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

Guest_Jennifer
So ZEPHIR,

You, a man of science can't help me solve this problem that I found in the NASA magazine?>?? Using simple equations, when and if you write back??? NO theories please... I am not that math inclined to understand the back ground of it.... PLEASE help me solve this PROBLEM... From what i have read you are VERY INTELLIGENT, please prove that by solving this big headache.... again the problem is

The CHALLENGE Problem is : Using four 4's and operations on these 4's, create an approximation for the golden ratio, theta= 1.61803.... (Hint: nested roots are useful)...
Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_Jennifer+Aug 26 2006, 09:05 PM)
...from what i have read you are VERY INTELLIGENT, please prove that by solving this big headache....

Sorry man, try to visit some doctor - your case appears to some head sickness problem....
BTW I'm not a SCIENCE MAN, just an AWT MAN. This is not exactly the same thing yet...
Guest_Jennifer
Well Thank you Zephir!!!

Thank you for all you wonderful inputs... I take back what I said about you being a genius, I was obviously wrong... And by the way a minute ago, i figured out the soultion to the golden ratio using four 4's ...

have a wonderful weekend..

Thanks again!!

Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Guest_Jennifer+Aug 26 2006, 03:28 PM)
Zephir,

I looked at that page already or something similar to the Heim Theory, and i still did not get the calculation correct... Do you think that you, yourself know the solution>? I would be ever so greatful!!

Hello Jenny. Can you tell me about yourself. I'm the President of Research and Development company called Vulvox. What do you do?
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 26 2006, 11:03 PM)
Hello Jenny. Can you tell me about yourself. I'm the President of Research and Development company called Vulvox. What do you do?

.....and Hi from me Babe .......I've a spotty bum
"Jenny"
hello Neil,

I am no one really, just another college student trying top get through the course of phisics... but you, i see are incharge of nanotechnology, and materials science startup, correct??????

Jennifer
Aljaz
QUOTE (Aljaz+Aug 22 2006, 09:14 AM)
Can someone please provide a definition for a function F( r ) whose value corresponds to the gravitational force between two point masses (m1, m2) separated by r according to Hem's corrected gravitational law?

There were no replies...

This seems rather trivial question to me and (AFAIK) the basis for the entire Heim theory. If you cannot answer directly, can you at least provide some references where I might be able to find the answer myself?

Thanks.
will314159
Aljaz

The answer is at the Heim Theory Wikipedia Article

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

"
Gravitation

"

Best Wishes
Aljaz
QUOTE (will314159+Aug 29 2006, 01:54 PM)
The answer is at the Heim Theory Wikipedia Article

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

The solution to this equation is precisely what I want.

But the equation is rather nasty and I have no idea what a "position dependent mass" is.

I was hoping that some Heim/math expert would show how to derive an approximate closed form solution (e.g. infinite series, piecewise polynomial, splines... whatever).
will314159
Aljaz
i haven't been able to find a closed form sol'n for you. A google search leads to "guess where?" Right back to here. It was dissapointing.

Of course the closed form is going to be Newton's classic sol'n plus a few correction terms. JUst like the solution to Einstein't relativistic euation breaks down to Newton's equation plus correction terms. Newton's solution is going to hold for ordinary distances, general relativity for big masses and far distances and presumably heim for planc distances or cosmological constraints.

Best Wishes
Aljaz
willPiE5,

My googling produced the same results. That's why I posted the question here.

I know that the function (if it is any good) should be close to quadratic for 'normal' distances. But it would be very educational to see it 'appear' out of the differential equation.

I had this idea of creating a couple of million of point masses in a computer and then make them accelerate according to Heim's corrected gravitational law. The result should look like a galaxy... But the precondition for such a simulation is an efficient and accurate calculation of the gravitational field.

Take care,

Aljaz
hdeasy
QUOTE (Aljaz+Aug 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
The solution to this equation is precisely what I want.

But the equation is rather nasty and I have no idea what a "position dependent mass" is.

I was hoping that some Heim/math expert would show how to derive an approximate closed form solution (e.g. infinite series, piecewise polynomial, splines... whatever).

Look in http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/posdzech/px_g_gravi1e.htm -- the diagrams and equations there are rather good.
Fien
hdeasy:

Are those formulas based on Heim's original 6D space or the EHT 8D space? Does it even make a difference for the gravitational formula?

To everyone:
I am also interested in what EHT says about Dark Matter (Dark Energy does seemed to be explained by the quintessence particle)? Is Dark Matter even required with Heim's modification to the gravitational formula?
Guest_spangleweed
Isn't basic cosmology, galaxy behaviour etc, pretty much explained by simple models? if so, would it be difficult to substitute the general gravitation equations of EHT into and see what sort of behaviour we'd get?
Tim
QUOTE (Guest_spangleweed+Sep 1 2006, 07:45 AM)
Isn't basic cosmology, galaxy behavior etc, pretty much explained by simple models? if so, would it be difficult to substitute the general gravitation equations of EHT into and see what sort of behavior we'd get?

Guest_spangleweed,
My, albeit very limited, understanding is that there are two big problems with the aforementioned "simple models".

1) The first is the rotational speed of galaxies. Apparently they rotate faster than they should be able to without being torn apart, implying that there is more matter/gravitational mass than is visible to us. Dark Matter is thought to be the culprit/explanation.

2) The other big problem is that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. This is currently explained by the presence of Dark Energy.

If you take a look at the link provided above by hdeasy you will see that according to Heim's corrected gravitational law, gravity becomes mildly repulsive at extreme distances. This effect could theoretically account for the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe without the need for a mysterious Dark Energy. As for Heim's explanation of Dark Matter, I'm a little hazy. I've heard that HT can explain it, but I've not heard the explanation (though metronhead discussed some similarities between MOND and Heim in reference to the Dark Matter issue on this forum way back in January).

As far as substituting general gravitation equations for EHT equations and rendering out the universe... I don't think my old P4 can handle it.

Hdeasy,
Is Heim's explanation for "Dark Matter" anything like the scalar-tensor-vector gravity version of MOND or is it simply a result of G = Gg + Ggp + Gq? Unfortunately, I've heard that those new Chandra pictures pretty much rule out MOND...
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Tim+Sep 1 2006, 04:00 PM)
Guest_spangleweed,
My, albeit very limited, understanding is that there are two big problems with the aforementioned "simple models".

1) The first is the rotational speed of galaxies. Apparently they rotate faster than they should be able to without being torn apart, implying that there is more matter/gravitational mass than is visible to us. Dark Matter is thought to be the culprit/explanation.

2) The other big problem is that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. This is currently explained by the presence of Dark Energy.

If you take a look at the link provided above by hdeasy you will see that according to Heim's corrected gravitational law, gravity becomes mildly repulsive at extreme distances. This effect could theoretically account for the accelerating rate of expansion of the universe without the need for a mysterious Dark Energy. As for Heim's explanation of Dark Matter, I'm a little hazy. I've heard that HT can explain it, but I've not heard the explanation (though metronhead discussed some similarities between MOND and Heim in reference to the Dark Matter issue on this forum way back in January).

As far as substituting general gravitation equations for EHT equations and rendering out the universe... I don't think my old P4 can handle it.

Hdeasy,
Is Heim's explanation for "Dark Matter" anything like the scalar-tensor-vector gravity version of MOND or is it simply a result of G = Gg + Ggp + Gq? Unfortunately, I've heard that those new Chandra pictures pretty much rule out MOND...

Since the repulsive force that falls out of the general realtivity equations is a vector the projects in front of stars travelling at relativistic velocity, there is a possiblity that stars travelling in orbit around a galaxy will have an aggregate vector of repulsion as they push stars in front of them that will cause the stars to speed up or to spread out or both. Can you calculate that spangleweed.
will314159
An elementary descreption of 6 dim HT w/ a discussion of cosmological implications

Description of the theory in a (non-mainstream) scientific journal paper:
T. Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger "Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures" Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992

http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/AuerbachJSE.pdf

Best Wishes
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 1 2006, 08:10 PM)
Since the repulsive force that falls out of the general realtivity equations is a vector the projects in front of stars travelling at relativistic velocity, there is a possiblity that stars travelling in orbit around a galaxy will have an aggregate vector of repulsion as they push stars in front of them that will cause the stars to speed up or to spread out or both. Can you calculate that spangleweed.

Could someone tell me what observations of the matter and velocity distribution
of galaxies that makes astronomers think that dark matter exists.
Zephir
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 2 2006, 08:07 AM)
Could someone tell me what observations of the matter and velocity distribution of galaxies that makes astronomers think that dark matter exists.

