To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32

Inflaton
I just read an update on the progress of heim theory. Apparently all claims of ftl have been dropped and the theory has now become more conservative in its predictions. Can anyone tell me if they know that the ftl proposal has been completely debunked or they've simply swept it aside to gain momentum on developing the initial theory and if that works out for them then theyre in a better position to make ftl claims again?

If no one knows then it would still be interesting to have answers for my previous questions even if they're now irrelevant.
djolds1
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 8 2008, 10:04 PM)
I just read an update on the progress of heim theory. Apparently all claims of ftl have been dropped and the theory has now become more conservative in its predictions. Can anyone tell me if they know that the ftl proposal has been completely debunked or they've simply swept it aside to gain momentum on developing the initial theory and if that works out for them then theyre in a better position to make ftl claims again?

If no one knows then it would still be interesting to have answers for my previous questions even if they're now irrelevant.

Nothing I've seen indicates that the postulated FTL mechanism has been debunked. It appears to have been merely dropped as too far out after the Tajmar results made validation of EHT a real possibility.

Duane
Inflaton
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1

I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?

Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
DEK46656
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 9 2008, 03:22 AM)
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1

I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?

Please correct me if i'm misinformed.

My guess would be that the Heim Group is only going to address things that they have mathematical proofs for. However... particle mass formula from first order principles, and "new" forces of nature (Gg, Gq, & Ggp) should be enough of a disruption for the time being.

biggrin.gif
Inflaton
Sorry my sentence didn't make sense. I basically meant for all intents and purposes it's the same but not literally rhe same. Otherwise i would be negating the meaning of my sentence.
djolds1
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 9 2008, 07:22 AM)
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1

I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?

Please correct me if i'm misinformed.

Just deemphasized for now. Brainpower and mathematical effort going toward the more conventional applications and rougher parts of the hypothesis (such as the mass formula).

Duane
gdaigle
This is interesting. A team at Princeton found that the mechanisms for high temperature conductivity is very different from that of low temperature superconductivity. Whereas LTS relies upon electron bonding as the "glue", it seems that HTS relies upon electron repulsion. Here are two quotes:

"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".

This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity. Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory? And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?
Reptile
replying to gdaigle


Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.


Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.

Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, it ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)

[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)

Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]

Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."

Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).




Reptile
replying to gdaigle


Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.


Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.

Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, if ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)

[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)

Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]

Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."

Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).




Just Wonderful



Looks like your post definitely has a case of cooper pairing there Reptile. biggrin.gif

JW...
.
.

Just Wonderful
QUOTE (gdaigle+Apr 14 2008, 02:25 PM)
This is interesting. A team at Princeton found that the mechanisms for high temperature conductivity is very different from that of low temperature superconductivity. Whereas LTS relies upon electron bonding as the "glue", it seems that HTS relies upon electron repulsion. Here are two quotes:

"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".

This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity.  Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory?  And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?



Thank you for the Pinceton article, gdaigle....but you are misinterpreting what it says.

I think if you read it again you will see ...

They are not claiming there is NO Cooper pairing in High Temp. SC. ( that is hardly deniable)....
They are merely saying that the 'glue' that binds the pairs together are different (different binding mechanism) for HTSC vs LTSC.

...And they are comparing characteristic repulsion of two electrons above T© to below T©....for each type of material.

JW
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 23 2008, 02:23 AM)
Anyone inetrested in funding my bucky rubber research? I have a cubic mm of the stuff and I dont plan to do much more research on it in the next few months unless I get some money to make it worth my while.

No; but I'll be glad to sell you a couple of genuine samples of the quantum vacuum from deep space that we have just obtained from NASA (from the Voyager's return trip).

These exquisite samples of deep space are perfect for experimentation; and you can do wonderful experiments like ....watching light pass through them completely unhindered.....

....watching them bend in a gravitational field....

...weighing them to prove they are totally weightless.

....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.


You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...

Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.

Call 1-800-VACUUM . biggrin.gif tongue.gif laugh.gif
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Apr 23 2008, 02:46 AM)
No; but I'll be glad to sell you a couple of genuine samples of the quantum vacuum from deep space that we have just obtained from NASA (from the Voyager's return trip).

These exquisite sample of deep space are perfect for experimentation; and you can do wonderful experiments like ....watching light pass through them completely unhindered.....

....watching them bend in a gravitational field....

...weighing them to prove they are totally weightless.

....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.


You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...

Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.

Call 1-800-VACUUM . biggrin.gif tongue.gif laugh.gif

Thanks for nothing!
Sandra doliak
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 23 2008, 02:52 AM)
Thanks for nothing!

I am guessing you are overweight.

Sandra biggrin.gif
gdaigle
Thanks, Just Wonderful. I really did "step in it", didn't I? Don't know what I was thinking. I've made changes in my personal blog to reflect your comments.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Sandra doliak+Apr 23 2008, 04:12 AM)
I am guessing you are overweight.

Sandra  biggrin.gif

Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
Lizzy Frog
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.

What's prod=fessional?, is this a fraudian slip with regards to your imminent, soon to be cell 'mate' and lover-boy, Bubba?

laugh.gif

Lizzy Frog
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.

What's prod=fessional?, is this a fraudian slip with regards to your imminent, soon to be cell 'mate' and lover-boy, Bubba?

laugh.gif

Lizzy Frog
QUOTE (Lizzy Frog+Apr 25 2008, 05:11 PM)

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.
djolds1
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.

Neil, you've made some valuable contributions over time, but fishing for funding only makes you look like a troll and that lowest of lifeforms, the telemarketer.

If you have actual results with carbon variants, finding entrepreneurial funding will not be a problem. Oddball results, if any, need substantiation. Especially on a board with good calibre minds such as this. If you want to make such claims here, post results, lab setups, photos, or do not post. Meanwhile, if you want to be a valued contributor here, drop the funding requests.

Be a contributor, or be a trollboy. Your call.

Duane
auldsj
Your right djolds1, this guy is a trollboy
I've been lurking through this site for over 2 years, and this guy Farbstein set off my fraud alarm with his first post. I googled his company Vulvox, and although I am not
current on carbon nanotube research, I am very current on protein expression and nuclear architecture research. (I am an active research scientist at NIA with Ph.D in Molecular Bio. & Biochemistry) His website's claims regarding protein expression, as well as a post suggesting lamin A as a cognitive/memory enhancer are both ridiculous.
(a splicing variant of lamin A is responsible for Hutchinson-Guilford progeria syndrome)
Furthermore, I Google earth'd his company's address (4 Crome Road, Syosset, NY) and
it is a single family home right off the L.I.E.

So if you're not contributing to the thread, stay the hell off!!

speaking of which, where has hdeasy, jreed and their like been?

and with that I'll take my own advice...........
djolds1
QUOTE (auldsj+Apr 29 2008, 06:50 PM)
speaking of which, where has hdeasy, jreed and their like been?

Hopefully puzzling over the mass formula to see if it can be tweaked to work.

Until the overdue summary paper comes out, or Tajmar releases more results to compare to the Heim approach, matters are in stasis. sad.gif

Duane
hdeasy
oops - double posts
hdeasy
Hi - sorry for being absent so long from this forum: I was busy on other things. The only real bit of news on the Heim front is that the studies of Tajmar's experiment are increasing in number - one should start up soon at ESA: only fitting as it was in a mainly ESA sponsored study that the effect surfaced in the first place. It also seems there may be a patent in the offing using Heim theory for power generation. Whether this involves spinning magnets a la STEORN or not is not yet clear. But it's an interesting additional development, as Heim himself was even glad his theory seemed to have no power generation ability, as he thought it might have more bad effects than good.
djolds1
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 3 2008, 02:11 PM)
Hi - sorry for being absent so long from this forum: I was busy on other things.  The only real bit of news on the Heim front is that the studies of Tajmar's experiment are increasing in number - one should start up soon at ESA: only fitting as it was in a mainly ESA sponsored study that the effect surfaced in the first place.  It also seems there may be a patent in the offing using Heim theory for power generation. Whether this involves spinning magnets a la STEORN or not is not yet clear. But it's an interesting additional development, as Heim himself was even glad his theory seemed to have no power generation ability, as he thought it might have more bad effects than good.

Power generation patent?

That is actually... discouraging. I would prefer to see cautious & incremental extensions of the Heim approach, focusing mainly on the math & logical structure of the hypothesis, before any significant claims beyond the tabletop propulsive demonstrator are made. Baby steps until the approach can be generally verified, or refuted. Something like this smells of a Pons- Fleischman jump into the blue that could backfire VERY badly. sad.gif

Tho perhaps there have been significant refinements over the last 6-8 months which are not generally known.

Duane
hdeasy
> Something like this smells of a Pons- Fleischman jump into the blue that could backfire VERY badly.

> Tho perhaps there have been significant refinements over the last 6-8 months which are not generally known.



Well, the review paper is also being prepared by Droscher and that at the same time is presenting the theory in a more accessible way in a peer reviewed journal. That is moving the theory along. And extending the original fermion effect to this boson equivalent is indeed also adding to the original theory.

The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognises the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applicaitons. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.

Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.
Laidback
huh.gif
QUOTE
...weighing the samples of space to prove they are totally weightless.
"Space" or NEAR Vacuum, is always with potential, hence will always consist of mass and or present with a presence via force and the velocities that created the Potential, and that even includes a NEAR vacuum from deep space! And therefore will be with weight
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
...weighing the samples of space to prove they are totally weightless.
"Space" or NEAR Vacuum, is always with potential, hence will always consist of mass and or present with a presence via force and the velocities that created the Potential, and that even includes a NEAR vacuum from deep space! And therefore will be with weight ....watching light bend in a gravitational field....
Light is the rise and fall of Potential to the mass propagating the Kinetic Energy and or Electromagnetic waves - And the quanta of the rise and fall in potential to mass propagating light is the experience of velocities, {V=PE/KE} this experience is considered as photons when we are dealing in Quantum Mechanics.

And to observe trajectory changes to the photons and or the rise and fall of potential implies changes in density to the mass propagating the said rise and fall in potential which BTW is best dealt with as Electromagnetic waves and or photons, being propagated in part via a compression point, such as a mass of particles where there are countless opposing velocities involved for each particles Potential, and the more opposing velocities that cross any given point the greater the compression and or gravitational field one would experience
QUOTE
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
That's it!

I have had enough!

Look:-
Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!

Here's why!

Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?

Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!

Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....

ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.

or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
That's it!

I have had enough!

Look:-
Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!

Here's why!

Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?

Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!

Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....

ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.

or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...

Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low  price of only $25 per cubic cm.

Call 1-800-VACUUM  . laugh.gif
ohmy.gif DOH! blink.gif

Err~Cheers, biggrin.gif

Peter J Schoen..
djolds1
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 5 2008, 11:50 AM)
Well, the review paper is also being prepared by Droscher and that at the same time is presenting the theory in a more accessible way in a peer reviewed journal. That is moving the theory along. And extending the original fermion effect to this boson equivalent is indeed also adding to the original theory.

The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applications. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.

Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.

Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press?

I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal. biggrin.gif Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.

And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.
Astepintime
QUOTE (djolds1+May 5 2008, 11:55 PM)
Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press?

Well, I would not count on a publication in PRL or any other major journal. I think a good arXiv paper is the best you can hope for. Remember all the problems that the surfer dude had with his E8 theory.
hdeasy
QUOTE (djolds1+May 5 2008, 11:55 PM)
Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press?

I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal. biggrin.gif Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.

And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.


I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...

It's true that if the prediction of a vertrical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe. Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get. Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.
djolds1
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 6 2008, 02:07 PM)

I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...

It's true that if the prediction of a vertical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe.  Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get.  Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give  an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.

Droscher & Hauser have been working closely with Tajmar? That had been implied several places, but not solidly confirmed. Encouraging news to see them closely affiliated with a reputable established experiment.

