I've been following this thread for a long time, always hoping that one day a post will confirm what we all hope to be true. Unfortunately that day has yet to come, and none of us is getting any younger.

Maybe we should take matters into our own hands...

What will it take to construct this test rig? Is there some way all interested people can pool their resources together and make this happen? What's the cheapest way to build an experiment that will result in a measurable force that can only be explained by something not known before e.g. putting the rig on a weighing scale and flicking some ON switch? There must be something we can do.

No, indeed! We are not getting younger. But this no-gravity tale stretches back to the mid-1950s, when Burkhard Heim first made his unified theory public. We've been waiting for a half-century (some of us, anyway) for the established mindset to become enlightened,... or be overthrown. 'Star Trek' was as far as Heim's theory got in those days.

The non-Newtonian gravitational field results of Tajmar's work has shaken the career scientists who have bet on the status quo. When Tajmar's findings are reinforced with others' results, the 'established' scientists' work reads like the title of a Firesign Theater Album,... 'Everything You Know Is Wrong.' (There's a movie of the same title.) Try retelling the Big Bang with a fifth (and, probably, sixth) fundamental force added to the mix. (And, while whoever is telling it, they can tell us again about that fantastic "inflationary period" and how it really works.)

All of this belongs on a separate thread, I suspect. One that covers the power struggle between the 'priests' of politics and the 'priests' of science. Recall the Viking lander results,... where life function by-products were found in the experiment? The science was shouted down, I suspect, because we, as a nation and a world, would have focused on a Mars mission and pre-empted almost any political agenda short of alien invasion. Who did the shouting and who made them shout? That's for a different time.

And, really now,... what country (or super villain!) with ANY sense, and the resources, isn't trying right this minute to get this zero-gravity thing working?

But, the subject is Heim Theory here. I read the latest paper (link above) and saw nothing really new,... which isn't bad, necessarily. Droescher still refers to the "different" material that will rotate above the super-conducting solenoid. Of course, he can't be expected to blurt out his secret (and I'm hoping he has one). I don't think the Cooper-pairs will get us very far, they're too delicate, too difficult to stabilize. We need the 'di-lithium crystals' of Star Trek legend. For those, we will have to get that 30+ tesla magnetic field up and running. Then, s.... will happen!

"Give me Warp 8, Scotty,... Now!"

Oops! I meant Hauser, not Droescher.

... Might I remind everyone that just because you want physical reality to be a certain way does not mean that it is...

I came across a paper written by Tajmar outlining gravity control and its implications for space propulsion. This was written in 2002 and does not mention Heim at all, but the concepts he speaks of for gravity control sound quite similar to Heim theory.

Take a look

xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0207/0207123v1.pdf

Heim's is dead and current generation of scientists apparently excepts him...

Yes - funny how negative they were then about anti-gravity being a means of propulsion. Now they are bolder in their speculations as they have found violation of the weak equivalence principle. The point about fuel being also reduced in weight when the spacecraft mass is reduced and hence reducing the thrust is good, but the Heim-Droscher point gets round that by first boosting the momentum of the craft while in space and in non anti-grav mode. Then when you are going at a fair clip you switch on the Heim drive and the mass all but vanishes. To conserve momentum the velocity must now shoot up to near light speed or even beyond it by slipping into a parallel dimension.

Nice post - I think you are indeed right about the Cooper pairs - they collapse when the magnetic field is too strong and so 10**-4 g is about as strong as that version of the force will get. But the point as far as Heim-Droscher / Hauser is concerned is proof of concept: by showing that the same equations apply to bosons and fermions, except that the threshold is much lower for bosons and has also a low cut-off value, you can then extrapolate to the solution for fermions, which admittedly has a higher threshold before kicking in, but then increases without theoretical upper limit.

The fermionic effect is only limited by the energy you need to input and the strength of the magnet. With an efficient energy source (E.g. Steorn's, if they prove to be real, and as an 'insider' I can tell you it's looking better and better for that - stay tuned for an update in July) the sky is not the limit, literally.

If the trick with inertialess drive converting a high momentum to a warp drive velocity works, then it will be warp now, Mr. Sulu.

I am amazed that any one who knows their physics would even make inferences to Anti-Gravity..

Obviously Potential Kinetic Energies behaviour and or dynamics is way over their heads!

I mean after all Gravity is the result of inbound velocities as per described in the theories referring to Mass and Relativity..