You can have look to the dedicated dark matter forum. It seems, the dark matter is pretty reall stuff, in fact and it's observable by different ways. Briefly speaking, it's volume area of more dense vacuum, which is filled by quantum fluctuations, so called virtual particles. But these particles aren't so virtual, as they can have some noticeable effect by the same way, as the fluctuations of atmosphere density, which are source of blue sky color and star twinkling. The fluctuations of vacuum are having a well pronounced gravitational lensing effects, as they're bending the path of the light, which are passing through it.

Because the dark matter is pretty heavy, it has tendency to cumulate itself and/or around massive objects, like the large galaxy clusters or lone galaxies. At such cases, the dark matter is mixed with particles reflecting/dispersing short wave light, so that the dark matter distribution can even be observed in X-ray spectrum by Chandra X-ray Observatory directly. It means, a substantial part of dark matter can be formed by naked (heavily ionized) atom nuclei and simmilar stuffs, which cannot be detected by visible light.
will314159
Anything having to do with Magnets has a potential Heim theory connection. A great interest was shown by my last Energy Saving post , so Max breathlessly brought me another one, trotting in on his three legs with his tail gyrating counterclockwise for graviphotonic balance.

_______________________
would a souped up magnet give a 10% gas saving????

Israelis are pretty tech savvy. Or is this another Kon job?

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759197.html

" Amdocs finds serious gas relief in Supertech device

By Shachar Haselkorn

High gasoline prices have spurred companies with large vehicle fleets to seek ingenious ways to save. Amdocs, whose 3,000-strong fleet is one of the biggest in the country, has been testing three different devices that claim to reduce fuel consumption. The most successful one is called Supertech.

This small cylindrical device is made of perforated metal with magnets, a diode and ceramic components. The manufacturer claims that when placed inside the fuel tank, the device reduces fuel consumption by improving combustion. Supertech can be used in both gasoline and diesel engines.

The device, which Amdocs began testing in December 2004, has been installed in about 50 of the company's cars.

"Compared to cars without the device, there's a difference of 8 to 10 percent in fuel consumption," Rosenthal said. "It could save millions of shekels a year."

How many millions? Assuming that each vehicle in Amdocs' fleet racks up an average of 28,000 kilometers annually (the average for company cars), and gets 11 kilometers per liter (without Supertech), Amdocs' yearly savings could amount to NIS 4 million.

According to Euro FuelSaver, Supertech's Italian manufacturer, the device transmits electromagnetic waves that temporarily change the fuel's molecular structure. This change improves the fuel's reaction with oxygen and makes the combustion process more efficient.

Supertech is marketed in Israel by Perdi, at a cost of NIS 1,250 per unit for private customers.

Before launching the pilot program, Amdocs took two new Mazda 3 cars to an independent testing facility.

"Before the device was installed", said Rosenthal, "the car did 13.26 kilometers per liter, and with the device it did 15.08 kilometers per liter, an improvement of about 12 percent."

Still, Rosenthal remains cautious. "The fact that the initial test succeeded doesn't mean anything. At the end of the pilot, in December, I'll know for certain whether the device is effective," Rosenthal said, adding optimistically, "Apparently it really does work."

If the pilot clearly indicates a savings, Amdocs will expand its use of the device.

Other Israeli companies have also tested Supertech, including Comverse and Schindler Nechushtan Elevators. Comverse achieved a savings of 6 to 12 percent in fuel consumption, while Schindler Nechushtan recorded a 9-percent reduction in consumption with a diesel engine (in a Mazda Lantis) and 10 percent in a gasoline-powered vehicle (Renault Kangoo).

As a result, the elevator company decided to install the device in its entire 200-vehicle fleet.

"If you were to ask me today if the device helps, I couldn't say. There's no way to test its efficiency, since the cars are not driven in a laboratory," Schindler's transportation officer, Shlomo Buch, said. "

Best Wishes
UncleMatt
I'm not sure that IS related to Burkhard Heim, even though it involves magnets, and the show Mythbusters already debunked magnetic gas saving devices as ineffective. :-D
will314159
thanks Uncle Matt. The forum was a llittle slow. Max was just trying to get things going. I'm reasonably certain it has nothing to do w/ HT. thank for the tip about mythbusters. I"ll try to find the episode. I was seriously considering buying a super tech.

I"ll tell Max

Best Wishes

edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_3)
episode 53
magnet around a fuel line to align the molecules was busted

super tech product sits in the fuel tank and has a diode and ceramic parts but it sound like bullcrap to me too. However, there are lab claims of 10% efficiency. Time will tell. It's an Italian licensed product.
Occulus
Hello everyone. This is a truly remarkable thread.

I've been reading this discussion and others for some time now; my first exposure to this theory- as was the case with so mant others- was the New Scientist article everyone here knows so well.

I've tried to describe what this theory proposes in lay terms to some of the people I work with (none of whom, including myself, have any physics background whatever), but I don't think I'm describing the more 'spectacular' points accurately.
Thus, this post.

I was wondering, since Will_pi made the observation that the thread was a bit slow, if anyone would be willing to post a perhaps two paragraph description of what this theory means, or could mean, for physics in general as we understand the term today.

No, I'm not fishing for term-paper quotes or anything; I'm a postal worker. This theory just really caught my eye, beyond the glitzy hype of the article. Very few people are even aware of this theory, comparitavely speaking (again, from reading on this thread and other sources), and I'd like to be able to boil it down to some stew people around me can chew.

Any takers, I guess post here. I'm a guest, but I've been reading, and will continue to do so.

Thanks in advance; there's been some excellent discussion here so far... keep it up!

Occulus
jal
Occulus
It's a lot easier to raise money for science fiction than to raise money to do actual science.
see my last posts.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry121868
jal
will314159
Occulus & JAL

Of course HT is a geometrical theory. Anything incorporating General Relativity is geometrodynamical. That is uses geometry to explain dynamics. Matter bends spacetime. And matter takes its instructions on how to move from curved spacetime. That is the essence of GR.

The quickest way to learn about HT besides reading all the backpages of this forum is to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory and peruse the links.

the articles by lludwiger and the links to protosimplex are outstanding.

Best Wistes.

edit.
what HT adds to GR is that there are slices or atoms of space and time. These are called metrons. This is called quantization of spacetime. That is the central essence of HT. Then matter pops out of this as a resonance or oscillation in the metron lattice. I think the metron lattice is called a protosimplex, but I could be wrong. There are zones of density within the protosimplex that relfect and give the appearance of quarks but there are no quarks in HT. But there are gluons. That's it, no more edits. That's the extent of my knowledge and ignorance.
Neil Farbstein
What exactly does it do to the molecular structure of the fuel? What does the magnet do? Is there a magnetohydrodynamic componenent to its' operation?
I'm not saying I thinnk it reduces fuel usage, but sparks from spark plugs are a similar concept and they definitely have an effect on engine performance.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE ("Jenny"+Aug 27 2006, 11:47 PM)
hello Neil,

I am no one really, just another college student trying top get through the course of phisics... but you, i see are incharge of nanotechnology, and materials science startup, correct??????

Jennifer

Yes. I've been too busy to answer you until now. I'm the head of Vulvox nanobiotechnology. I'm working on a project that might win the Nobel Prize, a very large scale production process to make DNA and RNA for Gene Therapy and other uses. We might be able to make it useful in aphrodisiacs, treatments for a multitude of other diseases. What are you doing this weekend?
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 21 2006, 03:56 AM)
No chance, You forgot the thin cable in the floor...

Even if no cable is found on the floor they might be cheating by beaming microwaves at it every five minutes.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Tim+Aug 25 2006, 04:41 PM)
hdeasy,

Thank you. I was very curious as to the reasoning behind Tajmar and de Matos's work and you put me on the right track. The following is the abstract from their paper entitled Gravitomegnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate's Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly

Abstract. Superconductors have often been used to claim gravitational anomalies in the context of breakthrough propulsion. The experiments could not be reproduced by others up to now, and the theories were either shown to be wrong or are often based on difficult to prove assumptions. We will show that superconductors indeed could be used to produce non-classical gravitational fields, based on the established disagreement between theoretical prediction and measured Cooper-pair mass in Niobium. Tate et al failed to measure the Cooper-pair mass in Niobium as predicted by quantum theory. This has been discussed in the literature without any apparent solution. Based on the work from DeWitt to include gravitomagnetism in the canonical momentum of Cooper-pairs, the authors published a number of papers discussing a possibly involved gravitomagnetic field in rotating superconductors to solve Tate’s measured anomaly. Although one possibility to match Tate’s measurement, a number of reasons were developed by the authors over the last years to show that the gravitomagnetic field in a rotating quantum material must be different from its classical value and that Tate’s result is actually the first experimental sign for it. This paper reviews the latest theoretical approaches to solve the Tate Cooper-pair anomaly based on gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors.

