Yes - the gizmos on the Steorn web site do look convoluted - maybe on purpose to conceal a trade secret. One thing about Steorn unlike any other Over Unity claim is that the company is a normal one and they interact via the forum, givng updates there that take time to trickle through to the FAQ or news pages. We know, for instance, that the Jury has been active since Jan 1st. Also, in the last few days the CEO, Sean McCarthy, after a debate with one of the fiercest forum sceptics, agreed to a sort of sub-test away from the main jury effort, with Atkins Global -

http://www.atkinsglobal.com/

That will take place soon and will be of great interest. Also, next week, forum rep 'Crank' will talk with one of the scientists at an Irish university who has already tested the effect and presumably found some substance to it. We will will know in a week or so what she found out. Finallly, 200 forum members will be chosen for a 'private developers club' in the next few weeks.
So there is a lot happening at Steorn and they have met all milestones in their test process so far. It looks like a steady roll out. We shall see...

Hate to do this but as soon as I started reading about invisibility provided by the above link, my reasoning has the author rather lacking with solid constructs and obviously is not intimately familiar with the behaviour of "Electromagnetic waves" {Known and referred to as "Light by laymen}..

It should be noted though, only advanced scientists and physicists may be aware that the electromagnetic spectrum's velocities is part of the makeup of the whole of the Universe and all matter is with a ratio of Potential to Kinetic Energy which can be accurately calculated via the relative velocities one is working with, in fact it is one of the reasons why the postulated photon area is so massive giving us the perception it exists as if its near vacuum with a degree of permeability, permittivity etc.. That's right its all dependent on what state mass is in.. {I.e. The more compressed mass is (the higher the Potential) and (the smaller the area of occupation) and importantly (the lower the kinetic energy) or {relative velocities).

In Basic Physics we are availed with an image that Particles are with vibrations, and the faster the vibrations the higher the kinetic energy, but sadly what is left for our reasoning to decide upon is, in what directions are these vibrations at?

My model have these vibrations inward and outward and lets as an example say equal to C^2 for near vacuum {Photon with "c" vibrations or velocities}, and another area in full contact that is only a couple of angstroms that is vibrating against it, which is another C^2 area but it has been compressed to occupy only a couple of angstroms - Picture a near vacuum and the hull of one of our satellites and keep in mind the ratios of force with respects to area being compressed to uncompressed. Total Energy = Potential Energy x Kinetic Energy or Energy = Mass x C^2.

Now with the above rather crude models, we should get a good understanding why "c" is at maximum in a near vacuum and "c" in a solid somewhat hindered if propagating an increasing and decreasing potential, seen as a compression wave {electromagnetic waves} Via vibrations which are propagated much slower, put simply, the internal velocities are still at "c".. but in a solid many more exchanges occur, to clarify that last comment, we need to imagine that for a given time reference a packet of information takes the same time no matter how great the rooms magnitude is. this means if a room was only 1 meter it would take 1 sec, and like wise if it was 10 meters it still would take around 1 sec {All the rooms compresses and decompresses by the same ammount of time, but if we now lined up the rooms and raced the compression waves, the one with many smaller rooms would take longer due to more Potential/Kinetic exchanges.

So what has this to do with Invisibility? well if one fully understands the propagation of electromagnetic waves and the relationship that exists with mass by it via E=MC^2, invisibility simply is impossible!

We should note though, we already have crafts that have been designed to be invisible to certain frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (radar) and if one studies the principles used, one soon should understand how difficult it would be for full invisibility, for the visible spectrum only, I say it may be a piece of cake, but my reasoning insists for the whole of the intended body we want invisible we need to detect its full incoming electromagnetic spectrum in order to re-emitt it at the exact directions and velocities at the opposite surfaces if it is to work.

Till now, I never met with some principal incompatibility between AWT and Heim's theory. Whereas I don't understand the Heim's formalism, most of conclusions gives some sense for me. While it's rather easy to found many conceptual problems in string theory predictions or conclusions.

It would be good if Heim could give an explanation for the violation of parity in only seeing one parity of neutrinos – rotating anti-clockwise as they approach one, and never clockwise. Alain Connes has constructing a fiendishly complex mathematical theory of non-commutative geometry – if you have a million years to spare download his book here
http://www.alainconnes.org/downloads.html
and read through it. Skimming is interesting enough. Smolin praises him as the most profound mathematical physicist alive today. Even harder to understand than Heim!

