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

Lunarlanding
ANDERSON SAID...
QUOTE


However, rather than increasing, the AU should be decreasing, mainly as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation, and to a much lesser extent to the solar wind.


From aero:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE


However, rather than increasing, the AU should be decreasing, mainly as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation, and to a much lesser extent to the solar wind.


From aero:

That statement is just wrong..... AU should be increasing as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation.



OK, I see what you're getting at. I missed that....and I agree that's a problem.
The problem is that Anderson's statement above is based strictly upon the equation 2.1 , (reference article here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.2469v1.pdf )

We know the purpose of the article is to show that there is a secular INCREASE in the AU (of about 15 cm/yr), BUT the first 8 lines on page six of the report (from which you copied your quote above) certainly appear to be contradictory....

The reason for this inconsistency appears to be in the way they DEFINED the AU by using eqn. 2.1

In that equation they agree (by definition and resolution) to make "k" a CONSTANT of a certain value.....thus if mass decreases then "A" MUST decrease on the right hand side of the equation (to keep it balanced)...(since k must remain constant.) Strict use of that equation forces that conclusion.

It seems to me...The problem with using this equation is that unconsciously, when you agree to standardize "k", you are really making the orbtal PERIOD invariant, but allowing the radius, A, to vary....an impossibility according to Kepler.
IOW, the Equation they are using CANNOT handle a CHANGE IN MASS since they arbitrarily SET the VALUE of "k". To me the eqn. is invalid with changing mass.

Anderson reveals he is blindly following the assumptions of that equation when he states elsewhere on the same page (6)..." If AU is really INCREASING with time, the planetary orbits by definition (using eqn 2.1) are shrinking..." (due to his implicit assumption of eqn. 2.1 that the mass must increase)...."and their periods are getting shorter".

Again, apparently the reason he can make such a blantantly contradictory statement is because he is strictly following the eqn. which implies that mass MUST INCREASE with increasing AU. laugh.gif (and vice versa).

Anyway, that's my take on it...
Good catch...

Lunar

PS I have no clue what they're doing with all the matrix analysis. rolleyes.gif
Lunarlanding
Was my last post understandable?? Or did it complicate this more?

By the way, Aero, I think it was very astute of you to catch the erroneous statement by Anderson, since it obviously contradicts well known orbital mechanics..
.....and in my last post I am in no way trying to justify his contradictory conclusions, but merely trying to show how he (erroneously) arrived at such a faulty conclusion.

Short on time here...

If I have time later I will try to get back to your Hubble expansion analysis and calculation.

Lunar wink.gif
Aero
Lunar wrote
QUOTE
OK, I see what you're getting at.

Lunar, Thanks for stating things so clearly. I wish I had written your post. I think we are in 100% agreement now.
If the mass changes, AU changes, the orbital period must change and maybe the orbital velocity as well (negligible?) . It is a system. In fact, I wonder if one could use the known change in Earth's period (leap seconds) to estimate the change in AU? After all, Kepler's equation is still valid in its original form.
makuabob
Hi, all.

I was just reading through the Wikipedia article for Heim Theory and came across this:
QUOTE
Walter Dröscher and J. Hauser, in their latest papers, suggest that this particle [neutral electron] may be a candidate for dark matter. They estimate that it is normally not seen as the decay paths leading to it are diverted to more probable reactions such as gravito-photon creation. Only at the Big Bang were energies large enough to form neutral electrons, which then remained as 'fossils' of the Big Bang, to act as Dark Matter.

Is this true?! Did Dröscher and Häuser actually refer to the Big Bang by name?! That cannot be right. In Heim Theory, the "Big Bang" did not happen. How could these two, of all advocates, deign to mention something that did not occur? How did that line get into the Wikipedia atricle?

Say it ain't so, Joe!
Astepintime
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Aug 1 2009, 07:00 PM)



JPL uses what's called the Moyer formulation in their Orbital Determination....Its hard to imagine that it would not have included Transverse doppler; however, it may have simply been an incorrect kinematic application. I think it was originally placed in the ODP by Moyer in 1971 to 1981.
Here's some of the navigational programs in use...most by Moyer.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=4294940963

Anyone with access to copies of any of these? It may shed light on the veracity of our discussion here.

I have no particular comment on the other anomalies.


Lunar dry.gif

Hi Lunar,


Thank you for the info on Moyer's papers; only the technical report 32-1527 (May 15, 1971) was down loadable - the rest must be ordered. I did however find an old copy of Moyer's book
from Wiley (ISBN 0-471-44535-5) "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data types for Navigation" -- (Now that's a scary title). A quick look through suggests that this is an expert only sort of job - in fact - my guess is that the actual code will be needed to really understand what is going on.

Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Aero+Aug 6 2009, 07:03 PM)

Lunar, Thanks for stating things so clearly. I wish I had written your post. I think we are in 100% agreement now.
If the mass changes, AU changes, the orbital period must change and maybe the orbital velocity as well (negligible?) . It is a system.




Yes, agreed; that was the whole point, "k" cannot remain constant if the other parameters are changed.

In Anderson's formula GM = (A^3)(k^2) .... k is proportional (inversely) to orbital period, T, in the Kepler eqn.... GM = (4pi^2)(A^3) / T^2

So if k stays constant then mass must also remain constant.
Trying to arbitrarily keep k constant as mass CHANGES, throws everything out of whack and contradictory conclusions result...which invalidates the eqn.

If mass changes , orbital period and AU must also be allowed to change in order to validate Kepler's 3rd law.


Now back to this:

QUOTE


The universe is expanding at a rate given by the Hubble constant.

Wikipedia Hubble Constant = 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc
or Hubble Constant = 3.5973175E-05 ± 1.745E-06 (cm/sec) /AU

Seconds per year = 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 = 3.15576E+07 sec/yr
Increase in AU per year due to expansion.

Delta AU = 1.1352271E+03 (cm/yr) /AU



I don't see any mistake in your figures, but I'm not sure the Gen Rel. guys would use your methodology....( BTW, I would, at first sight, have done it like you)....

However,
This report ... http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9803/9803097v1.pdf

......gives the fractional change in radius of earth orbit expected from Hubble expansion for the entire lifetime of the solar system, using 10^10 years

....Using their equation (eqn. # 4.10) it amounts to a fractional change of the orbital radius of only 10^-24 AU for the entire lifetime of Solar system, (eqn 4.13).

This is quite insignificant and unmeasurable....(in fact that is smaller than the diameter of an atom).!! ohmy.gif

I really can't follow how these guys are getting such minuscule figures,; if I had done it I probably would have done exactly like you calculated; but then again, I don't think I'm qualified in Hubble cosmology....

Lunar wink.gif

Thanks for the response.
Astepintime
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Aug 4 2009, 08:51 PM)

I am far more interested in this issue, for example, of the empirically measured change in the radioactive decay rates with distance from the sun....IOW, a seasonal variation with distance....quite a discovery and currently unresolved with greater implications for basics nuclear physics....


See : http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283


Hi Lunar,

Wow, I can only guess that we are tuned into the same web sites, lately I have been addicted to:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/

This is where I caught both of the articles you are referring to.

The radioactive decay variation with seasonal decay was certainty an eye-popper! The German and BNL's data looks very convincing. Their suggestion that the decay modulation is possibly due to the neutrino flux is interesting and very testable. Oak Ridge should be able to check this out quickly.

But I must say that I do not understand the mechanism. The solar neutrino flux goes up/down as we get closer/farther from the sun but how does this flux change influence the beta-decay of 32Si? Did you check out any of the theory papers? Perhaps the effect is similar to electromagnetic stimulated emission but here rather than an incident photon on an atom in an excited state we have an incident neutrino on a neutron in an excited state?

If true think how carbon-dating will be reevaluated -- BUT more than likely this is simply the result of systematic errors in the data BUT you can bet follow up experiments will be forth coming.

gdaigle
QUOTE (makuabob+Aug 7 2009, 01:38 AM)
Hi, all.

I was just reading through the Wikipedia article for Heim Theory and came across this:

QUOTE
Did Dröscher and Häuser actually refer to the Big Bang by name?! That cannot be right. In Heim Theory, the "Big Bang" did not happen. How could these two, of all advocates, deign to mention something that did not occur? How did that line get into the Wikipedia atricle?


Is this true?! Did Dröscher and Häuser actually refer to the Big Bang by name?! That cannot be right. In Heim Theory, the "Big Bang" did not happen. How could these two, of all advocates, deign to mention something that did not occur? How did that line get into the Wikipedia atricle?

Say it ain't so, Joe!


I don't see reference to the big bang in any of their articles except to restate from their glossary this:

aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf
Quantized Bang: According to Heim, the universe did not evolve from a hot big bang, but instead, spacetime was discretized from the very beginning, and such no infinitely small or infinitely dense space existed. Instead, when the size of a single metron covered the whole (spherical volume) universe, this was considered the beginning of this physical universe. That condition can be considered as the mathematical initial condition and, when inserted into Heim's equation for the evolution of the universe, does result in the initial diameter of the original universe [1]. Much later, when the metron size had decreased far enough, did matter come into existence as a purely geometrical phenomenon.

... so it must have just been an oversight from the Wiki writer. I like Duane's ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=314683) description of "A 'big burp' throughout the universe, not a 'big bang' from a central singularity".

Personally I like the analogy of a "big fizz” similar to opening a bottle of diet soda but immediately tossing in a handful of Mentos mints. The effect is spectacularly explosive.
Lunarlanding
From Astepintime:

QUOTE

Thank you for the info on Moyer's papers; only the technical report 32-1527 (May 15, 1971) was down loadable - the rest must be ordered. I did however find an old copy of Moyer's book
from Wiley (ISBN 0-471-44535-5) "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data types for Navigation" -- (Now that's a scary title). A quick look through suggests that this is an expert only sort of job - in fact - my guess is that the actual code will be needed to really understand what is going on.


Hi astepintime. Thanks for trying to get copies, you are more diligent than I am in doing home work .
Like you say, the program complexity would probably conceal what we are looking for.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Thank you for the info on Moyer's papers; only the technical report 32-1527 (May 15, 1971) was down loadable - the rest must be ordered. I did however find an old copy of Moyer's book
from Wiley (ISBN 0-471-44535-5) "Formulation for Observed and Computed Values of Deep Space Network Data types for Navigation" -- (Now that's a scary title). A quick look through suggests that this is an expert only sort of job - in fact - my guess is that the actual code will be needed to really understand what is going on.


Hi astepintime. Thanks for trying to get copies, you are more diligent than I am in doing home work .
Like you say, the program complexity would probably conceal what we are looking for.

