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

gdaigle
I noted a few days ago that M.E. McCulloch posted a second paper ascribing the Tajmar Effect to a Hubble-scale Casimir Effect. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266

Now it's been picked up in an article in PhysOrg. I noted in my book that Tajmar thinks quantized inertia a better explanation for his effect than EHT. Now McCulloch hopes Tajmar's group will test the theory with a rotating superconductor 0.01% the mass of the original ring Tajmar and deMatos experimented with.

Unanswered questions from me include that Tajmar et al did not find the effect for rotating Type 2 superconductors. Why should such supercooled materials not elicit a quantized inertia effect? Also, MiHsC is posited as an explanation for the Pioneer effect, even though less complex and equally plausible mechanisms have claimed their own explanations for that effect.

Very interesting nonetheless.
gravitophoton
How interesting it must have been @ the 47th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, in San Diego, 31 Jul - 3 Aug 2011.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230...gid=2424#zz2424

Did anyone here had the chance to attend: J.Hauser/W.Droescher "Physics of Axial Gravity-Like Fields."?
http://www.aiaa.org/events/jpc/Final_Prog_...IECEC_2011c.pdf
p.77, Future Flight Propulsion
rolleyes.gif
djolds1
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Aug 7 2011, 04:58 PM)
How interesting it must have been @ the 47th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, in San Diego, 31 Jul - 3 Aug 2011.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=230...gid=2424#zz2424

Did anyone here had the chance to attend: J.Hauser/W.Droescher "Physics of Axial Gravity-Like Fields."?
http://www.aiaa.org/events/jpc/Final_Prog_...IECEC_2011c.pdf
p.77, Future Flight Propulsion
rolleyes.gif

The AIAA paper:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...A-2011-6042.pdf

And another recent offering:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...om_ID5258-2.pdf

The AIAA paper is short on pictures and long on text.
djolds1
Another slam on EHT:

IIRC, EHT explicitly posits a Higgs mechanism. Looks like particle physicists are finally giving up the ghost on that, and by extension the entire Standard Model:

'God Particle' May Be a Mirage, Scientists Hint

Published August 23, 2011

| Reuters

CERN

A proton-proton collision at the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN laboratory in Geneva that produced more than 100 charged particles.

Scientists chasing a particle they believe may have played a vital role in creation of the universe indicated on Monday they were coming to accept it might not exist after all.

But they stressed that if the so-called Higgs boson turns out to have been a mirage, the way would be open for advances into territory dubbed "new physics" to try to answer one of the great mysteries of the cosmos.

The CERN research center, whose giant Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been the focus of the search, said it had reported to a conference in Mumbai that possible signs of the Higgs noted last month were now seen as less significant.

A number of scientists from the center went on to make comments that raised the possibility that the mystery particle might not exist.

"Whatever the final verdict on Higgs, we are now living in very exciting times for all involved in the quest for new physics," Guido Tonelli, from one of the two LHC detectors chasing the Higgs, said as the new observations were announced.

CERN's statement said new results, which updated findings that caused excitement at another scientific gathering in Grenoble last month, "show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide."

NEW PHYSICS

The centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference, at the Indian city's Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, that if the Higgs did not exist "its absence will point the way to new physics."

Under what is known as the Standard Model of physics, the boson, which was named after British physicist Peter Higgs, is posited as having been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter just after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

As a result, flying debris from that primeval explosion could come together as stars, planets and galaxies.

In the subterranean LHC, which began operating at the end of March 2010, CERN engineers and physicists have created billions of miniature versions of the Big Bang by smashing particles together at just a fraction under the speed of light.

The results of those collisions are monitored by hundreds of physicists not just at CERN but in linked laboratories around the world which sift through the vast volumes of information generated by the LHC.

Scientists at the U.S. Fermilab near Chicago have been in a parallel search in their Tevatron collider for nearly 30 years. Last month they said they hoped to establish if the Higgs exists by the end of September, when the Tevatron closes down.

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

"There are many models out there; we simply need to be nudged in the right direction," added Gagnon, an experimental physicist.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/23/...article-may-be-
gdaigle
The lack of a discovery of a singular Higgs particle of ordinary mattery by the LHC is actually good news for EHT.

In their paper "Gravitational Field Propulsion" (AIAA 2009-5069) Hauser and Dröscher state, "Any admissible subspace combination needs S2 or I2 coordinates to be present in order to realize physical events in our spacetime. The only exception is the Hermetry form H16 for the Higgs field."

In their late 2009 paper "Emerging physics for novel field propulsion science" they expand their description that EHT's three R subspaces deliver, "15 fundamental groups of particles... of gravitational or non-gravitational nature, while the O(2, q) 2 O(2, q) stands for the 6 Higgs and 6 anti-Higgs bosons, responsible for all types of charges that fundamental particles can possess. It is believed that all particles of OM or NOM... interact with its respective Higgs particle and gain charge (e.g mass or electric charge etc.), but their inertia (energy) should come from group O(1, q) , which denotes a special Hermetry form, H16 from subspace T1."

OM stands for ordinary matter. NOM or Non-Ordinary Matter are particles of imaginary mass that should occur "as virtual particles, which means that they are not present (do not occur) in the initial and final states of a reaction, but act in the intermediate steps."

In "Coupled Gravitational Fields A New Paradigm for Propulsion Science" (AIAA2010-021-NFF) they clarify that "there are three degenerated Hermetry forms that describe partial forms occurring in NOM, namely the families of imaginary messenger particles, i.e. photon, gluon, and dark matter... Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the inertia field, which is some kind of Higgs field pervading the whole Universe" They continue, "Imaginary particles are formed via the Higgs mechanism, for instance, as described by M. Kaku, (Kaku, M.: Quantum Field Theory, Oxford, 1993. Chap.10.).

So EHT postulates a total of six Higgs and anti-Higgs fields. These 12 Higgs bosons are transitory particles of imaginary mass. It is the interaction between fundamental particles and the Higgs mechanism that imparts charge and mass to them. EHT does not predict a singular Higgs boson of ordinary matter (OM), which has been the focus of the LHC's search.
gravitophoton
just 4 info: SPESIF 2012 & 5th COFE

Wednesday, 29th February through Friday, 2nd March @ University of Maryland

http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF.html
cfp: http://ias-spes.org/SPESIF%202012/CallforP...llforpapers.pdf

bprager
The BBC reports dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong.
So, we're back to the drawing board? That's exciting.
DaSmartest1
rolleyes.gif

Hmmm

Dark matter theory down the tube? Harder to prove than that.
brucep
QUOTE (bprager+Sep 16 2011, 07:39 PM)
The BBC reports dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong.
So, we're back to the drawing board? That's exciting.

That's not what was said. He said the simulations fit a model of WDM with lighter and more energetic dark matter particles. I'm not very fond of comments such as this anyway

"But the Virgo Consortium has created computer simulations to visualise how the dwarf galaxies formed, using their assumptions about CDM."

Couple of months ago it was 'the dumbest paper I ever read' claiming that the principle of relativity was on the chopping block
Sithdarth
QUOTE
The BBC reports dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong.
So, we're back to the drawing board? That's exciting.


Given that we've got direct measurements of the gravitational effect of nonbaryonic "dark" matter in the absence of normal visible matter in a situation that makes it impossible for what we observed to be any type of known matter that statement is well just dumb.