As to the timing of the paper (Glyph of addict shakes/ON) I want my fix! (Glyph of addict shakes/OFF). biggrin.gif

For the patents - an example from American history that's always stuck with me. The cotton gin. Early 19th century invention. Improved the rate of cotton production by better than an order of magnitude. Transformed the slave system from a marginal thing to big business. The patent was jumped with impunity and the inventor wasted his life trying to enforce it, much like Tesla. When you're dealing with the really useful basic innovations, trying to enforce the patents is self-defeating. huh.gif Better to take the glory and be feted, wined and dined.

Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.

Duane
makuabob
QUOTE (djolds1+May 6 2008, 04:55 PM)
...
Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.

Duane


Ah! That's the tricky part about magnets! As one of the last bits of "magic" in our current universe, this 'thinking about' magnets is where the shell game begins.

An excellent example occurred a while back in a SlashDot posting about someone who discovered a "new" physical effect by sticking a permanent magnet onto the end of a running electrical motor with a steel shaft! The motor began spinning faster! But when tried on a motor with a brass shaft, no joy. The link below will get to the heart of the effect but, basically, nobody recalled what happens when the B-H curve gets pushed out of shape by a strong, steady magnetic force applied to an affectable material. SlashDot item about motor that speeds up...

I, too, advise caution when "free energy" is going to come from ordinary, everyday permanent magnets. Tajmar et al got their barely measurable effect by dipping into a special physical state. With all due regard to those thinking a set of plain magnets will supply energy,... well, I don't know what to say except better minds than ours have had decades to play with magnets and all that has come of it is "tricky" stuff. Before the Orbo thingy will be believable, it will have to run on its own, on a ten meter clear plastic pedestal, with no circle of stands surrounding it (like the stator poles of a motor!), transparent floor, ceiling, walls,... etc. That's because a finely balanced, well lubricated machine can seem to run forever.

But, I digress,...

We know well HOW magnetism and gravity affect things but Heim explained WHY they affect things. Until our world expands to include Heim's additional dimensions, it will still have "magic" in it and,..

Once it has expanded to include Heim's dimensions, we hope and expect new "magic" to appear. Otherwise, how dull it will be to live in a world where everything is known!
alongman
New Scientist last week had an interesting article reviewing four new theories for the origin and structure of space time. Three of these contain ideas that are strikingly reminiscent of Burkhard Heim's theory. It would seem therefore that ideas of this kind are gaining some traction in the theoretical community.

I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).

After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values. There has been much discussion of propulsion applications. I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS. There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc. Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).

Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?

Regards,

Anthony Longman
djolds1
QUOTE (alongman+May 14 2008, 06:53 AM)
New Scientist last week had an interesting article reviewing four new theories for the origin and structure of space time.  Three of these contain ideas that are strikingly reminiscent of Burkhard Heim's theory.  It would seem therefore that ideas of this kind are gaining some traction in the theoretical community.

I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).

After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values.  There has been much discussion of propulsion applications.  I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS.  There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc.  Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).

Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?

Regards,

Anthony Longman

IIRC positive (repulsive) gravitophotons are what lower the inertial mass of the vehicle in the FTL application of the spacedrive. But let's see if the general approach and initial proposed technical application (STL spacedrive) work before moving onto further notional applications. Best to keep claims limited and credibility intact until EHT is verified (or refuted, in which case all of this is moot).
alongman
QUOTE (djolds1+May 15 2008, 02:41 PM)
IIRC positive (repulsive) gravitophotons are what lower the inertial mass of the vehicle in the FTL application of the spacedrive. But let's see if the general approach and initial proposed technical application (STL spacedrive) work before moving onto further notional applications. Best to keep claims limited and credibility intact until EHT is verified (or refuted, in which case all of this is moot).

I agree that, clearly, experimental validation of the kind that one hopes will be forthcoming during the next 9 months or so will place discussion of the whole subject on a different footing.

As a non-participating observer ("lurker" is so unflattering!) for about the last 15 months I have seen that, absent hard experimental evidence the remarkable explanatory power of EHT and its capacity to derive values for particle masses and lifetimes, etc. has encouraged the worthy participants on this board in animatedly discussing the whole subject at great length. And yes, now with the Tajmar connection there is the imminent hope of much greater progress still.

In light of this however, surely there is no harm, meanwhile, in posing the question as to whether generation of an attractive gravitation-like field is an idea compatible with the theoretical framework of EHT, as presently proposed. It is surely an interesting question, no?

For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.

What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil. At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.

However, I am not a physicist by profession, and so would hope to hear from those with a deeper theoretical grasp of what has already been proposed and discussed at such great length.

regards,

Anthony Longman
djolds1
QUOTE (alongman+May 19 2008, 03:11 AM)
In light of this however, surely there is no harm, meanwhile, in posing the question as to whether generation of an attractive gravitation-like field is an idea compatible with the theoretical framework of EHT, as presently proposed.  It is surely an interesting question, no?

For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.

What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil.  At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.

The proposed propulsion experiment (GME2) imparts a "push" force to the fuselage of the craft per schematics in the papers, not a "pull" force. It might be possible to use this for "artificial gravity" of a sort, but IIRC human biological systems don't treat these "push" forces as "gravity" and so the medical problems of microgravity still remain.

It might be possible to use a propulsion coil in a small volume to act as an "acceleration compensator," providing a locally equal counterforce to acceleration forces and allowing for high gravity acceleration. I'm uncertain if the coil needs to be physically coupled to a structure to impart force.

Three applications have thusfar been described:

Repulsive gravitophoton coupling with vehicle structure to reduce inertial mass.

The Tajmar device (GME1), force toward circumference.

The reference propulsion experiment (GME2), force along axis of rotation.

There may be additional ways to acquire gravitational effects along various different vectors, but they have not as yet been described much less even marginally demonstrated.
gdaigle
I understand that NASA doesn't believe in the relibility of Gravity Probe B's data. Since Droscher is a supporter of Tajmar and Tajmar's results are reportedly supported by data from GPB, this has the potential of removing corroborative evidence in support of EHT.

From the article:

"The noisy data meant that GPB could not measure the effects as precisely as astronomers had by firing laser beams at mirrors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.

GPB managers had asked for additional funding to March 2010 to try to extract more information from the data, but the review panel doubted they could reach their goals.

It warned that the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity "is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community". Gravity Probe B's principal investigator, Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, could not be reached for comment."
hdeasy
The reason that only one form of force is produced by the gravitophotons is that the coupling constants for the two sorts are different. Only for the attractive gravitophoton is the cross-section for interaction large enough to cause an effect - the other only interacts very weakly. It may be possible to arrange for attractive ' tractor' beams if the right sort of setup is used - after all, just a modification of GME of Tajmar (tangential) gives GME2 of D & T (vertical, repulsive).

On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces (of the smase size! unbelievable coincidence!) that should have been excluded: read some of the superlatives about these spheres pre-flight -

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXV3/gravity.html
"Gravity Probe B will contain four gyroscopes, the most accurate ones ever made. Once they are in orbit, they will be capable of detecting changes in their axes of rotation of 0.1 milliarc-seconds, a feat that cannot be equaled in ground-based experiments. "

http://www.edn.com/article/CA486569.html
"(GPB ) Gravity Probe B is the most sensitive and precise test-and-measurement experiment that designers have ever devised and implemented...
The heart of GP-B is a set of four gyroscopes, but they have little resemblance to the crude ones sold as toys or even the precise ones used for missile guidance. The gyros are electrically spun spheres the size of ping-pong balls (with a 1.5-in. diameter), spinning in a vacuum at 10,000 rpm, housed in a nine-foot-long chamber."

So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed, returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), the experimenters delayed for an unprecedented time - half a year, where normally they rush to publish a.s.a.p. There were speculations of all sorts. They tried everything and in the end could only make the hypothesis, in desperation, that the most accurate experiment ever was actually unbelievably sloppy. They unfortuantely refused to listen to Tajmar's suggestion to consider his explanation.
alongman
Just re-read Droscher and Hauser's comparison of the hypothesized space drive set-up with the familiar practice of accelerating spacecraft via gravitational slingshot around a planet -- in this case the acceleration field generated above the rotating disk stands in for the gravitational field of the planet. Using the analogy of the rubber sheet deformed by a bowling ball to illustrate curvature of space by a planetary mass, one can visualize a positive (repulsive) gravitophoton field as causing a (very slight) local upward displacement of the rubber sheet, while a negative (attractive) gravitophoton field causes a relatively much larger downward displacement of the sheet (due to different strength coupling constants as hdeasy points out). One can imagine a device like Tajmar's original (GME-1) setup causing a transient depression in the rubber sheet model -- interesting, but not directly useful for propulsion. The proposed GME-2 experiment (if it works) will produce - in the rubber sheet analogy - a sustained depression whose focus is additionally displaced away from the center of the device -- accomplished by the spinning disk which interacts with the field and displaces its 'center' some distance along the disk's axis of rotation. The result in free space would be that the engine, ship and payload would 'fall' towards the low point of the depression in the rubber sheet analogy, but since the drive holds this low point away from the center of mass, a continuous acceleration will result.

Conversely, one can visualize that on the far side of the 'low point' - away from the drive device - there will be a reverse gradient as, in the analogy, the rubber sheet returns to its normal undisturbed level. So at a suitable distance away from the drive device one would experience a gravitational attraction TOWARDS the device --- providing the generation of an attractive gravity field with the many potential beneficial uses that would follow.
hdeasy
Yes, Alongman - your description sounds reasonable. Note that any fear that the effect only works on the Earth (clockwise in North, anti-clockwise in South) seems to be allayed by the GPB effect. If that probe experienced the effect then the space drive should indeed work in space! That is the beauty of the GPB result.

Now GPB was in a polar obit - i.e. it orbits north-south, passing periodically over the north and south poles! I wonder if there was any systematic effect as it was over the north and south hemispheres?
I must see if I can find out.
TRoc
Hi all,



hdeasy
QUOTE
On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces ..



Interesting post, that brings up many questions.


I don't think that it (blame) can be pointed to the construction:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces ..



Interesting post, that brings up many questions.


I don't think that it (blame) can be pointed to the construction:

After 2 ½ years of data analysis, we have a very good understanding of the physics underlying them. We now know that the interaction of patch effects between the gyro rotors and their housings is the root cause of both, and in our September 25, 2007 status update, we described how our team has honed and utilized a technique called trapped flux mapping to dramatically improve our determinations of the polhode phase and angle for each gyroscope throughout the entire 353-day experiment period.

(GPB Mission status)


As you say, it is odd that there is such a turn-about of opinion. Here are some quotes from the April 2007 article http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11615, updating the mission:

QUOTE
The first result from the Gravity Probe B satellite confirms a prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity to a precision of better than 1%. "For the first time, we have seen one of Einstein's effects directly," says mission leader Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, US.

"But lunar ranging provides indirect measurements. Gravity Probe B provides a direct measure that's unique and new."

The predictions of general relativity fall well within the probe's precision, though that might change when the team announces far more accurate results.


And, from the MISSION UPDATE — Spring 2008 web page: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The first result from the Gravity Probe B satellite confirms a prediction of Einstein's general theory of relativity to a precision of better than 1%. "For the first time, we have seen one of Einstein's effects directly," says mission leader Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, US.

"But lunar ranging provides indirect measurements. Gravity Probe B provides a direct measure that's unique and new."

The predictions of general relativity fall well within the probe's precision, though that might change when the team announces far more accurate results.


And, from the MISSION UPDATE — Spring 2008 web page: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

The subsequent SAC report noted "the truly extraordinary progress that had been made in data analysis since SAC-16 [March 23-24, 2007]" and unanimously concluded "that GP-B is on an accelerating path toward reaching good science results."