Cooper's droop is a much bigger problem! Solve that instead!
arian558
Most Successful method for control Gravitation by Dr. thomas townsend brown.

at this method Dr.brown become Successful at make first flying Object by control

Gravitation.

http://www.rexresearch.com/ttbrown/ttbrown.htm

method make flying capacitors by doyle buehler.

http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf

video from flying capacitors at this website.

http://www.blazelabs.com/l-intro.asp
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (arian558+Sep 9 2006, 10:09 PM)
Most Successful method for control Gravitation by Dr. thomas townsend brown.

at this method Dr.brown become Successful at make first flying Object by control

Gravitation.

http://www.rexresearch.com/ttbrown/ttbrown.htm

method make flying capacitors by doyle buehler.

http://www.space-mixing-theory.com/article2.pdf

video from flying capacitors at this website.

http://www.blazelabs.com/l-intro.asp

Oh, those stupid kites -floaters that are repelled by the earth's electric charge
and they float in the air.
Jim Graham
Things really are a bit slow on the Heim Theory front. I'm personally starving
for some new reading material, particularly something for the layman, giving
some more insight into the thinking behind the mass formulas. I suspect
that some of the German-only material at the Heim Theory site would be
interesting. I've started translating the presentation that Heim did for MBB
engineers.

It's a bit of work, since cutting and pasting out of the PDF gives nothing
useful - I've settled for copy-typing the original German. If anybody knows
where there is an English-language translation of this already, please let me
know - I'm dying to know how it turns out, and my current approach is
rather slow.

It's kind of fun, using automated translation tools, then writing an
English-language interpretation of the result. It's almost like digging up
nuggets of Heim's thought process. I spend a few minutes at a time, typing
a paragraph, then interpreting it, so that it does not seem like an
over-whelming task. It's more like a 5-minute treat, as time allows.

Perhaps some others would like to share in the fun. Here's a link to the
first 23 pages (Sections 1-3), showing the original German, the machine
translation and then my interpretation in bold-face type.

Heim Translation

I've continued with page 24, and I'll post the results to the same site
as sections are completed. If you'd like to join in, just pick a page a bit
further on, then post a message here saying what you're doing so we don't
over-lap too much.

If you want, I'll host the results on my site to make it easier for
others to access. Just email me at djimgraham@comcast.net - It may be
a few days before I can get to it, but I try to catch up on weekends.

I'm not a physicist or mathematician, so I could use some help with the
translation. So far it is mostly conceptual, so this isn't too big a
problem. I also have never even heard German, except at the movies, so comments, criticism and correction are all welcome - either here or by email.

Jim
Zephir
QUOTE (Jim Graham+Sep 10 2006, 08:18 PM)
...since cutting and pasting out of the PDF gives nothing useful...

Thank you very much for every unselfish work of yours!

You can try to PDF2HTML converter, or some other tools for extracting text from PDF documents.
Jim Graham
Thanks, Zephir. I'll try again, but so far every approach I've tried for extracting the text has resulted in a string of ~~~~~~ or boxes, or some other character, depending on the particular approach. I don't seem to have this problem with other PDF's. One of my more technical co-workers suspects that it is caused by the fonts used in the original PDF. I'll see if I can find a better tool (like the PDF2HTML you suggested).

I also notice that the math formula objects did not make it from Word all the way to the web page. I'll see if I can get that fixed...Jim
Jim Graham
No luck with PDF2HTML - just more boxes. I think I did try this earlier, but forgot.

The formulas and images now seem to be working on the web page... Jim
jal
Pass the word .... I am inviting mainstream science.... show me the way out of science fiction.
I am giving protosimplex a personal invitation.
You want mainstream "math kids" to take you seriously, then get out of science fiction.
Nothing comes smaller than planck length. Fix your formula.

COSTUME PARTY 31 OCT 2006

AT http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...15&#entry122088
BRING YOUR

QUANTUM Gravity
SOLUTION

What will it be….. no link = science fiction
OR ….. a link to a fixed new theory = science.
jal
Olaf
QUOTE (Jim Graham+Sep 10 2006, 05:18 PM)
I've started translating the presentation that Heim did for MBB engineers.

It's a bit of work, since cutting and pasting out of the PDF gives nothing useful - I've settled for copy-typing the original German.

Hi jim,

why don't you contact me via the protosimplex website?
I can send you the whole script as plain text or word document.

I am a friendly man. You only need coming to Berlin and give me a three-hour neck massage.

A word on translating:
Professional translation institutes normally use software with complete sentences or groups of words (translation memory) to get coherent results. (Trados)
There is a free alternative to Trados, but I don't know it's name.
We already have inconsistent translations in Heim theory, such as hermetry -hermetrie.

Oh, here is another suggestion for a compensation: your translation should be available free for public.
Kettricken

http://www.lai.com/tg.html
Jim Graham
Thank you, Olaf. Ill be in touch shortly.

Thank you, Kettricken. There's more than enough options there. I should
be able to find something that helps. I see Trados. The demo version is
crippled, but it will give me an idea of what is possible, and help me
find the "free alternative" that Olaf suggested.

Thank you, jreed, for your kind offer of assistance via e-mail. I know that
I am in over my head personally (lots of math in the next section of the translation),
but I am confident that between you and the others on this forum, we'll end up
with something that makes sense (or we'll know why it does not make sense).

Sorry for the long delay in responding...family first, day job second, then sleep
and a few minutes for Dr. Heim.

Jim
hdeasy
A recent article in New Scientist on Loop Quantum Gravity: from Aug 12th:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...-spacetime.html

In it, Smolin enthuses over the latest LQG idea for particles - that they could be braids of space-time. Sounds a bit like the meron condensations of Heim.
Zephir
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 15 2006, 10:48 AM)
...Smolin enthuses over the latest LQG idea for particles - that they could be braids of space-time. Sounds a bit like the meron condensations of Heim...

Such concept has nothing to do with Heim's protosimplexes, quantum loops or spin networks. It's evident, even the LQG theorists having no clear concept or even paradigm - the theory without fixed set of postulates can claim virtually anything:

Can anybody understand, how these abstract pictures can be all related to the same theory of AWT particle model bellow? Its evident, Smolln just bull**ing us by the same way like string theorists, and the abstract math cannot replace the physic understanding (even without massive environment concept)...

Luke
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 15 2006, 08:27 AM)
Its evident, Smolln just bull**ing us by the same way like string theorists, and the abstract math cannot replace the physic understanding (even without massive environment concept)...

When someone asks you why there is no math in your "theory" you say that your ideology doesn't need any math because it can explain everything that needs math without it, but the moment someone proves, with math, that something occurs in their theory, which you claim that your ideology encompasses and thoroughly explains, you say that they are spouting bullshit?
Zephir
QUOTE (Luke+Sep 15 2006, 05:35 PM)
When someone asks you why there is no math in your "theory" you say that your ideology doesn't need any math because it can explain everything that needs math without it..

This is oversimplification of situation. The AWT is based upon two simple equations (no less, no more) and the rest is the matter of math, not the physic, because such system can be solved by using of number of ways by the people, which doesn't know anything about physic. On the other hand, the knowledge of both these equation didn't lead into attempts to combine them during the last one hundred years - so it's evident, the worlds of math and physic aren't exchangeable mutually.

The true is, the math as such explains anything. For example, by introducing of c=const postulate into physic you can derive a Lorentz transforms and lot of other stuffs. But it doesn't help you in understanding, why is it so - so such math has nothing to do with explanation, which is based on Boolean logic like causality. Such usage of math is in analogy with the usage of the black powder of ultramarine dye by the ancient civilizations, which didn't know anything about chemistry principles.

Furthermore, I don't know, what the LQG theory is really able to compute something specific or even usefull - from this point of view it can be useless by the same way, like the AWT or superstring theory (the AWT can be solved numerically, at least).

I'm not even sure, where I can found the finite list of introductional postulates of LQG theory to decide, which conclusions can be part of LQG theory and which not (the same problem with string theory and Heim's theory, it seems). From this point of view, even the formal base of AWT is much better defined.

Here's the risk of cyclic self-references: for example, the physical theory cannot be able to derive the relativity concepts from scratch, if it uses it in math formalism for derivations (like the mass-energy equivalence or geometrodynamic principle). I'm afraid, the theory without fixed list of postulates is just vague concept, which cannot be analyzed from such point of view at all.
JD

Hi. This is my first post here and I hope you won't find it inappropriate.

In search of Alpha - The fine structure constant

On the September 9 edition of New scientist we learned that Harvard physicist Gerald Gabrielse measured Alpha with the greatest precision ever, six times better than the previous results.

With his apparatus he measured the electron's magnetic moment with a precision of one part per trillion and then used the equations of QED to get Alpha.