Beyond that it's patently ridiculous to do a simulation, see that it doesn't fit observation, and then claim that means the theory is wrong. There are too many approximations going on in simulations of entire galaxies to say anything that definitive. Beyond that I doubt they have enough information to very accurately model the early galaxy.
Jossarian
QUOTE (Sithdarth+Sep 17 2011, 01:21 AM)

Given that we've got direct measurements of the gravitational effect of nonbaryonic "dark" matter in the absence of normal visible matter in a situation that makes it impossible for what we observed to be any type of known matter that statement is well just dumb.

Beyond that it's patently ridiculous to do a simulation, see that it doesn't fit observation, and then claim that means the theory is wrong. There are too many approximations going on in simulations of entire galaxies to say anything that definitive. Beyond that I doubt they have enough information to very accurately model the early galaxy.


I liked the idea that our Universe is part of multidimensional Multiverse. Each of Universes is governed by different physical constants. Matter from neighboring Universes can interact via gravity force. It gives impression that galaxies are much more massive because in addition to mass they contain in our 3D space they also contain some extra mass in neighboring Universes. This means that large structures of matter like galaxies are multidimensional entities, so we are not able to see them in full shape.
Do you think it is possible to verify such idea with similar calculations as in this article?
Jossarian
I've found something like this:
Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi)
Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser work on EHT looks llike perfect candidate for such funding.
DaSmartest1
rolleyes.gif

$$$

I nominate Dave for a Mini-Grant in general relativity.
unit
Hmm....how will the Heim Theory group reconcile today's news release regarding neutrinos traveling FTL at CERN? I was hoping the recorded speed would be 50% faster, buts its something like 0.0001%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/22/...ain;contentBody

gravitophoton
here is the paper
Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam.
@ arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

rpenner
This experiment contradicts more sensitive observations. They are dependent on the GPS location finding service which in turn is based on a model of the Earth's deviation from sphericity and the US military's lock down of accurate positioning data.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/20...claim_requi.php
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...low-down-folks/
gravitophoton
and here @ the cern site:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1384486
the archived talk: New results from OPERA on neutrino properties
&
OPERA experiment invites scrutiny of unexpected results
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

Jossarian
Possibly fine structure constant is changing over time:
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2011...ics-broken.html

Here is paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3907

I like this part:
"In their conclusion, the researchers say that this could be evidence for multiple universes because these results could “infer a very large or infinite universe, within which our 'local' Hubble volume represents a tiny fraction, with correspondingly small variations in the physical constants.”

Wasn't this predicted by Heim?
http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/posdzech/..._weltaltere.htm

"With changing of size of all metrons also all physical values change, since they are based on geometrical processes. "
Jossarian
My Google Alert spew this today:
One weird theory could make anti-gravity and faster-than-light travel possible
gocrew
It's hard to get excited about Heim Theory after Reed's analysis. The only reason to pursue it was some of the possibilities it offered, which now seem to have been, well, I'll not say fraudulent, just wrong. In a very suspicious way.

Without the predictions of mass, there really is little to get excited about, little to make us think he was on to something.
gdaigle
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that Heim was "on to something." Even though my understanding of the physics is limited, I do believe that Dr. Reed's analysis of the shortcomings of Heim's original theory is correct. However, I don't think Reed's conclusions should be applied by others to Dr. Hauser's work in Extended Heim Theory.

In discussions with Hauser, it was pointed out to me that the idea of how to construct a poly-metric tensor was of much greater importance than Heim's actual derivation. As applied to their (Hauser and Dröscher's) eight-dimensional gauge space extension of Heim Theory, it seems to give a more complete and correct picture than Heim's six-dimensional approach. The basic ideas of physics in Heim's books are essential, but provide only a starting point. All of the formulas have to be derived anew, which is what EHT has accomplished.

Hauser and Dröscher have already pointed out in their papers that Heim's mass spectrum analysis must at least be incomplete, simply because of his use of six-dimensional space. It was also pointed out to me that the new formulations in EHT did reveal additional errors in Heim's math and that Reed's correct analysis of Heim's wrong spherical Laplacian had already been taken into consideration by EHT's formulations.
kurt9
It is true that EHT is a separate work from the original Heim Theory. However, Droescher and Hauser have relied considerably on the Tajmer's experimental results over the past 5 years. Tajmer's results are now seen as questionable because of the failure of other researchers to duplicate the same results. D&H have proposed two experiments over the years. The first one uses the high T magnetic field. This is the experiment proposed in their papers in 2004 and 2005. Later, based on Tajmer's results, they proposed a second experiment that would use a much lower magnetic field than the one in their first experiment. Since the Tajmer's results are questionable, or can be explained by different theories, it is likely the second experiment will prove a null result.

I am not a physicist either. I do not know if EHT requires that the second proposed experiment (low magnetic field) produce valid results. If so, then I would say that EHT is as false as the original Heim Theory.

The high-flux superconducting materials that would make it possible to do the first experiment are being developed (for other applications) and should be commercially available in another 3-4 years. This should make it possible to conduct the high T magnetic field experiment without too horrendous of cost in about 5 years. Until then, everything is pure speculation.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (kurt9+Nov 6 2011, 04:11 PM)
Tajmer's results are now seen as questionable because of the failure of other researchers to duplicate the same results.

forgive me kurt, but who tried to replicate tajmars experiments so far??
graham et al. used a lead ring, they used different angular velocities, different positioning of different gyros., so....
cool.gif
kurt9
I think EHT will be worth looking at in about 5 years once the high current flux superconducting cables come onto the market at reasonable cost. Not much can be done until then.
gocrew
QUOTE (kurt9+Nov 6 2011, 04:11 PM)
It is true that EHT is a separate work from the original Heim Theory. However, Droescher and Hauser have relied considerably on the Tajmer's experimental results over the past 5 years. Tajmer's results are now seen as questionable because of the failure of other researchers to duplicate the same results. D&H have proposed two experiments over the years. The first one uses the high T magnetic field. This is the experiment proposed in their papers in 2004 and 2005. Later, based on Tajmer's results, they proposed a second experiment that would use a much lower magnetic field than the one in their first experiment. Since the Tajmer's results are questionable, or can be explained by different theories, it is likely the second experiment will prove a null result.

I am not a physicist either. I do not know if EHT requires that the second proposed experiment (low magnetic field) produce valid results. If so, then I would say that EHT is as false as the original Heim Theory.

The high-flux superconducting materials that would make it possible to do the first experiment are being developed (for other applications) and should be commercially available in another 3-4 years. This should make it possible to conduct the high T magnetic field experiment without too horrendous of cost in about 5 years. Until then, everything is pure speculation.

I have read that EHT is very separate from Heim Theory. However, does EHT have anything to get excited about? The possibility of deriving mass was exciting. Now, all EHT has, unless I am mistaken, is the possibility of a single experiment that has other explanations.

I'm not trying to put the last nail in the coffin. All I'm saying is I don't see much reason to get excited anymore.
gdaigle
QUOTE
I have read that EHT is very separate from Heim Theory. However, does EHT have anything to get excited about? The possibility of deriving mass was exciting. Now, all EHT has, unless I am mistaken, is the possibility of a single experiment that has other explanations.

I'm not trying to put the last nail in the coffin. All I'm saying is I don't see much reason to get excited anymore.