Another problem via introduced theories originating from scrambled and brainwashed religious minds is - Even though Relativity theory implies that the interaction between Potential Kinetic Energy results as Gravity via inbound Velocities, "The Standard Model" the very model that is still a work in progress but referred to as if already set in concrete!
Refers to a magical and or miracles Particle known as a graviton! <ROFLOL>

was the Heim theory removed from the wikipedia? It has affected mainstream theorists and it has inspired some of the antigravity work honored at NASA. They should include it in the wikipedia. Who is in charge of the Wikipedia? Why did they change their minds about that entry? Who approved the entry in the first place?

You're asking right questions on wrong place. The WIkipedia is the public source, it can be changed by anybody.

OK, trying to describe “Heim Theory” in a short amount of time is, to say the least, not easy. However, I will give it a try; I will mostly supply content from the following reference papers:
1: Extended Heim Theory, Physics of Spacetime, and Field Propulsion: good information, a more advanced understanding helps before reading this.
2: Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures: this is probably (IMHO) the best general description of the theory. I didn’t realize that until I started doing this “large” post.
3: Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based On Heim's Quantum Theory: first article I came across, this has a lot of good information relating to the various formulas needed. It focuses on the application of the gravitophoton (Gp) for field effect propulsion. If EHT is correct, and Gp exist, well life will be very interesting in the future.

General reasons and motivation (ref. 1 abstract): “The German physicist B. Heim, in the fifties and sixties of the last century developed a unified field theory based on the geometrization principle of Einstein (see below) introducing the concept of a quantized spacetime, but using the equations of GR and introducing QM. This same idea has recently been used in quantum gravity. Heim went beyond general relativity and asked the question: if the effects of the gravitational field can be described by a connection (Christoffel symbols) in spacetime that describes the relative orientation between local coordinate frames in spacetime, can all other forces of nature such as electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force be associated with respective connections or an equivalent metric tensor.”

Quantization of space-time (ref. 1): “Einstein's assumption of a continuous spacetime is not correct. Spacetime must be discrete that means there exists an (elemental) smallest surface and an elemental time, termed metron (roughly Planck length squared) and Planck time. There is no physics below these Planck scales.” Supporting logic is supplied in the reference, with formula (symbols) that would not translate easily to this HTML forum editing / display.

Unified framework, accepted observations, and physical principles (GOD Q, ref. 1): “Any physical theory that wants to describe all physical interactions in a unified framework needs to be based on fundamental, generally accepted observations and the physical principles derived from those. In contrast to Einstein, EHT is based on the following four simple and general principles, termed the GOD Q principle of Nature:

• Geometrization principle for all physical interactions,
• Optimization (Nature employs an extremum principle),
• Dualization (duality, symmetry) principle (Nature dualizes or is asymmetric, bits),
• Quantization principle (Nature uses integers only, discrete quantities).

The conclusions obtained from these four principles are now being discussed.

• The geometrization principle, introduced by Einstein to describe gravity, is extended to give rise to all physical interactions which are described by a so called polymetric. The form of this polymetric tensor is fixed by the relationship of internal symmetry space and Lorentzian spacetime (assumed to be a manifold rather than a flat space). Individual metric tensors, describing physical interactions, are derived from this polymetric. Physical quantities (tensors in general) are connected by a specific geometrical structure, termed affine connections that define parallel transport from one point in space to another.
• The optimization principle (Lagrangian densities). The departure from flat space, i.e., connection coefficients are nonzero (spacetime is a manifold), leads to a principle of least action.
• From the duality principle, the existence of additional internal symmetries in Nature is deduced, and thus a higher dimensional internal symmetry space should exist. The duality principle also determines the relationship of internal symmetry space with Lorentzian four-dimensional spacetime.
• The quantization principle leads to a discrete or quantized spacetime that requires the existence of an elemental surface, termed metron by Heim, which is proportional to the square of the Planck length, and thus explains spacetime as a quantized field, like any other physical field.”

There is a very nice “proof” (ref. 1) of the quantization of space time that is a little longer than I could put here, along with formulas that would not translate due to symbols. However, the paper states the following: “This means that the classical picture of points in a continuous spacetime does not make physical sense. Physics below the Planck units is not possible, since one cannot distinguish between vaccum and matter. No measurements are possible. The nature of spacetime is discrete in the same way as energy is discrete, expressed by E = hv”. The idea that space time is discreet is important, and is also at the basis of other theories like LQG.

Dimensions (12, 6, and 8): HT had originally proposed 12 dimensions, 6 of which were “required” to represent nature. EHT extended the 6 required to 8 due to an error that was discovered (ref. 3): “To be more precise, Heim's theory was extended from 6 to 8-dimensions by the first author and Heim, [7], to obtain the unification of the four known interactions (forces). In this process, it was found that two additional gravitational like interactions should occur, termed the gravitophoton field (attractive and repulsive) and the vacuum field (repulsive, interpreted later on as quintessence) [1, 7]. The dimensional law derived by Heim requires a 12-dimensional space, but the additional four coordinates are needed only in the explanation of the steering of probability amplitudes (information).”