Following a peer-reviewed bridging proposal to NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) and actions by Stanford and a private donor, the GP-B program has been extended at least through September 2008.



Maybe that private donor (and others) will step up and extend this mission.


Back to the "blame":

QUOTE
That is due in part to a series of solar flares in March 2005 that interrupted the satellite's observations and will limit the final accuracy of the experiment.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That is due in part to a series of solar flares in March 2005 that interrupted the satellite's observations and will limit the final accuracy of the experiment.


In reality, GP-B experienced six major or significant anomalies during the 353-day science data collection period, and these anomalies caused the experimental data set to be divided into seven major segments, with a total of 307 days of "good" science data when all seven segments are combined.

A time variation in the polhode motion of the gyroscopes, which creates complications in the gyro scale factor calibrations (conversion of electrical signals to angles).

Much larger than expected classical misalignment torques on the gyroscopes, attributable to “patch effect” (contact potential difference) interactions between the gyro rotors and their housings.



The likely occurrence of other Solar flares notwithstanding, it seems than another years worth of collecting data would be wise use of the investment so far.


QUOTE
In December, we reported that we had successfully applied our much enhanced knowledge and modelling of the polhode phase and angle of each gyroscope to a central 85-day stretch of data, from December 12, 2004 through March 4, 2005. Since that time, we have been in the process of continuing to stretch the data analysis to increasingly long time intervals, so that the final analysis will be based on the seven segments defined by the anomalies experienced on orbit. This will yield the greatest precision possible in the results.
..
During this extended data analysis period, we will be working closely with the SAC to review our progress and, if judged necessary, re-focus our analysis efforts. In consultation with the SAC, we may well announce refined interim results to keep the scientific community and the public apprised of our progress. Additionally, a significant portion of this extended data analysis phase will be dedicated to producing scientific and engineering papers, including details of the many exciting technologies of GP-B.



Looking forward to those papers. Links appreciated, everybody!


One obvious question, I feel I must ask, is how much is the much larger mass of the Sun being accounted for, in this, primarily Earth field, experiment? On one hand, I would not be surprised to learn "not at all", in a typical generalization of theory; on the other hand, given the nature of the experiment (and the unplanned inclusion of flares in the data), how could they not?


Does anyone have more details of the "unbelievable results" that (apparently), agree with Tajmar's explanation?


edit: (forgot to include this quote)

Nobel laureate C.N. Yang:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In December, we reported that we had successfully applied our much enhanced knowledge and modelling of the polhode phase and angle of each gyroscope to a central 85-day stretch of data, from December 12, 2004 through March 4, 2005. Since that time, we have been in the process of continuing to stretch the data analysis to increasingly long time intervals, so that the final analysis will be based on the seven segments defined by the anomalies experienced on orbit. This will yield the greatest precision possible in the results.
..
During this extended data analysis period, we will be working closely with the SAC to review our progress and, if judged necessary, re-focus our analysis efforts. In consultation with the SAC, we may well announce refined interim results to keep the scientific community and the public apprised of our progress. Additionally, a significant portion of this extended data analysis phase will be dedicated to producing scientific and engineering papers, including details of the many exciting technologies of GP-B.



Looking forward to those papers. Links appreciated, everybody!


One obvious question, I feel I must ask, is how much is the much larger mass of the Sun being accounted for, in this, primarily Earth field, experiment? On one hand, I would not be surprised to learn "not at all", in a typical generalization of theory; on the other hand, given the nature of the experiment (and the unplanned inclusion of flares in the data), how could they not?


Does anyone have more details of the "unbelievable results" that (apparently), agree with Tajmar's explanation?


edit: (forgot to include this quote)

Nobel laureate C.N. Yang:
<general relativity>(sic),  "though profoundly beautiful, is likely to be amended ... whatever [the] new geometrical symmetry will be, it is likely to entangle with spin and rotation, which are related to a deep geometrical concept called torsion ... The proposed Stanford experiment [Gravity Probe B] is especially interesting since it focuses on the spin. I would not be surprised at all if it gives a result in disagreement with Einstein's theory."




regards,

T.Roc
djolds1
QUOTE (alongman+May 21 2008, 06:21 AM)
The proposed GME-2 experiment (if it works) will produce - in the rubber sheet analogy - a sustained depression whose focus is additionally displaced away from the center of the device -- accomplished by the spinning disk which interacts with the field and displaces its 'center' some distance along the disk's axis of rotation.  The result in free space would be that the engine, ship and payload would 'fall' towards the low point of the depression in the rubber sheet analogy, but since the drive holds this low point away from the center of mass, a continuous acceleration will result.

Conversely, one can visualize that on the far side of the 'low point' - away from the drive device - there will be a reverse gradient as, in the analogy, the rubber sheet returns to its normal undisturbed level.  So at a suitable distance away from the drive device one would experience a gravitational attraction TOWARDS the device --- providing the generation of an attractive gravity field with the many potential beneficial uses that would follow.

1) If your hypothesis holds then ground launch using GME2 would be ruled out, as attracting the mass of the Earth while being "pushed" upward would not produce a net propulsive force. Unless I misunderstand your assertions?

2) For use as a tractor beam or repulsor beam, the intensity of the "aft" field lobe would need to be reduced or somehow distorted. No point "pulling" something to you if you're moving away from it just as fast. Standard directional antennas might be able to do it however, horn antennas, etc.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (TRoc+May 21 2008, 05:05 PM)


One obvious question, I feel I must ask, is how much is the much larger mass of the Sun being accounted for, in this, primarily Earth field, experiment?  On one hand, I would not be surprised to learn "not at all", in a typical generalization of theory; on the other hand, given the nature of the experiment (and the unplanned inclusion of flares in the data), how could they not?


Does anyone have more details of the "unbelievable results" that (apparently), agree with Tajmar's explanation?




TRoc....You forgot this one:

GP-B scores an "F" in NASA review:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13...s3_head_dn13938

QUOTE
It recommended that Gravity Probe B receive no additional funding after its current funding runs out in September.

The probe's data was unexpectedly noisy due to solar flares in March 2005 that interrupted the satellite's observations, as well as unexpected torques on the gyroscopes that changed their orientation, mimicking relativistic effects. Additional interruptions ultimately chopped the observing time into seven intervals, which reduced the precision the probe could attain.

The noisy data meant that GPB could not measure the effects as precisely as astronomers had by firing laser beams at mirrors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.

It warned that the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity "is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community".



So basically GP-B is being de-funded...


For more on how Tajmar results could have influenced the GP-B data, (and solar effects) see here:

http://www.bautforum.com/space-exploration...-probe-b-5.html

(In particular post # 124 and 128)

JW
Laidback
QUOTE (djolds1+May 22 2008, 02:45 PM)
1) If your hypothesis holds then ground launch using GME2 would be ruled out, as attracting the mass of the Earth while being "pushed" upward would not produce a net propulsive force. Unless I misunderstand your assertions?


According to Basic Physical Laws that is "Force and Motion Laws"

All forces are Repulsive and or Positive, Each Force should be treated as a Potential. A negative force can only be theoretical and or possible on paper via overlooking the fact that once a mass or potential has been divided off to else and there is nothing left so that what we refer to is borrowed mass and or potential..

We also need to refer to Potential and Kinetic Energy Laws and or the equation PE/KE=V or meters/second=change and or work. As anything less than zero is VOID when we are working with a practical model, I mean can anyone seriously imply and explain how nothing or less than nothing can do anything other than nothing? So lets start by being practical and by considering Space is with potential via it is capable of increasing and decreasing in potential and or it is capable to propagate electromagnetic waves and or if one prefers quanta of photon/s..

A Potential can only be created and or in reality increased via the experience of an opposing Velocity, before I proceed I should point out all possibilities are part and parcel of the Universe and no matter where or what part of the Universe it should be treated as a division (portion) of the Universe and each division (portion) should be treated as an open sub-system with a quanta of energy to it, mind you implied as a force and or Potential - Higgs field included if you wish to go there..

An opposing velocity should be noted - Is the direct result of previous differing Potentials having being presented to each other, being mindful a potential is merely two or more velocities departing from the experience of the other velocities creating the potential and or compression point, it also should be noted a velocity is a Potential in its self only it is with momentum to it as in implied to be electron/s and or photon/s or in a macro sense even a body large enough to be deemed as a body of mass or collection of Potentials, Importantly it is here that an opposing velocity that is before each velocity has experienced the other velocities is what most laymen including members of NASA refer to as the PERCIEVED Attraction of mass (Gravity) if that last part of my statement is unclear and or you don't believe me then seriously read and learn what is entailed for a force to be Possible and more importantly how momentum or velocity is made possible, don't take my words on it, I am sure once one understands force and Motion and or Potential and Kinetics we should be able to apply the two aspects together so that when one refers to a velocity as in a small portion of Potential availed with momentum to it, one should have a clear idea what gravity is really about..

Yes ~ Its simply the highly kinetic near vacuums potential, perhaps best imagined as countless low potentials with a velocity to it, that are actually the cause for density changes and or a Masses demise to a compression point..

Why do I mention all this?
The above mentioned velocities, Err~Electromagnetic waves and or Photons with a velocity to them seems to be totally misunderstood even by the experts!..
QUOTE
2) For use as a tractor beam or repulsor beam, the intensity of the "aft" field lobe would need to be reduced or somehow distorted. No point "pulling" something to you if you're moving away from it just as fast. Standard directional antennas might be able to do it however, horn antennas, etc.
If one fully understands the mechanics of Force and Motion Properly and then reads the above quoted statement, well what can I say, but is it any wonder why Physics seems to be at a stand still! <sigh> sad.gif

OK ~ Having pulled out a little more of my hair - Let me first apologise for my abruptness and rudeness it is not my intention to belittle anyone here, who are simply following NASA, everyday Physicists and or worse! Ones clueless professor's lead, Ask any one today and they simply wont have a clue about Gravity! AND WHY IS THIS SO!? Well simply because force and motion is not completely understood by them..

So lets once and for all consider in detail how pull and or attraction is to work, and lets attempt to have the model working in a near vacuum so that Gravities misconception can be once and for all binned and replaced with the proper model!

<sigh> NUFF SAID!

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
alongman
QUOTE

[1) If your hypothesis holds then ground launch using GME2 would be ruled out, as attracting the mass of the Earth while being "pushed" upward would not produce a net propulsive force. Unless I misunderstand your assertions?

2) For use as a tractor beam or repulsor beam, the intensity of the "aft" field lobe would need to be reduced or somehow distorted. No point "pulling" something to you if you're moving away from it just as fast. Standard directional antennas might be able to do it however, horn antennas, etc.]


For myself I find the "push/pull" metaphors difficult to grasp in a way that helps to understand this sort of thing. The rubber sheet analogy gives one an intuitive way to understand the behavior of the gravity field.

Start with the bowling ball on the rubber sheet to represent the earth's gravity field. Then imagine yourself shrunk down that you are standing on the bowling ball earth's surface. You are at the bottom of the earth's gravity well, so imagine the rubber sheet starting at your feet and extending up and away from you at say 45 degrees. It's steepness represents the strength of the earth's gravity field, and motion away from you and up the slope is equivalent to climbing directly up out of eath's gravity well.

Place a baseball on the sheet at arms length and it will roll immediately to your feet. But if you poke the rubber sheet with a baseball bat you can perhaps form a depression that will hold the baseball and prevent it from falling to your feet. If you then artfully work the baseball bat upwards while maintaining the depression, the baseball can perhaps be coaxed to follow the moving depression in the rubber sheet caused by the baseball bat and so climb up the slope. The earth's gravity in the form of the prevailing slope of the sheet around would be unaffected beyond the small local distortion of it's field. The depression must be big enough for the ball to fit comfortably on the advantageous reverse part of the depression, that is opposite in direction to the prevailing slope around it. So one can see that for the space to launch from earth there will be parameters that must be properly balanced for a particular payload and vehicle, and sufficient power to locally reverse the gravity field.