Like many others here, I'm all for a demo levitating a Hummer, but until that day there are some interesting new leads from disproving older theories... and from new ones... that improve EHT's position among other "outlier" theories. And other refinements (read his last paper AIAA2011-6042) that give multiple ways to test its predictions:

1. If the LHC does not find a massive Higgs boson, that would give more weight to EHT since it would put the Standard Model into greater question and EHT would be there (among many others) to fill the gap. EHT predicts several less massive Higgs and anti-Higgs particles.

2. Verlinde's holographic theory makes information and the organization of structures key to understanding space-time. You may have seen this theory referenced in recent episodes of PBS's NOVA. Alternatively, holographic theory mirrors EHT's four subspaces representing the formation of information structures (I2) and organizational structures (S2).

3. Hauser mentioned in his last paper that if physical experiments can be set up that lead to a conversion from photons into gravitophotons, a coupling between electromagnetism and gravitation would be established. Hyperbolic metamaterials have created electromagnetic "event horizons", which are analogous to gravitational black holes. I would like to see if gravitomagnetic predictions can be represented analogously in the laboratory by employing metamaterials.

4. If symmetry breaking as the underlying cause of producing gravitophotons is real, then one outcome should be the production of a new real particle with lower ground state that should be detectable... if someone is looking for it.
djolds1
QUOTE (gocrew+Nov 5 2011, 12:27 AM)
It's hard to get excited about Heim Theory after Reed's analysis. The only reason to pursue it was some of the possibilities it offered, which now seem to have been, well, I'll not say fraudulent, just wrong. In a very suspicious way.

Without the predictions of mass, there really is little to get excited about, little to make us think he was on to something.

Yet another nail in the Heim coffin - Tajmar retracts 2006 claims as noise:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011
kurt9
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Nov 7 2011, 05:38 PM)
forgive me kurt, but who tried to replicate tajmars experiments so far??
graham et al. used a lead ring, they used different angular velocities, different positioning of different gyros., so....
  cool.gif

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/...1_12_125011.pdf

The high T field experiment might be worth trying in about 5 years when the high flux superconductor cables become available. Otherwise, EHT looks dead to me.

I don't know about Pharis Williams' concept. However, we should have a definitive answer on the Woodward-Mach stuff sometime next year.
Mindrust
Looks like Droscher is going to have to stop citing Tajmar's results as evidence for EHT. Mike McCulloch as well.

The only possibly viable solution to the propulsion problem at this point seems to be Woodward's machian drive or the quantum vacuum approach (i.e. Jordan McClay's vibrating mirrors).
djolds1
QUOTE (Mindrust+Nov 12 2011, 06:53 PM)
Looks like Droscher is going to have to stop citing Tajmar's results as evidence for EHT. Mike McCulloch as well.

The only possibly viable solution to the propulsion problem at this point seems to be Woodward's machian drive or the quantum vacuum approach (i.e. Jordan McClay's vibrating mirrors).
Droscher & Hauser could conceivably abandon their speculations and analyses of the last five years, and retrench to their initial concepts c. 2001- 2006, concepts which required high-intensity magnetic fields for testing; especially since achieving high-tesla (15-100 T) fields has become so much more plausible over the last five years due to materials breakthroughs. But other problems also continue to dog the two Heim approaches (6D HQT and 8D EHT), not the least being John Reed's various critiques, and an implicit reliance on Loop Quantum Gravity, an approach which has taken hits of its own of late.

If Droscher, Hauser & Co. can obtain funding for further work, I will continue to monitor their work product. But I do not consider the various "Heim" lines of inquiry to be particularly promising anymore, and haven't for awhile.

There are also at least two additional plausible approaches for electrogravitic manipulation and/or "reactionless propulsion" of which I am aware - Pharis William's Dynamic Theory, and High Frequency Gravitational Wave (HFGW) studies.
Mindrust
I wonder how gdaigle is reacting to this. If I remember correctly, he made a blog dedicated to Tajmar's discovery in 2006.
djolds1
QUOTE (Mindrust+Nov 16 2011, 03:55 AM)
I wonder how gdaigle is reacting to this. If I remember correctly, he made a blog dedicated to Tajmar's discovery in 2006.

Greg recently wrote a book on the subject.

My guess would be... sadly. sad.gif
gdaigle
QUOTE
Greg recently wrote a book on the subject.

My guess would be... sadly.

Disappointed, but not sad.

My blog has followed the theory of EHT as well as the findings of Dr. Tajmar, but has always had as its main focus the design implications of manipulating gravity-like fields.

I am still reviewing Dr. Tajmar's paper for its full impact on his nine previously published papers on the topic. Determining exactly why he got his previous results at AIT is as interesting to me as his report of no significant results achieved with his new apparatus at KAIST.

Dr. Tajmar's configurations for his earlier experiments were never going to produce the much stronger and axially propulsive field effects that Dr. Hauser envisioned, but they did provide a dataset with fewer alternative explanations than Gravity Probe B and the other anomalies that give weight to EHT.

Certainly this puts into question the bosonic pathway for EHT, but not the fermonic (really strong magnets) pathway originally posited by Hauser and Droescher. I am less clear about the impact of this newest study on Hauser's proposed mechanism for gravitomagnetic fields, which is symmetry breaking rather than Cooper-pair coupling.

As for me, I'm planning to present a slideshow tomorrow on my book to fellow faculty members and will certainly mention Dr. Tajmar's most recent findings... disappointing or not, it's all part of the discovery process.
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 12 2011, 03:34 PM)
Yet another nail in the Heim coffin - Tajmar retracts 2006 claims as noise:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/24/12/125011


Great find, djolds.

Tajmar invalidating all of his previous experimental data definitely puts a silver stake through the heart of Heim ....And it also invalidates the imaginations of Droscher & Hauser who hitchhiked on Tajmar's results as "proof" of their own theoretical nonsense. laugh.gif

Of course, Tajmar made it clear in his 2009 results that the signal was not coming from the rotating superconductors, a fact clearly and foolishly ignored by Droscher & Hauser.

In hindsight it would however be interesting to know exactly why the rotating Helium (in that earlier exper.) appeared to be the source of the signal.

I am very glad they did finally come to the correct null conclusion so we can put this case to rest....and move on. It took some measure of humility and courage to admit their previous findings were invalid. I doubt seriously if Droscher & Hauser have the same character and honesty to do the same.

Lunar
Astepintime
Yes, I have been waiting for this. However, I had expected another team to find the experimental error. But it does not really matter, bonus points to Tajmar and company for finishing the job!

gravitophoton
however an interesting journey it was till here, wasn t it? thanks to all of u;
lets speculate:
ph34r.gif
J.Hauser mentioned in his talk at spesif 2011 Heim allready was involved in the 1970s or so in a secret program:
Quote@ min.14: "..he was working for eads, at this time it was mbb, for 11 years they had some kind of secret project, a group of ten to eleven physicists."
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=AWEP51EV


If there was r&d (grasp, greenglow may be others ) in the secret military&industrial world with their funding, we are also in the world of Special access programs , Plausible deniability and other stuff.


in other words if there would have been something to it, would there be any publishing in white world peer rev. media, so that we can have a little chat here? i don t know....

forgive me my little speculation...
however looking forward to the further journey;
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Nov 19 2011, 09:46 AM)


Hauser mentioned in his talk at spesif 2011 Heim allready was involved in the 1970s or so in a secret program..


Yea, Hauser will probably tell you aliens gave him some secret too. laugh.gif

Please Graviphoton; give us a break.
laugh.gif

No thanks; ....we are dealing with real physics ....
I really don't trust someone that must resort to "I was in a secret program" in order to gain acceptance of their false physics.