From the WP article on dark matter:

" However, constructing a relativistic MOND theory has been troublesome, and it is not clear how the theory can be reconciled with gravitational lensing measurements of the deflection of light around galaxies. The leading relativistic MOND theory, proposed by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004 is called TeVeS for Tensor-Vector-Scalar and solves many of the problems of earlier attempts. A theory of modified gravity (MOG) proposed by John W. Moffatt, based upon the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT), is also an alternative to dark matter."


One question nagging me is if the recent map of dark matter in the universe made possible by NASA/ESA's Hubble space telescope - http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMZ6GSVYVE_index_0.html , implies a dark matter distribution not consistent with slavish following of galactic contours - and hence not with MOND.

Hmm - could the top story on physorg today be relevant to the Droscher-Hauser propulsion idea - made even better with superconductors a la Tajmar? Since in the latter, one of the problems in getting a stronger effect was that superconducting sate collpased above a certain field strength. Just speaking off the top of my head at the moment - must look up the details later:

http://www.physorg.com/news90423517.html

The material currently used in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging machines in both hospitals and research laboratories -- a low-temperature superconducting alloy of the metallic element niobium -- has been pushed almost as far as it can go, to around 21 Tesla. (Tesla is used to define the intensity of the magnetic field.) There are no superconducting magnet wires currently available that can generate 30 Tesla.

"A new materials technology -- such as a technology based on high-temperature superconductivity -- is required to make the huge leap from 21 Tesla to 30 Tesla," said William P. Halperin, John Evans Professor of Physics and Astronomy in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern, who led the team. "We have shown that Bi-2212 could be operated at the same temperature as is presently the case for magnets made with niobium -- 4 degrees Kelvin -- and also achieve the stable state necessary for a 30 Tesla magnet."

The findings will be published online Feb. 11 by the journal Nature Physics.

"We are exploring nature's limitations, and our discovery has basic implications for the study of superconductors and for applications to magnetic resonance imaging," said Halperin. "The dream would be to have powerful magnets that don't require helium for cooling. Some day new materials might be discovered where this restriction is lifted, but it isn't possible at the present time."

A superconductor, when cooled to its appropriate temperature, conducts electricity without any resistance. Superconductivity first appears in Bi-2212 at a high temperature of 90 degrees Kelvin, but Halperin and his colleagues found that the stable state required in high-magnetic fields can be established only when the temperature falls below 12 degrees Kelvin. The team is the first to establish this limit for Bi-2212.

"Sometimes what seems to be bad can be good," said Bo Chen, lead author of the paper and a graduate student of Halperin's. "Our findings set a speed limit. If you go beyond this speed you may have trouble. Knowing the upper temperature limit is a kind of security."

"To create a 30 Tesla magnet, we need a superconducting material that can carry the required amount of electricity without blowing up," said Halperin. "We have found that the operating temperature for Bi-2212 must be below 12 degrees Kelvin. The good news is that this temperature can be reached by cooling the magnet with liquid helium. If we had found the upper limit to be 2 degrees Kelvin then the cryogenic requirements would be intractable."

I wonder if compression may help to Lower Temperatures even further for both the Niobium and the cooling medium?

Or is my reasoning way off base?

Compression? But compression usually heats things up. Certainly in gas as you are increasing the probability of collisons if the gas gets denser by compression. The opposite would be adiabatic expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_pro...ing_and_cooling

"After using a bicycle pump to inflate a pneumatic tire or soccer ball the barrel of the pump is found to have heated up as a result of adiabatic heating. "

I.e. the air in the tyre was compressed and so heated. For a solid it is somehwat different but still the principle holds that the denser, the harder to cool. In the end the superconducivity only comes if the atoms are stopped vibrating almost totally. Just by moving the atoms closer doesn't change things much in that you still have to use the same energy to cool each atom down.

Remember that in Droscher & Hauser's original setup you needed to get to about 30 Teslas to see noticeable acceleration. That may be more easily achievable now. In the Tajmar setup, though, you use the London moment and a problem there was you had a limit on the external magnetic field before the Cooper pairs broke up. If Bi-2212 was used it might be possible to extend the Tajmar effect as well.

Lets see perhaps you are right? Because if we compress Mass we increase the potential energy but decrease the kinetic energy? (heat?)

Hmmm? Some one has definitely jumped the gun, and over looked something, because if we excite nitrogen Err~ allow nitrogen to boil or heat, its potential energy is released via kinetic energy Err~ so that's a liquid uncompressed to a gaseous form? cooling our conductor to which its kelvin drops and it conducts better.

Hmmm what a conundrum?