Hi Lunar,

Wow, I can only guess that we are tuned into the same web sites,


Not really; astepintime; I had seen this report when it first came out simply because my studies took me along these lines. And I communicated briefly with the authors about possible mechanism.

Full report for those interested....
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3283v1.pdf


QUOTE


But I must say that I do not understand the mechanism. The solar neutrino flux goes up/down as we get closer/farther from the sun  but how does this flux change influence the beta-decay of 32Si? Did you check out any of the theory papers?  Perhaps the effect is similar to electromagnetic stimulated emission but here rather than an incident photon on an atom in an excited state we have an incident neutrino on a  neutron in an excited state?

If true think how carbon-dating will be reevaluated -- BUT more than likely this is simply the result of systematic errors in the data  BUT you can bet follow up experiments will be forth coming.


To me it is definitely NOT systematic; the data is too clear....and it is a terrestrially measured effect....that is one of the reasons for my interest....easy testable....and contrary to most of the so called 'anomalies' it is one of the VERY few I consider may contain new (unrecognized) physics.

My personal opinion is that it is not neutrino flux for a number of reasons....low cross section, would probably have already been noticed in nuclear reactor emissions, etc.

Most folks have made the assumption that decay rates are constant over time...but I have always said that decay rates are subject to certain 'environmental' factors, and have been shown to be variable...and this is just further proof.

I think we are talking about evidence for a vacuum energy density change with gravitational potential.....something I believe has been shown to affect nuclear decay rates.... this involves the intersection of QED and gravitational physics.

More on that later when I have time.....
Thanks for the response...

Lunar
makuabob
QUOTE (gdaigle+Aug 7 2009, 07:28 AM)
...
I don't see reference to the big bang in any of their articles except to restate from their glossary this:

aiaa2004-3700-a4.pdf
Quantized Bang:  [i]According to Heim, the universe did not evolve from a hot big bang, but instead, spacetime was discretized from the very beginning, and such no infinitely small or infinitely dense space existed. Instead, when the size of a single metron covered the whole (spherical volume) universe, this was considered the beginning of this physical universe...

Nor do I recall ever seeing a mention of 'Big Bang' in those writings of Heim or Dröscher and Häuser. I have removed that sentence and asked, if it is restored, for a reference to its origin.

A futher problem with the Heim Theory article in Wikipedia is that it has been 'challenged' for having a "biased" Point-Of-View for more than two years now. This was done without following the very Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to Neutral Point Of View tags:
QUOTE
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

As for "neutrality," the person placing the NPOV tag seems to be a devout adherent of the 'established' viewpoint and, as such, would not want to allow ANY information which might present a challenge to orthodox science, in which, it must be mentioned, such a person has invested deeply. The person who raises a question of neutrality should not be from one of the groups with an interest in maintaining the status quo!
I think that there are others in this Discussion who have contributed far more to the Wikipedia article than I and would be better suited to challenge the (IMO) unfair 'tagging' of the Heim Theory article.
vorkon
I have been trying to get a little familiar with EHT recently. Reading through several websites, PDFs and this forum an idea/question crossed my mind which I would like to share with you:

Quoting from Dröscher/Häuser's paper "Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory, Section 2.4": It is stated that "...In addition, the material in the torus should contain hydrogen atoms to get a value of Z as small as possible, that is close to 1..."

And on p. 15: "It is important that the material of the rotating ring is an insulator to avoid eddy currents. For the acceleration phase, the torus should contain hydrogen atoms."

Up to now I have not seen anybody thinking about solid, pure H2O (ice) as a naterial for this torus. With ice you have an abundance of hydrogan. Are there any technical difficulties (stemming from material stresses, density, chemical side effects etc. or manufacturing/engineering problems) or other side effects hindering one from making such an ice torus?

As far as I know ice could almost be considered as being an insulator.

What value of Z could such a torus have?
makuabob
QUOTE (vorkon+Aug 10 2009, 10:42 AM)
...

As far as I know ice could almost be considered as being an insulator.

What value of Z could such a torus have?

<crickets>

For a first post, vorkon, that's one tough question. If there is an answer available, it is not likely to show up here. The particulars of generating a reversed gravitational force—again, if they exist at present—are being played close to the chest.

Ice made from pure water should indeed be a good insulator, at least electrically & thermally. Although I have read through some of the descriptions in the article you mentioned, my thoughts are mostly on the cosmological aspects of Heim Theory. The spinning disc of low Z material has been mentioned in earlier posts but is not a leading topic right now, hence <crickets>.

Perhaps some other member here will revisit an optimal source of a low Z torus.

<crickets>
Aero
How about ice made from pure hydrogen? That is, solid hydrogen. Pick your own isotope.
Aero
On the topic of Cosmology, it seems that gravity waves of a certain magnitude have been ruled out. See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32482651/ns/te...d_science-space
What does that say about Heim Cosmology, or otherwise, what does Heim Cosmology say about that?
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Aero+Aug 20 2009, 07:43 PM)
On the topic of Cosmology, it seems that gravity waves of a certain magnitude have been ruled out. See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32482651/ns/te...d_science-space



That's garbage, Aero....don't believe everything you read in pop science articles, especially when they appear in a business editorial. laugh.gif laugh.gif

Gravitational waves stiil exist; it just that they aren't DETECTED by the LIGO METHOD....and certainly Gen Relativity has not been invalidated simply because of a faulty methodology in GW detection.

We are currently talking about this right here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26482

...
makuabob
QUOTE (Aero+Aug 20 2009, 02:43 PM)
On the topic of Cosmology, it seems that gravity waves of a certain magnitude have been ruled out. See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32482651/ns/te...d_science-space
What does that say about Heim Cosmology, or otherwise, what does Heim Cosmology say about that?


An interesting article. I am not sure that the stochastic background will be found, by what Heim Theory says about the formation of matter—and, thus, gravity. There doesn't seem to be a reason for massive gravitational disturbances due to, what was named above, the Quantized Bang. (I prefer the "Big Flash" but that's probably 'cuz I chose that moniker :-)

It would seem, IMO, that the first "gravity waves" (not to be confused with the force of gravity itself) would have been from the first round of supernovae. Since the Heim universe is much older (and very much larger) than that imagined by the HBG (Hot Big Bang) group—a nebulous and nefarious band o' brigands, I suspect—something like those lugs in Gary Larson's cartoon about the telescope bullies—those waves MAY still be available for detection. However, bear in mind that Heim, in his Ottobrunn talk, IIRC, says that gravity waves travel at 4/3C. This will make correlating the arrival of gravity waves to the originating event VERY difficult, if they are coming from any event more than a few light-years away. (Let's hope NONE of those events causing gravity waves occur on our side of the Milky Way!)

I think the problem is obvious: a set of waves is, presumably, detected but no electromagnetic data will be available yet! (Taps foot, waiting for visible light or radio detection.) If the source was 100 L-Y away (Ack! Too close!), it would be another 25 years before confirming data arrive.

LIGO had better be able to detect the DIRECTION from which the gravity waves arrive or there is NO chance to ever associate them to an event.
makuabob
While reading through some articles on LIGO to get an idea of how directionality in detecting gravity waves might be achieved, it struck me that a test for Heim Theory looms IF gravity waves can be detected. As I mentioned in my previous post, 'Bear in mind that gravity waves travel at 4/3C...', it becomes clear that comparing the g-wave signals of a binary pair of neutron stars (which are known to be "spinning down" due to energy loss through radiation of g-waves) is just the test that will justify (or destroy) Heim Theory.
QUOTE
Gravity Waves and LIGO by John G. Cramer
...
In 1974 Joseph H. Taylor of Princeton University and his graduate student Russell A. Hulse detected radio waves from a pair of orbiting neutron stars. The timing and Doppler shift of the radio waves from this system allowed them to precisely determine the rotation period (about 8 hours). They made measurements over several years and found that the rotation period was decreasing because the stars were slowly "spinning down," losing a tiny fraction of their rotational energy as they orbited. Taylor and Hulse showed that this loss of energy is precisely the amount predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity due to the production of gravity waves by the two massive counter-rotating stars. Thus, in a rather indirect way gravity waves were "observed" though their removal of energy and angular momentum from the binary neutron star. In 1993 Taylor and Hulse received the Nobel Prize in Physics in recognition of this work.
...

This 'test' should work well since the binary pair mentioned above is ~9,000 L-Y away. The difference (if it exists—and it had better be there or Heim Theory is down the tubes!) will be large. Since the g-waves arrive 2,250 years before the electromagnetic information, they will be slower by that equal amout of time that the neutron stars have been losing still more energy! As the quote above mentioned, it only took a few earth years to detect decreases in the rotational periods which, when the energy losses were calculated, showed the drop in frequency to be due to the radiation of gravitational waves per Einstein's GR. It seems a cinch that the change after a couple of earth centuries ought to be stunning,... IF they know which direction the g-waves are coming from AND deign to consider Heim Theory's ramifications.

The two not-so-good possibilities are: 1.) Direction cannot be determined thus the signal is NOT associated with its source, or 2.) The realization that the g-waves and electromagnetic data ARE correlated leads to researchers staring wide-eyed at one another, finally saying, "This information must never leave this room!"

So, bounce this 'test' idea around, if you will, and see if it may indeed be a criterion by which Heim Theory finally gets some traction.
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Aug 20 2009, 08:29 PM)

...
... However, bear in mind that Heim, in his Ottobrunn talk, IIRC, says that gravity waves travel at 4/3C...

I did not recall correctly; it is in the 1992 article:
Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures by Auerbach & von Ludwiger
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992
QUOTE
Under certain conditions it may be extended into the four remaining dimensions in the form of quantized gravitational waves, so-called gravitons. The equations show that gravitons should propagate with 4/3 the speed of light. Thus according to Heim gravitational waves have a speed of 400,000km/second.

Aero
Hey folks, this seems to question Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity. I can't figure it out, and it's a little off topic, but does the following make any sense?

QUOTE
A Logical Local Classical Refinement is Run through Reduced Mass CM Displacement vis a vis the Statistical Estimator for Center of Scalar Gravitational Force, 1,477 km closer to mercury than the sun's center.

Heretofore is has only been assumed the center of mass of an object coincides with the location of the center of the gravitational force it attracts. Not so. And it does tweak the orbit:


24th of August 2009

In discrepancy percents calculations today, the famous 43 seconds of arc in mercury’s perihelion advance, unattributed before Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity claim, were theoretically subsumed in a new classical refinement up to 5 parts in 10,000 relative error with 43 seconds of discrepancy to 531.4 seconds of planetary perturbation budget.

Classical local adjustment to the statistical center of gravitational force scalar magnitude in the integrated spherical shell calculation places |F center| 1,477 km from the sun’s center of mass, (CM), on and toward the line to mercury’s attractionintersecting its CM. The calculation assumed uniform density of solar differential mass elements throughout the integration when iterated on the radial coordinate variation for the whole volume.