HT description for 6 (ref. 2): “Einstein’s general relativity results in a set of 16 coupled equations (6 of which occur twice). The figure 16 is equal to the square of the number of dimensions. Hence, according to relativity, our world appears to be 4-dimensional (because 16=4²) and consists of 3 real dimensions and one proportional to time. In contrast, Heim finds 36 equations describing the microcosm. Again, this must equal the square of the number of dimensions, so that the microscopic world appears to be at least 6-dimensional. Since there can only one set of laws in nature it must be possible by appropriate transformations to carry the microscopic equations over into the macroscopic world and vice versa. The conclusion, therefore, is that the universe we live in is at least 6-dimensional and not 4-dimensional.”

A different description is supplied from ref. 3: “It should be noted that HQT complements both QT and GR, in explaining the nature of elementary particles as well as their discrete mass spectrum and life times, based on the basis of a quantized geometrodynamics (quantized elemental areas of some 10-70 m2, termed metron by Heim) in a 12 dimensional space (3 real and 9 imaginary coordinates). As shown by Heim the fact that all additional coordinates are imaginary leads to real eigenvalues in the mass spectrum for elementary particles [4, 6]. The idea of geometrization is extended to the sub-atomic range. However, in that case, the Christoffel symbols need to be replaced by real tensor components [5]. Heim derives a dimensional law that restricts the maximum number of dimensions to 12 and requires the existence of subspaces. From the metric of subspace IR6, originally conceived by Heim, the premises of QT cannot be derived, and the quantization principle had to be introduced ad hoc. For instance, Dirac's equations cannot be derived within IR6. However, when the metric in space IR8 is considered, all possible physical interactions are reproduced. The complete space IR12 is needed to explain how probability amplitudes (immaterial) are steering events in spacetime IR4.”

A further description of “what” the different dimensions are or represent was provided in ref. 3: “A Heim space IR12, where the superscript denotes dimension, comprises five subspaces or partial structures that form semantic units. Combining these semantic units by employing certain selection rules a set of so called hermetry forms or partial metric tensors is obtained, forming the poly-metric that represents all physical interactions [2]. Each of the semantic units (or subspaces) has its own metric. There are the subspaces IR3 with real coordinates (x1, x2, x3), T1 with imaginary time coordinate (x4), S2 with imaginary coordinates for organization of structures (x5, x6,), I2 with imaginary coordinates for information (x7, x8), and G4 with imaginary coordinates for steering of probality amplitudes and thus events in IR4 (x9, x10, x11, x12). The space IR12 is comprised of the two spaces IR6 = IR3UT1 US2 and V6 =I2UG4. The concept of energy exists in [6] IR6, while V6 is denoted as immaterial. Considering the space IR8 = IR3 U T1 U S2 U I2, that is omitting the space G4, the theory predicts six fundamental interactions, instead of the four experimentally known ones. These interactions emerge in our spacetime and represent physical fields carrying energy. According to the theory, a transformation of electromagnetic energy into gravitational energy (gravitophoton and quintessence) should be possible”

Metron: see above, and from ref. 2: “Even more significant than the maximum and minimum distances is a third distance relation derived from Heim’s law . In the limit of vanishing mass , i.e. in empty space, a non-vanishing relation can be derived, involving the product of the minimum distance and another small length, known in quantum theory as the Compton wavelength of a given mass. This product of two lengths clearly is an area, measured in square meters (m²). The product exists even when the mass goes to zero and turns out to be composed of natural constants only. It, therefore, is itself a constant of nature. Heim called it a “metron“ and designates it by the symbol t (tau).” The author goes on to give its area, but the short of it is the area is Planks length squared.

Matter: Though this (ref. 2) description is for 6 dimensions, it is illuminating enough to describe what is going on in the theory: “Empty space has been shown to consist of an invisible lattice of metronic cells. One can visualize them as little (6-dimensional) volumes, whose walls are metrons, touching each other and filling all of space. The orientation of the walls in space is important, because Heim shows that it is related to the quantum mechanical concept of spin, but this feature will not be further discussed in the present report. Uniformity of the lattice signifies emptiness. Conversely, if the lattice is locally deformed or distorted, this deformation signifies the presence of something other than emptiness. If the deformation is complicated enough, it might for example, indicate the presence of matter. This implies that there really is not seperate substance of which particles are composed. What we term “matter“ is nothing but a locally confined geometric structure in vacuum. Pure vacuum has the ability of deforming its 6-dimensional lattice structure into geometrical shapes. That portion of it, which extends into the 3-dimensional space of our experience is interpreted by us as matter.” There is a diagram in this reference that provides a visualization analogy to what is being described as the impact of higher dimensional deformity down to a lower dimension impact. Unfortunately I can’t find a copy of the graphic independent of the PDF, or I would add it here.

