 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A jpg of Sarfatti's PhD diploma is in open directory http://qedcorp.com/APS/JackUCPhD.jpg FYI GangofOne 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware Sarfatti's Ph. D. was under dispute. Has anyone questioned that?  In any case, in terms of verifiability, jpg is silly; it's better for me to just check the records more directly.  I don't see the need, but if anyone is actually skeptical of this, I can check.  --C S 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

UCR disambiguation
Just a note for whenever the page gets unlocked: UCR needs disambiguation to University of California, Riverside. Isomorphic 06:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? Talk English not Wiklish. Are you some kind of homomorph? :-) As to RoyBoy, he is not very good at checking his facts. Even a cursory Google would show that Jonathan Sarfatti and Jack Sarfatti are not the same person and live on different continents. Notice how silent the Great Mathematician Dr. Hillman is in the light of Nobel Prize physicist Brian Josephson's remark above putting him in his proper place and in Hillman's inability to respond to Sarfatti's detailed argument above. It is not enough to bluster "it's nonsense". Burinski will also respond he is not on e-mail all the time. None of your facts check out. Everything Sarfatti has said is the truth and his arguments on the physics have not been refuted. You people not only have no respect for truth, you simply cannot even perceive it because this information is too advanced for all of you - even Chris Hillman who is not a physicist although he is a mathematician of sorts - he admits he is not even interested in quantum theory so he should recuse himself if he were really honest. Brian Josephson wrote the reality above.

SIGNED JackHorner from The Corner 11:42 Pacific Time Sept 25, 2005
 * Just to let people know, UCR is a disambiguation page that we are linking to instead of University of California, Riverside like we should be. Have a look at Disambiguation pages with links to see more about this. --Apyule 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be precise I didn't check at all; hence my mistake. Harping on it is useless since I haven't contributed to the actual article; nor is one instance indicative of the general care I take with my contributions. I'm not the only one jumping to conclusions. - RoyBoy 800 20:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been lurking please note from Sarfatti's List

" On Sep 26, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

1. Lorentz invariance and the equivalence principle imply

w = -1

for all zero point fluctuations not only for virtual photons.

2. Unlike QED you cannot simply stick in a plate(s) as in Casimir force and forget the absolute background of ZPE. This is precisely the "cosmological constant problem."

i.e. zero point energy gravitates (and anti-gravitates depending) absolutely.

The QED Casimir force calculation for virtual photons (excluding even vacuum polarization, which makes no essential difference here) is irrelevant to the "charge cluster", or, more fundamentally, the stability of a single electron as an extended micro-geon. More precisely the Casimir energy is merely one term of several in the effective potential for the micro-geon including gravity.

i.e.

V = @hc/mr + Q^2/mr + J^2/mr^2 + c^2/\zpfr^2

The "gravity term" in this Newtonian approx is c^2/\zpfr^2 for a uniform core of positive ZPE of negative pressure. The Casimir term is @hc/mr that simply renormalizes the Coulomb barrier Q^2/mr. Everything Hal Puthoff talks about simply determines the pure number @ from QED.

dV/dr =0

d^2V/dr^2 > 0

3. The single electron Bohm hidden variable is not a point particle. Renormalization theory needs to be trashed as Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in 1968. The electron (& quarks) is an extended shell of charge held in balance by its inner core of zero point dark energy where the vacuum coherence ODLRO field drops to zero exactly like in the core of a superfluid vortex except here we have a point defect rather than a string defect."

Also Alexander Burinski denys CH's account:

"On Sep 26, 2005, at 6:54 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Memorandum for the Record

Alexander Burinski rebuts Chris Hillman's misinformation on Wikipedia

Thanks. I hope Lubos Motl corrects this on the talk page and the Wiki article. On Sep 26, 2005, at 2:52 AM, Burinskii A.Ya. wrote:

'Dear Jack,

You have asked me:'

Alex, a mathematician Chris Hillman, is lying about what you allegedly said about my formula

B = (hG/c^3)^1/2"d"(Goldstone Phase)

Hillman quotes you as saying that you wrote that the "derivation is generally regarded as nonsense".

'I can say definitely that I never was saying something similar!'

--- signed Lensman314 12:35 PM, 9/26/05

Factual corrections on protected article
I've edited the protected article to remove the contested statement that Sarfatti's derivation of an Einstein field equation was generally considered nonsense. The supporting citation was weak--a Usenet posting--and didn't seem to support the claim in any case.

I've also corrected the University of London section to say that Jack was a research assistant under David Bohm.

If there are any more factual inaccuracies, I will be happy to correct them as soon as they are pointed out to me. Apologies for the inaccuracies, and for any I may have inadvertently introduced in my attempt to correct them. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, looks like somebody unprotected it, before I did that. --Tony Sidaway Talk 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

On Oct 8, 2005, at 1:55 PM, Colin Bennett wrote:

"Why are most scientists such prissy queens when they come across a bit of mad anarchic humour? It appears that when a mere second of the disorder of real life appears, most scatter like pantomime dames spilling their baskets of subsidised apples all over the place. Quelle calibre! Quelle sophistication! All Uchtmann did was to inadvertently repeat that obviously stupid message from that German nut case, and lo, a Nobel Prize winner  (and other lesser mortals) would you believe stamp their tiny feet and mince off the stage, petty coats all a-flutter. All Doty did was to very briefly satirize the message in German, causing all the mighty dovecotes to flutter, the lace curtains to twitch, and the universe to tremble. The gods help us we are in the middle of a bloody war, and with spineless spoilt brats like this, we are going to take more than a beating. When such Victorian Station Master "scientists"  have had a bit more experience of life itself outside the lab and the lecture room, they will realise that they don't have any chance of getting near the heart of the human picture. . Shaking their pieces of 17th century clockwork like a shaman's ju-ju stick, they strut around the universe as if they were all the Lords of Creation. The social-scientific applications of their "disciplines" in medicine, psychiatry and weaponry alone will be the death of all of us, environmentally and individually. May the gods protect the screaming animals they experiment on,. and may their intellectual shame be eventually revealed to all. They don't even rate as well-behaved mummy's boys. Come out and fight you little provincial pricks. I'm on the forecastle, there a fair wind, and I've got me matches ready. Friends, post as far and wide as you please. Meantime thank you Jack for this letter from Russia. We will put it word for word on the Combat 28 dues next week." Colin Bennett Author, London www.combat-diaries.co.uk