This is calculated as a weighted average of force scalar value:

Sum (|F(i)x(i)|)/Sum(F(i)) = Avg[x(Fcenter)] , applying the integrand for the scalar F(i).

The same weighted averaging is used to find center of mass distributions.

Using reduced mass adjustment (from shortened directional vector from the sun’s CM to mercury’s CM, and computing relative error of period followed by conversion to 100 year equivalent corrected orbital periods, the center of scalar force adjustment to the model produced 2.159 orbital contributions in a century. The fraction would make it appear all diametrical opposite points cycles, including maxima had advanced by a nose.

In terms of the relative interval of a century’s total of corrected period orbits, the relative error in discrepancy is 5 parts in 10,000 to that computed in terms of unaccounted arc seconds of perihelion advance—units of percent.
Olaf
QUOTE (makuabob+Aug 21 2009, 01:29 AM)
However, bear in mind that Heim, in his Ottobrunn talk, IIRC, says that gravity waves travel at 4/3C.

The Heim Theory group stated in their Document D, 2003 (German version only available):
QUOTE
"Heim has used a value of 4/3 for the propagation speed of gravitative field disturbances.
This was a result of using a wrong operator. We would use c instead for the propagation speed. (More at page 58). We do not support publications by other authors that use the value of 4/3 c."
Remark at the bottom of page 10


In German: "Heim hatte in seiner ersten Publikation (1980) einen Wert von 4/3 c für die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit gravitativer Feldstörungen errechnet, was auf die Verwendung eines falschen Operator-Ausdrucks zurückzuführen war.
Im Folgenden wird mit c als der Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit von Gravitationsfeldstörungen gerechnet.
(Näheres dazu auf S. 58). Publikationen von Autoren, die - wie Heim früher - 4/3 c verwenden, werden von uns nicht mitgetragen."
makuabob
Thanks for the help, Olaf. I will undo any changes that I have made which asserted 4/3C as a parameter of Heim Theory.
makuabob
QUOTE (makuabob+Aug 20 2009, 08:29 PM)

... However, bear in mind that Heim, in his Ottobrunn talk, IIRC, says that gravity waves travel at 4/3C. ...


QUOTE (Olaf - Aug 26 2009+ 11:56 AM)
Heim has used a value of 4/3 for the propagation speed of gravitative field disturbances. This was a result of using a wrong operator. We would use c instead for the propagation speed.


QUOTE (Roseann Rosanna Dana - SNL+)
Oh! That's different! Never mind!"
Tcr
huh.gif


So if LIGO does succeed eventually detecting gravitational waves, then the particularities of the waves, including their frequencies, will show us whether they are part of the stochastic background, or are they caused by something more recent, like a nearby supernova?

rpenner
That's the point behind describing classes of strongly radiating gravitational events and describing their theoretical signature in frequency, phase and time.

When LIGO and kin isolate a signal above the background, they have every hope of being able to tell us where and what it was.
djolds1
Query: would this allow for magnetic fields in the 10-100 Tesla range? Forget the "bosonic" mechanism and go back to the "fermionic" pathway.

Graphene nanoribbons cut power use, cooler than copper

PORTLAND, Ore. — Graphene could carry nearly 1,000 times more current and operate at temperatures more than 10 times cooler than conventional copper interconnects below 22-nanometer line widths, according to researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The speed (electron mobility) of graphene has been touted as better than copper, but the Georgia Tech data on nanoribbons as small as 16 nm quantifies just how superior carbon is compated to copper. Graphene nanoribbons tested could carry as much as 10 billion amps/CM, or nearly 1,000 times greater than copper.
nicholasjh1
That's great news isn't it? The current problem with super powerful magnets is that they melt in a few seconds. This could definately help to change that.
kurt9
QUOTE (djolds1+Aug 31 2009, 06:22 PM)
Query: would this allow for magnetic fields in the 10-100 Tesla range? Forget the "bosonic" mechanism and go back to the "fermionic" pathway.

Graphene nanoribbons cut power use, cooler than copper

PORTLAND, Ore. — Graphene could carry nearly 1,000 times more current and operate at temperatures more than 10 times cooler than conventional copper interconnects below 22-nanometer line widths, according to researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The speed (electron mobility) of graphene has been touted as better than copper, but the Georgia Tech data on nanoribbons as small as 16 nm quantifies just how superior carbon is compated to copper. Graphene nanoribbons tested could carry as much as 10 billion amps/CM, or nearly 1,000 times greater than copper.

Yes, it would seem that Graphene would allow us to go directly to the fermionic pathway. However, it remains to be seen if the production of these Graphene sheets can be scaled up to cover a whole wafer (300mm), let alone a size for a Heim engine. If scale up is possible, it appears a major technical hurtle has been overcome in realizing a Heim engine (if the theory turns out correct, of course).

The boys in New Mexico appear to be working on the power source (polywell).
UncleMatt
QUOTE (kurt9+Sep 1 2009, 09:42 AM)
Yes, it would seem that Graphene would allow us to go directly to the fermionic pathway. However, it remains to be seen if the production of these Graphene sheets can be scaled up to cover a whole wafer (300mm), let alone a size for a Heim engine. If scale up is possible, it appears a major technical hurtle has been overcome in realizing a Heim engine (if the theory turns out correct, of course).

The boys in New Mexico appear to be working on the power source (polywell).

The same expectation were focused on carbon nanotubes and their ballistic conducting properties, also known as quantum wire. But unfortunately, there are little to no results to report after millions spent and years gone by. I had an idea to wrap nanotubes into an electomagnet configuration, but no one ever came up with a manufacturing method to make them long enough to even construct a prototype. Lets all hope that graphene does not have a similar experience.
makuabob
QUOTE (djolds1+Aug 31 2009, 01:22 PM)
...
The speed (electron mobility) of graphene has been touted as better than copper, but the Georgia Tech data on nanoribbons as small as 16 nm quantifies just how superior carbon is compated to copper. Graphene nanoribbons tested could carry as much as 10 billion amps/CM, or nearly 1,000 times greater than copper.


So... ONE of these nanotubes could carry 1/2 Ampere! That IS impressive. However, we would need ~20 billion of them to get one square centimeter. Somebody call up Sesame Street! We're gonna need the Count for this one! wink.gif
UncleMatt
QUOTE (makuabob+Sep 1 2009, 05:55 PM)

So... ONE of these nanotubes could carry 1/2 Ampere! That IS impressive. However, we would need ~20 billion of them to get one square centimeter. Somebody call up Sesame Street! We're gonna need the Count for this one!  wink.gif


I was more focused on the current carrying capacity that was desired for the magnet than the volume of the nanotubes. I mentioned this idea much earlier in this thread over a year ago. You wouldn't need 20 million nanotubes, as that would conduct up to 10 MILLION amps. But you could easily get by with tens of thousands, up to whatever current carrying capacity you were designing for. And it would be a very compact coil, with the nanotubes not really visible to the naked eye unless you used a great deal of them. Now all thats needed is several hundred miles of continuous single wall carbon nanotube in a ballistic conductor molecular wall configuration (armchair I believe) so we can build and test. I have been waiting for a long time, and don't think enough progress is being made, though they might just be keeping it under wraps for security reasons. I want to be the first to make an electromagnet out of carbon nanotubes.

Oops, I almost forgot, this would also avoid the problems associated with creating electromagnets from superconducting wire, without a need for super cooling or any problems with the magnetic field interacting with the metal superconducting wire in counterproductive ways. The carbon nanotubes are also much stronger than superconducting wire, so less reinforcement would be required when utilized in a powerful electromagnet, and they don't react with chemicals or gases easily.
djolds1
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 2 2009, 02:12 AM)
I was more focused on the current carrying capacity that was desired for the magnet than the volume of the nanotubes.
Yeah, me too.

QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 2 2009, 02:12 AM)
I mentioned this idea much earlier in this thread over a year ago. You wouldn't need 20 million nanotubes, as that would conduct up to 10 MILLION amps. But you could easily get by with tens of thousands, up to whatever current carrying capacity you were designing for. And it would be a very compact coil, with the nanotubes not really visible to the naked eye unless you used a great deal of them.

...

Oops, I almost forgot, this would also avoid the problems associated with creating electromagnets from superconducting wire, without a need for super cooling or any problems with the magnetic field interacting with the metal superconducting wire in counterproductive ways. The carbon nanotubes are also much stronger than superconducting wire, so less reinforcement would be required when utilized in a powerful electromagnet, and they don't react with chemicals or gases easily.
Exactly. Assuming these can be made available in quantity, one of the primary problems with the "fermionic pathway" is disposed of.

QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 2 2009, 02:12 AM)
Now all thats needed is several hundred miles of continuous single wall carbon nanotube in a ballistic conductor molecular wall configuration (armchair I believe) so we can build and test. I have been waiting for a long time, and don't think enough progress is being made, though they might just be keeping it under wraps for security reasons.
kurt9
Graphene is a leading contender for post-CMOS semiconductors:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/sander-ol...eff-welser.html

Since CNT's are charge devices, they do not offer the complete solution of Graphene. If the Graphene work is successful, there will be lots of money going into it. It will also allow Moore's Law to continue to about 2030, where the ultimate limits of fabrication will be reached.

For magnetic field generation, you're going to need Graphene structures larger than 300mm wafer size, and a lot thicker too.
UncleMatt
QUOTE (djolds1+Sep 1 2009, 09:28 PM)
Yeah, me too.

Exactly. Assuming these can be made available in quantity, one of the primary problems with the "fermionic pathway" is disposed of.

Nanotube growth

Hey djolds,
I looked at the nanotube growth link you posted, and they only anticipate meter long lengths of carbon nanotubes with that technology. Not even close to being long enough unless you are winding a very tiny electromagnet. Several promising technologies have come and gone about this issue of creating really long (hundred of meters) carbon nanotubes. So many industries and technologies could benefit from this becoming practical, I just don't understand why people aren't putting more money and research effort into this.
djolds1
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 2 2009, 07:31 PM)
Hey djolds,
I looked at the nanotube growth link you posted, and they only anticipate meter long lengths of carbon nanotubes with that technology. Not even close to being long enough unless you are winding a very tiny electromagnet. Several promising technologies have come and gone about this issue of creating really long (hundred of meters) carbon nanotubes. So many industries and technologies could benefit from this becoming practical, I just don't understand why people aren't putting more money and research effort into this.