And if you were a really seeking truth you wouldn't promote that crap either.

Show me your physics, not your imaginary secret program. tongue.gif

Let's end the false cult right here, rather than continuing to promote deception,..PLEASE.

THere are plenty of good valid projects on the drawing board that need investigation without having to be diverted into error by false physics that is clearly unsupportable by experimental data.


Lunar
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (djolds1+Nov 15 2011, 03:14 AM)


There are also at least two additional plausible approaches for electrogravitic manipulation and/or "reactionless propulsion" of which I am aware - Pharis William's Dynamic Theory, and High Frequency Gravitational Wave (HFGW) studies.


Hi djolds;
Not familiar with Pharis Williams, but with high Frequency GW's ....
Are you referring to Robert Baker's stuff. ??
My problem there is , how does he get the high mass requirement from such small Piezo oscillations??

In terms of other unique gravity wave/ energy projects, I have to mention that (out of all the 'hair-brained -- on the edge" ideas out there), one appears to have promise.... and I have followed it from the beginning.

It was mentioned by gdaigle, (I am surprised he brought it up), a few posts back, namely, Modanese/ Podkletnov 'Gravity Impulse Generator'.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5447

Most GW/ energy speculations begin with theoretical ideas and then the authors (or others) set out to find experimental evidence for verification, and that is where 99.9 % of all theories get trashed, like Heim (Droscher & Hauser) , etc.

In the case of Modanese/ Podkletnov Gravity Impulse just the opposite is true... They stumbled upon a clear experimental anomaly that is inexplicable in terms of known physics and now are trying to decipher the physics principles involved.

2. They are using standard physics in their analysis...at least as far as it will take them, and are not trying to invent new theoretical foundations.

They have clear experimental data ....IMO, That sets this project far apart from other speculations out there.

Lunar.
djolds1
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Nov 19 2011, 09:46 AM)
however an interesting journey it was till here, wasn t it? thanks to all of u;
lets speculate:
ph34r.gif
J.Hauser mentioned in his talk at spesif 2011 Heim allready was involved in the 1970s or so in a secret program:
Quote@ min.14: "..he was working for eads, at this time it was mbb, for 11 years they had some kind of secret project, a group of ten to eleven physicists."
http://www.megavideo.com/?v=AWEP51EV


If there was r&d (grasp, greenglow may be others ) in the secret military&industrial world with their funding, we are also in the world of Special access programs , Plausible deniability and other stuff.


in other words if there would have been something to it, would there be any publishing in white world peer rev. media, so that we can have a little chat here? i don t know....

forgive me my little speculation...
however looking forward to the further journey;

Good for a few episodes of "Fringe," some semi-hard scifi, or maybe some supplement books for an "Illuminati" themed roleplaying game. Beyond that, not so much.
djolds1
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Nov 19 2011, 02:26 PM)

Hi djolds;
Not familiar with Pharis Williams,
Site's a bit splashy, but his CV does check, and in two years of personal correspondence I have never once gotten a "crank" vibe from the man- serious and quiet. Personal accounts from others support that judgment - he may be wrong, but if wrong, honestly so IMO.

http://www.physicsandbeyond.com/
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6679550

Upside, his approach relies on only two postulates - the first and second laws of thermodynamics; all else is derived (GR, QM and an inherent Weyl geometry inclusive). Downside, the atomic model it proposes is very counter-intuitive to the assumptions we make today. Sideways, if accurate, that atomic model provides a brain-dead simple explanation for beta-decay, and may well limit fundamental particles to only two types - the electron and positron.

Note he claims the 1980 publication has some errors which have since been addressed.

QUOTE (Lunarlanding+)
but with high Frequency GW's ....
Are you referring to Robert Baker's  stuff.  ??
My problem there is , how does he get the high mass requirement from such small Piezo oscillations??
Yup, I mean Baker. Not sure if his piezo approach can work, but then the same is true about Woodward's Machian approach. I merely think that both are plausible.

QUOTE (Lunarlanding+)
In terms of other unique gravity wave/ energy projects, I have to mention that (out of all the 'hair-brained -- on the edge" ideas out there),  one appears to have promise.... and I have followed it from the beginning.

It was mentioned by gdaigle, (I am surprised he brought it up), a few posts back, namely, Modanese/ Podkletnov 'Gravity Impulse Generator'.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5447
I thought Podkletnov was thoroughly discredited? Will take a look, thanks. smile.gif

QUOTE (Lunarlanding+)
Most GW/ energy speculations begin with theoretical ideas and then the authors (or others) set out to find experimental evidence for verification, and that is where 99.9 % of all theories get trashed, like Heim (Droscher & Hauser) , etc.

In the case of Modanese/ Podkletnov Gravity Impulse just the opposite is true... They stumbled upon a clear experimental anomaly that is inexplicable in terms of known physics and now are trying to decipher the physics principles involved.

2. They are using standard physics in their analysis...at least as far as it will take them, and are not trying to invent new theoretical foundations.

They have clear experimental data ....IMO, That sets this project far apart from other speculations out there.
Will DEFINITELY be looking.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Nov 19 2011, 02:11 PM)
Please Graviphoton; give us a break.
laugh.gif

thanks for yr comments.
As a matter of fact: J.Hauser was head of the aero- & aerothermodnamic dept. of the european space agency esa. If he mentioned such a project, thats a bit of a credibillity. Apart from that Illobrand v. Ludwiger also writes in his Heim 2010 publication about it.....

so however, just trying to get the big picture about it, the multiwavelength image if u want;
Is it likely that there is or was a secret project going on in this matter NO
would it be possible? may be yes, if u check out the little public knowledge about research in this field ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2157975.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/mar/27/uknews
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-02t.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...at-gravity.html

..its valid to speculate; a little here..
but no more; promised. rolleyes.gif

@ lunar, sorry no eti yet;
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!...no-evidence-yet

kind regards
g.
Lunarlanding
QUOTE (Astepintime+Nov 17 2011, 09:43 PM)
Yes, I have been waiting for this.  However, I had expected another team to find the experimental error. But it does not really matter, bonus points to Tajmar and company for finishing the job!


True; Tajmar et al have forthrightly retracted their original data, but this still does leave Tate's Cooper pair mass problem unresolved also, which is what Tajmar's original derivation was intended to solve:

Tate anomaly:
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v62/i8/p845_1

http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v42/i13/p7885_1

and
Tajmar's solution in 2003,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0203/0203033.pdf

and more in 2006:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607086

I am unaware of any other satisfactory resolution to the Tate mass anomaly.

Lunar
gravitophoton
That is interesting:
Giant Casimir Effect Predicted Inside Metamaterials
kurt9
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Dec 6 2011, 04:28 PM)
That is interesting:
Giant Casimir Effect Predicted Inside Metamaterials

The Casimir effect is optimized at a 10nm separation. This is rather demanding for semiconductor and MEMS process technology. However, imprint lithography ought to be able to make repeatable patterns of this dimension, even though the through put will be low. It ought to at least work for an experimental apparatus.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/sub-10-nm...cation-via.html

Blacky
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57341543...hed-news-build/

Check the news tomorrow.
Seatrooper
Regarding Heims Fortran code - Does anyone know where the code could be found? Has it been made available to the public?
Olaf
QUOTE (Seatrooper+Dec 13 2011, 07:31 PM)
Regarding Heims Fortran code - Does anyone know where the code could be found? Has it been made available to the public?