His numbers are:

Electron's magnetic moment: 2.00231930436170

Alpha: 1/137.035999710

How does this compare with the predictions of Heim theory?

By the way, what do you think of the propulsion method proposed bu Roger Shawyer on that same issue? I don't really understand how it works but I guess it has something to do with the fact that we cannot add our speed to the speed of light. Is it compatible with Heim theory?

Thanks and best regards,
Olaf
QUOTE (JD+Sep 17 2006, 10:10 PM)
His numbers are:
Alpha: 1/137.035999710

Hi JD,

Thank you very much for your contribution!
This value is equal to the value published in CODATA 1998 that we have already included in the mass formula programs. May be they are shure now about the last zero.

Heim 1982: 137,03596100
Heim 1989: 137,03603953
Codata 98: 137,03599971
hdeasy
Not bad - only a 3.E-5 % error in the fine structure constant. While outside the error bars on the latest measurements, this is still better than any other attempt, considering that there are only 3 independent input parameters in Heim's model.

As for Shawyer’s propulsion system – it doesn’t really have anything to do with Heim’s, although both use an aspect of relativity. Shawyer’s is purely old style physics – classic relativity of electromagnetic radiation (microwaves) is used to show that light in a waveguide cavity gives a preferential thrust at the wider end if the cavity if a frustum. Heim’s drive, on the other hand, uses new physics in his version of quantum gravity, and also uses magnetic fields and currents in a conductor rather than light. So apart from their novel use of relativistic principles, it’s the difference in the principles used that makes the difference.

@Zephir

Okay - the resemblance is very loose - Smolin's knots are just vaguely analogous to the 6 dimensional contortions of the structures in Heim's particles.
Jossarian
Hi all,

I've just updated wikipedia entry for Heim Theory with two additional links:
Artifical Gravity in lab
M. Tajmar experiment

Seems that Heim Theory got exprimental confirmation.

Best regards,
/Joss
Zephir
QUOTE (Jossarian+Sep 18 2006, 06:50 PM)
Seems that Heim Theory got experimental confirmation..

The Heim's theory got experimental confirmation at the moment of estimation of the correct mass of electron (for example). No other theory is able to do it, end of story.
Luke
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 18 2006, 10:01 PM)
The Heim's theory got experimental confirmation at the moment of estimation of the correct mass of electron (for example). No other theory is able to do it, end of story.

Preon theory apparently comes extremely close, but I haven't seen the data.
Zephir
QUOTE (Luke+Sep 20 2006, 01:50 PM)
Preon theory apparently comes extremely close, but I haven't seen the data.

The Heim's theory is able to compute such properties just from insintric constants of vacuum, i.e. without any assumptions about vacuum structures. The preon theory is just an hypothesis at this moment, although we can suppose, the particle structure of Universe is deeply recursive, so it can be a true insight, definitelly.

But how it should be the exact mutual position of preons, gravitons and axions, for example? I fell scrambled from contemporary in-depth models of field as it seems, everybody postulates a new particles without simple unifying insight.
will314159
hi

LQG and standard model

pre-existing

"There have been recent proposals that Loop quantum gravity may be able to reproduce the standard model. "

"So far leptons have been modeled with preons constituted of braids of spacetime with quantum computing concepts used to demonstrate that they survive quantum fluctuations."[9]

Quantum computing has long been an interest of mine because it fits in with the many worlds or many histories interpretation of QM. The only place the prodigious amount of computation of a quantum computer can occur is in the many wordls.

Best Wishes
Jim Graham
I've added the next section of the Heim presentation we are translating. This is the first paragraph of Olaf Posdzech's introduction to the document, as it has been translated:
...
This is a transcript of Burkard Heim's legendary presentation to MBB, on 25.11.1976. Here, for the first time, Heim presents to the layman, a way to calculate the mass spectrum of elementary particles, based on his unified field theory. This presentation makes Heim more understandable than his very dense article in "Zeitschrift fur Natuforschung".
...

The web site is here: Heim Translation

The new section describes how Heim extended Einstein's thinking on the derivation of General Relativity to include Electromagnetism.

Thanks to Olaf for the original German text - it has really helped a lot with the speed of this effort, and has allowed us to spend less time on the administrative work. I have not managed to integrate the suggested translation tools into the project, but I spent a few hours with Trados and MemoQ, and I can see how these will be useful.

Also many thanks to John Reed, who has helped me with the translation work. It's not John's fault if I don't get it yet.

We've made some minor revisions to the first section. If you've already read it, there not much value in going over it again. The second section is much more interesting.

ivica
Jim,

Thank you very much for your efforts.

Best regards,

--ivica, EHT fan.
Mikhail
I have few questions to anyone who could reply.
1. There are few months passed since Tajmar made his gravity experiments. Do you know current status of this work ? Any confirmations from the other groups, peer-review publications ?
2. Do you know, are there any groups ( may be Tajmar? ) that plan such experiments as described in the latest AIAA letter (Heim-Lorentz force) ?

Thanks.
Mikhail.
Olaf
Something completely different:
Today ESA has published the long awaited high resolution images of Cydonia region and the Face on Mars to their website:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEM09F8LURE_0.html
and
3D Images of Cydonia region

The second page has some very impressive 3D shots showing a lot of unusual formations. For instance there are some absolutely straight mountains that form a right angle. I've put my 3D-glasses on and took a virtual flight across my screen. (Thanks to Opera, for that mouse navigation possibilities).

QUOTE (Jim Graham+Sep 21 2006, 11:39 AM)
I've added the next section of the Heim presentation we are translating. (...)
The web site is here: Heim Translation

@ Jim and John
thank you very much! This is really a great help for the community!

Sorry, folks, now I have to work on my gravitophoton drive.
hdeasy
@Will314159:

Hi! Nice change there - only thing I disagree on is that quantum computing automatically implies many worlds. THis is not the case, as it can also be explained by Copenhagen and superpositions withing this one and only, gorgeous world. It is almost impossible to decide between the two. The only ' serious' suggestion of how to do it involves a truly conscious computer - and even then it stretches things a bit, to put it mildly. Or this variation - just as bad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_i...ve_implications .

@Olaf

Hi Olaf! We#re both back now, I see. I saw the Mars Express images of Cydonia too but found them a bit disappointing. THe face itself still had more or less the same symmetry as in previus images, but the ' city' collpased into a pile of what seemd like randomly weathered mounds. Frankly there are many other mounds and features seen by Mars Express that I found looked much more artificial than the face. But there are so many thousands of these features that you can find whatever you want in them. My favourite is the angel of Mars:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsex...sonCrater_H.jpg

hdeasy
QUOTE (Mikhail+Sep 21 2006, 06:44 PM)

1. There are few months passed since Tajmar made his gravity experiments. Do you know current status of this work ? Any confirmations from the other groups, peer-review publications ?
2. Do you know, are there any groups ( may be Tajmar? ) that plan such experiments as described in the latest AIAA letter (Heim-Lorentz force) ?

Hi Mikhail:
1. I heard from a reliable source that two groups are seeking to replicate Tajmar et al.'s results - one in Berkeley and one somewhere else. I expect it shouldn't take them more than a few months.
2. This is not as certain yet - maybe Hauser might try, or others. But it will probably take a bit longer to get support for financing this one. On the positive side, after their winning AIAA paper came out, Millis and others on the 'breakthrough propulsion' scene were considering use of the Z machine to test Hauser-Droscher's ideas. But Tajmar's experiment showed that with bosons you probably didn't need the powerful and expensive Z-machine, as the field threshold is much lower than for fermions. So that lets us hope that in the next year or so someone will get financing for this more economical project.
will314159
@HDeasy

Friendly Neighbour updated the wiki LQG article. looks nice now. I ported it over to preons. Still needs to flow better there.

I've got a soft spot for "Many Worlds" or better called "Many Histories" theory. When I was an undergrad in Physics 33 years ago at UNC-Chapel Hill my EM professor, a Canadian, Palmatier, used to regale us with stories of Bryce De Witt (nee Selig) who taught there briefly before moving on and was a close friend of his. . DeWitt had been a close friend of Wheeler and his graduate student Hugh Everett who had come up with the Many Histories approach.

I remember when I was about 20 looking at a glass display case of Schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's theory and just having my socks knocked off. I was reading sci fi magazines then and there was always those stories of alternate worlds where you were married to a blonde in one and then you passed thru a portal to an alternate world where your wife was a brunette. Or where the Japanese had won the war. You would know "Sliders" was one of my favorite TV shows.

David Deutsch makes a strong case that quantum computing proves "Many Worlds." DeWitt gives a scathing review of Deutsch's book the "fabric of realty." It appears that the majority of physicsts give "Many Histories" strong credence. In the guise of "Many histories" it is more plausible and it's close to Feynman's summation over path integrals approach.