In the case of the GME-2 device and any future drive design it seems that the position of maximum field strength must be maintained at a point in front of (above) the payload (or at least the ship's center of mass) even though the engine itself may be mostly (or entlrely) behind it. With sufficient field strength, this allows the ship to 'fall upward' off the earth's surface.

A similar process of analogy may also be applied to visualizing tractor beam applications.
djolds1
QUOTE (Laidback+May 23 2008, 12:46 AM)

If one fully understands the mechanics of Force and Motion Properly and then reads the above quoted statement, well what can I say, but is it any wonder why Physics seems to be at a stand still! <sigh> sad.gif

I very well may have introduced a fundamental error into my reasoning. If so I accept culpability. Its been quite awhile since I reviewed some parts of scientific theory, and obviously have some reading to do. Among the 12000 other pages in my "to read" pile. smile.gif

But this part of the thread is all extemporaneous postulating out of our posterior ejection mechanisms as is. Further results are needed to see if any fraction of it is applicable.
lorencc
With regard to GME-2, can the better informed among you say whether the effect will
occur if one holds the superconducting ring stable and spins the magnet instead?

As I understand it the gravitophoton force is proportional (in some way) to the relative
velocity of the material (bosons, fermions, whatever) in/to the magnetic field.
makuabob
The renewed activity here sent me back to review some of the earlier Heim theory papers,... thus far Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures (Auerbach and von Ludwiger, Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992) and Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion (Dröscher and Hauser, 10 April 2006).

In the former work, a statement is found that the speed of propagation of gravitons in Heim's six-dimensional universe should be 4/3 of light-speed, meaning that, once a working detector is established, we should have ample warning of approaching supernovae radiation. Having just read that the mission of LIGO is to, among other things, prove that gravitational waves propogate at the speed of light, we can't expect verification of Heim's 6-D prediction to come from them. :-/

In the latter paper, there is no mention of the propogation speed of gravitons, raising the question: Does EHT back away from the gravitons @ 4/3 C statement?

Does anyone 'listening in' here have an answer to that question? Verification of this would be a real attention-getter for Heim Theory.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 20 2008, 09:29 PM)



So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed,  returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), the experimenters delayed for an unprecedented time - half a year, where normally they rush to publish a.s.a.p.


Hello, Hdeasy;

I do think the report on GP-B is amuzing.
However, where did you see any info about the data supporting Tajmar results.....?

You said:
"
"So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed, returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), ..."
I haven't seen that claim anywhere that they agree with Tajmar.....please supply the reference.

Thanks ;
JW
TRoc
Hi all,



Just Wonderful Posted on May 22 2008, 04:20 PM-
QUOTE
TRoc....You forgot this one:

GP-B scores an "F" in NASA review:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13...s3_head_dn13938


I think that was the one that gdaigle linked to start off this topic.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
TRoc....You forgot this one:

GP-B scores an "F" in NASA review:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13...s3_head_dn13938


I think that was the one that gdaigle linked to start off this topic.


For more on how Tajmar results could have influenced the GP-B data, (and solar effects) see here:


Thanks for the link, according to the poster "Gsquare" in that thread, the DeSitter-Fokker effect of the Sun was considered (19 milliarc sec/yr).


So, the other "Solar contribution", ie. the flare, was "unlucky". But, as I indicated, it seems a little odd that they did not expect any Solar flares for the duration of the experiment?


Gsquare also had this to say:
QUOTE
**The other modeling I would like to see (in GP-cool.gif is that which would take into account the Tajmar / deMatos effect. As I mentioned to Publius some time back, the greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic field of the gyros should not influence the frame dragging precession portion of the experiment.....BUT that was ONLY considering its interaction (or lack of interaction) of a SINGLE gyroscope with the earth's gravitomagnetic field.

The problem developes when we realize there are FOUR gyros in GB-P, two spinning one direction and 2 spinning the other direction....(which was done for redundancy to cross check and make for greater accuracy in the data).

If we consider the multiple effects of 4 greatly increased GM fields of the 4 SC gyroscopes, then we have to deal with their INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER. Surely if the gravitomagnetic field of a superconducting Gyro is enhanced as great as Tajmar experiments suggest, then the interaction of the dipole GM field of each gyro with the others must be taken into account.

Even though each gyro is magnetically isolated, it is impossible to gravitomagnetically isolate them....Gravitomagnetism is an angular momentum transferring field, the interaction between gyros of which can very possibly mimic unbalanced torque (or at least confound any modeling) of polhode / electrostatic coupling of the gyro to the frame.



Since we had had no takers on the reference, I did a little digging. Here are a few papers that might contain that GPB "coincidence":

Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment [ PDF ]
Martin Tajmar, Florin Plesescu, Klaus Marhold & Clovis J. de Matos

Local Photon and Graviton Mass and its Consequences [ PDF ]
M. Tajmar, C. J. de Matos

Coupling of Electromagnetism and Gravitation in the Weak Field Approximation [ PDF ]
M. Tajmar, C. J. de Matos

Measurement of Gravitomagnetic and Acceleration Fields Around Rotating Superconductors [ PDF ]
Martin Tajmar, Florin Plesescu, Bernhard Seifert, Klaus Marhold

Gravitational Poynting Vector and Gravitational Larmor Theorem in Rotating Bodies with Angular Acceleration [ PDF ]
C. J. de Matos, M. Tajmar


Also, a couple of articles to read:

Gravity's secret [ Link ]
11 November 2006 - NewScientist.com

Towards a new test of general relativity? [ Link ]
ESA News


I think that it's also important to note, that NASA did not recommend to stop funding because of the problems, per se. Just that they did not have the funds to continue "everything", and GPB did not make the cut. It's now "free-agent"; which is why I think that someone else may "pick it up". They were concerned that the results (apparently challenging some well established work) needed to be "cleaner", in order to validate the results. "Extraordinary claims >> extraordinary proof" kind of a thing; with so many problems with the data, there will be people who won't accept it.



ciao,

T.Roc

Jossarian
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+May 26 2008, 10:57 PM)

"So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed,  returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), ..."
I haven't seen that claim anywhere that they agree with Tajmar.....please supply the reference.

See this paper:
Search for Frame-Dragging in the Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors (PDF) Gravity Probe-B results are discussed on page 12.

/Joss
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (Jossarian+May 27 2008, 04:36 PM)
See this paper:
Search for Frame-Dragging in the Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors (PDF) Gravity Probe-B results are discussed on page 12.

/Joss

Thanks Joss; that one is very informative...

Most of that info was published in the preceeding year or so....in reports outlined by TRoc above....(which I am very familiar with).

This one appears to be a new report which reviews the older Tajmar/ deMatos stuff...BUT ADDS the recent GP-B results with a comparison. Exactly what I was looking for ...BUT it really peeves me that they HIDE the date in which they posted it. mad.gif

Is there any way you can get the exact date of posting that report.?

JW
elarne
Lurking in another forum I found some news that could be interesting with regard to the problem of high intensity magnetic fields disturbing the superconducting properties which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

High-temp superconductors pave way for 'supermagnets'

Does anyone know whether this material is capable of being used in GME2? The tested material is an "iron compound with fluorine-doped lanthanum oxide and arsenic" and retains its superconductivity at 55 Kelvin and in an externally applied magnetic field of 45 Tesla or even more. So it is an HTSC unlike niobium. But if it turns out to be applicable for GME2, it may provide the possibility of generating acceleration fields of >1g.
Jossarian
QUOTE (elarne+May 30 2008, 08:01 AM)
Lurking in another forum I found some news that could be interesting with regard to the problem of high intensity magnetic fields disturbing the superconducting properties which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

High-temp superconductors pave way for 'supermagnets'

Found something like this:

Focus Fusion - Main Page
Focus Fusion - $10M Licensing agreement

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. (LPP) has announced the signing of its first licensing agreement for the manufacture, distribution and marketing of focus fusion reactors. The reactors, which could produce energy safely and for far less than current costs, are under development by LPP, which expects them to be ready by 2012.

Focus fusion reactors will use a small device called the dense plasma focus to produce energy by fusing hydrogen and boron. The energy is released in the form of charged particles, which can be converted directly into electricity, without using the normal, expensive process of producing steam and running it through turbines. LPP has been developing the technology since the 1980’s, partly with funding from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It is currently engaged in a three-year experiment in collaboration with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission to demonstrate the scientific feasibility of the process. If these experiments are successful, another three years will be needed to develop a prototype reactor ready for manufacture.


This also needs intensive magnetic fields.
/Joss
djolds1
QUOTE (Jossarian+May 30 2008, 08:52 PM)
Found something like this:

Focus Fusion - Main Page
Focus Fusion - $10M Licensing agreement

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. (LPP) has announced the signing of its first licensing agreement for the manufacture, distribution and marketing of focus fusion reactors. The reactors, which could produce energy safely and for far less than current costs, are under development by LPP, which expects them to be ready by 2012.

Focus fusion reactors will use a small device called the dense plasma focus to produce energy by fusing hydrogen and boron. The energy is released in the form of charged particles, which can be converted directly into electricity, without using the normal, expensive process of producing steam and running it through turbines. LPP has been developing the technology since the 1980’s, partly with funding from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It is currently engaged in a three-year experiment in collaboration with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission to demonstrate the scientific feasibility of the process. If these experiments are successful, another three years will be needed to develop a prototype reactor ready for manufacture.


This also needs intensive magnetic fields.
/Joss

The Bussard Polywell seems far more promising.

Duane
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (elarne+May 30 2008, 08:01 AM)
Lurking in another forum I found some news that could be interesting with regard to the problem of high intensity magnetic fields disturbing the superconducting properties which was mentioned earlier in this thread.

High-temp superconductors pave way for 'supermagnets'

Does anyone know whether this material is capable of being used in GME2? The tested material is an "iron compound with fluorine-doped lanthanum oxide and arsenic" and retains its superconductivity at 55 Kelvin and in an externally applied magnetic field of 45 Tesla or even more. So it is an HTSC unlike niobium. But if it turns out to be applicable for GME2, it may provide the possibility of generating acceleration fields of >1g.


I keep seeing references to GME1 and GME 2 on this thread....Is this a reference to Tajmars 1st and 2nd experiment ...if not someone clue me in please. wink.gif


By the way, elarne; It is amazing that a HTSC has been found with a critical field above 45 T ......however, why would you think that characteristic would allow for acceleration fields greater than 1 g (in Tajmar exp.) ??


JW
elarne
QUOTE
I keep seeing references to GME1 and GME 2 on this thread....Is this a reference to Tajmars 1st and 2nd experiment ...if not someone clue me in please. wink.gif


By the way, elarne; It is amazing that a HTSC has been found with a critical field above 45 T ......however, why would you think that characteristic would allow for acceleration fields greater than 1 g (in Tajmar exp.) ??


Not in MTs experiment, but in the experimental setup suggested by Dröscher and Häuser,which they called GME2 (Gravito-Magnetic Experiment 2). As discussed earlier in this thread the spinning ring would loose its superconducting properties if an external magnetic field is applied that's intensity is above a critical value. That means you can not achieve high acceleration, but you may show the proof of concept. With the newly discovered compound material this should no longer be the matter.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I keep seeing references to GME1 and GME 2 on this thread....Is this a reference to Tajmars 1st and 2nd experiment ...if not someone clue me in please. wink.gif


By the way, elarne; It is amazing that a HTSC has been found with a critical field above 45 T ......however, why would you think that characteristic would allow for acceleration fields greater than 1 g (in Tajmar exp.) ??