Your post has several assumptions that are not fully correct.

There is no FORTRAN code written by Burkhard Heim.
The FORTRAN code was written 1982 by an employee of DESY (German Electron Synchrotron).
I have seen this code. I discovered at least three errors in its source when I wrote the PASCAL and Excel version of that code.

When you are interested what the code exactly does, you have to study one of the various sources that are in the Heim mass formula 1982 zip archive at the protosimplex website.
I have triple checked each equation against "Elementarstrukturen der Materie" (Vol 1 and 2), the DESY FORTRAN source code and also against some UCSD PASCAL source codes that Heim has written later at his first Floppy driven Pascal Machine.
So you can be sure that the source code versions in the zip archive are 100% correct.

The source code that Heim has written later at his first PASCAL machine is in terms of the equations used 100% identical to our versions. The only difference I found in the various versions of that source were some attempts to implement a correction term for the fine structure constant, because Heim assumed that the spacial distribution of charge might differ from a pure spherical structure.

At the Protosimplex site there is also a 1989 version of the mass formula that is based on a typewriter script that was found by some colleagues of Mr. Heim.
A PDF transcript of this source can be downloaded at the heim-theory.org WIKI. In the PDF we have included some additional information.
I have not published this script at protosimplex, because it is an unauthorized version that Heim himself has not published (he has handed it out to some people only).
Mindrust
New presentation by Hauser on gravity-like fields

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...ec2011Brief.pdf

The most recent Tajmar results are in the references, but I don't see them mentioned specifically in the presentation.
djolds1
QUOTE (Mindrust+Dec 22 2011, 07:04 AM)
New presentation by Hauser on gravity-like fields

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...ec2011Brief.pdf

The most recent Tajmar results are in the references, but I don't see them mentioned specifically in the presentation.
Olaf
Summary overview in German language about recovered and still missing papers of Burkhard Heim

The paper by Holger-Detlef Klein "Burkhard Heim, sein Institut und sein Nachlass" (Burkhard Heim, his institute and his estate)" was released in the Northeim Yearbook 2011.
This article contains the first official survey of the previously recovered and still missing papers of Burkhard Heim. It describes the somewhat unfortunate occurrences after the death of Burkhard Heim, which led to loss and damage of documents. Shown is also what has been done by the publisher and by the Heim theory research group.

The paper can be downloaded in German language at the protosimplex website. Perhaps someone likes to translate it into English language?

Olaf
Update:

Here is a rough translation of the above paper that was provided by Javier Mazzone and me.
NortheimerJahrbuch2011-Heim(English_0.8).doc

Please help to improve it.
gravitophoton
Thank you for the jahrbuch pages, very interesting informations!

....another thing:
Field Propulsion System for Space Travel: Physics of Non-Conventional Propulsion Methods for Interstellar Travel by Takaaki Musha et al.

the content and the tiny abstracts here look also interesting; did anyone here had the chance to read the book yet?
rethinker
QUOTE (djolds1+Dec 30 2011, 12:22 PM)
And they revised AIAA-2011-6042

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...A-2011-6042.pdf

that is excellent!
thanks
rethinker
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Jan 5 2012, 10:28 AM)
Thank you for the jahrbuch pages, very interesting informations!

....another thing:
Field Propulsion System for Space Travel: Physics of Non-Conventional Propulsion Methods for Interstellar Travel by Takaaki Musha et al.

the content and the tiny abstracts here look also interesting; did anyone here had the chance to read the book yet?

Hopefully someone can give an overview of the book.
I would like to know more about Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology


Japan Institute
gravitophoton
QUOTE (toysmall+Jan 6 2012, 08:44 AM)
This is impossible!

ahh u know how this is with i m p o s s i b l e ....... . wink.gif
gravitophoton
little correction: ahh u know how it could be with impossible..wink.gif


however;
Spesif 2012 ante portas

Space, Propulsion & Energy Sciences International Forum

Jochem Hauser among the invited and accepted speakers, Martin Tajmar chairs A03.1 and many other interesting names and topics in the agenda and session pdf.




rolleyes.gif
gravitophoton
QUOTE (rethinker+Jan 5 2012, 11:27 PM)
Hopefully someone can give an overview of the book.
I would like to know more about Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
 

Japan Institute

i ve asked my favourite university library if they would please get the ebook (Field Propulsion System for Space Travel: Physics of Non-Conventional Propulsion Methods for Interstellar Travel by Takaaki Musha et al.); they were informed by the publisher that a campus licence for the ebook would cost almost 400 usd!! ohmy.gif
Jossarian
Interesting experiment has been proposed by Michael Sarrazin from the University of Namur in Belgium.
He is suggesting that observing beta decay rate might give clues about existence of other universes.

"Experimental Limits On Neutron Disappearance Into Another Braneworld"

The same is being speculated by EHT too.
-Fairy-
amazing this threads still going!



Thanks for the updates guys!!!!
dmarin
Dear John Reed,

I'm interested to the Heim Theory, but not for the mass formula (however I would try to understand it). My main interest concerns the "neutral electrons" predicted by the theory.

In the 60', an italian engineer, Alessandro Porro, obtaided a stimulated emission of unknown neutral particles from all the materials. He used microwaves as stimulating radiation. Porro was able to indentify several ancient buildings under the ground in Italy, up to tens of meters. He was very helpful to archaeologists.
I attach some files about his work: you will undestand that the neutral particels are neither neutrinos or neutrons. (add the usual "www")

4shared.com/office/0bHs_rrp/METODO_PORRO.html

4shared.com/office/KgQrparZ/Articolo_Porro_Insula_del_1965.html

Alessandro Porro was very famous in the '60 and his instrument was baptized "Rabdomante Elettronico" ("electronic dowser" in english). After his dead he was quickly forgotten, but almost three copies of the instrument exist nowadays, owned by his children.

I ask myself if the Porro's particles was the neutral electrons of Heim. Can you send me a *pdf or a scan of the Heim books? I want try to understand his theory and do some verifications.

Thank you very much,
Diego Marin (Ph.D.)
Olaf
The first source you have mentioned is a translation from an English source. Could you please provide that English source, or, at least, give us the English title of that source?

Heims neutral particles are obtained when a part of the inner structure (i.e. a part of the net of dynamic density fluxes that build up a particle) is compensated to a sum = zero, so that only those parts of the fluxes have effects that carry no charges. This hypothetical compensation can be calculated for some of the elementary particles.

There are no scanned versions of Heims books. I have scanned some smaller papers written by Heim regarding the mass formula. (see
Protosimplex (english) and heim-theory.org Wiki .)
jreed
QUOTE (dmarin+Feb 1 2012, 11:37 AM)
In the 60', an italian engineer, Alessandro Porro, obtaided a stimulated emission of unknown neutral particles from all the materials. He used microwaves as stimulating radiation. Porro was able to indentify several ancient buildings under the ground in Italy, up to tens of meters. He was very helpful to archaeologists.

Using ground penetrating radar I located coal seams in coal mines. This was experimental work. The radar worked by receiving backscattered radio waves from the coal. There were no neutral particles. I'm not aware of any method for ground probing using microwaves, and we tried many things. Microwaves would not penetrate far at all into the earth. The frequency of the waves we used was about 30 MHz. I don't think microwaves would penetrate more than a few inches, if that much in coal and rock formations.