Best Wishes.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 22 2006, 04:34 PM)
@HDeasy

Friendly Neighbour updated the wiki LQG article. looks nice now. I ported it over to preons. Still needs to flow better there.

I've got a soft spot for "Many Worlds" or better called "Many Histories" theory. When I was an undergrad in Physics 33 years ago at UNC-Chapel Hill my EM professor, a Canadian, Palmatier, used to regale us with stories of Bryce De Witt (nee Selig) who taught there briefly before moving on and was a close friend of his. . DeWitt had been a close friend of Wheeler and his graduate student Hugh Everett who had come up with the Many Histories approach.

I remember when I was about 20 looking at a glass display case of Schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's theory and just having my socks knocked off. I was reading sci fi magazines then and there was always those stories of alternate worlds where you were married to a blonde in one and then you passed thru a portal to an alternate world where your wife was a brunette. Or where the Japanese had won the war. You would know "Sliders" was one of my favorite TV shows.

David Deutsch makes a strong case that quantum computing proves "Many Worlds." DeWitt gives a scathing review of Deutsch's book the "fabric of realty." It appears that the majority of physicsts give "Many Histories" strong credence. In the guise of "Many histories" it is more plausible and it's close to Feynman's summation over path integrals approach.

Best Wishes.

The drive doesnt seem to produce much thrust but if it added up incrementally it will drive a rocket to high velocities. Light sails have similar dynamics.
will314159
@Farbstein

Max, my three legged wonder Lab, wanted to make an inquiry about buying some shares in your hi-tech vulvox nanotech company. He thinks it may be a strategic assest as far as getting dates with girl dogs on the internet.

@Olaf.

I had previously misanalyzed the reason for Max's counterclockwise rotation of his tail while trotting. I had thought it was for graviphotonic balance. But I have recently discovered that it has some antigravity aspects. There are actually some room conductor superconductivity cooper pair bosonic activity going on in his tail!. Yes, the Tajmar effect, is actullay reducing his weight. What a smart doggie. He will go down in the record books. He may be the first dawg on Mars. I caught him on my laptop perusing the links you posted of the face on Mars. He had his 3D stereoscopic goggles on.

Best Wishes.
Guest_aceshigh
I see someone mentioned Roger Shawyer experiment and emdrive here... but I made a search on the forum and on the site and found no mention or anything more specific about it yet aside one post in this thread.

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg...19125681.400INT

I want to know what you scientists (dont know how many of you are real scientists, but from the level of knowledge here, I can only believe you guys are... I feel intelligent when discussing with moon hoax conspiracionists, but I feel DUMB in this forum ) think about it, if there are already groups planning on doing independent experiments with Shawyer drive. It could really be something revolutionary and much simpler than any other advanced propulsion method (even comparing with "simple" propulsion methods like fusion pulse drive)
Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_aceshigh+Sep 23 2006, 11:04 PM)
I see someone mentioned Roger Shawyer experiment and emdrive here... but I made a search on the forum and on the site and found no mention or anything more specific about it yet aside one post in this thread.

Frankly, I don't see any obvious reason, why such device should be working. Does somebody have some illustrative explanation?

The true is, if such device is really working, it makes the Heim's drive history, because it's conceptually simpler and it doesn't contain some movable parts at all.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 23 2006, 02:19 PM)
@Farbstein

Max, my three legged wonder Lab, wanted to make an inquiry about buying some shares in your hi-tech vulvox nanotech company. He thinks it may be a strategic assest as far as getting dates with girl dogs on the internet.

@Olaf.

I had previously misanalyzed the reason for Max's counterclockwise rotation of his tail while trotting. I had thought it was for graviphotonic balance. But I have recently discovered that it has some antigravity aspects. There are actually some room conductor superconductivity cooper pair bosonic activity going on in his tail!. Yes, the Tajmar effect, is actullay reducing his weight. What a smart doggie. He will go down in the record books. He may be the first dawg on Mars. I caught him on my laptop perusing the links you posted of the face on Mars. He had his 3D stereoscopic goggles on.

Best Wishes.

That sounds crazy!

People are welcome to buy shares in my company. I bet he and his girl-dog friends are watering at the mouth to buy shares of Vulvox stack.
Unitx
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 08:20 PM)
Frankly, I don't see any obvious reason, why such device should be working. Does somebody have some illustrative explanation?

The true is, if such device is really working, it makes the Heim's drive history, because it's conceptually simpler and it doesn't contain some movable parts at all.

Here's an illustration

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ar...68/25681401.jpg

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ar...68/25681402.jpg

It would hardly make the Heim drive history. Since the Heim Drive works off of new physics, it can theoretically traverse the distance from Earth to Mars in 3 hrs as well as interstellar travel to a star system 11 light years away in 80 days. By conventional means of physics, it would be impossible to do the same due to incredibly high rates of acceleration for the occupants nor would it be within our technological bounds.
will314159
About the Shawyer drive. Something about Newton's third law. for every force there is an equal and opposite force. Still trying to work it out in my head

You've all seen the cartoons of the electric fan blowing in the sail of the sailboat. It really doesn't work- the boat would stand still. To see that, imagine an airboat with the fan pointed backwards, the boat would travel forward. Point the fan forward, then the boat would travel in reverse. Put a sail in front of it, then the boat would stand still. It would be the same situation as if the fan was blowing in a sealed enclosure in the boat. In that case the boat would go nowhere.

Now the Shawyer drive is working courtesy of the principle of the the momentum of photons. I remember how surprised I was when I learned that light can impart momentum. Everybody has heard by now of light sails. the principle is of a light sail. Instead of a fan, you have a microwave generator. The odd-shaped cavity takes place of the sail. I'm having a hard time seeing how it would work. Doesn't it amount to a ship shining a flashlight on its own light sail? Why not just aim the flashlight straight out the back? very little momentum gained would be the answer.

But I"m sure he's tested a small prototype in the lab and meaured thrust, or has he?

Best Wishes

Best Wishes
will314159
Well apparently an experimental device has been built and photons because, they travel, guess what, at the speed of light, have not had time to go to class and learn Newton's third law.

http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/fdec02em.htm

Best Wishes

EDIT
For an excellent review of both sides pro and con w/ links see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive
hdeasy
@Will314159

I also used to have a preference for many worlds, especially as I read a lot of scifi with parallel universes (Zelazny’s Amber series, etc. etc.) and thought it was plausible. But since reading Henry Stapp’s version of the Copenhagen I began to see the inconsistencies in Many Worlds and the advantages of Copenhagen. The worst of MW is that whole universes split off every time a minor branching point in quantum probabilities occurs. That is massive violation of conservation of energy as well as this: Say Universe A has probability 0.05, Universe B has probability 0.25 and Universe C has probability 0.70. In MW each universe gets instantiated – i.e. the probabilities are meaningless. Thus it flies in the face of Occam’s razor on at least 3 scores – needless multiplying of universes, violation of conservation of energy and rendering meaningless the results of probability calculations based on the ‘strength’ of each branch of the wave function. Copenhagen gives a beautifully consistent meaning to the wave function amplitudes or probabilities. Many physicists support MW or many histories as they want to avoid the element of God playing dice – they’re just as bad as Einstein in that regard! These scientists want to see classical determinism restored. But I hate that idea philosophically – the uncertainty restores a mechanism for free will, as Stapp and Penrose point out.

On Shawyer’s drive: so it has drawn a lot of criticism from the physics community. I think that even more than Tajmar’s effect this needs several independent and very careful measurements. Tajmar et al. were exceedingly careful in their experiments and so the prospects of confirmation are very good. It would be nice if Shawyer also was successful, but the Wikipedia article quotes doubts on the measurement of the force – that he might be measuring vibrations and oscillations. Did he do a proper error analysis? Tajmar’s team did and found their first results a few sigma above noise. Later experiments were as many as 15 sigma, giving more confidence.
will314159
Tajmar et al are physicists. And they have plausible theory behind their experiment. That's why people are attempting to replicate their results. I believe it will be successful.

Shawyer is an engineer. i've got one year's in Master's electrical engineering. I"m not knocking engineers but sometimes they don't understand theoretical physics well. All that stuff about group velocity is just from Maxwel's equations for the Electric and Magnetic fields. It has nothing to do with relativity. The simplest way to look at what's going on though is with quantum mechanics- photons imparting momentum. Like rocks hitting a wall.

Anyway Shawyer's device doesn't just break Newton's Third Law but also Conservation of Momentum and Energy. It's a real outlaw as far as. lawbreaking. I just don't see people investing the money and time to try it out. I could be wrong though, and often have been.

Bet Wishes
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 25 2006, 12:25 PM)
Tajmar et al are physicists. And they have plausible theory behind their experiment. That's why people are attempting to replicate their results. I believe it will be successful.