Meters vs the previous record of centimeters. Micrometers less than a decade ago. A two orders of magnitude jump with this technique alone. Progress continues at a good clip; I am content with its rate, and expect "maturity" of miscellaneous nanofiber production methods by 2025 at latest. Hell, it took 50 years to stumble onto the brain dead simple FFC Cambridge process for the electrometallurgical processing of titanium - this is going much faster.
kurt9
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Sep 2 2009, 07:31 PM)
Hey djolds,
I looked at the nanotube growth link you posted, and they only anticipate meter long lengths of carbon nanotubes with that technology. Not even close to being long enough unless you are winding a very tiny electromagnet. Several promising technologies have come and gone about this issue of creating really long (hundred of meters) carbon nanotubes. So many industries and technologies could benefit from this becoming practical, I just don't understand why people aren't putting more money and research effort into this.

Lots of money is going into CNT development. Check out the company listings in any of the commercial nanotech industry sites. You will see that there are as many CNT start-ups today as there was STM/AFM start-ups in the early 90's. So many that I have no interest in the field because there are already too many players. I don't know about Graphene as it is much newer than CNTs. However, there is lots of interest in this material as the successor to current CMOS semiconductor technology. So, there is lots of money going into the development of it as well. There is lots of money flowing into the development of the post-CMOS semiconductor technology. The reason is that improvements in CMOS grind to a halt in another 5-6 years (around the 15nm llevel). Fundamentally new technology is needed to break through this barrier and to continue progress down to the 1-2nm level. There is lots of money to be made for the guys who develop and commercialize such technology. They can license it to all of the semiconductor makers worldwide.
gdaigle
More references are being made to how a fifth force best describes dark matter. Here is an article describing the paper ... which references the original proposal by Finkbeiner.
At this rate the mainstream physics community may have to take a more serious look at Heim soon.
Astepintime
QUOTE (gdaigle+Sep 9 2009, 08:58 PM)
More references are being made to how a fifth force best describes dark matter. Here is an article describing the paper ... which references the original proposal by Finkbeiner.
At this rate the mainstream physics community may have to take a more serious look at Heim soon.

Hi gdaigle,

Interesting papers thank you for pointing them out. However, I am not sure why you believe that these papers would cause more of the physics community to examine the Heim theory? As you see from these papers there is no shortage of ideas in tackling dark matter and dark energy without resorting to Heim theory.
nicholasjh1
It sounds to me like many "dark effects" are created by gravities' interaction with the rotation & movement of planets, solar systems, galaxies. The super dense cores of planets and super dense stars act as special matter, (superconductors or something of the like) and in certain situations have gravitomagnetic effects, as well as interacting with the vacuum of space. For instance, I read an article stating we detected a planet almost inside it's star rotating very quickly around it, and the scientist that detected it couldn't figure out why it's orbit hadn't already deteriorated to the point of being 'eaten' by the star. The answer is a gravity effect due to the fast close rotation and interaction between the 2 bodies, we didn't just coincidentially look at it while it still hadn't been destroyed by the star. (Edit) the scientists also noted that they observed the planet over a period and would have expected it to be taken by the star during the observation time if the physics calculations were correct.
gdaigle
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 10 2009, 05:21 PM)
Hi gdaigle,

  Interesting papers thank you for pointing them out. However, I am not sure why you believe that these papers would cause more of the physics community to examine  the Heim theory? As you see from these papers there is no shortage of ideas in tackling dark matter and dark energy without resorting to  Heim theory.

Hi Astepintime,

Many theories on DM and DE but few venture into suggesting new forces. There are a few, including Heim, that suggest a 5th or even a 6th new force. In my view any paper that makes such a suggestion and manages to pass muster with scientific peers challenges the mindset against such a possibility. That's a good thing for EHT.
Aero
Here is a short paper in which the author derives for the age of the universe, 110 billion years. His argument is based on dimensional analysis of Newton's gravitational constant. He mainly talks about other things but I found it interesting, none the less.
http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis8.htm
What do you folks think? Is this old news?
rpenner
Based on the URL -- unadulterated crap.
Astepintime
QUOTE (gdaigle+Sep 10 2009, 08:52 PM)
Hi Astepintime,

Many theories on DM and DE but few venture into suggesting new forces. There are a few, including Heim, that suggest a 5th or even a 6th new force. In my view any paper that makes such a suggestion and manages to pass muster with scientific peers challenges the mindset against such a possibility. That's a good thing for EHT.

HI

Well, IMHO what would be "a good thing for EHT" is for someone to get one or two peer-reviewed papers out that explain the details.
rpenner
After reading the post, I tend to agree with rpenner above.
Granouille
tongue.gif Just while you're agreeing with peers, eh? laugh.gif
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 11 2009, 07:50 PM)


I am not sure why you believe that these papers would cause more of the physics community to examine the Heim theory? As you see from these papers there is no shortage of ideas in tackling dark matter and dark energy without resorting to Heim theory.


....shouldn't you have said , " there is no shortage of qualified ideas in tackling dark matter without resorting to the illogic and imaginary details of Heim theory" ??

............................

QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 11 2009, 07:50 PM)


Well, IMHO what would be "a good thing for EHT" is for someone to get one or two peer-reviewed papers out  that explain the details.



Ha, ha; I agree with you 100%, Astipintime biggrin.gif ....however, Heim et al getting a pier reviewed publication is not likely to happen ever.. ...and for VERY good reasons.

Lunar biggrin.gif

" Lies go halfway around the globe before truth has a chance to get its pants on". - Winston Churchill
bprager
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 13 2009, 10:24 PM)
Heim et al getting a pier reviewed publication is not likely to happen ever.. ...and for VERY good reasons.

Can you be more vague? That could go from establishments fears, over conspiracy theories to being completely wrong ... which one do you mean?
Astepintime
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 13 2009, 10:24 PM)

Ha, ha;  I agree with you 100%, Astipintime biggrin.gif ....however, Heim et al getting a pier reviewed publication is not likely to happen ever.. ...and for VERY good reasons.

L

Hi Lunar,

I would say that you are probably correct simply based upon the current track record for the Heim theory. If you look at the first post of this thread you see it was started in Jan 2006 and it points to an article written in 1992 in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration".

[ A relate comment; please check out that journal
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal.html
and decide for yourself the quality of the papers published there]

I would have thought that by now something serious would have been published in "Physical Review". In any case this story is not new and you may find it very interesting to read;

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

-Astepintime

Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 17 2009, 08:54 PM)
Hi Lunar,

I would say that you are probably correct simply based upon the current track record for the Heim theory.   If you look at the first post of this thread you see it was started in Jan 2006 and it points to an article written in 1992 in the "Journal of Scientific Exploration".





Thanks Astepentime.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration, now that's a laugh laugh.gif ...and it ought to give us a clue as to the caliber of people that are promoting the Heim nonsence..

For anyone with even half a brain .... that would be the LAST place they would want their article to be 'pier reviewed'...and apparently that is he ONLY place that would accept Heim's imaginary junk science.

Here's an example of the 'articles' they print (and "pier review") in that publication....

"Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster", by H. Bauer ...Duh?

"Analysis of a UFO Photograph"; by R. Haines

"The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis", (that means moving things by thinking at them) Duh? ...do doo..dodooo

"Clyde Tombaugh, Mars and UFOs"... rolleyes.gif

"Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed Off the Coast of New Zealand" OooH ooooh , gotta get that one!.. laugh.gif

"Trends in the Study of Out-of-Body Experiences"
( I could've written that one when I was in college doing LSD laugh.gif )

"Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice:...." (I'm sending that one to my Irish friends who play craps after they've drowned in half a bottle of whiskey).

Yep, I'd say Heim theory fits right in there with this wonderful (not!) pier reviewed publication.

Just thought others ought to be aware of the ONLY type of publication willing to print Heim's type of junk science.

Thanks for info and the laughs...

Lunar laugh.gif
MichaelB
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 18 2009, 05:27 AM)



Thanks Astepentime.

The Journal of Scientific Exploration, now that's a laugh laugh.gif ...and it ought to give us a clue as to the caliber of people that are promoting the Heim nonsence..

For anyone with even half a brain .... that would be the LAST  place they would want their article to be 'pier reviewed'...and apparently that is he ONLY place that would accept Heim's imaginary junk science.

Here's an example of the 'articles' they print (and "pier review") in that publication....

"Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster", by  H. Bauer ...Duh? 

"Analysis of a UFO Photograph"; by R. Haines

"The Strange Properties of Psychokinesis",  (that means moving things by thinking at them) Duh? ...do doo..dodooo

"Clyde Tombaugh, Mars and UFOs"...   rolleyes.gif

"Periodically Flashing Lights Filmed Off the Coast of New Zealand" OooH ooooh , gotta get that one!.. laugh.gif

"Trends in the Study of Out-of-Body Experiences"
  ( I could've written that one when I was in college doing LSD  laugh.gif )

"Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice:...." (I'm sending that one to my Irish friends who play craps after they've drowned in half a bottle of whiskey).

Yep, I'd say Heim theory fits right in there with this wonderful (not!) pier reviewed publication. 

Just thought others ought to be aware of the ONLY type of publication  willing to print Heim's type of junk science.

Thanks for info and the laughs...

Lunar laugh.gif

Wow, that's a hell of a proof that HT is rubbish.
makuabob
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 17 2009, 10:27 PM)
The Journal of Scientific Exploration, now that's a laugh :lol: ...and it ought to give us a clue as to the caliber of people that are promoting the Heim nonsence..

For anyone with even half a brain .... that would be the LAST  place they would want their article to be 'pier reviewed'...and apparently that is he ONLY place that would accept Heim's imaginary junk science.

Here's an example of the 'articles' they print (and "pier review") in that publication....

"Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster", by  H. Bauer ...Duh? 

...

...and the laughs...

Lunar :lol:

OBVIOUSLY, you do NOT RTFA! And you edit the article title to suit your liking: Society and Scientific Anomalies: Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster
QUOTE
... The case of the Loch Ness monster also lends support to some of the generalizations adduced by Westrum: (a.) fear of ridicule inhibits the reporting of anomalous events; (b.) the rates of reporting and of publishing of reports are determined by the social demand for such reports and not by the rate of occurrence of events; (c.) skeptics and debunkers frequently assume that a lack of reports reflects a lack of events, but this inference is invalid; (d.) it is often, again invalidly, argued that if the phenomenon were real then Science would already know of it. However, the primary concern here will be to characterize the manner in which the Loch Ness controversy has been portrayed in magazines and newspapers, and the relationship between that and the popular view of the Loch Ness monster.
(emphasis added)

Really whacko stuff, eh?! AND, you clearly have NOT read anything written by Henry H. Bauer or you would know that he is a serious investigator of the scientific method.