John Reed
jreed
QUOTE (Olaf+Jan 5 2012, 09:10 AM)
Here is a rough translation of the above paper that was provided by Javier Mazzone and me.
NortheimerJahrbuch2011-Heim(English_0.8).doc

Please help to improve it.

I just finished a translation of this paper into English that is easier to read than the one by Javier. It makes for interesting reading. Anybody interested in placing it somewhere where others can get a look at it?

jreed
jmazzone
QUOTE (jreed+Feb 3 2012, 03:26 PM)
I just finished a translation of this paper into English that is easier to read than the one by Javier. It makes for interesting reading. Anybody interested in placing it somewhere where others can get a look at it?

jreed

Dear Mr. Reed, send the file to Mr. Posdzech, sure he can host it on site engon.de/protosimplex

Javier Mazzone
Olaf
In this nice vizualization from Cary Huang you can explore the full range of things from Metrons size up to the observable diameter of the universe. Impressive!

The scale of the universe 2
Aero
QUOTE

With a little data, Eureqa generates fundamental laws of nature

Here is a new computer program (available free) that looks at a mass of data and determines the underlying mathematical equations relating the data. I don't know what data to use in order to see if it can come up with the Mass equations but it would be an interesting test.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id...tware_Scientist

There are additional links and information, including the link to the source over on talk-polywell.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3538
norgeboy
Ineffective theory.

There are not 6 dimensions. There are 0,1,2,3,5,8,13, etc.

This is crap in the sense that brucep would say.
Olaf
Final translation online:
Burkhard Heim, His Institute and His Legacy – paper from the Northeimer Yearbook 2011 with overview about existing and missing sources.

Many thanks to John who translated the paper.
gravitophoton
huh.gif The website www.hpcc-space.de is down, since more than a week; so none of the Dröscher/Häuser papers is accessible. Does anybody pls know any alternative url or why the website is down?
gdaigle
It appears to be functioning properly now.
gravitophoton
QUOTE (gdaigle+Feb 29 2012, 05:34 AM)
It appears to be functioning properly now.

true, works fine again! thks!

First day of spesif today, if anyone of this forum is there, enjoy and let us here pls know how things are? cool.gif
gravitophoton
congratulations to the new:
Full Professor and Head of Space Systems Chair @ the
Institut for Aerospace Engineering, Dresden University of Technology, Germany

Martin Tajmar

rolleyes.gif awesome, all the best professor!
Mekigal
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Apr 11 2012, 02:06 PM)
congratulations to the new:
Full Professor and Head of Space Systems Chair @ the
Institut for Aerospace Engineering, Dresden University of Technology, Germany

Martin Tajmar

rolleyes.gif awesome, all the best professor!

Great name that " Martian Tajmar"
Yeah excellent name.
Abstract::
I will go with the 6 dimensions. The mock up is a little different I think .
Blocks of 6 . They have height, width and depth and there is a drift at points of conversion also .

you got 0,1,2,3,4,5, horizontal
then you got 0,6,12,18,24,30 vertical
That makes up the block with 35 being the final point of convergence

You see what happens in the next block . You get a step back in the next block . Next block ending in 71. So convergence is stepped back to the next to last block. Then so on in the 3rd block ending in 107 convergence of 105 is stepped back 2 place markers

Then based off that model you have an endless depth of operating fields that layer one on top of each other , depending on the information amounts needed . But they don't start at the lower states , They come in there own time .

O.K. back drop fields that make a sheet . Like a solid back drop . Factors of 1s factors of 2s and factors of 3 s all split into 6 vertical fields . Now for the start of the cross fields super imposed over the back drop , utilizing convergence of the back drop fields . This is where depth first starts by factors of 5s and factors of 7s


O.K. i heard it already . Foolishness . Yeah Yeah . O.K. what ever .
It is to perfect for it not to be it is what I think . The segregation is to perfect and the drift of convergence leaves Me with the feeling you can't quite find the point because of the drift. In this model you can tract drift in a very stepwise fashion , plus you can gain depth also . Segregated fields of operation with an ever larger version of operations by depth . That makes for a never ending super imposed fields laying on top each other in the mock up. Unending depth and they don't interfere with each other, except at convergence points excitement becomes overwhelming . The bigger the convergence the bigger the excitement by the stacking of fields
LostInPhysics
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 10 2006, 05:40 AM)
To start, here is the link to the paper.


hey, the link to the paper does not appear to work anymore... anyone else have another link for it?
gravitophoton
QUOTE (LostInPhysics+Apr 11 2012, 05:20 PM)
hey, the link to the paper does not appear to work anymore... anyone else have another link for it?

the paper Heim's Theory of Elementary Particle Structures should be

here.
kurt9
http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/747/2/...SearchPage=true

http://www.livescience.com/19796-dark-matt...ternatives.html

Dark matter appears not to exist, and scientists are scrambling to come up with alternative explanations for the way galaxies rotate. One of these explanations involves gravity consisting of three different forces.

I know John Reed comprehensively debunked the original Heim theory last summer. However, Droescher and Hauser's EHT is an independent derivation. I am also aware that Tajmar retracted his experimental results late last year as well. However, I do recall that the version EHT prior to 2006 was not dependent on the efficacy of Tajmar's low magnetic field experiments and, thuis, may still be a valid explanation.

Anyone care to comment on this.
rpenner
What do you mean when you say "Dark matter appears not to exist"?

It's seen in galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmology.

If a paper like http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924 is published and survives, then we will have learned something new about our galaxy, but not necessarily about dark matter.

As Sean Carroll write:
QUOTE
If this were true, it would imply something funny going on with the distribution of nearby dark matter, which could have significant implications for direct searches here on Earth (see below). It wouldn’t really be much of a threat to the idea of dark matter itself, since there’s plenty of evidence for dark matter elsewhere. But it might mean that the distribution in the Milky Way was very different from the kinds of models we like to use, for example by being much lumpier.


But there remains substantial questions about whether the procedure and calculations were meaningful. Remember those OPERA guys were 6-sigmas confident and turned out to be completely wrong because their sigmas were irrelevant -- swamped by a problem that lurked since 2008 without being caught.
Jossarian
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 23 2012, 06:07 AM)
What do you mean when you say "Dark matter appears not to exist"?

It's seen in galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmology.

If a paper like http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924 is published and survives, then we will have learned something new about our galaxy, but not necessarily about dark matter.

As Sean Carroll write:


But there remains substantial questions about whether the procedure and calculations were meaningful. Remember those OPERA guys were 6-sigmas confident and turned out to be completely wrong because their sigmas were irrelevant -- swamped by a problem that lurked since 2008 without being caught.

Here is 10 sigma significance result:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6368A Study of the Dark Core in A520 with Hubble Space Telescope: The Mystery Deepens

The 'Dark Matter' is not being seen directly. Although it is causing very significant gravitational effects (like gravitational lensing in above study). It was already discussed on this thread.
Heim/EHT speculated that our Universe is a just one of many other universes which form multidimensional Multiverse. Dark matter phenomenon might be due to gravity from other 'neighboring' universes influencing our own Universe.
cocoyi
hi, all

happy to be a member of you.

Hope i can learn more from you, thanks....
Olaf
Northeim authorities publish official list of estate of Burkhard Heim

The town Northeim has published the official list (German language) at:
http://www.northeim.de/1044.html

Section "Zum wissenschaftliche Nachlass von Burkhard Heim im Stadtarchiv Northeim"

Also listed are parts of the estate, that are currently located at the publisher IGW (Prof. Resch) or at the Heim theory group.
The good news is that most of the scripts about syntrometry could be saved.
Also an old hard disk of a DOS pc could be saved that contains some early PASCAL programs. We hope that this will help us to detect the missing typos in the 1989 mass formula.