Shawyer is an engineer. i've got one year's in Master's electrical engineering. I"m not knocking engineers but sometimes they don't understand theoretical physics well. All that stuff about group velocity is just from Maxwel's equations for the Electric and Magnetic fields. It has nothing to do with relativity. The simplest way to look at what's going on though is with quantum mechanics- photons imparting momentum. Like rocks hitting a wall.

Anyway Shawyer's device doesn't just break Newton's Third Law but also Conservation of Momentum and Energy. It's a real outlaw as far as. lawbreaking. I just don't see people investing the money and time to try it out. I could be wrong though, and often have been.

Bet Wishes

What force does it generate? How many dynes? There might be some kind of nongravito-magnetic effect that lifts the magnet an extra 1%.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 25 2006, 11:02 AM)
@Will314159

I also used to have a preference for many worlds, especially as I read a lot of scifi with parallel universes (Zelazny’s Amber series, etc. etc.) and thought it was plausible. But since reading Henry Stapp’s version of the Copenhagen I began to see the inconsistencies in Many Worlds and the advantages of Copenhagen. The worst of MW is that whole universes split off every time a minor branching point in quantum probabilities occurs. That is massive violation of conservation of energy as well as this: Say Universe A has probability 0.05, Universe B has probability 0.25 and Universe C has probability 0.70. In MW each universe gets instantiated – i.e. the probabilities are meaningless. Thus it flies in the face of Occam’s razor on at least 3 scores – needless multiplying of universes, violation of conservation of energy and rendering meaningless the results of probability calculations based on the ‘strength’ of each branch of the wave function. Copenhagen gives a beautifully consistent meaning to the wave function amplitudes or probabilities. Many physicists support MW or many histories as they want to avoid the element of God playing dice – they’re just as bad as Einstein in that regard! These scientists want to see classical determinism restored. But I hate that idea philosophically – the uncertainty restores a mechanism for free will, as Stapp and Penrose point out.

On Shawyer’s drive: so it has drawn a lot of criticism from the physics community. I think that even more than Tajmar’s effect this needs several independent and very careful measurements. Tajmar et al. were exceedingly careful in their experiments and so the prospects of confirmation are very good. It would be nice if Shawyer also was successful, but the Wikipedia article quotes doubts on the measurement of the force – that he might be measuring vibrations and oscillations. Did he do a proper error analysis? Tajmar’s team did and found their first results a few sigma above noise. Later experiments were as many as 15 sigma, giving more confidence.

When the supercooled magnet came to a stop, was it measurably higher than a magnet with less bosonic current? Is there a way of varying the amount of bosons in the current independently of the number of electrons or cooper pairs? Using a different supersconductor as a magnet?
hdeasy
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 25 2006, 11:49 PM)
When the supercooled magnet came to a stop, was it measurably higher than a magnet with less bosonic current? Is there a way of varying the amount of bosons in the current independently of the number of electrons or cooper pairs? Using a different supersconductor as a magnet?

If you mean did it go up during the experiment of Tajmar & DeMatos, no, since the generated gravity field was tangiential to the spinning disk, i.e. not moving it anywhere. Only in the variation suggested by Droscher-Hauser would there be a net lift, as the field would then be mostly along the axis of rotation, in the upward direction, one hopes.

The bosons ARE the cooper pairs AND the electrons! Since a Cooper pair is nothing but a pair of electrons bound at a distance (of about a micron), presumably via phonons or quanta of lattice vibration. And two fermions, such as 2 electrons, each with spin 1/2, add up to a spin of 1, which means they suddenly switch from obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics to obeying Bose-Einstein statistics. So there is no easy way to vary boson number independently as Nboson = Ncooper = 1/2 Nelectron. Unless you sneak in some other boson, like a proton - but htey are devilishly heavy and trickier to produce than Cooper pairs. C'est la vie.
hdeasy
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 25 2006, 11:35 PM)
What force does it generate? How many dynes? There might be some kind of nongravito-magnetic effect that lifts the magnet an extra 1%.

The field gave an acceleration of 0.0001 g, where g is the acceleration due to gravity at the earth's surface.. As a MKS person, I know g is about 9.81 m/s/s - dunno that in ergs or dynes or bushels
hdeasy
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 25 2006, 12:25 PM)
Tajmar et al are physicists. And they have plausible theory behind their experiment. That's why people are attempting to replicate their results. I believe it will be successful.

Shawyer is an engineer. i've got one year's in Master's electrical engineering. I"m not knocking engineers but sometimes they don't understand theoretical physics well. All that stuff about group velocity is just from Maxwel's equations for the Electric and Magnetic fields. It has nothing to do with relativity. The simplest way to look at what's going on though is with quantum mechanics- photons imparting momentum. Like rocks hitting a wall.

Anyway Shawyer's device doesn't just break Newton's Third Law but also Conservation of Momentum and Energy. It's a real outlaw as far as. lawbreaking. I just don't see people investing the money and time to try it out. I could be wrong though, and often have been.

Bet Wishes

Yes, Shawyer's claim is quite outrageous - Heim is almost tame by comparison. But the impression from the New Scientist article was that he has major backing - his reputition as a first class engineer attracted a government grant... One way New Sci had to visualise how the momentum got imparted was that photons, going at c, think they are in space, and so push harder on the wide end, as that somehow means they had a higher group velocity or something. It was enough to convince the UK government and some supporters. Who knows?
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 27 2006, 05:02 PM)
If you mean did it go up during the experiment of Tajmar & DeMatos, no, since the generated gravity field was tangiential to the spinning disk, i.e. not moving it anywhere. Only in the variation suggested by Droscher-Hauser would there be a net lift, as the field would then be mostly along the axis of rotation, in the upward direction, one hopes.

The bosons ARE the cooper pairs AND the electrons! Since a Cooper pair is nothing but a pair of electrons bound at a distance (of about a micron), presumably via phonons or quanta of lattice vibration. And two fermions, such as 2 electrons, each with spin 1/2, add up to a spin of 1, which means they suddenly switch from obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics to obeying Bose-Einstein statistics. So there is no easy way to vary boson number independently as Nboson = Ncooper = 1/2 Nelectron. Unless you sneak in some other boson, like a proton - but htey are devilishly heavy and trickier to produce than Cooper pairs. C'est la vie.

I might have some bosons you can sneak in. What probability is there that an object composed of protons such as a bullet will have slightly different trajectory since the bosons are spinning at a high velocity?
Guest_Jeff

There's a .pdf that was a link from the New Scientist article - I saved it off to my hard drive if it's not available. Email me at schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com if you're wanting a copy

Anyway - yes, 2 demo units were built. Both produce expected thrust when pointing up, down, left, right . (ie, not a thermal effect producing lift, it also pushes down or sideways when turned that way)

Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Sep 28 2006, 01:05 AM)

There's a .pdf that was a link from the New Scientist article - I saved it off to my hard drive if it's not available. Email me at schwartz.jeffrey@gmail.com if you're wanting a copy

Anyway - yes, 2 demo units were built. Both produce expected thrust when pointing up, down, left, right . (ie, not a thermal effect producing lift, it also pushes down or sideways when turned that way)

Has someone calculated the thrust that could be developed by a big superconducting disc? What velocity could it reach if it was propelling a spaceship nonstop? Would it be in the same range as solar sails? They could accellerate a spaceship way past meteorotic velocites. It could go up to near light speed.
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 27 2006, 05:22 PM)
Yes, Shawyer's claim is quite outrageous - Heim is almost tame by comparison. But the impression from the New Scientist article was that he has major backing - his reputition as a first class engineer attracted a government grant... One way New Sci had to visualise how the momentum got imparted was that photons, going at c, think they are in space, and so push harder on the wide end, as that somehow means they had a higher group velocity or something. It was enough to convince the UK government and some supporters. Who knows?

HDEasy, you mentioned the effects of travelling bosons in the superconductig disc.
I gave the example of a bullet that spins rapidly as it moves as something with a huge number of bosons 10 to the 25 that could affect the velocity vector of the bullet. The bullet also contains neutrons. Would they affect the gravitomagnetic fields?

There is no magnetic field there but soome phenomenom may be observed.
will314159
@Jeff.
Thanx for the offer. I was able to google and find the article
Well it looks just like a theory article, there may be more
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns...%20scientist%22

New Scientist is taking some knocks on the Shawyer article!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist
n September 2006, New Scientist drew criticism from the writer Greg Egan, who distributed a public letter stating that "a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers" was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable "to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science". In particular, Egan found himself "gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy" in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's "electromagnetic drive", where New Scientist allowed the publication of "meaningless double-talk" designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged those reading his letter to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of "squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides" for genuine science education. The letter was endorsed by mathematical physicist John C. Baez and posted on his blog

Max is betting his saved treats on Tajmar, but what does a three legged dawg know?