Concerning Heim Theory, I think Sir Isaac Newton speaks for almost every poster on this thread:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
... The case of the Loch Ness monster also lends support to some of the generalizations adduced by Westrum: (a.) fear of ridicule inhibits the reporting of anomalous events; (b.) the rates of reporting and of publishing of reports are determined by the social demand for such reports and not by the rate of occurrence of events; (c.) skeptics and debunkers frequently assume that a lack of reports reflects a lack of events, but this inference is invalid; (d.) it is often, again invalidly, argued that if the phenomenon were real then Science would already know of it. However, the primary concern here will be to characterize the manner in which the Loch Ness controversy has been portrayed in magazines and newspapers, and the relationship between that and the popular view of the Loch Ness monster.
(emphasis added)

Really whacko stuff, eh?! AND, you clearly have NOT read anything written by Henry H. Bauer or you would know that he is a serious investigator of the scientific method.

Concerning Heim Theory, I think Sir Isaac Newton speaks for almost every poster on this thread:"I, Sir, have studied the matter and you have not."
bprager
BTW, how come that every person in this forum who seems to have some knowledge of BHT earn negative feedback points, while people who clearly didn't ready any of Heim's work and still participating here do not? Just curious ... ph34r.gif
djolds1
New paper from D&H is out. 20 pages:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu..._Propulsion.pdf

Gravitational Field Propulsion

Prof. J. Hauser presented the paper entitled Gravitational Field Propulsion (AIAA 2008-5069, 20 pages) at the 45th Joint Propulsion Conference, 2-5 August 2009, Denver, CO organized by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
The phenomenological physical concepts presented at the meeting, summarized under the name of Extended Heim Theory, EHT, predict two groups of matter. The first group, ordinary matter (OM), is describing all messenger particles (gauge bosons) that is, graviton, photon, vector bosons, and gluons as well as all known types of matter, i.e., leptons and quarks. The gauge bosons comprise the four known fundamental forces. However, these forces are not sufficient to explain the results observed in the gravitomagnetic experiments at AIT (Tajmar et al.), Austria, nor do they account for dark matter or dark energy.
The second group, derived from the construction of the so called polymetric tensor of EHT, comprises non-ordinary matter (NOM), which is matter in the form of imaginary electrons, positrons, or quarks (virtual particles of imaginary mass, but real charge) as well as stable neutral leptons, which might be identified with dark matter.
It is surmised that charged imaginary particles might be generated at very low temperatures (phase transition), and subsequently be transformed into the three gravitational particles postulated by EHT, namely the gravitophoton (resulting from photon conversion), the graviton (attractive, which accounts for Newtonian gravitation), and the quintessence particle (repulsive, which might be associated with dark energy). This interaction of electromagnetism with gravitation might be the cause for the measured strong gravitomagnetic fields that are about 18 orders of magnitude larger than predicted by general relativity, and thus are outside general relativity.

Note: Page 6, Table 3 mentions the Higgs field. New considerations lead to the conclusion that six Higgs and six anti-Higgs fields should exist, represented by the group SU(2,q) where q denotes quarternions. page 18: The electric current should be 8 A instead of 13.6 A. The mass of 3.5 x 103 kg is the mass placed above the rotating disk. The total spacecraft mass is assumed to be 150 x 103 kg.
gdaigle
A superb article that also touches on the role of gravitoelectrics, quaterinons, neutral leptons, plus the introduction of what I believe is a new term: gravitomagnetic symmetry breaking (GSB).

Clearly D&H are stepping up their game. It's almost like a prologue for reporting results on GME2. Dare we hope?
djolds1
QUOTE (gdaigle+Sep 24 2009, 04:18 PM)
A superb article that also touches on the role of gravitoelectrics, quaterinons, neutral leptons, plus the introduction of what I believe is a new term: gravitomagnetic symmetry breaking (GSB).

Clearly D&H are stepping up their game. It's almost like a prologue for reporting results on GME2. Dare we hope?

They haven't backed off citing Tajmar, despite Tajmar's "reassessment" of his findings 15 months ago. And NOM is explicated in greater detail. I (continue to) look forward to the promised comprehensive review paper they cite in this latest work.

The greatest shortcoming for Heim/EHT is the lack of dedicated experimentation. The table top units described (either fermionic or bosonic) do not look overly difficult, but we have yet to see reports on them being carried out. Meanwhile the guys working on Woodward's Mach-Lorentz Thrusters are building hardware with their own savings.

D&H need to publish results of EHT-optimized (not just reinterpreting Tajmar) experiments in the next year or so, IMO. Or at least publicly recruit sufficiently skilled hardware engineers to build the things.

An elegant theory is attractive, but eventually that theory needs purpose-designed experimental support.
makuabob
QUOTE (djolds1+Sep 24 2009, 01:05 PM)
They haven't backed off citing Tajmar, despite Tajmar's "reassessment" of his findings 15 months ago. And NOM is explicated in greater detail. I (continue to) look forward to the promised comprehensive review paper they cite in this latest work.

The greatest shortcoming for Heim/EHT is the lack of dedicated experimentation. The table top units described (either fermionic or bosonic) do not look overly difficult, but we have yet to see reports on them being carried out. Meanwhile the guys working on Woodward's Mach-Lorentz Thrusters are building hardware with their own savings.

D&H need to publish results of EHT-optimized (not just reinterpreting Tajmar) experiments in the next year or so, IMO. Or at least publicly recruit sufficiently skilled hardware engineers to build the things.

An elegant theory is attractive, but eventually that theory needs purpose-designed experimental support.

Yes! What djolds1 says above...

And, yes, the Higgs field is pulled into this presentation and the matrices are replaced by quaternions, but all-in-all, I got the 'feeling' that nothing is new in THIS presentation. If the reader is new to (Extended) Heim Theory then this IS a good overview... definitely!

One of the 'bad feelings' is that the fermion path is being abandoned for the bosonic route. Those Cooper-pairs seem flakier than that agent in Twin Peaks—and he got sort of flaky later on! If the plan is to lift sizable masses with Cooper-pairs providing the 'gateway' to gravitophotons, there needs to be a MUCH deeper understanding of how they pop into, and out of, existence.

All of us would like a clue about what that 'special' material will be (if it ever is) rotating above said solenoid. At the given values, it is a done deal but for the disc of unknown matter.

So... bring on the experiment! The time for something observable is well-nigh upon us.
Jossarian
EMC2 Polywell development got $7.8M contract.
QUOTE
Energy Matter Conversion Corp., (EMC2)*, Santa Fe, N.M., is being awarded a $7,855,504 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research, analysis, development, and testing in support of the Plan Plasma Fusion (Polywell) Project. Efforts under this Recovery Act award will validate the basic physics of the plasma fusion (polywell) concept, as well as provide the Navy with data for potential applications of polywell fusion. Work will be performed in Santa Fe, N.M., and is expected to be completed in April 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity (N68936-09-C-0125).

/Joss
Astepintime
QUOTE (djolds1+Sep 24 2009, 06:14 AM)
New paper from D&H is out. 20 pages:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu..._Propulsion.pdf


Thanks for pointing out the paper djolds1

A few typos to note.

From page 13 of 20:
"However, as shown in the rightmost column, the ratio of the CW/CCW signals, within their specified measured uncertainties, always assumes one of the integer values 1, -1, 5, and -5 as predicted in."

In what? Anyone know what reference was to be mentioned here?


Also when I compare the numbers to Tajmar's et al (0806.2271) I notice several inconsistencies. It looks like the telfon-telfon numbers are a typo. Also how can you possibly get a cw/ccw ratio of -1 for the He cup fin case! Typo??

It seems that D&H want to throw out most of the setup B and C data, see last paragraph of page 13, but it seems to me that they are using the 5 sigma rule and rounding off numbers to force the ratios to be 1, 5, -1 and 5. [Note the 5 sigma is just a RULE OF THUMB].

It is the experimenter’s job to present that data and give the statistical and systematic estimates of the errors. One should be very carefully throwing data out as this can cause bias.

If I take Tajmar's table 1 (see below) and do a simple (assume no correlations) error propagation and then round off to the number of significant figures I get the following (4’th column, sorry I can't seem to master the table making here)
  • ____________ CW_ _CCW _CW/CCW_ _D&H_
  • Setup A
  • Nb_Al_Ring__ 5.7±0.4 4.8±0.5 1.2±0.2 --->1
  • YBCO_Al_Ring 3.1±0.4 0.3±0.4 10.3±13.8 ---> 5 (?)
  • TEFL_TEFL___ 3.4±0.2 -0.5±0.2 -6.8±2.8 --->-5
  • No_Sample__ -0.1±0.2 -0.3±0.1 0.3±0.7
  • Setup B
  • Steel_Steel_R 3.4±0.5 -4.7±0.9 -0.7±0.2 ---> -1
  • Al_Al_Ring___ 2.1±0.8 -2.2±0.5 -1.0±0.4 ---> -1
  • Al-Disc______ 0.3±0.1 -0.3±0.1 -1.0±0.5 ---> -1
  • Setup C
  • AlCup_w_Fins 0.17±0.03 0.01±0.09 17.00±153. --->1 (?)
  • Al_Al_Ring__ -0.03±0.03 -0.04±0.04 0.75±1.06 --->1
  • Nb_Al_Ring_ -0.12 ± 0.05 -0.12 ± 0.08 1.00 ± 0.79 ---> -1 (?)
  • Graham_Pb_ -5.3 ± 8.5 37.7 ± 13.2 -0.14 ± 0.23 --->-5 (?)

The ? marks are mine and those are the points where I find it difficult to understand how D&H arrived at their cw/ccw ratios. I mean look at YBCO-Al, the ratio is 10 +/- 13 sure it is consistent with 5 but also 1 and 15! Same for the Cup-with-fins data.
The ratio is 17 +/- 153 this is consistent with everything so why does he put -1 ?

The last two question marks point to D&H ratios that are so wrong they must be typos.

IMHO one point to be learned here is how poor the CCW measurement was in Tajmar's cup-with-fins case. Something I missed in the reading of Tajmars paper.


gravitophoton
hi all, biggrin.gif

a study ( in german only so far) titled:
Anmerkungen zur Einheitlichen Strukturellen QFT von B. Heim
http://www.gravitation.org/Start/Experimente/B-Heim.pdf

by the
http://www.gravitation.org/Goede_Wissensch...stiftung_e.html
was just published.


regards
g.
gdaigle
One thing in this hpcc publication that I had missed in previous D&H papers was referenced in Figure 6, representing GE 3 (previously known as GME2, I believe) and having a vertical (axial) force component while speed of rotation remains constant:

QUOTE
Figure 6. In this gravity-like field experiment the artificial gravitational field generated would be directed along the axis of rotation. The second component is in azimuthal direction and should accelerate the ring or disk. Therefore, energy needs not to be supplied to keep the angular velocity of the ring or disk constant.