Also you find there a copy of Heims first blueprint for the Syntrometry script that he wrote when he still was a student. Surprisingly this already describes the full path that Heim has followed later for so many years.
gravitophoton
Make no mistake; this is not your grandfathers’ space program:


http://100yss.org/2012-public-symposium/call-for-papers


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/hea...8wiU_story.html

Blackhole
QUOTE (TRoc+Jan 10 2006, 04:40 AM)
Greetings,


This thread is for the purpose of discussing a Theory by Burkhard Heim, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1992. [vol. 6, no.3, pp. 217-231]
Authors: T. Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger

Also related would be the nature of mass, gravity, and the nature of dimensions.


To start, here is the link to the paper.

The introduction:

The present article provides an overview of Burkhard Heim´s unified field theory of elementary particles and their internal structures (heim,1984,1989; v.Ludwiger, 1981). Various old and new concepts enter into the theory, including cosmology, quantum field theory, organizing processes similar to Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields (Sheldrake, 1985), and the existence of a smallest area in a 6-dimensional world. The main results of Heim’s theory are formulas for the masses of elementary particles. Results turn out to be in very good agreement with measured values.

This report is written with the aim of describing the basic architecture of Heim´s theory in mainly non-technical terms for the benefit of the average JSE reader with a scientific background, who is not necessarily a physicist. For this reason the terminology of field theory is often replaced by less specific but more readily comprehensible expressions. In an Appendix selected topics are discussed in more technical terms for the benefit of physicists.

The abstact:

Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.


TRoc

I am familiar with the theory of Burkhard Heim. There exist also a paper from a German physic professor, in which he write that it is impossible what Burkhard Heim wants.
Blackhole
Mekigal
QUOTE (gravitophoton+Apr 11 2012, 06:56 PM)
the paper Heim's Theory of Elementary Particle Structures should be

here.

complex structures such as houses . What is the matter with you people . That is almost as bad as the statement " It is easier for a house to build it self than for life to create it self . You guys need new terminology /analogies
You are waring out the house big time

Yeah I will go with the simplest form being 6 dimensional. I seen that paper before . It made a little more sense this time . I am thinking endless dimensions right now . All connected together like leap frogging . Little over laps connecting them . Shared space also . Like shadow and direct light .

I did like the multi universes influencing each other . I thought of that. The bumping causing differential with in the other universe ( being our own, or who evers) Then every thing grows out of the original differential. Once the pumping starts you have causation . Convection and condensation starts as a result of the original differential caused from the bumping of out side influence on the big bubble to bubble .

Could we tell if the outer reaches of space deform . If it is completely dark that is .
We can see the black hole distortion by the light it attracts right ? Then the question of gauging the age of the universe comes to mind . What is that judged off of ? The light we see ? Is it the light we pick up ? Like the Hubble telescope taking pictures of light objects .

Any way the lattice space . I kind of like that , but then you can see my bias in that . the 123456 yeah I can relate

That guy with the 3/7 thing . What was his name Wultaz or something . The object dealing with triplets in a circle doing strange things . The inverted 3 and the 7 in geometric form. I got to go see what his name was again . His work comes to mind for some reason
gdaigle
Prof. Hauser gave a lecture yesterday in Braunschweig on "Emerging Physics for Space Propulsion and Energy Generation"
djolds1
QUOTE (Blackhole+Jun 19 2012, 06:23 PM)
I am familiar with the theory of Burkhard Heim. There exist also a paper from a German physic professor, in which he write that it is impossible what Burkhard Heim wants.
Blackhole

Do you have a link or cite for that paper?

On the gross scale, the Heim approach has some similarities to LQG, so it isn't entirely unprecedented. OTOH, there have been some withering and credible criticisms of the 6D and 8D Heim approaches over time. I do not give the Heim approach much credence these days, tho I still track it.
Mekigal
That Metronic math reminds me of the circle thing where as a circle is an infinite sided polygon. So that right there dispels the myth that there is a limit to small . Course I am good with the 666 being the simplest bottom end limit . The crossings and resonances , the harmonies are to perfect . Even if they are not the smallest they are the simplest form of expression. You could just go with the 123 but that don't get you there in division . You need the other 3 to make it all work in its most segregated form other wise you would have evens piled on odds as if they were the same . Minors and majors would be the same . So if you want more than one segment your going to need the other pairings . That in mind is 2 groups of 3 which would be 6 and once you look at the 6 dimensional lattice you can see the segregation is at simplest form.
Sure you can have all the dimensions you want . All you can dream up, but the 6 is by far the easiest form or simplistic form. It all depends on how much you want to chop up the line . Can you cut it smaller ? Yeah I think so but then it is more of a loss of information . That is if we are talking about the smallest denominator that contains information . Not that cutting it up really looses information but rather the simplest form with maximum segregation of the parts is key in understanding even further gutting of the segments
Mekigal
interesting . I didn't realize that before . The 210 repeat from zero . I don't know if it is a coincident and non related
6 raised 3 times is what 216. See that is 210+1
one being a unit of 6 . That is the first unit of repeat . That is if you consider zero a place marker because of zero being absent so the first unit would be 6 and the repeat would be 216 not 210 . It gets tricky cause your brain always wants to put the post in the count .
Think of a newel post on a banister . You got newel posts . One at each end and then you have spindles in-between the newel posts . Do you count the newel posts as a spindle or is the space divided up between the newel posts . You see what I mean . When you are step-wising space you got to think that through . Is the newel post part of the space or is the space between the newel posts and separate from the newel ?
Once you determine that then you can think it through . The division of space that is .
You got to make a commitment to one or the other before you can accurately divide space other wise your constant is not constant . If you go along not including it you can't had it in later down the line and expect it to come out in a symmetric form. You blow the symmetry all to hell by the introduction of the newel post halfway down the line or where ever the extra object is introduced . It is like dropping a beat or adding a beat . Yet you be pushed into a new dimension and the surroundings change dramatically and are still in a very rhythmic form but the nature is changed in the form by the introduction . So you can still follow by the same chopping it is the new starting point that takes it to the new dimension, not that any thing changed but the perception that it changed did . Your frame of reference changes not the space divided
so the major unit would be 0 to 210
the start of the next unit would be 216 yet the newel is still 210 to 420 for the next unit in the major unit . You don't count from 216 as it being the first unit. You got the illusion of loss if you do . It is like dropping one . You see what i am saying
0 to 210 and 210 to 420 . There is a shared element in the grouping where as 210 belongs to the 0 to 210 unit and it belongs to the 210 to 420 unit shared space . The 210 is shared space as the 420 will be shared space space with 210 to 420 and 420 to 630
You see the link in the chain created in that

O.K. that might sound confusing so to clarify I am talking about the -1 and the +1 of a minimum unit of 6. If the unit size is 6 then the -1 and the +1 resonates full circle at 210 from 0 . The next time you have the same occurrence is at 210

6x6x6 is a coincident unless you have to double the field . That may be the case

Blackhole
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 27 2012, 06:03 AM)
Do you have a link or cite for that paper?