Best Wishes?
--------------------------
It looks lilke I will be contacting Jeff. The article requires a subscription
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg...id=NMGHKBGMCGMM

Max said his favorite kind of drive is the Improbabilty Drive. He learned about if from reading Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He's just a vagabond dawg at heart.
hdeasy
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 28 2006, 01:20 AM)
HDEasy, you mentioned the effects of travelling bosons in the superconductig disc.
I gave the example of a bullet that spins rapidly as it moves as something with a huge number of bosons 10 to the 25 that could affect the velocity vector of the bullet. The bullet also contains neutrons. Would they affect the gravitomagnetic fields?

There is no magnetic field there but soome phenomenom may be observed.

The thing about the protons in an atom is that their charge is balanced by the electrons in the atom, so that he atom is neutral in terms of charge. This means that you can shoot a bullet round a cyclotron all you like, but since it's not creating a magnetic field along the axis of the ring, the gravitomagnetic London force can't operate. The beauty of the cooper pairs is they are doublly charged (negatively) and so very effective. To get the bullet's protons to work, you'd need to shoot them into a furnace that would vapourize them to the point thathey turn to plasma, i.e. a soup of charged particles. But the energy needed for that is enormous - may as well just take the protons from an accelerator.
hdeasy
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Sep 25 2006, 11:35 PM)
What force does it generate? How many dynes? There might be some kind of nongravito-magnetic effect that lifts the magnet an extra 1%.

In the extended Heim-Tajmar paper, http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...sionRevised.pdf , near the end they talk about the setup proposed in Fig. 10 of that paper,
"The following assumptions were made: N = 100, number
of turns of the solenoid; current of some 1-2 A (needed to
calculate bz); diameter of solenoid 0.1 m; and
vT=10m/ s . A detailed analysis predicts an acceleration
in z-direction of some 4.0×10-4 g. From these numbers
it seems to be possible that, if our theoretical predictions
are correct, the realization of a workable space propulsion
device that can lift itself from the surface of the
earth seems to be feasible with current technology"

In this paper they don't say how it would scale up to a workable engine. One problem there is that if the field is too strong, the London moment effect disappears and presumably you have to go back to the old fermionic setup of their earlier paper ( http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...004-3700-a4.pdf ). But compare the old fermionic table of scaling up the force from that paper (table 1):

CODE

‘n’                   NWgpe                  Mu0 H                Fgp
Turns                                     (Teslas)              (Newtons)

10^4             2.6 x 10^-14              2.0            7.4 x 10^-43
10^5             2.6 x 10^-5                6.3                    30
10^6             2.6 x 10^-4               20.0           45,000,000
10^6             2.6 x 10^-4               50.0         1,450,000,000

Table1: The right most column shows the total gravitophoton
force in Newton that would act on the rotating ring. The
force results from the absorption of the gravitophoton by a
proton. The absorption through a proton results in a much
larger force, so that in principle the interaction of a gravitophoton
with an electron, regardless whether real or virtual,
can be neglected. The number of turns of the magnetic coil is
denoted by n, the magnetic induction is given in Tesla, and
the current through the coil is 100 A, except for the last row
where 250 A were used. The mass of the rotating torus is 100
kg, its thickness, d (diameter) 0.05 m, and its circumferential
speed is 103 m/s. The wire cross section is 1 mm2. The meaning
of the probability amplitude is given in the text.”

Note that the first row in the table is nearest to the Tajmar case, but the force is utterly negligible.
hdeasy
I just noticed that someone has scheduled the Heim Theory article in Wikipedia (English version) for deletion. As one can see from the discussion page there, it already fought off a campaign to delete it, in the time before the AIAA prize and New scientist article. Thus there is less cause than ever for such an action. Luckily most of the comments so far have been in favour of retention. So if you are a Wikipedist (e.g. Will314159), then might I suggest you row in there and show them we aren't going to take this lying down. I already put in my spoke.
Jim Graham
I've added the third section to the Heim translation at
Heim Translation

This section describes how Heim got to a 6-dimensional space.

We've left out the machine translation - it added confusion, but not much value...Jim
will314159
I encourage people to become Wikipedea editors and acquire a UerName; however you can still do an edit without that.

I made a comment for STRONG KEEP under the Heim Theory deletion article page.
FYI, I also made this other comment. Yes, I do tend to brawl a little bit. you should see me in the courtroom. Max, my three legged dawg, has assited me in some trials as a jury consultant. He tries to quiet anc calm me down.

QUOTE
*I am puzzled Sdedo, on 27 September you nominate Heim for deletion but announce on your discussion page that you tire of WP and are taking a sabbatical. Would it not have been better to not have taken this action while you are on Vacation? Have a beer on me. Will314159 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ion/Heim_theory

This same guy caused a little ruckus on the loop quantum gravity page, too.

the HT article itself can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

It was started by one Dr. Hugh Deasy, a notorious science fiction writer, cartoonist, and yes ESA physisct. An all around good guy.

Best Wishes
will314159
I hope that the people that commented on the Heim Theory delete article will stick around in Wikipedia and do further editing on other articles. It is a very wothwhile enterprise, free, and surprisingly good!

I caught Max, my three legged dawg, trying to make an edit on the Heim theory delete article page. I told him only humans could comment. He is peed off. He said he was going to report me to the SPCA. Society for the Prevention for Cruelty to Animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_t...elty_to_Animals

And he was not going to help me pick Jurors anymore in any upcoming trials.
I am in in the dawghouse now.

Best Wishes
Zephir
QUOTE (will314159+Oct 1 2006, 02:56 AM)
I hope that the people that commented on the Heim Theory delete article will stick around in Wikipedia and do further editing on other articles.

LOL, this is EXACTLY the way, how the proponents of so called "mainstream science" are behaving. ..

The ONLY quantitative theory, which is able to compute the particle properties is nominated for deletion, because it didn't "passed the peer-review"... What a shame...

This is not even the flagrant example of pathological skepticism - this is the open battle against everything, which can impeach the credence of mainstream belief. Simply speaking the manifestation of zealot religion.

Fortunately they have no chance from long term perspective.
hdeasy
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 29 2006, 10:53 PM)
I encourage people to become Wikipedea editors and acquire a UerName; however you can still do an edit without that.

I made a comment for STRONG KEEP under the Heim Theory deletion article page.
FYI, I also made this other comment. Yes, I do tend to brawl a little bit. you should see me in the courtroom. Max, my three legged dawg, has assited me in some trials as a jury consultant. He tries to quiet anc calm me down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ion/Heim_theory

This same guy caused a little ruckus on the loop quantum gravity page, too.

the HT article itself can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

It was started by one Dr. Hugh Deasy, a notorious science fiction writer, cartoonist, and yes ESA physisct. An all around good guy.

Best Wishes

Hi Will31425626,

Great work! I think we've got them on the run now -there were at least twice as many Keeps or ' Do not deletes' as Deletes - I also put in a strong keep, as you saw. The discussion is meant to go on for 5 days, after which a bot will pick it up in a day or two or three to decide on the verdict, as far as I understand it.

And thanks for the compliments - great to hear that Max is learning to touch type: he would be certainly superior to some Wikipedia editors - e.g. CH who tried to imply that some of the newcomers to Wikipedia who put in ' keeps' were cheating and just aliases of you or me. Hopefully the IP addresses will be shown to be in the North Pole, Ulum Batur, Tierra del Fuego, Botswana and Goa. Next CH will accuse us of bi-location like Padre Pio or that quantum silicon drop http://physorg.com/news78650511.html .

Hdeasy
will314159
@Hugh

Max came up with a new sign off for me for Wikipedia instead of my traditional "Best Wishes"

"Barkeep: Wiskis for the Editors and Beer for the Horses"

It's from the Willie Nelson country song Whiskey for my Men and Beer for the Horses

Do you think it is too erudite for the WP international crowd? Is there a danger of it being over their head? You know Max, he is a country dawg! He doesn't think cosmopolitan.

Take CAre!
hdeasy
@Will314159

Max has done himself proud with that adage. I saw it already at the end of the Heim-delete page, which now seems to be thoroughly scotched. It might indeed be a tad too refined for the rough and tumble of the sometimes garrulous Wikipedia referees, where all too oft crudity substitutes for erudition. But I must say I found the phrase had the right tenor and hinted at a world of intellectualism closed to some of the speedy deleters.

@all-the-others-here-who-put-in-a-‘keep’-in-the-Heim-delete-page,

Well done!
Olaf
QUOTE (will314159+Sep 30 2006, 11:56 PM)
I caught Max, my three legged dawg, trying to make an edit on the Heim theory delete article page.