So what about just compressing our conductor? Lets see if the same can be said about our conductive material as our liquid nitrogen?

we know as we heat mass it Err~liquefies {the more kinetic it gets} and yes it expands as well {area of occupation increases}, so if we use a mass that is far more dense (compressed) its natural kelvin will be lower to the same mass uncompressed, the same goes for nitrogen if it were more solid it would have a lower natural kelvin, yes/no?

Best conduction for a super conductor is at lower temperatures yes/no?
I think what we need to consider is what energy and where is it transferred to, and most importantly :- WHEN.

Hi all,

Another story about possible proof for 'string theory' thanks to LHC:
New Scientist article

/Joss

I'm not sure, if I really want to make such thingies on the Earth... What will happen, if such thing will survive and passes outside to collider vacuum?

<br>And another test:

"Gary Shiu and Bret Underwood, both physicists at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, US, say the shape of the extra dimensions could leave an imprint in the afterglow of the big bang. This glow, called the cosmic microwave background, reveals the structure of the universe about 370,000 years after the big bang.

They use a popular model of the universe's early growth called Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) inflation, which is inspired by string theory. It is one of a class of ideas called braneworld models, which state that our universe is like a sheet of paper floating in a higher dimensional space."

New Scientist article

Wonder what EHT predicts in both above cases?

/Joss

Well, first most of these 'proofs of string theory' are just hurdles it must pass to be shown not to be false. But the same tests are consistent with a huge rage of theories -LQG, Heim, Standard Model etc.

On the Mass Formula, some good news in that I was copied on a response of the Heim-theory group to a query re John Reed's point about the A values being empirically set:

Dear Dr. Lehmann,

In the 2nd volume of B.Heim "Elementarstrukturen der Materie" (1984 ) the
corresponding sentences read as follows :

Up to day it was not possible to obtain an explicit derivation of the F(i,m)
and this applies also to the A(i,m) and A(6,6) .However, by using the
interpretation defined by eq.(101b) an investigation of the empirical data
of the ground states heuristically will lead to the A(i,m) and A(6,6)
which
can be traced back numerically to the limiting values pi , e and zeta and
the two coupling constants alfa and beta from eq. (105a) which itself are
based on pi.

comment :
We would like to draw your attention to a paper of Heim which we suppose to
have been written in 1989 . A summary is given on www.heim-theory.com .
In that 1989 paper formulae for the partikel masses , resonances and life
times are given which do not use those A(i,m) . Instead some new quantum
numbers are introduced representing the occupation of four geometric zones
by energy . A straightforward derivation of those quantum numbers is given.
For the outer zone in some cases we could not obtain the corresponding
quantum numbers with our Fortran Program but this might be due to a lack of
understanding an only verbally described equilibration procedure between the
3rd and 4th zone. Fortunately the masses of the ground states depend only
slightly on the number for the outer zone. Our program computes the ground
states only .
In an addendum to their book "Strukturen der physikalischen Welt ..." (1996)
W.Droescher and B.Heim present a new derivation of particle life times , but
sad to say , the 1989 mass formulae have not been published in print.
Yours faithfully,

Research Group Heim Theory

I think The Big bang Theory should not be taken as actuality..

For one, what if it were discovered our Local Space-Time is definitely being compressed into our Galaxies Core where the preceding electromagnetic spectrum has already been intensively Blue-shifted {Black Hole} and because of our relative shrinkage resulting with a relative slower time rate when compared to the greater universe which as result is the main reason we are perceiving an accelerating expansion.

If my Theoretical Model is correct and proven, we would not need to explain the required increasing and unknown energy source that is needed for an accelerating expansion.

And that's just one of the reasons why I don't think the background Electromagnetic radiation has anything to do with some Big Bang!

The Big Bang is the origin of space-time and later matter. The reason I say this is if space-time didn't come first then all the matter of the universe would be at a single point and would therefor have infinite gravity and be a Black Hole. How could it expand against this infinite force gravity?

If matter was created later after space has expanded; the matter therefor was created spread out; and this infinite gravity problem would then simply disappear. What I am saying is that matter must be created at some finite density. It's as simple as that!

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALLS --

<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtons_laws' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Physical Laws on Force and Motion

I think this where every one who treats a perception as a force has failed themselves!

I insist before you answer the below question that you go and re-familiarize your self to Physical Laws on Force and Motion

Can you please express to me what velocities are involved for your gravities attraction...

I am hoping by fully understanding that force can only be an exertion one should understand Black Holes are and have been compressed to their current state!

Their is no magical attractive force!