So the energy to self-sustain constant rotational speed is supplied by the axial force itself. If constrained from lifting, this configuration for GME2 could act as a self-sustaining power generator and may be the basis of previous references to patents for power generation.
bprager
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Sep 29 2009, 06:40 AM)
a study ( in german only so far) titled:
Anmerkungen zur Einheitlichen Strukturellen QFT von B. Heim
http://www.gravitation.org/Start/Experimente/B-Heim.pdf

by the
http://www.gravitation.org/Goede_Wissensch...stiftung_e.html
was just published.

They're basically abandoning BHT by calling it a failure due to missing experiments and failure to explain results of other experiments. I didn't read it completely yet but it seems that they're research is not completely accurate. E.g. they still claiming that the mass formula is "tuned" to the data etc. .
Olaf
Here is my impression:

The paper by A. Heck states that it has not been allowed to sort the 36 remaining eigenvalue equations in a quadratic 6x6 tensor, because they were a result of the physical 4 dimensions which should lead to a cubic tensor with also 4 dimensions.
(page 8)

Regarding the mass formula and the fine structure constant there is more guessing and polemics there. The author considers results of mathematical set theoric approaches in volume 3 as "number magic". He judges some of the equations by guessing that they look similar to others that are already known in physics without analyzing in detail how the were derived.

Nevertheless I got the impression that the paper gives a good introduction into some aspects of the Heim theory.
makuabob
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 23 2009, 11:04 PM)
BTW, how come that every person in this forum who seems to have some knowledge of BHT earn negative feedback points, while people who clearly didn't ready any of Heim's work and still participating here do not? Just curious ... ph34r.gif

Take a look at the Feedback of nicholasjh1 and you will see what has been going on. A flamer comes in and drops insane, negative feedback, then POOF!, just like a fairy, it disappears. We got some of the flame comments deleted, but the negative feedback lingers. )-:
nicholasjh1
Yeah i hardly even comment, yet somehow someone saw fit to give me negative feedback.
Tim
There's some more support for MOND (and perhaps EHT) in a recent article in New Scientist

QUOTE
The study shows that there is always five times more dark matter than normal matter where the dark matter density has dropped to one-quarter of its central value.


Dr. Famaey
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The study shows that there is always five times more dark matter than normal matter where the dark matter density has dropped to one-quarter of its central value.


Dr. Famaey
If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter.


Dr. Zhao
QUOTE
It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes.


I know it's been stated earlier in the thread that EHT might be able to explain both Dark Energy and Dark Matter with the extra gravitational forces. Do the ratios found in the study agree with EHT's predictions? If so, would this be a more readily and widely accepted way to get EHT some good press and perhaps even a favorable peer review?
gdaigle
D&H state in their most recent article that, stable neutral leptons should exist, which might be accountable for dark matter... the mechanism of neutral lepton ( e0 , µ 0 , τ 0 ) production is not known... the photon is the only particle that can be converted into a gravitophoton ν0 gp , which is the interaction boson for neutral leptons.

D&H say nothing of the ratio of stable neutral leptons to normal fermions, though the measured ratio of dark matter to atoms has always been about 5:1 of all matter-energy in the universe. But if the neutral leptons have masses similar to those of the electron, muon and tauon (.5 MeV, 105.7 MeV and 1.8 GeV, respectively) then their production in the early universe was about 5 times (or more) greater than for charged leptons.

D&H also mention that, it is therefore assumed that in the initial phase of the Universe, when huge numbers of photons were present, these particles possibly could have formed. Since they are not subject to electromagnetic interaction they might have life-times long enough to be stable and thus take part in galaxy formation... the production of neutral leptons does not seem to occur in gravitomagnetic experiments, but instead it is assumed that NOM (non-ordinary matter) bosons occur in the form of gravitophotons and quintessence particles.
williatw
QUOTE (djolds1+Sep 24 2009, 06:05 PM)
The greatest shortcoming for Heim/EHT is the lack of dedicated experimentation. The table top units described (either fermionic or bosonic) do not look overly difficult, but we have yet to see reports on them being carried out. Meanwhile the guys working on Woodward's Mach-Lorentz Thrusters are building hardware with their own savings.

D&H need to publish results of EHT-optimized (not just reinterpreting Tajmar) experiments in the next year or so, IMO. Or at least publicly recruit sufficiently skilled hardware engineers to build the things.

An elegant theory is attractive, but eventually that theory needs purpose-designed experimental support.

Has anyone heard from a former frequent poster Hdeasy? He used to seem to have some inside information on how experiments to confirm extended Heim Theory were going. this is exceeding frustrating to say the least, even if main stream science doesn't agree/respect Heim Theory to not perform a not to terribly difficult experiment to confirm/deny it doesn't seem reasonable. After all with polywell experiments apparently looking good, we would have a nice power source to charge the ring for our hypothetical 150ton spaceship.
Olaf
Documents updated

There are 3 new documents in the Files archive > mass formula section of the Heim Theory Wiki:
  • E Heims Mass formula v2.3
  • E Die Massenformel nach Burkhard Heim 1982 v2.3
    (see changelog in the document)
  • Heim - Ergebnisse 0.5.pdf (a scan of the 1989 typewriter script with the mass formula, still contains some errors in the equations)
Also I have updated the Excel Heim mass calculator in the download section of the Protosimplex Site. Corrected three errors with wrong brackets.

Many thanks to Javier Mazzone, who has found these errors while analyzing the 1982 and 1989 version of the Heim mass formula.
Jossarian
QUOTE
In his studies of entropy and the irreversibility of time, Caltech physicist Sean Carroll is exploring the idea that our universe is part of a larger structure.

... and also doubts Big Bang was the beginning.

LA Times article: Mysteries of time, and the multiverse
kurt9
Here's some news on using various high temperature super conductors to create magnetic fields up to 70 Tesla:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/high-fiel...agnets-and.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/bismuth-s...ld-replace.html

It looks to me like fermion coupling is becoming technological feasible.

makuabob
QUOTE (williatw+Oct 10 2009, 05:34 PM)
Has anyone heard from a former frequent poster Hdeasy?  He used to seem to have some inside information on how experiments to confirm extended Heim Theory were going.  ...

Well... His last post to this thread seems to have been about 1/2 year ago. He was a proponent of the Stoern ORBO thingy, which has, hopefully, been settled as untenible. I have not kept track of his doings but I recall that he was inclined to assign ORBO's alledged over-unity characteristic to Heim Theory. I will leave it at that.
trantor
QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 14 2009, 11:26 PM)
Here's some news on using various high temperature super conductors to create magnetic fields up to 70 Tesla:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/high-fiel...agnets-and.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/bismuth-s...ld-replace.html

It looks to me like fermion coupling is becoming technological feasible.

do you also post on the Polywell forum?
kurt9
QUOTE (trantor+Oct 15 2009, 04:31 AM)
do you also post on the Polywell forum?

Yep.
djolds1
QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 15 2009, 03:20 PM)
Yep.
williatw
Any chance of getting the polywell group people to bite as far as testing Extended Heim Theory? I posted something there the other day but got no response
kurt9
The people over on the polywell forum tend to be very skeptical of EHT. I'm skeptical as well. But I really want EHT to be correct because I want the FTL (we need a real frontier for people to go to). However, they have bitten into the Woodward and March's Mach Lorentz thruster idea.

From a materials standpoint, the MLT is much more achievable in the near term. You just need a really good dielectric. The leading candidate is BaTiO3, which I have found to be available in bulk form in both nano-crystalline (100nm grain size) and single crystal form. I have been in contact with someone who is developing a dielectric that is a metal/polymer composite that would be superior to BaTiO3 with regards to March's specification. However, this material will not be ready until next year.

A space drive based on EHT requires a superconducting material that can handle a current flux of 100Amp/mm2 and can generate a 70T magnetic field. That's for the fermion coupling. If boson coupling is possible, this requirement is much lower. However, there is some doubt that boson coupling is possible and that fermion coupling is necessary (if the theory is correct at all). So, its nice to see that a materials solution is on the horizon (5 years or so) that can make fermion coupling possible.

In short, this is good news because it suggests that from a materials science standpoint alone, there appear to be no show stoppers for the development of either of these technologies. Of course the theories have still to be confirmed.

Yeah, I noticed that Brian Wang picked up on my earlier comments about wanting a 60 T magnetic field.

Oh, and polywell would be nice as a power source for either kind of space drive.
hdeasy
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 14 2009, 11:44 PM)
Well... His last post to this thread seems to have been about 1/2 year ago. He was a proponent of the Stoern ORBO thingy, which has, hopefully, been settled as untenible. I have not kept track of his doings but I recall that he was inclined to assign ORBO's alledged over-unity characteristic to Heim Theory. I will leave it at that.

Hi

No too much has been happening in EHT until recently when D & H released their latest paper. I have not dismissed Steorn's and ORBOis not untenable. I know that the Steorn effect has nothing to do with the EHT effect. The CEO of Steorn, Sean McCarthy, has confirmed several times in the last 2
weeks that their absolute deadline for release of the tech is end 2009. I've looked at the theory they've shown to us in the inner forum and find it good. Indeed there are 2 or 3 separate
effects that allow energy to be gained, and they are all based on very simple classical physics - nothing even as complex as Maxwell's equations.
The funny thing is, they may also have Newton-3 violation which just possibly could lead to a reactionless drive. But that would be a totally different mechanism to the gravito-photons on EHT and Tajmar's experiment. For one, the Steorn mechanism doesn't need superconductors or huge magnetic fields. It just needs normal strength Neodymiums. My NDA doesn't allow me to give any details yet.

Hugh.
djolds1
QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 16 2009, 02:52 AM)
The people over on the polywell forum tend to be very skeptical of EHT. I'm skeptical as well. But I really want EHT to be correct because I want the FTL (we need a real frontier for people to go to). However, they have bitten into the Woodward and March's Mach Lorentz thruster idea.
8D EHT or even 6D HQT really needs a competent experimentalist to work with the theorists. Absent lab hardware Heim Theory is elegant hot air. The guys at T-P have bit MLTs for the simple reason that T-P attracts practical hands-on types and the MLT people are doing actual experiments. With their own money no less - that says commitment, and thus credibility.

QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 16 2009, 02:52 AM)
A space drive based on EHT requires a superconducting material that can handle a current flux of 100Amp/mm2 and can generate a 70T magnetic field. That's for the fermion coupling. If boson coupling is possible, this requirement is much lower. However, there is some doubt that boson coupling is possible and that fermion coupling is necessary (if the theory is correct at all). So, its nice to see that a materials solution is on the horizon (5 years or so) that can make fermion coupling possible.
The EHT papers from 2002-2004 were heavy on math and descriptions of theory for the fermionic pathway. Ever since Tajmar D&H have cited "significantly lower technical requirements" for the bosonic pathway, but descriptions of the revised theory and mathematics have been practically non-existent. This has made me... increasingly dubious.

QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 16 2009, 02:52 AM)
In short, this is good news because it suggests that from a materials science standpoint alone, there appear to be no show stoppers for the development of either of these technologies. Of course the theories have still to be confirmed.
Running the bloody experimental apparatuses should give order of magnitude indicators of whether the basic concepts are correct or not. Rule of thumb "brute force and massive ignorance" methodology. Who cares if its not elegant, so long as it gives a reliable indicative (NOT conclusive) answer?

QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 16 2009, 02:52 AM)
Oh, and polywell would be nice as a power source for either kind of space drive.
All the dreams of our spacehead childhoods fulfilled, the endless disappointments of NASA repealed and condemned to the ash heap of history. Yes, devoutly to be prayed and worked for.
hdeasy
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 29 2009, 04:22 PM)
They're basically abandoning BHT by calling it a failure due to missing experiments and failure to explain results of other experiments. I didn't read it completely yet but it seems that they're research is not completely accurate. E.g. they still claiming that the mass formula is "tuned" to the data etc. .

The analysis points out the holes in Heim's calculations, but indeed fails to mention the EHT work or details of the GME-2 predictions etc. The claim that the mass formula needs input data is indeed out-dated as we long ago found the 1989 one was free of such inputs.

Did anyone notice this in the homepage though?

http://www.gravitation.org/Start/start.html
" Göde Preis eine Million Euro für die Überwindung der Schwerkraft"

I.e. 1 million Euro prize for overcoming gravity. Could Tajmar already claim it? Or DH?

Ah - English version here http://www.gravitation.org/institute_of_gr...oede_prize.html

The "Göde reward for gravity research" is an innovative prize. The intent of this prize is to influence gravity with presently unknown methods. Applicants must successfully design, construct and complete an experiment with specified performance characteristics. A 20 gram heavy device or the assembly itself, is required to float freely at least 1 minute at a minimum distance of 10 cm from any surface.


Applicants must submit an operating assembly that is capable to prove that the experiment exclusively has direct influence on gravity.

Experiments, that deviate from the target setting, but reveal a clear effect regarding gravity (gravity impulse), can be submitted. The committee decides, if the experiment can participate unscheduled. Applicants cannot claim acceptance.

Levitation effects, based on traditional effects such as aerodynamic, magnetism or electricity are excluded. Experiments which fully and/or partly lead back to traditional standards are subject for selection by the committees decision. The proposed device will be reproduced and tested for performance and functionality by the Göde Wissenschafts-Stiftung.
kurt9
QUOTE (djolds1+Oct 16 2009, 07:38 AM)

8D EHT or even 6D HQT really needs a competent experimentalist to work with the theorists. Absent lab hardware Heim Theory is elegant hot air. The guys at T-P have bit MLTs for the simple reason that T-P attracts practical hands-on types and the MLT people are doing actual experiments. With their own money no less - that says commitment, and thus credibility


That's right. Making sample MLT rigs looks to be quite cheap. Even cheaper than a farnsworth fusor because you do not need a vacuum chamber. Making an experimental rig for EHT looks to be very expensive.

QUOTE
The EHT papers from 2002-2004 were heavy on math and descriptions of theory for the fermionic pathway. Ever since Tajmar D&H have cited "significantly lower technical requirements" for the bosonic pathway, but descriptions of the revised theory and mathematics have been practically non-existent. This has made me... increasingly dubious.


I think so too. I think D&H are relying too much on Tajmar's results.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The EHT papers from 2002-2004 were heavy on math and descriptions of theory for the fermionic pathway. Ever since Tajmar D&H have cited "significantly lower technical requirements" for the bosonic pathway, but descriptions of the revised theory and mathematics have been practically non-existent. This has made me... increasingly dubious.


I think so too. I think D&H are relying too much on Tajmar's results.

Running the bloody experimental apparatuses should give order of magnitude indicators of whether the basic concepts are correct or not. Rule of thumb "brute force and massive ignorance" methodology. Who cares if its not elegant, so long as it gives a reliable indicative (NOT conclusive) answer?


Yes. Experimental results trumps all.

QUOTE
All the dreams of our spacehead childhoods fulfilled, the endless disappointments of NASA repealed and condemned to the ash heap of history. Yes, devoutly to be prayed and worked for.


True. But I was thinking more of the economic and sociological aspects of a frontier. I'm not going to elaborate because I do not want to devolve into a libertarian rant here. I actually read very little SF.
djolds1
QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 16 2009, 04:25 PM)
That's right. Making sample MLT rigs looks to be quite cheap. Even cheaper than a farnsworth fusor because you do not need a vacuum chamber. Making an experimental rig for EHT looks to be very expensive.
I don't think the expense is what matters. Polywell is not cheap to do, and backing it is somewhat of an act of faith at this point, but Polywell IS backed by years of solid experimental effort.
trantor
QUOTE (kurt9+Oct 15 2009, 03:20 PM)
Yep.

I´m AcesHigh there... I´ve posted something on the thread about M-E Thrusters...
Aero
Did anyone happen to watch "Mystery Quest" on the History Channel last night? It featured a meeting at the Washington Press Club, guests included luminaries from politics, the military and science. The topic was one which I wouldn't normally post here, but they mentioned a technology near and dear to my heart.

The topic was the formal investigations, by governments around the world, of objects which are unexplained and which also fly. (I have deliberately avoided the common accronym.) Not the 95% of sightings which are explained by common phenomena, but the other 5% confirmed by radar and trained observers, appearing to be under intelligent control, far out performing anything known to man and remaining unexplained. There were several conclusions of note, but the one that caught my attention was that these objects must be powered by some type of Gravito-magnetic drive. That conclusion came about because this type of inertial drive would explain both the performance capability and the common observation that electronic equipment fails when in proximity to these flying objects.

Now I have a question for the experts on this forum. Would a Gravito-magnetic drive cause ionization of the atmosphere near the engine exhaust (for lack of a better term) so that the ionized air would appear to be a very bright light?
Aero
While checking for new results with Google I found this paper by de Matos and Tajmar. In this paper published in 2003, they use the concept of cogravity to develop an equation for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. The resulting equation is exactly the same as is developed by general relativity.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304104.pdf


QUOTE
Advance of Mercury Perihelion Explained by Cogravity
C. J. de Matos*
ESA-HQ, 8-10 rue Mario Nikis, 75015 Paris, France
M. Tajmar†
Austrian Research Center Seibersdorf, A-2444 Seibersdorf, Austria
The theory of General Relativity explaines the advance of Mercury perihelion
using space curvature and the Schwartzschild metric. We demonstrate that
this phenomena can also be interpreted due to the cogravitational field
produced by the apparent motion of the Sun around Mercury giving exactly
the same estimate as derived from the Schwartzschild metric in general
relativity theory. This is a surprising and new result because the estimate from
both theoretical approaches match exactly the measured value.


They start by substituting parameters into Maxwell's electromagnetic (EM) field theory so that "The cogravitational field K is for the gravitational field g what the magnetic field B is for the electric field E." They end by pointing to a situation where GR says nothing but their cogravity theory gives a potentially testable result.

I wonder - how does this fit with Heim gravity?
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Aero+Oct 22 2009, 02:08 AM)
While checking for new results with Google I found this paper by de Matos and Tajmar. In this paper published in 2003, they use the concept of cogravity to develop an equation for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. The resulting equation is exactly the same as is developed by general relativity.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0304/0304104.pdf





Thanks , Aero; I was unaware of that report. "Cogravity" is simply another name for "Gravitomagnetism".

I have seen a similar derivation done before .... What they call "cogravity" (and "gravito-cogravity") is simply what is most often called GRAVITO-MAGNETISM....it is the same thing...as can be seen from the usual Gravitomagnetic equations #1 thru #4 on page 3 of their report.

Who knows why they used the rather oblique term "cogravity"...its the exact same thing that we refer to today as "gravitomagnetism".

And in case you are interested, a similar derivation was brought to light shortly after Einstein developed Gen Rel. Eqns. , IOW, the calculated AMOUNT of perihelion advance of Mercury could be determined strictly from gravitomagnetic eqns. without regard to curved space-time of GR. However, the direction of the advance was apparently in the OPPOSITE direction as was measured in reality.

I haven't read through this report completely, so I don't know if Tajmar got the direction of rotation of the perihelion correct or not.

The report however, is very interesting , especially the discussion at the end.

And No; it has no relation to the Heim / Droescher stuff.



QUOTE
They start by substituting parameters into Maxwell's electromagnetic (EM) field theory so that "The cogravitational field K is for the gravitational field g what the magnetic field B is for the electric field E." They end by pointing to a situation where GR says nothing but their cogravity theory gives a potentially testable result.


Well, this is exactly what gravitomagnitism is in linearized form; namely, the gravitational analogs for electromagnetism. ...as I stated above.

Lunar wink.gif
Matador
There are open questions here! This is why to a certain extent, the discussions unavoidably are somewhat fuzzy. Different research programs can often be characterized by somewhat different positions on the questions that are discussed here.
Ganondorf
I suppose they prefer cogravity because it has really nothing to do with magnetism and calling it gravitomagnetism leads to confusion.

Now, if EHT is correct then calculating the cogravitational effect of a planet with current physics should lead to wrong results.
williatw
I have a question for anyone who wants to respond: Lets assume EHT is correct and our postulated 150 ton ship is built. The Gravitophotons produced above the rotating ring push the ship forward at greater than one G. Would not the passenger/crew on board be directly accelerated by the induced gravity waves also? Instead of their bodies being at rest and only moving when they impact against the accelerating vehicle as normally happens, wouldn't they be pushed equally by the gravity waves as the vehicle is? That is they wouldn't experience g-forces at all? As I understand it the 150 ton ship is only a baseline not the peak possible performance...a follow up design with greater field strength, rotational speeds etc. might produce acceleration of say 5-10 G's? You could have an EHT ship accelerating at 10 G's an the passenger would I assume experience free-fall?
Ganondorf
QUOTE (williatw+Oct 29 2009, 01:32 AM)
I have a question for anyone who wants to respond:  Lets assume EHT is correct and our postulated 150 ton ship is built.  The Gravitophotons produced above the rotating ring push the ship forward at greater than one G.  Would not the passenger/crew on board be directly accelerated by the induced gravity waves also?  Instead of their bodies being at rest and only moving when they impact against the accelerating vehicle as normally happens, wouldn't they be pushed equally by the gravity waves as the vehicle is?  That is they wouldn't experience g-forces at all?  As I understand it the 150 ton ship is only a baseline not the peak possible performance...a follow up design with greater field strength, rotational speeds etc. might produce acceleration of say 5-10 G's?  You could have an EHT ship accelerating at 10 G's an the passenger would I assume experience free-fall?