Sorry that I don't have any animals in the macroscopic region. There is a strong pro Heim population among the mites living in my carpet. Unfortunately they have not succeeded in becoming wikipedia editors recently.
Next time they will give us some 100,000 'keep' votings. They still hope that IPv6 will give every one of them the opportunity of occupying an own IP.
will314159
Max wanted you all to know that he has a little sister. Maggie Mae Busch ben Laden, Cocker Spaniel Junior Terrorist. Last week, she fished my wallet out of my pants and chewed on all the magnetic strips of the credit cards. She stays very busy!

She is a very good singer and howler; however her math is deficient. She has all four legs, has a short tail, and therefore has had no reason to study nor master HT and gravitophotonic countercyclic tail rotation. Max uses those effects for antigravity effects and balancing. Max only has three legs and needs Heim for a normal life.

Best Wishes
millka
Hi fellow comrades from the Heim Underground Guerilla ™,

crossing swords with the WP Pseudophysics taliban is soo much fun

CH lowered himself to Nazi allegations, which urged me to dig out Thor's hammer from under Walhalla ..

On the other hand: if they start to pick bad arguments, they seem to be short of good ones.

By the way, when will Max join WP, so that we can elect him as admin ?

Woof !
will314159
@Milka
Max thinks it's too more fun to swat off Maggie Mae, jump into the waves and to chase sticks.

As far as the inevitability of fascist references in discussions see Godwin's Rule

Best Wishes and Thank you for your brilliant analyses on Heim at the deletion page!
Dr John P Costella
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 23 2006, 08:20 PM)
Frankly, I don't see any obvious reason, why such device should be working. Does somebody have some illustrative explanation?

The true is, if such device is really working, it makes the Heim's drive history, because it's conceptually simpler and it doesn't contain some movable parts at all.

To cut through the rubbish of Shawyer's 'Theory paper' and see why his 'drive' is a fraud, go to Why Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud.
hdeasy
@Milka

Very well done indeed with your extensive comments that indeed knocked the wind out of the arrogant tendencies of those WPists that immediately assume the worst of pro-Heim voters. There is a curious tendency to gang up on anything which is not utterly orthodox according to the rather restricted Weltanschaung of these people.

Anyway, it looks like Heim-theory lives to fight another day, thanks to your wielding of Mjolner and the other hordes of Valhalla pouring onto the scene of Ragnarok that unfolded during the Götterdämmerung of these deletion days, to wax Wagnerian :-).

@Will314156

My own animalistic vignettes focus on Momo the cat, who yesterday was balancing on a narrow fence with all the skill of a Chinese acrobat. She unfortunaltely suffered some wounds in fighting a new cat on the block and a hedgehog, probably sent by the dark side of Wikipedia to stop her too becoming a judge - she has shown a tendency to sleep on the PC keyboard, which was the nearest she got to editing the Heim pages.
darrin351
G'day all,
I've been following EHT for a while now and think that it is great how people are responding to it by actually investigating it as opposed to outright dismissal.

I am curious if anyone has heard any news about the timeline for the publishing of the forthcoming papers by Dröscher and Hauser, "Field Propulsion I: Novel Physical Concepts for Space Propulsion" and "Artificial Gravitational Fields", that were mentioned in the Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts paper?

I became really excited after reading the Revised Letter and started thinking about how a device could be constructed.

Construct a solenoid from niobium tubing. Use liquid hydrogen flowing at a specific velocity through the tubing as both the cooling agent for the tubing and as the gravitophoton receptor. I can't quite seem to grasp how the thing would react as of yet. Will the forces cancel out since the gravitophotons are all directed toward the center of the tube? Or will a net directional force be produced if the hydrogen flow has a velocity in the correct direction?

Have a good one,
Darrin
Neil Farbstein
QUOTE (darrin351+Oct 4 2006, 11:31 PM)
G'day all,
I've been following EHT for a while now and think that it is great how people are responding to it by actually investigating it as opposed to outright dismissal.

I am curious if anyone has heard any news about the timeline for the publishing of the forthcoming papers by Dröscher and Hauser, "Field Propulsion I: Novel Physical Concepts for Space Propulsion" and "Artificial Gravitational Fields", that were mentioned in the Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts paper?

I became really excited after reading the Revised Letter and started thinking about how a device could be constructed.

Construct a solenoid from niobium tubing. Use liquid hydrogen flowing at a specific velocity through the tubing as both the cooling agent for the tubing and as the gravitophoton receptor. I can't quite seem to grasp how the thing would react as of yet. Will the forces cancel out since the gravitophotons are all directed toward the center of the tube? Or will a net directional force be produced if the hydrogen flow has a velocity in the correct direction?

Have a good one,
Darrin

Can you explain the theory behind your design? What are grvaitophon receptors?
darrin351
@Neil

[QUOTE] Can you explain the theory behind your design? What are grvaitophon receptors?[QUOTE]

From my (extremely) limited (perhaps mis-)understanding of the design as shown in Fig. 9 of the Revised Extended Version of the Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Conceps paper, the superconducting coil emits gravitophoton messenger particles which are then absorbed by the protons in the rotating disk above the coil. The absorption of the gravitophotons result in the creation of an accelerating force on the ring.

By receptor, I just meant the protons at which the messenger particles were aimed (e.g., the rotating disk).

The main idea of the thing is that instead of using a separate ring that rotates, the device would use liquid hydrogen flowing through the solenoid coil as the rotating solid.

What is presently confounding me is what exactly is happening inside the tube. If you look at a magnetic field created by a solenoid using a solid wire coil, the right-hand rule tells you which way the force is directed, but that is on the outside of the coil wire.

Now consider a coil made of hollow tube. Discounting the field outside the coil tube itself,what would the magnetic field inside the tube look like? Trying to use the right-hand rule to figure out in what direction the magnetic force goes is hurting my brain.

My guess is that if a hollow tube is used as the superconducting material, any force on the fluid will be cancelled by a force acting in the opposite direction due to symmetry of the tube.

Jeez...I hope I didn't thoroughly confuse anyone with that...

Darrin
Reptile
I tried to add a strong keep to the Wikipedia article and got all screwed up. I'll try again, but not tonight.

I had a fantasy Idea moment. For some time, contributors with physics PhDs have plaintively expressed the desire for a theoretical physicist-General Relativity/Gravity to take a look at Heim Theory. I was thinking what else the candidate required: brilliance, a sense of language and absolutely thorough knowledge or the professional German vocabulary that Physicists use, perfect English, a sense of language, perhaps the time to take a look

Candidate Julian Barbour, Oxfordshire. I hope. He's about 69, is he still alive?

The guy has been haunted for 45 years by the question "What is Time? wrote several books 20 odd articles, with collaborators. Decided to get his doctorate in Cologne in the 1960s because of his interest in relativity theory. From the 1970s on he lived in a farmhouse near Oxford, translating 50 pages or so day of Russian theoretical physics papers--in his spare time so to speak-- and concentrated on thinking about physics. Decided not to go the academic route but always had contact with the professional community.

Since German was the language of doctoral instruction, and he has hobnobbed a bit with the likes of Lee Smolin, Barbour sounds like the perfect candidate.

Wonder if he heard stories or KNEW Heim in the old days? Would he have any interest, time, energy, etc. to look at the papers. Maybe translate one or two, if only from German to German.

Any of you physics Ph.Ds out there want to give him a call and ask if he's ever heard of Heim, and what does he think? I would only do so if I were working on some sort of article. And I'm not.

One difficult thing about this. Who controls the Heim book copyrights? Maybe if one were lucky enough to get a copy, one could NOT translate the relevant sections. And publish the translations, of course.

Some of these people smell a tad paranoid, starting with Heim, or perhaps just possessive. attitudes which few of us have time for.
hdeasy
QUOTE (Dr John P Costella+Oct 4 2006, 02:55 PM)
To cut through the rubbish of Shawyer's 'Theory paper' and see why his 'drive' is a fraud, go to Why Shawyer's 'electromagnetic relativity drive' is a fraud.

I just read your paper - it makes a good point and indeed the theory is suspect in Shawyer's work. That wouldn't be a show-stopper if the results spoke for themselves, but as far as I understood from the NS article and elsewhere, the 'forces' are of the same order of magnitude as the noise level - not surprising with all the vibrations in the system. That is, as I pointed out above, the difference w.r.t. Tajmar & co.'s setup: they carefully set up their experiment to minimise vibration and seem to have been so successful that they get up to 15 sigma above the noise.
will314159
No more fun tweaking the mathemeticos on the HT deletion page. I got my dig in at CH by telling him to go to youtube.com and watch lonelygirl15 doing her sockpuppet routines! never had so much wiki fun. magie mae and max were howling and rolling all over the floor.