Not in MTs experiment, but in the experimental setup suggested by Dröscher and Häuser,which they called GME2 (Gravito-Magnetic Experiment 2). As discussed earlier in this thread the spinning ring would loose its superconducting properties if an external magnetic field is applied that's intensity is above a critical value. That means you can not achieve high acceleration, but you may show the proof of concept. With the newly discovered compound material this should no longer be the matter.

The Bussard Polywell seems far more promising.


For all interested people around here see Focus Fusion discussion at the Polywell forum.

@Duane: BTW, I was pleased to see you there, too... wink.gif
MrGrynch
Hey there Hugh!

GP-B was meant to prove GR, and instead it did everything but. In this light, I share your amusement at the response to these results. I am not amused, however, with the effect suppression of these results will have on either of our efforts!

Best regards,
-Dave
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (MrGrynch+Jun 2 2008, 05:35 PM)
GP-B was meant to prove GR, and instead it did everything but. In this light, I share your amusement at the response to these results. I am not amused, however, with the effect suppression of these results will have on either of our efforts!

Firstly, learn the difference between 'prove' and 'support'. Secondly, how do you have information on the GPB results which noone else does? Are you a NASA whistle-blower or just another crank with a conspiracy axe to grind?
Laidback
QUOTE (Alphanumeric+ June 3 2008, 03:11 AM)
Firstly, learn the difference between 'prove' and 'support'. Secondly, how do you have information on the GPB results which no-one else does? Are you a NASA whistle-blower or just another crank with a conspiracy axe to grind?

For one Evidence or Proof brought forward IS the SUPPORT to facts, and facts, Evidence or proof that support one's theory should be implied as PROOF to the facts.

Having said this, Let me advise all readers that, what Alphanumeric has thus far contributed here or anywhere is all that this user is simply capable of, proof and support to that is here! Alphanumerics History, and Details

Oh! One more thing! cool.gif

Now take a gander at my negative feedback, Yeah I know who normally goes there other than Losers! laugh.gif Anyway see that last bad feedback of mine? Well that one, Won me a whole days wages, So its thanks to the likes of Alphanumeric and like cronies, my retirement is supplemented every now and then, It's the best sure betting system I have ever put together, Go on Alpha! Do it! Don't worry about what my signature has to say about negative feedback losers, Just use one of your other user names.. tongue.gif
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (elarne+Jun 2 2008, 07:23 AM)

Not in MTs experiment, but in the experimental setup suggested by Dröscher and Häuser,which they called GME2 (Gravito-Magnetic Experiment 2). As discussed earlier in this thread the spinning ring would loose its superconducting properties if an external magnetic field is applied that's intensity is above a critical value. ...





Thanks for the reference article, elarne...BUT...in that article the authors (Droscher et al) DO refer to Tajmar's experiiments as GME1 and GME2....

Apparently, they are merely trying to use Tajmar / deMatos experiments to justify their own (Heim) theory.....and knowing the details of Tajmar exper. that certainly doesn't appear possible.

First, as you state, apparently Heim theory suspects that an external magnetic field is necessary to develop an acceleration field. Tajmar experiment requires NO external field...the only B field is the London moment of the rotating superconductor.

Furthermore I think the point needs to be made: Even though Tajmar's results are unusual, his approach uses standard physics with well known physically justifiable (and pier reviewed) physics principles and is NOT inventing new physics OR new particles, etc. as the Heim theory is.

Heim (Droscher), on the other hand, apparently IS inventing entirely new (and very speculative) physics and inventing a whole array of new particles to justify his theory, and just about NONE of it is recognized by pier review physicists in the community.


In short, except for the use of superconductors to somehow produce a gravitational field, both Tajmar's underlying theoretical justification and experimental results are completely different from this Heim theory (as far as I can tell - I don't know the complete details of Heim).

For the point in question, for example, Tajmar's results do NOT depend upon a SC's critical field limit.

JW
elarne
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 3 2008, 01:24 AM)
For the point in question, for example, Tajmar's results do NOT depend upon a SC's critical field limit.

You're right. Tajmar's experiments need no magnetic fields.

But you have to keep in mind the topic of the thread I am posting in. Of cause the theory was almost not peer reviewed and so it is very hypothetical to talk about the impacts to the physics.

Therefore, please, read the description of the experimental setup of GME 2 that depends on magnetic fields. I'm not going to discuss the validity of HT or EHT at the moment. I just intended to renew the discussion about the limits of GME 2. What I wanted to show is that GME 2 could be extended to be used for zero-G applications or even for levitation and space propulsion. According to EHT - if EHT is considered being applicable - the setup of such a field propulsion would be far more simpler with superconductors than using rotating plasma in a magnetic field(fermion vs. boson coupling).

And my question to the sophisticated physicists was "Am I right in saying so?"
djolds1
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 3 2008, 01:24 AM)


Thanks for the reference article, elarne...BUT...in that article the authors (Droscher et al) DO refer to Tajmar's experiiments as GME1 and GME2....

Apparently, they are merely trying to use Tajmar / deMatos experiments to justify their own (Heim)  theory.....and knowing the details of Tajmar exper.  that certainly doesn't appear  possible.

First, as you state, apparently Heim theory suspects that an external magnetic field is necessary to develop an acceleration field.  Tajmar experiment requires NO external field...the only B field is the London moment of  the rotating superconductor.

Furthermore I think the point needs to be made:  Even though Tajmar's results are unusual, his approach uses standard physics with well known physically justifiable (and pier reviewed) physics principles and is NOT inventing new physics OR new particles, etc. as the Heim theory is.

Heim (Droscher), on the other hand, apparently IS inventing entirely new (and very speculative) physics and inventing a whole array of new particles to justify his theory, and just about NONE of it is recognized by pier review physicists in the community.


In short, except for the use of superconductors to somehow produce a gravitational field, both Tajmar's underlying theoretical justification and experimental results are completely different from this Heim theory (as far as I can tell - I don't know the complete details of Heim).

For the point in question, for example, Tajmar's results do NOT depend upon a SC's critical field limit.

JW

GME1 is what Droscher et al use to refer to the Tajmar experiment

GME2 is Droscher e al's term for their proposed variant experiment.

The Heim mechanism proposed for Tajmar's GME1 and the current GME2 rely on the Cooper pairs found in the superconductors, not their field intensities per se. Beyond that, GME2 is intended to create a gravitational effect along a different vector than GME1. Different effect = different setup.

The Heim approach is purported to explain how the Tajmar results were 30 orders of magnitude higher than GR predicted they should be.

In structure, the Heim approach is very reminiscent of Loop Quantum Gravity, especially in its geometric quantization of matter, space and time.

Duane
elarne
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 3 2008, 09:26 AM)
GME1 is what Droscher et al use to refer to the Tajmar experiment

GME2 is Droscher e al's term for their proposed variant experiment.

...

Thanks, Duane, for your help to clarify this.

QUOTE
The Heim mechanism proposed for Tajmar's GME1 and the current GME2 rely on the Cooper pairs found in the superconductors, not their field intensities per se.


That is AFAIK correct. But the critical factor I am talking about is the fact that the pairing of the electrons to Cooper pairs would not remain stable if a magnetic field of a critical intensity is applied depending on the superconducting material.

IIRC the proposed combinations of SCs and field intensities in GME2 are not able to create acceleration values beyond some 10**-4 g, but I do not have the correct values. This newly developed material may be the road to success for zero-G environments (without building a SC ring 200m in diameter as MT patented) or for lifting off via field propulsion devices. I think, this should be taken into account if someone wants to build the full-scale variant of a field propulsion device suggested by D&H and not only the proof-of-concept-experiment. So the whole thing could be far more simpler than previously thought, couldn't it?
djolds1
QUOTE (elarne+Jun 3 2008, 10:49 AM)
Thanks, Duane, for your help to clarify this.



That is AFAIK correct. But the critical factor I am talking about is the fact that the pairing of the electrons to Cooper pairs would not remain stable if a magnetic field of a critical intensity is applied depending on the superconducting material.

IIRC the proposed combinations of SCs and field intensities in GME2 are not able to create acceleration values beyond some 10**-4 g, but I do not have the correct values. This newly developed material may be the road to success for zero-G environments (without building a SC ring 200m in diameter as MT patented) or for lifting off via field propulsion devices. I think, this should be taken into account if someone wants to build the full-scale variant of a field propulsion device suggested by D&H and not only the proof-of-concept-experiment. So the whole thing could be far more simpler than previously thought, couldn't it?

The tabletop experiment is limited to a milligee or so.

The proposed all-up first generation functional design is reputed to be doable with current technology and able to create 871 kiloNewtons of thrust. This would be the follow-on to the tabletop proof of concept experiment.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 3 2008, 09:26 AM)
GME1 is what Droscher et al use to refer to the Tajmar experiment

GME2 is Droscher e al's term for their proposed variant experiment.

The Heim mechanism proposed for Tajmar's GME1 and the current GME2 rely on the Cooper pairs found in the superconductors, not their field intensities per se. Beyond that, GME2 is intended to create a gravitational effect along a different vector than GME1. Different effect = different setup.

The Heim approach is purported to explain how the Tajmar results were 30 orders of magnitude higher than GR predicted they should be.

In structure, the Heim approach is very reminiscent of Loop Quantum Gravity, especially in its geometric quantization of matter, space and time.

Duane


Thanks , Duane, for clarifying the meaning of their use of GME1 and GME 2; I went back and re-read, and you are correct.

Of course, all experimental set-ups that involve superconductors must take into account Cooper pairing, that is the whole fundamental basis for condensed matter physics....Tajmar included.

However, it really bothers me that this Droscher report ignores any reference to the magnetic field interaction (in their GME 2 proposal) that will arise when a external B field is applied to a dipole (London moment) field of a rotating superconductor. (see figure 6 & 7); in the report. (they appear to be totally unaware of such an interaction):
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...Abbreviated.pdf

How can someone propose an experiment and not even take into consideration the forces that shall result from the most obvious resulting field interactions....completely ignoring them....and only including some speculative gravitational force that supposed arises from purely theoretical assumption that "photons convert to gravi-photons" ??

Furthermore, How can Droscher justify not even giving their derivation of the equation which supposely gives the acceleration force? And the eqn. they give doesn't even include the magnetic field at all!

Since the ENTIRE experimental success hinges on equation #16 (in that report), please TELL ME WHERE I can get a copy (a link) to the DERIVATION of that equation.


I really don't see how everyone can be jumping onto this very simple proposal without any analysis from the perspective of standard well known physical principles. unsure.gif The more I read, the more it seems to be total speculative rubbish, with no physical underpinnings, and I can understand why there are no pier review reports. rolleyes.gif

Just to make sure....You seem to be up to scope on Droscher, so I ask you, djolds... where I can get a copy of the derivation of eqn. # 16 ?

Thanks,

JW
djolds1
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 3 2008, 11:39 AM)
However, it really bothers me  that this Droscher report  ignores any reference to the magnetic field interaction (in their GME 2 proposal) that will arise when a external B field is applied to a dipole (London moment) field of a rotating superconductor. (see figure  6 & 7); in the report. (they appear to be totally unaware of such an interaction):
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...Abbreviated.pdf

How can someone propose an experiment and not even take into consideration the forces that shall result from the most obvious resulting field interactions....completely ignoring them....and only including some speculative gravitational force that supposed arises from purely theoretical assumption that "photons convert to gravi-photons"  ??

Furthermore,  How can Droscher justify not even giving their derivation of the equation which supposely gives the acceleration force? And the eqn. they give doesn't even include the magnetic field at all! 

Since the ENTIRE experimental success hinges on equation #16 (in that report), please TELL ME WHERE I can get a copy (a link) to the DERIVATION of that equation.