Let me quote you the answer from the latest publication :

QUOTE
This experimental setup could serve as field propulsion device, if a non-divergence free field were generated (the physical nature of the gravity-like field is not known at present).
gdaigle
A recent article in the NY Times argues that the near absence of time-lags between gamma EM of different energies emitted in distant gamma ray bursts shows lack of support for some quantum gravity theories. In the article, Lee Smolin is quoted to have said, “So a genuine experimental test of a hypothesized quantum gravity effect is in progress”, though a NASA article fingers "foamy" quantum models as being more in jeopardy as well as those with quanta smaller than LQG or EHT's metron. But since LQG's quanta is on the same scale as EHT's metron, might this new evidence disprove EHT if it can first be shown to falsify LQG to Smolin's (dis)satisfaction?
Ganondorf
8/10 of the planck length as a limit ? I wonder where this number comes from. I can't really tell much about this theory without reading the actual publications. The limit they found says nothing and could still confirm quantization of space or deny it, or deny just one effect.
gdaigle
Tajmar and Plesescu have a new paper out:
Fiber-Optic-Gyroscope Measurements Close to Rotating Liquid Helium

They find that helium does play an anomalous role but are working to increase the sensitivity of their instruments.

arXiv: 0911.1033
Aero
That is the best news I've heard in a long time. The news is that Tajmar is still actively pursuing the anomaly, and evidently has some support since he built a new cryostat and is shopping for a new, faster cryomotor. That is exciting!
Astepintime
Thanks gdaigle,

But I am not sure I read this paper as positive as you. What struck me were the following.

From page2.

"The signal reduction in Setup C may also point towards systematic effects such as acoustic vibration in Setups A and B, however, also in the case of much improved isolation as in Setup C, an anomalous effect on the gyro remains although close to our measurement resolution. "

They worked very hard to eliminate acoustic vibration but still they admit it's possible huge impact!

From page 5, discussing the position 1 measurements.

"Note that there is again a parity anomaly such that the effect is pronounced in the clockwise-direction as previously observed in Setups A and C."

In simple terms the CCW case does not find any effect.


On page 5 in the discussion of measurements 1,2 and 3 being consistent with a dipole field.

"All this would be expected from a dipolar field however, this signal is already very close to our minimum rotation rate upper limit and may well be noise. "

May well be noise -- yea!


Then in the conclusion:

"Our measurements outside the cryostat so far are still work in progress and the anomalous signals are just three times above or even below the minimum rotation rate upper limit of the gyroscope used and hence remain doubtful. "

Doubtful is the key word here!


Now look in table 1. Look at the coupling factor signal to noise (error/mean) it is horrible in almost every case. Christ, I am not sure why they even wrote this up!


Lunarlanding
QUOTE (gdaigle+Nov 10 2009, 11:50 PM)


They find that helium does play an anomalous role but are working to increase the sensitivity of their instruments.

arXiv: 0911.1033


Thanks for the update report, gdaigle, on Tajmar.
This report does confirm the previous finding that the helium seems to be the source of the anomaly.

Astepintime,
I appreciate your attention to detail; however, most of the quotes you cited are actually admirable in that they reflect a new sense of humility and honesty among Tajmar, et al, having been previously forced by empirical evidence to admit error in thinking the effect is due to superconductor interaction....and they do not reflect any reservation about the reality of the signal or its association with the helium current....but only some reservation of accuracy due to the very low angular velocity of rotation....(which they plan in future tests to remediate with higher rates)

In fact, the helium signal is even less likely to be a systematic effect now that there are two different experimental set-ups both of which reveal the same anomaly associated with the helium., the previous one being much higher rotation rate.

However, having said that, it does appear they have MIS-interpreted the DATA.
Since you are one of the few that seems to be attentive to the details , you (and others) will appreciate this:

First, the results confirming the gyro signals are NOT due to the angular VELOCITY of the helium (as stated), but rather are due to its angular ACCELERATION.
....and using a coupling factor determined by Gyro Output divided by Omega (angular velocity) (pg. 5, point #2) is not appropriate since it makes an a'priori assumption that angular velocity is the determinant. rather than acceleration.

This error can easily be seen by a close inspection of the data chart for position 1 and position 3 , figure 3b. and figure 4b., respectively. Please look at these charts.

It can been seen from the data charts that it is angular acceleration that determines the gyro signal strength.

In figure 4b. for example, the gyro signal shoots up abruptly as (just after) the rotation rate is INCREASING, IOW, during angular acceleration.; and then as soon as the rotation levels off (for about 25 seconds) the signal drops precipitously TO zero BEFORE the rotation rate starts to decease. (draw vertical lines in the chart to see clearly). ...In other words, during the approx. 25 seconds of CONSTANT angular velocity THE GYRO SIGNAL IS FALLING back to zero.

THE SAME Pattern during constant velocity is displayed in Figure 3 b., (except in the opposite direction.), but the effect is not AS noticeable as fig. 4b.

In both cases this is an indication that positive acceleration is causing the signal....NOT the angular velocity.

Furthermore, this behavior is consistent with Tajmar's FIRST rotation experiment USING ACCELEROMETERS (and very high rotation rates)..in which he showed clearly an external acceleration in space (external to the apparatus) ONLY during a CHANGE in angular velocity. , IOW, DURING angular acceleration. (...which he interpreted relativistically as a result of a changing gravitomagnetic field).

BTW, this above behavior is also consistent with what is predicted by Gen Relativity, in the linearized field equations, whereby a CHANGE in velocity of matter results in an acceleration field we call gravity (via a time rate of change in the gravitomagnetic field)... (except that this field is predicted to be so extremely tiny as to be undetectable by laboratory means.)

QUOTE
Now look in table 1. Look at the coupling factor signal to noise (error/mean) it is horrible in almost every case....


Further proof of the veracity of my statements, Astepentime, that the angular velocity (omega) is NOT the determinant of the coupling.

Hope all that makes sense. biggrin.gif Any comments or questions from anyone are appreciated.

Lunar cool.gif
nicholasjh1
Also since the anomaly is not in CCW direction Only 2 things can be guessed from this.

1) the machinery doing the spinning has instability in only one direction.

2) there is a real anomaly That only works in one direction (maybe based on spin of the earth, sun... or more likely spin of atoms, or "dark" matter direction of some field created by one of these things.
Astepintime
Hello Lunar

A few comments;

QUOTE

I appreciate your attention to detail; however, most of the quotes you cited are actually admirable in that they reflect a new sense of humility and honesty among Tajmar, et al, having been  .......

Agreed, and I also was pleased to see that.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

I appreciate your attention to detail; however, most of the quotes you cited are actually admirable in that they reflect a new sense of humility and honesty among Tajmar, et al, having been  .......

Agreed, and I also was pleased to see that.


First, the results confirming the gyro signals are NOT due to the angular VELOCITY of the helium (as stated), but rather are due to its angular ACCELERATION.


Well, yes if you look at the cw portion of figures 3.b., 4.b and 5.b (even the ccw portion of figure 8 in the earlier Tajmar et al paper) you might conclude this. However, the correlation between the angular velocity (or acceleration) times series and the smoothed Gyro output does not seem as high as I would expect. If one would overlay all the plots it would appear that different lags (time-offsets) would be needed in every case for optimal alignment. Then the additional question is what is happening in the CCW portion of the data!

If someone is willing to extract the data from the plots we can have some fun and push the data through various statistical techniques. I would be very curious what the confidence levels are between the gyro output and a constant time-series with Gaussian noise and with the "v" or "a" time-series. Or, Hey, any one of the many other tests you could do. Which of course raises the question why didn't the experimenters make these calculations!

makuabob
QUOTE (nicholasjh1+Nov 12 2009, 11:17 AM)
Also since the anomaly is not in CCW direction Only 2 things can be guessed from this.

1) the machinery doing the spinning has instability in only one direction.

2) there is a real anomaly That only works in one direction (maybe based on spin of the earth, sun... or more likely spin of atoms, or "dark" matter direction of some field created by one of these things.

This brings up a curious point, IMO. Granted that the hardware is somewhat unique, why is it that Tajmar & associates don't rotate the apparatus 90° (on its side) and run it that way, then rotate 90° again in that plane and run the experiment that way, also? Plus... try the whole thing at the earth's equator?

I suspect that funding may be a major factor constraining progress. :-/
Lunarlanding
Hi all; for those who understood my previous post on Tajmar's recent experiment.... http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.1033 ....let me add....

Besides the obvious incorrect correlation to angular velocity instead of angular acceleration, the other problem that I have with this experimental set up is that there is NO need to include a rotating niobium superconductor into the experiment.

Including it with the rotating helium only confounds the issue by adding OTHER unnecessary conflagrating parameters which prevents unambiguous characterization of the helium effect.

...The (assumed) benefit of magnetic shielding that niobium provides for the gyros (from Meissner) is illusory since (upon rotation) Meissner effect is reversed and a London magnetic field permeates the NiobiumSC and allows the B field into the GYRO chamber . Any possible Meissner shielding is unnecessary anyway since the gyros are shielded with mu materials, however, complications are introduced into the HELIUM environment.

Let me explain: The gyros may be shielded from the rotating niobium effects (due to mu material shielding) but the helium itself is not shielded from its effects.

Clearly a London magnetic moment proportional to angular velocity is introduced into the helium due to the niobium rotation. Tajmar surely is aware of that fact and that alone should have been sufficient to leave it out.

However, often overlooked is the fact that CHANGING the velocity of the niobium rotation also creates a non-conservative ELECTRIC FIELD into the helium according to Maxwell's equations, due to the changing London moment; IOW, via the Faraday effect.
...AND thus a TIME VARYING electromagnetic field is introduced into the helium throughout the test run.

Since the purpose of the experiment is to get an unambiguous and autonomous signal from the rotating HELIUM ALONE, the niobium should be left out of the pot completely....

Furthermore, using electromagnetic conducting materials (stainless steel for the pot and aluminum fins) is simply asking for indeterminant complications.

The entire apparatus should be constructed out of strong but NON-CONDUCTING material so that Helium ALONE can be tested ....without any possible interaction with OTHER METALS.

Including other metals, especially superconductors, is a severe weakness in the experimental procedure since it prevents unambiguous characterization of the Helium effect.

Lunar
nicholasjh1
No need at all? If the helium is interacting with a field created by the superconductor that would not be true, however i do agree that it should be tested as you are suggesting to eliminate theorys on how this is happening.
Lunarlanding
.......
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.