On the gross scale, the Heim approach has some similarities to LQG, so it isn't entirely unprecedented. OTOH, there have been some withering and credible criticisms of the 6D and 8D Heim approaches over time. I do not give the Heim approach much credence these days, tho I still track it.

I do:http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html
Mekigal
o.k this is it . It follows the same pattern as squares or similar. You got to raise the field also and then it raise like the square roots
so the growth is 72. You know how the growth of sq. is 2 right . 2x2, 3x3,4x4 5x5
how the growth is 2 where as 4 to 9 is 5 and 9 to 16 is 7 and 16 to 25 is 9
you see how those sq. through the number line grow by adding 2 . It continues on out to infinity by squares like that . By adding 2 to each subsequent number , so 25+11 will be next sq. then 36+ 13 will be the next sq.
you see that . Basic square rule for growth of squares

so now here it is
35x6
143x12
323x18
575x24
899x30

The left hand column is the pairing of -1 and +1 of the field
the right hand column is the size of the field .
The sum is the occurrence from zero and the growth is 72
How do we get that . More brake down
35 to 143= 108
143 to 323=180
323 to 575 =252

108 to 180=72
180 to 252=72
and so on out to infinity

well yeah your working the same way as square rules with just 1 less and one more than the square , but that is not what i am talking about . I am talking about predictability by increased fields and where the fields intersect . If you have a negative fall off one way and the positive fall off the other way in a predictable field it will grow exponentially . The field it self that is . The field is proportionate to the steady growth of the field . Meaning Identical patterns in the fields as they grow larger on a bigger scale

So now we got it right for raising each group to the 3rd power -1 field
lets try one
143x12=1716
1716+ one field size= 1728
12x12x12=1728
and that might look stupid cause of the ya so 1 less than sq and one more than sq. what do you expect ? , but that is not the thing . The thing is the raising of the field it self . Coupled with The negative movement and the positive movement of the field .
The point it comes back to the same pattern in the field . The growth of the field it self and when it repeats the pattern of the field and the predictability of field size by incremental constant of 72
gdaigle
New ebook available:

Gravity-Superconductors Interactions: Theory and Experiment 
eISBN: 978-1-60805-399-5
doi:10.2174/97816080539951120101

http://www.benthamdirect.org/pages/1240/%2...iment/vol-1.php

Volume 1
Chapters

Foreword 
pp.i-iii (1) Authors: Jean-Marie Muylaert, Jochem H. Hauser

Preface 
pp.iv-iv (1) Authors: G. Modanese, G.A. Robertson

List of Contributors 
pp.v-v (1) Authors: G. Modanese, G.A. Robertson

Gravity-Superconductors Interactions: Historical Background
pp.3-22 (20) Authors: Giovanni Modanese, Glen A. Robertson

Interactions Between Superconductors and High-Frequency Gravitational Waves
pp.23-57 (35) Author: R.C. Woods

High Temperature Superconductors as Quantum Sources of Gravitational Waves: The HTSC GASER
pp.58-73 (16) Author: Giorgio Fontana
 
Quantum Effects in the Type II Superconductor that Lead to Power Radiated in Gravitational Waves
pp.74-104 (31) Author: Glen A. Robertson

Quantum Gravity Evaluation of Stimulated Graviton Emission in Superconductors
pp.105-131 (27) Author: Giovanni Modanese

Tajmar Experiments on “Condensing the Vacuum”
pp.132-152 (21) Author: R.A. Lewis
 
The Chiao Gravity-Superconductor EM Transducer: An Overview
pp.153-168 (16) Author: R.A. Lewis

Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses
pp.169-182 (14) Authors: Evgeny Podkletnov, Giovanni Modanese
 
Setup for the Impulse Gravity Generator Experiment Replication
pp.183-202 (20) Author: Timo Junker

Experimental Considerations in Superconductor Gravity Experiments
pp.203-228 (26) Authors: George Hathaway, Harald Reiss
 
Emerging Physics for Gravity-Like Fields
pp.229-270 (42) Authors: Walter Droescher, Jochem Hauser
 
Gravity-Superconductor Interactions from a Hierarchy of Density Dependent Scalar Fields: A Dark Matter Connection
pp.271-287 (17) Author: Glen A. Robertson
 
Impact of Lifetime and Decay Rates of Thermally Excited States in Superconductors on a Gravity Experiment
pp.288-324 (37) Author: Harald Reiss

Subject Index 
pp.325-326 (2) Authors: Giovanni Modanese, Glen A. Robertson
djolds1
QUOTE (Blackhole+Jun 27 2012, 04:43 PM)
I do:http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html
That's brutally succinct. And convincing.

QUOTE (Mekigal+Jun 27 2012, 09:21 PM)
o.k this is it . It follows the same pattern as squares or similar.
What you're doing here reminds me of nothing so much as Pythagorean Sacred Geometry. dry.gif
Mindrust
QUOTE (djolds1+Jul 10 2012, 11:39 PM)
That's brutally succinct. And convincing.

gdaigle
Be aware that for the above listed book: Gravity-Superconductors Interactions: Theory and Experiment, purchasing chapters or the full book online may encounter credit card fraud alerts... it did for me in the U.S. Could be because the publisher, Bentham Books, is located in the United Arab Emirates.
gravitophoton
48 AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference

final progr. , (pdf)
looks again very interesting: atmospheric mining, how cool!!
and:
Future Flight Propulsion Systems II (p.17)
Future Flight Propulsion Systems III (p.22)
rolleyes.gif
gravitophoton
more about j.hausers talk here:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/daigl024/discussions/
gravitophoton
in Kelvin F. Long: Deep space propulsion - a roadmap to interstellar flight. Springer, New York 2012, ISBN 978-1-4614-0606-8, p. 295 i came across this:
QUOTE
... By discussing these no opinion for or against them is implied  by the author.
One of the earlier alternative gravity theories was that of Burkhard Heim.This so called Heim Theory claims to address some of the inconsistencies between the quantum theory of the small and the General Relativity theory of the large.It involves the quantization of space-time in a higly mathematical framework with up to 12 additional dimensions to space and all the fundamental particles are presented as multidimensional objects. It is claimed that Heim Theory produces results for particle masses and excited energy states that are consistent with measurements.The theory also predicts new particles.Heim theory is not studied as part of mainstream scientific research today.


u can find it@google books.
the rest of the book is also real nice and worth reading.
reviews:
http://www.astronomynow.com/books/deep_space_propulsion.html
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=24030
Jossarian
I've found interesting article: Big Bang Theory Challenged by Big Chill

Few snippets:
QUOTE
A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A new theory, known as Quantum Graphity, suggests that space may be made up of indivisible building blocks, like tiny atoms. These indivisible blocks can be thought about as similar to pixels that make up an image on a screen. The challenge has been that these building blocks of space are very small, and so impossible to see directly.


Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallizes' into the three spatial and one time dimension that we see today. Theorized this way, as the Universe cools, we would expect that cracks should form, similar to the way cracks are formed when water freezes into ice.


Sound familiar huh?? Like metron and phase change instead of Big Bang...
They claim that these predictions can be experimentally verified.
kristalris
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 6 2012, 12:47 PM)
I've found interesting article: Big Bang Theory Challenged by Big Chill

Few snippets:




Sound familiar huh?? Like metron and phase change instead of Big Bang...
They claim that these predictions can be experimentally verified.

Well that's what I've been stating all along in my thread on Dark matter BTW.
gravitophoton
http://www.nature.com/news/cameras-to-focu...-energy-1.11391

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.