I really don't see how everyone can be jumping onto this very simple proposal without any analysis from the perspective of standard well known physical principles. unsure.gif The more I read, the more it seems to be total speculative rubbish, with no physical underpinnings, and I can understand why there are no pier review reports. rolleyes.gif

Just to make sure....You seem to be up to scope on Droscher, so I ask you, djolds... where I can get a copy of the derivation of eqn. # 16 ?

Thanks,

JW

IIRC, the rotating disks in both the original and current proposed Heim experiments are not superconductive. The non-rotating coil below the disk is superconductive.

The mathematics for the force creation are detailed in older papers, early 2006 and before. However, those were for the presumed fermionic pathway, which required gargantuan magnetic fields (20-60+ Tesla). I'm not sure if it carries over completely to the post-Tajmar bosonic pathway (far lower technical requirements).

Links to the older papers can be found:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory#Propulsion_physics

And yes, I'd like to see a complete linear review of the mathematics to date, and/or a tabletop experiment that is at least indicative and designed from the get go to identify any EHT effects.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 3 2008, 01:39 PM)
IIRC, the rotating disks in both the original and current proposed Heim experiments are not superconductive.


You're kidding right? The disk is not superconducting ? Now I'm even more skeptical. wink.gif

So what material is the rotating disk made of???

Now that I re-read it; it says made of a "special" material...er, and exactly what may that "special material" be....?? rolleyes.gif

Do they say....? or do I have to get it from the aliens? smile.gif rolleyes.gif

JW

P.S. Thanks for the links to their derivations...I'll have to read it when I have more time....for now, thanks for clarifying about the NON -superconducting disk.
elarne
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 3 2008, 11:10 AM)
The tabletop experiment is limited to a milligee or so.

The proposed all-up first generation functional design is reputed to be doable with current technology and able to create 871 kiloNewtons of thrust. This would be the follow-on to the tabletop proof of concept experiment.

I found the post of Jossarian that I was referring to, but the article which we are talking about is more up-to-date. So may be D&H do not consider magnetic fields and Cooper pairing any longer to be an issue.
djolds1
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 3 2008, 02:34 PM)

You're kidding right? The disk is not superconducting ? Now I'm even more skeptical. wink.gif

So what material is the rotating disk made of???

Now that I re-read it; it says made of a "special" material...er, and exactly what may that "special material" be....?? rolleyes.gif

Do they say....? or do I have to get it from the aliens? smile.gif rolleyes.gif

JW

P.S. Thanks for the links to their derivations...I'll have to read it when I have more time....for now, thanks for clarifying about the NON -superconducting disk.

Mentioned in... I think the 2002 paper.

For the STL demonstrator, the disk was composed of a moderately low-z material, Mg IIRC. The FTL application was cited as using a very low-z material, H or possibly He.

The descriptions of the fermionic mechanism in the earlier papers are much more detailed than those of the bosonic mechanism cited since Aug '06.
hdeasy
Good explanations, Duane - you've clarified a few things quite well there. Tajmar is very interested in D&H's GME2, which he hadn't considered himself. He studied the derivation and agreed in principle, and even found some minor numerical errors which D&H will correct in some of their next papers. And just to show that Tajmar is still working with Droscher & Hauser, look at this latest paper of T et al. which again refers to D&H 's explanation as well as those of De Matos, Beck et al. - it is the first paper to make a detailed comparison with the GPB results - and shows the Tajmar mechanism could indeed explain that.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf

Or has this been mentioned here before?
Hugh
Laidback
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jun 10 2008, 05:49 PM)
Good explanations, Duane - you've clarified a few things quite well there.  Tajmar is very interested in D&H's GME2, which he hadn't considered himself. He studied the derivation and agreed in principle, and even found some minor numerical errors which D&H will correct in some of their next papers. And just to show that Tajmar is still working with Droscher & Hauser, look at this latest paper of T et al. which again refers to D&H 's explanation as well as those of De Matos, Beck et al. - it is the first paper to make a detailed comparison with the GPB results - and shows the Tajmar mechanism could indeed explain that.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf

Or has this been mentioned here before?
Hugh

The article is seriously flawed.

As it treats a Perception as if it is some magical force that is able to violate laws pertaining to how force and motion is possible.

May I point out that all forces are a potential and a potential is created via its opposing velocities, ergo all forces are repulsive!

If one cares to consider opposing velocities, where a velocity is a portion of a Potential with momentum to it, hence implied to be Kinetic Energy it should be obvious what the experience of gravity really is..

Consider the following..
Let force = Newton meter
Let Newton meter = height
Let height = Potential Energy
Let width = kinetic Energy or a time frame of work, as in seconds of time for instance"
Let this symbol in the quotes "-" equal a Potential by (one Kinetic) or (one second), It may also be implied to be a "c^2" near vacuum.
Let this symbol in the quotes"=" equal double the previous symbols Potential by (one kinetic) or (one second), It may also be implied to be a c^2 "NEAR Gas" or a Near Vacuum with a Photons Potential to it.

Now..

Let this system in the quotes imply a small percentage of the universe "--------" we will note it's dimensions are 1 by 8, and I could imply the system is a NEAR Vacuum, I could also imply we have 8 individual sub-systems and or masses and therefore imply one M=one subsystem and or a single c^2 with a minimum potential as in M=8 "c^2" subsystems next to each other.

And if we wanted our model or system to consist with a mass with double the density perhaps a photons potential or a near gas somewhere amongst it, we would need to introduce into the model opposing velocities, as in..

Force applied for one second to the right-> "---=---" <- Force applied for one second to the left, we will note our system has and is experiencing compression, in fact if we consider the Outer Near vacuum medium in our model Vs the inner Near vacuum, the inner would experience Blue-Shift while the outer would experience Red-shift, just as our universe behaves, anyway if we wish, we could point out the more opposing velocities introduced the greater the mass we could create, so lets please consider the following image, but note how the artist has depicted a serious flaw to it!

User posted image: User posted image

We can prove that the images plots and or grids are flawed by filling out the rest of the planes of grid-ding as per the artist has for one plane or we could correct the image by using just some of the suggested planes in the following image.. User posted image: User posted image

Anyway my point is all Potentials are the result of opposing velocities and the resulting stored Energy creates an increase in Potential Energy, At this point let me stress the NEAR Vacuum "SPACE" is with Potential Energy as well as Kinetic Energy and therefore should be considered to consist with stored opposing velocities, via considering where there are two opposing velocities we have a resulting potential.

Also going by the fact that kinetic quanta is exchanged to Potential Quanta, via opposing momentum is cancelled out via opposing velocities, resulting as a compression point and best referred to as Blue-Shifting, and by taking another gander at the first image and by ignoring the Artists fatal error, it should be easy to imagine how a Black-Hole or any other compression point is created by what ever potentials are presenting repulsion, as far as laymen are concerned it results as a perception of a magical and or unexplained inertia towards some common point the earths core for instance, when in fact inertia is from above us via compression via the collective near vacuums repulsive potential "perceived accelerating expansion of the universe"..

BTW if some physicist reading my rants, understands my above models and has enough data applied PROPERLY as per the above models with electromotive forces, they should be able to devise a method of artificial gravity...

Any Questions?

Then Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..
djolds1
Tajmar involvement with partial refutation of "Woodward Effect"

http://www.cphonx.net/weffect/STAIF2006_Pr...on_Buldrini.ppt

STAIF 2006

Duane
bprager
Just out of curiosity: Have there ever been more attempts to recreate Tajmars experiment except in Canterbury (where the results were not convincing as far as I recall)?
gdaigle
There are the experiments being done at EarthTech
Tim
@bprager

QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 22 2006, 04:25 PM)
I heard from a reliable source that two groups are seeking to replicate Tajmar et al.'s results - one in Berkeley and one somewhere else. I expect it shouldn't take them more than a few months.

Hdeasy was/is under the impression that Berkeley was planning on doing a replication, but I haven't heard anything in a while and the post I'm quoting is from September of 2006...
gdaigle
BTW, Tajmar (with Plesescu and Seigert) have a new article out entitled, "Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature". It can be accessed at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271
Iori Fujita
There are three phases of the relation of gravitation and separation.

elliptical galaxy e.g. NGC4881 "Three Dimension" -> ordinary Newton's equation
GM(<r)m/r^2 = mv^2/r
gravitationally unstable

barred spiral galaxy e.g.NGC1300 "One Dimension" -> new New1ton's equation
G''M(<r)m = mv^2/r

spiral galaxy e.g. NGC4414 "Two Dimension" -> new New2ton's equation
G'M(<r)m/r = mv^2/r
gravitationally stable

There are also phase-shifts among those three phases.

Iori Fujita


Astepintime
QUOTE (gdaigle+Jun 20 2008, 01:49 PM)
BTW, Tajmar (with Plesescu and Seigert) have a new article out entitled, "Anomalous Fiber Optic Gyroscope Signals Observed above Spinning Rings at Low Temperature".  It can be accessed at http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2271


Nice paper. Thanks for the link. A couple of quotes from the paper.

"Tests in various configurations suggest that the anomalous signals is originating from the rotating helium in our facilities. "

"A first measurement was done using the usual Al ring from the previous setups which showed a zero result. The fact that the Al ring effect was at least reduced by nearly two orders of magnitude between Setup B and C clearly demonstrates that the origin of the anomalous signals is related to the helium flow. Then the Nb ring was used and again a zero result within 2σ from the measurement accuracy was obtained (see table 1). "

I am happy to see that they were able to find the source before someone else did. A nice face-saving paper.

So Einstein still rules.
djolds1
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jun 20 2008, 09:48 PM)

Nice paper. Thanks for the link. A couple of  quotes from the paper.

"Tests in various configurations suggest that  the anomalous signals is originating from the rotating helium in our facilities. "

"A first measurement was done using the usual Al ring from the previous setups which showed a  zero result. The fact that the Al ring effect was at least reduced by nearly two orders of magnitude between Setup B and C clearly demonstrates that the origin of the anomalous signals is related to the helium flow. Then the Nb ring was used and again a zero result within 2σ from the measurement accuracy was obtained (see table 1). "

I am happy to see that they were able to find the source before someone else did. A nice face-saving paper.

So Einstein still rules.

If I am reading this correctly, the "Tajmar effect" has now been refuted, explained as an artifact of superchilled helium flow in the apparatus used?

If so, a major potential support of EHT just collapsed. If the "Tajmar Effect" is mistaken then so too at a minimum is the imputed bosonic mechanism.

Tho the last lines of the conclusion seem to reverse that judgment:

Compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling predictions, our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude larger. This suggests that the observed phenomenon is new and without explanation so far.

As a layman I'm misunderstanding something here.

Duane
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jun 20 2008, 09:48 PM)

Nice paper. Thanks for the link. A couple of  quotes from the paper.

"Tests in various configurations suggest that  the anomalous signals is originating from the rotating helium in our facilities. "

I am happy to see that they were able to find the source before someone else did. A nice face-saving paper.

So Einstein still rules.

Astaprintine....you obviously read the report WRONG...please go back and re-read.


The anomalous acceleration field measured by the laser gyros is STILL 18 orders of magnitude larger than Gen Relativity's prediction....

The only difference here is that THE SOURCE is apparently not simply the rotating superconductors but rather the ROTATING HELIUM...(.or possibly some interaction between the two).

Please note... neither Gen Rel. or any other theory predicts that any material (helium included) should produce such a large acceleration field upon rotation.

There is no question that the efffect persists ...simply look at the data (fig. 4 and 5)..its the same as the initial report....with the same anisotropic parity in the direction of rotation.

The only differnce is that they have now isolated the source...which appears to be connected with the rotation of helium.

JW

Just Wonderful
djolds....You are misunderstanding partly....but I think you are learning better how to read these reports... wink.gif

Keep it up....I refer you to my last post .

The issue is the SOURCE of the effect, NOT whether there IS an effect.
\
JW

P.S. Gdaigle....thanks for the heads up...on this one..
djolds1
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 21 2008, 04:47 PM)
Astaprintine....you obviously read the report WRONG...please go back and re-read.


The anomalous acceleration field measured by the laser gyros is STILL 18 orders of magnitude larger than Gen Relativity's prediction....

The only difference here is that THE SOURCE is apparently not simply the rotating superconductors but rather the ROTATING HELIUM...(.or possibly some interaction between the two).

Please note... neither Gen Rel.  or any other theory predicts that any material (helium included) should produce such a large acceleration field upon rotation.

There is no question that the effect persists  ...simply look at the data (fig. 4 and 5)..its the same as the initial report....with the same anisotropic parity in the direction of rotation.

The only differnce is that they have now isolated the source...which appears to be connected with the rotation of helium.

JW

Hmmm...

Assuming you're correct, that's actually a closer approximation of the proposed Heim experiments (GME2), both bosonic & fermionic. Mag field from a (super)conductor creating a quasi-gravitational force through interaction with a rotating insulator. No reason in principle that the insulating "rotating disk/torus" needs to be solid.

Oh, reread some of the earlier papers yesterday. I reversed the "special materials" used. The "STL" version is cited as using the low-z material (preferably hydrogen), not a higher-z material. Which has obvious implications here, helium being second-best to hydrogen in the low-z category.

Dropped a line to John Reed, looking forward to some feedback from both him and Hugh.

Duane
hdeasy
Hi Duane,

Well, having skimmed through the paper (I've been busy with other things and hadn't seen it yet - thanks Greg for posting!), I see that the actual effect is a combination of material used - i.e . again they see a dependence on sample composition (Niobium, Al, etc.). but this is weaker than before. The main effect is a coupling between the rotating helium and the rotating sample, as far as i can tell - I believe that He on its own gave a signal, but much weaker.

Well, the HE nucleus is justan Alpha particle - a boson. The HE atom is still a boson, with 2 electrons added to the Alpha particle. So it's still about rotation of bosons. What I also understood was that the effect may indeed not be due to accelaeration of the disk but movement of the He - it seems that the latter has to accelerate its ang. vel. to give the effect. I must study in greater detail later.

Their conclusions:

Conclusions
Anomalous signals from two different fiber-optic gyroscopes (KVH DSP-3000 and Optolink SRS-1000) were observed above spinning rings at temperatures below 30 K. Results from different configurations suggest that the origin is most probably connected to the rotating helium and not the angular momentum of the spinning source as it was suspected from earlier measurements. Our observed signal strengths are not ruled out by any other experiment up to our knowledge [17-18] and systematic effects appear to be at least two orders of magnitude below all reported measurements for the various setups. The gyro signal seems to follow the rotating ring velocity with high correlation. Compared to classical frame-dragging spin-coupling predictions, our signals are up to 18 orders of magnitude larger. This suggests that the observed phenomenon is new and without explanation so far.
hdeasy
Oh and it seems that Droscher & Hauser's work is again cited.
1-Curioso
Thank you all for keeping this forum updated with the latest news, papers, and your to-the-point analysis of Heim Theory and Dr. Tajmar's work. It really is a pleasure.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 22 2008, 04:53 PM)
Hmmm...

Assuming you're correct, that's actually a closer approximation of the proposed Heim experiments (GME2), both bosonic & fermionic.



Hello, Duane;

Not knowing the details of Heim theory, I'll have to trust you on that one.....however, I am 'correct' about what the Tajmar report says.

It is not a simple report to understand simply because of the way it is written ....however, the results are clear....

Unfortunately Astepintime took one passage out of context and drew a faulty conclusion based on his prejudice,,,,which I notice is a very common prejudice among those who have a predisposed belief that Gen Rel. can never be wrong...and who begin trying to interpret (very unobjectively) everyone else's reports AS supporting their prejudice.

In realty this report may turn out to have nothing at all to do with 'overthrowing' GR. and may simply be a quantum effect ...which we know already has never been reconciled fully with GR anyway.

Let me paraphrase...
In this report Tajmar merely repeated earlier exper. in Setups A & B .....with similar large anomalous results .

Then in Setup C, (the part Astepintime took out of context), the Helium was RE-ROUTED (in some manner) in order that the ROTATIONAL MOTION of the helium was eliminated . It was ONLY in this Setup C that the effect seemed to disappear.

Thus the conclusion that the Helium had to be somehow responsible for the previously measured anomalous acceleration field (in Setup A & B ).

OK?

QUOTE
Mag field from a (super)conductor creating a quasi-gravitational force through interaction with a rotating insulator. No reason in principle that the insulating "rotating disk/torus" needs to be solid.


I understand what you are trying to say, ..but this is the very reason I cannot see any value in Heim stuff,... What in the h-ll is a 'quasi-gravitational force' ....there is no such thing in standard physics....and using such undefined and ambiguous terms clearly makes them look like amateurs...

Its like me trying to describe something to you and then saying "quasi-energy" is created from a such and such.....would you understand what I was saying?
The only way for any understanding is to connect it to an EQUATION that has TERMS which are ALREADY defined and WITH A DERIVATION.

Anyway, it is this nebulous ambiquity that makes me (and most physicists) VERY skeptical.....Apparently it is that very nebulosity that allows its proponents to keep claiming (after every new experimental result) that the results verify Heim/ Drescher theory.....apparently its so ambigous that ANY exper. results can be made to verify their theory. biggrin.gif
For a theory to be valid it must be not only testable and but also FALSIFIABLE.

Becuase Tajmar's theoretics contained both of the above attributes it became easy to falsify his original theory AND to easily identify (what they apparently see as) a serendipitous result that may still be of great value.

Hope you understand where I'm coming from.

JW
djolds1
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 23 2008, 06:35 PM)

Hello, Duane;

Not knowing the details of Heim theory, I'll have to trust you on that one.....however, I am 'correct' about what the Tajmar report says.

It is not a simple report to understand simply because of the way it is written ....however, the results are clear....

Unfortunately Astepintime took one passage out of context and drew a faulty conclusion based on his prejudice,,,,which I notice is a very common prejudice among those who have a predisposed belief that Gen Rel. can never be wrong...and who begin trying to interpret (very unobjectively) everyone else's reports AS supporting their prejudice.

In realty this report may turn out to have nothing at all to do with 'overthrowing' GR. and may simply be a quantum effect ...which we know already has never been reconciled fully with GR anyway.

Let me paraphrase...
In this report Tajmar merely repeated earlier exper. in Setups A & B .....with similar large anomalous results .

Then in Setup C, (the part Astepintime took out of context), the Helium was RE-ROUTED (in some manner) in order that the ROTATIONAL MOTION of the helium was eliminated .  It was  ONLY in this Setup C that the effect seemed to disappear.

Thus the conclusion that the Helium had to be somehow responsible for the previously measured anomalous acceleration field  (in Setup A & B ).

OK?



I understand what you are trying to say, ..but this is the very reason I cannot see any value in Heim stuff,... What in the h-ll is a 'quasi-gravitational force' ....there is no such thing in standard physics....and using such undefined and ambiguous terms clearly makes them look like amateurs...

Its like me trying to describe something to you and then saying "quasi-energy" is created from a such and such.....would you understand what I was saying?
The only way for any understanding is to connect it to an EQUATION that has TERMS which are ALREADY defined and WITH A DERIVATION.

Anyway, it is this nebulous ambiquity that makes me (and most physicists) VERY skeptical.....Apparently it is that very nebulosity that allows its proponents to keep claiming (after every new experimental result) that the results verify Heim/ Drescher theory.....apparently its so ambigous that ANY exper. results can be made to verify their theory. biggrin.gif
For a theory to be valid it must be not only testable and but also FALSIFIABLE.

Becuase Tajmar's theoretics contained both of the above attributes it became easy to falsify his original theory AND to easily identify (what they apparently see as) a serendipitous result that may still be of great value. 

Hope you understand where I'm coming from.

JW

Hi JW,

Thanks for the skilled overview. Were GR utterly unflawed, one assumes there would be no conflict with QM and all would be hunky-dorey in the world of physics, theory complete.

Any data in the report on whether the effect is some sort of pressure artifact due to rotational action of gases?

As to "quasi-gravitational," poor terminology on my part. I am not an expert, and my descriptions should be treated as qualitative at best, tho I have reviewed the available sources in decent depth.

I agree with you about the need for derivations. The below may have what you want. It is a moderately brief review of the asserted mechanisms. Beyond that, IMO Heim is a hypothesis at this point, not a theory, albeit moderately well developed. It should be approached and evaluated on that basis, with the assumption that parts are immature and judgment as to whether the developed aspects have merit or not.

http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...RevisedSept.pdf

EHT posits that there are six fundamental forces, not four. The two additional forces are gravitational in nature ("quasi-gravitational"), one accounting for repulsive dark energy ("quintessence"), and the other coupling gravitation and electromagnetism (gravitophotons). It is gravitophotons that are used to create the proposed physical effects.

The gravitational constant "G" is thus composed of three terms, Gg (graviton constant) + Ggp (gravitophoton constant) + Gq (quintessence constant).

Gg ~= G, Ggp ~= (1/67)^2 Gg, and Gq ~= 4*10^-18 Gg. Thus the contributions of the gravitophoton force and quintessence to the overall established gravitational constant are quite minor in magnitude.

Proper manipulation of physical conditions is purported to allow the conversion of photons into gravitophotons, which can be either positive (graviton-like, attractive) or negative (quintessence-like, repulsive).

As for detailed mechanisms and mathematics, (shrug), the papers are available and penetration of Christoffel mathematics is slow going for me verging on preference for painful suicide at the hands of the Marquis de Sade. Review is your choice. :|

I would certainly not assert that any evidence can support the Heim hypothesis. If the "Tajmar Effect" has been shown to be mechanical, it certainly shoots down a major possible supporting argument for EHT. If however a gravitational force is now seen as emanating from the rotating helium in the test cell, in relation to the superconductive coil, and only while the helium is in motion, that does bear striking descriptive similarity to the example mechanism cited in the early papers. However, that is qualitative analysis by a layman, and not in any way conclusive. It is certainly not proof, nor an attempt to act as a booster by any means possible. I welcome anyone to tear down EHT on the basis of Edison reasoning; we will have productively learned yet another way NOT to do it (try to produce a GUT).

Duane
Astepintime
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 23 2008, 06:35 PM)


Unfortunately Astepintime took one passage out of context and drew a faulty conclusion based on his prejudice,,,,which I notice is a very common prejudice among those who have a predisposed belief that Gen Rel. can never be wrong...and who begin trying to interpret (very unobjectively) everyone else's reports AS supporting their prejudice.


Let me paraphrase...
In this report Tajmar merely repeated earlier exper. in Setups A & B .....with similar large anomalous results .

Then in Setup C, (the part Astepintime took out of context), the Helium was RE-ROUTED (in some manner) in order that the ROTATIONAL MOTION of the helium was eliminated . It was ONLY in this Setup C that the effect seemed to disappear.

Thus the conclusion that the Helium had to be somehow responsible for the previously measured anomalous acceleration field (in Setup A & B ).



Pardon, I did not mean to take anything out of context and certainly rereading the paper would help me understand it more detail.

However, I believe we agree that the SETUP C tests that strongly suggests that it was the super chilled helium that "somehow" causes the anomalous effect. Note the test in setup C with the "FIN"s-- the effect is back. This combined with the discussion of the concern of the helium gas with the surface of the rings all led me to believe that it was a complex "mechanical" interaction between the moving helium and rings. (Note: I say moving since I can't tell from the figures how the helium is rotating with respect to the rings). In other words, no new physics just very tricky and complex classical physics and thus a very non interesting anomalous result.

Sure, I might be reading this wrong - I'll reread --- but right now it still seems to me to be a face-saving paper.
Astepintime

"The only difference here is that THE SOURCE is apparently not simply the rotating superconductors but rather the ROTATING HELIUM...(.or possibly some interaction between the two)."
Yes, but this does not mean new physics.


"Please note... neither Gen Rel. or any other theory predicts that any material (helium included) should produce such a large acceleration field upon rotation."

Well moving gas and the Bernoulli effect would be enough. But really this effect is not large it is very tiny ---look at the coupling. Any small systematic effect could mask it.

"There is no question that the effect persists ...simply look at the data (fig. 4 and 5)..its the same as the initial report....with the same anisotropic parity in the direction of rotation."

Sure and we now know it is the moving helium that 'somehow' causes it.

"The only difference is that they have now isolated the source...which appears to be connected with the rotation of helium."
Agreed, but I think it will be difficult to rule out classical effects.

hdeasy
First of all, EHT does indeed say there are 6 forces instead of 4, with 3 of these being gravitational (no quasi- about it: unless you consider the 'normal' Newton-Einstein gravity as the one true one and the others as 'aberrations' - a question of semantics which so-called critics will leap upon: but that is merely nit-picking) .

The other point about the rotating liquid helium: Recall that liquid Helium is a composed of bosons, since He atoms are bosons, as are Alpha particles, their nuclei. THus it might well be that it is these bosons and not the Cooper pairs in the sample metal that causes the anomalous acceleration. Let there be no doubt: Tajmar et al. re-emphasise the fact that there is still an anomalous acceleration or artificial gravity. No 'mechanical' or 'gas' effect can magically cause a distance force as measured by the fiber-optic gyroscopes.
hdeasy
Note that Tajmar et al. say in the 2nd paagraph of the introduction to that paper:

"Recently, Tajmar and de Matos [6-8] predicted that spinning superconductors or superfluids
instead of electron spin polarized materials might produce much larger non-classical frame-dragging
fields in order to explain a reported Cooper-pair mass anomaly in niobium [9-10]. Other theoretical
concepts were proposed supporting this conjecture [11-13]."

where Droscher & Hauser were nr. 12 of refs [11-13]. SO - Liquid He, being a superfluid, is indeed a candidate source for the effect.

Discussing setup A (He and sample rotating), they say:

"The results show that the rotation of our sample rings can indeed be seen by rigidly mounted
gyroscopes at a distance once the sample ring passed a critical temperature below 30 K. At 4 K and a
top speed of 420 rad/s, the anomalous gyro signal is as large as one third or the Earth’s rotation. Their
behaviour can be summarized as follows:
First, the gyro outputs show a parity violation between clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation
(the clockwise signal is larger than the counter-clockwise signal). It is important to note that
for the case of the above-ring gyros, if the gyro’s orientation is flipped, the effect sign flips as well and
the large effect is only present for the same clockwise-rotating of the spinning ring. This measurement
tells us that the effect seems to be rotationally symmetric and that the source for the parity anomaly
does not result from the gyro itself."

No sign of evidence against an effect there - on the contrary, each new experiment only confirms the
presence of the anomaly. Then they show how careful they were to exclude stray magnetic fields,
gas drag, vibratons etc.:

" And third, the signal does not decay from the above to the reference position as one would
expect from a dipolar-field distribution. Systematic effects were analysed in detail such as magnetic
field influence, gas drag, sensor location and vibration [16]."

Finally - EHT in no way refutes General Relativity - since it is an amalgam of GR & QM in the same way as
other quantum Gravity models (e.g. Loop QG), it is in fact an extension of GR.
djolds1
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jun 25 2008, 09:29 AM)

The other point about the rotating liquid helium: Recall that liquid Helium is a composed of bosons, since He atoms are bosons, as are Alpha particles, their nuclei. THus it might well be that it is these bosons and not the Cooper pairs in the sample metal that causes the anomalous acceleration. Let there be no doubt: Tajmar et al. re-emphasise the fact that there is still an anomalous acceleration or artificial gravity. No 'mechanical' or 'gas' effect can magically cause a distance force as measured by the fiber-optic gyroscopes.

The originally proposed fermionic mechanism asserted action on the protons and neutrons of the insulator, so it is possible we're seeing the fermionic pathway here. Assuming we're seeing anything at all.

Duane
Astepintime
Hdeasy,

Well, clearly I may not understand the experiment as well as others so please bear with me.


"Discussing setup A (He and sample rotating), they say:"

"The results show that the rotation of our sample rings can indeed be seen by rigidly mounted
gyroscopes at a distance once the sample ring passed a critical temperature below 30 K. At 4 K and a top speed of 420 rad/s, the anomalous gyro signal is as large as one third or the Earth’s rotation. Their behaviour can be summarized as follows: First, the gyro outputs show a parity violation between clockwise and counter-clockwise rotation (the clockwise signal is larger than the counter-clockwise signal). It is important to note that or the case of the above-ring gyros, if the gyro’s orientation is flipped, the effect sign flips as well and the large effect is only present for the same clockwise-rotating of the spinning ring. This measurement tells us that the effect seems to be rotationally symmetric and that the source for the parity anomaly does not result from the gyro itself."

"No sign of evidence against an effect there - on the contrary, each new experiment only confirms the presence of the anomaly. Then they show how careful they were to exclude stray magnetic fields, gas drag, vibratons etc.:"

Well, it would seem to me to depend on what is going on with the He gas flow. Did its rotation also change or was it kept fixed when the gyro's rotation was reversed? Remember the effect went away 'for the standard rings' after rerouting the He flow, independent of the gyros rotation.

Yes, they might of carefully studied 'gas drag' effects but Ref 16 is before their discovery of what re-routing does. Recall that helium at these temperatures acts most strange.

Finally, putting 'FIN's on the gyros gets the effect back? What is going on here ? Am I being a simpleton here -- fins would seem to make the gyros much more sensitive to the gas flow in any new routing setup -- thus getting the effect back?

All that being said -- I agree that the conclusion is written is such a fashion to imply that the anomaly is still very important and NOT trivial. So clearly either I must not understand something or they are try to save face. Probably the former, but it would not be the first time I misunderstood something. :->


Mongo
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jun 25 2008, 06:15 PM)
Finally, putting 'FIN's on the gyros gets the effect back? What is going on here ? Am I being a simpleton here -- fins would seem to make the gyros much more sensitive to the gas flow in any new routing setup -- thus getting the effect back?

The 'fins' are in place of the rotating ring, not attached to the gyro:

QUOTE
In order to test our helium hypothesis, we manufactured a thinwall cup with two fins (2 crossed fins to effectively spin the liquid helium) out of Al which we mounted instead of the usual rings. We then filled the cryostat up to the top with liquid helium in order to fill the cup as well.


The gyroscope is fixed to the stationary frame of the experiment, inside a separate vacuum chamber -- hence, no gas drag:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In order to test our helium hypothesis, we manufactured a thinwall cup with two fins (2 crossed fins to effectively spin the liquid helium) out of Al which we mounted instead of the usual rings. We then filled the cryostat up to the top with liquid helium in order to fill the cup as well.


The gyroscope is fixed to the stationary frame of the experiment, inside a separate vacuum chamber -- hence, no gas drag:

The sensors are mounted inside an evacuated chamber made out of stainless steel, which acts as a Faraday cage and is directly connected by three solid shafts to a large structure made out of steel that is fixed to the building floor and the ceiling. The sensors inside this chamber are thermally isolated from the cryogenic environment due to the evacuation of the sensor chamber and additional MLI isolation covering the inner chamber walls.


In other words, the gyroscope is in a vacuum, and magnetically and thermally isolated from the dewar containing the rotating sample ring (and liquid He), yet still experiences an anomalous acceleration.

Bill
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jun 25 2008, 09:09 AM)


Well moving gas and the Bernoulli effect would be enough. But  really this effect is not large it is very tiny ---look at the coupling. Any small systematic effect could mask it.


Astepintine;

I think you are really not understanding what this is all about.

First...
As hdeasy (and Mongo) have explained....the lasers gyros are completely isolated from the moving rings or the moving gas.

Second: Let me expalin what these gyros ARE....and their PURPOSE.

These are laser gyroscopes and they are IN EFFECT the same as accelerometers. They are designed to measure ROTATION....if they are attached to SOMETHING rotating.
But here they are NOT attached to anything moving....so their purpose is a little different.

Now I think you may need a bit of relativistic understanding for the next part:

In the first Tajmar / deMatos experiment (PLEASE read the report) ACCELEROMETERS were located OUTSIDE of the rotating rings and isloated from their movement.

Why? The purpose was to detect what is called a "gravitomagnetic field" that may have been generated IN THE VACUUM . This 'acceleration' field is the result of a "frame dragging" field....typically caused by rotation of matter (in Gen. Rel. )

Do you understand how laser gyroscopes detect rotation?
By counter rotating lasers..... (like a Sagnac gyroscope does). IF the inertial frame is 'dragged around', the laser phases are offset, producing a signal.

So these are very well suited for detecting a gravitomagnetic field ....
IOW, they can be used to detect FRAME DRAGGING.. IOW, any 'acceleration type' field that rotates the SPACE -TIME structure around the apparatus....(after the earth's rotation is subtracted out).

Since gyros are more accurate and stable and far less susceptible to vibrational and temperature variations , etc. they can be substituted in place of the accelerometers.
In this new set of experiments the accelerometers were replaced by LASER GYROSCOPES .

Got it?

It would really help is you learn about laser gyroscopes .....
These are NOT gyros as in the GP-B exper.

JW
Astepintime
QUOTE (Mongo+Jun 25 2008, 08:29 PM)
The 'fins' are in place of the rotating ring, not attached to the gyro:



The gyroscope is fixed to the stationary frame of the experiment, inside a separate vacuum chamber -- hence, no gas drag:



In other words, the gyroscope is in a vacuum, and magnetically and thermally isolated from the dewar containing the rotating sample ring (and liquid He), yet still experiences an anomalous acceleration.

Bill

MONGO

Ok thanks, that clears a lot up! ! ! My misunderstanding!

Although I am still probably very confused. A nice 3-D diagram might help.

The gyroscope shows no gas drag but the rings might? Otherwise why use fins? Why does one see the effect when one uses FINS and not using the standard rings in SETUP C?




Astepintime
JW

"I think you are really not understanding what this is all about."
Most probably.

"First...
As hdeasy (and Bill) have explained....the lasers gyros are completely isolated from the moving rings or the moving gas."
Yes, I believe I now understand this. This is the huge point that I was missing!


"Got it?". Well probably not. I am still confused about why the effect comes back in SETUP C when the fins are used.
Just Wonderful
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jun 25 2008, 10:52 PM)
I am still confused about why the effect comes back in SETUP C when the fins are used.


Because the helium is AGAIN forced to rotate....fins ROTATE the helium.


If you read the paragraph before that you will see that in the FIRST part of Setup C, the helium is allowed to penetrate upwards (without rotation).....and results in NO anomalous signal.

When fins are placed in to allow helium rotation, the effect returns.

JW
Astepintime
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Jun 25 2008, 11:07 PM)

Because the helium is AGAIN forced to rotate....fins ROTATE the helium.


If you read the paragraph before that you will see that in the FIRST part of Setup C, the helium is allowed to penetrate upwards (without rotation).....and results in NO anomalous signal.

When fins are placed in to allow helium rotation, the effect returns.

JW

JW

O yes, OK sign me up in the simpleton class. A this point it does sound astounding!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.