Protosimplex: though I didn’t find anything in the 3 references provided I provided, it is an important concept. It relates to a combination of deformations of the metronic lattice. It can not exist in isolation so much as interact with other “protosimplex” structures. This combination of protosimplex structures are what give rise to matter. This description from ref 2 may help (some):” The interior of an elementary particle must be viewed as consisting of a number of metronic condensations in various subspaces. The configuration which is projected into our 3-dimensional physical world consists of 4 concentric zones occupied by structural elements. Maxima and minima of these condensations in the sense of Figs.1 and 2 participate in a rapid sequence of periodic, cyclic exchanges. The internal structures undergo continuous modifications during this process until, after a certain short period of time, the original configuration is reestablished. This period is the shortest lifetime a particle possessing mass and inertia can have. In general, a lifetime consists of several such periods. If the initial configuration is not regained after the last period the particle decays. A particle is stable only if its structure always returns to its original form. The subdivision into 4 zones is a consequence of the original trinity of spheres characteriizing the universe during the first instant of its existence. The actual mass and inertia are not a property of the 3-dimensional structures themselves, as might be thought. Instead, they are the secondary result of exchange processes between the 4 internal zones described above. These processes are the actual carriers of mass and inertia. For this reason, Heim’s elementary particles definitely are not composed of subconstituents such as quarks. The inner 3 structural zones are difficult to penetrate, the innermost being almost impenetrable. In scattering experiments they might create the illusion of 3 particles being present in the interior. Emperical predictions that have led to the formation of quark theory can be interpreted by Heim in geometrical terms.”

Cosmology: this is one area that I have not seen a lot of conversation, but which is intriguing. It was alluded to in Protosimplex above, but here (again from ref. 2) is more detail: “In Heim’s theory both the metronic seize t and the largest diameter D depend on the age of the universe. The dependence is such that D is expanding and t is contracting, so that D was smaller in the past and t was larger. It stands to reason that at one time in the distant past the surface area of a sphere of diameter D in our 3-dimensional world was equal to the size of t. This instant marks the origin of the universe and of time. The mathematical relation between D and t is not simple, so that 3 different values of D are found to satisfy the criterion that the area of a sphere of diameter D be equal to t at the beginning of time. Evidently, the universe started as trinity of spheres, whose diameters turn out to be (in meters):

D1 = 0.90992 m, D2 = 1.06426 m, D3 = 3.70121 m.

This trinity of spheres has important bearings on the structure of elementary particles. From the first moment on the univese begun to expand, though at a slower rate than is presently predicted on the basis of the red shift of distant galaxis (see the Appendix). Heim’s theory results in a present age of the universe approximately equal to 5.45 * 10^107 years, and a diameter D of about 6.37 * 10^109 light years. During most of its existence the universe consisted of an empty metronic lattice, whose metrons kept getting smaller as the universe grew larger. Eventually, metrons became small enough for matter to come into existence. This may have occurred some 15-40 billion (10^9) years ago, at which time matter was created throughout the volume of the universe. Hence, according to heim matter did not originate very soon after a “big bang” explosion but more uniformly in scattered “fire-cracker” like bursts, perhaps of galactic proportions. Spontaneous uniform creation of matter, coupled with the partly attractive and partly repulsive force of gravity mentioned in Section 3 resulted in the observed large-scale galactic structure of the universe. Creation of matter continues to this day, though on a very much reduced scale.”

Well, I'll stop with this. Its as small, complete, and understandable as I could make it. I hope it helps, as well as I hope I didn't upset too many with the size of this post.

The wikipedia entry is still there and growing is that what you are telling me?

Nope, you just not able to follow the discussion over more then the three posts into history. We started to discuss the Wikipedia in connection to the Heim's theory because the Heim's theory record here was proposed for deletion again - not because it was deleted.



Can you spot the difference?

Thank you, DEK46656 !!

Within my own limited understanding, you appear to have made a laudable effort in presenting Heim's theory in a rather brief entry.

While Heim's three spheres seem mysterious enough, they are a more consistent representation of our cosmic origin than a Big Bang that entails an unexplainable, yet absolutely necessary, 'inflationary period' to make the universe big enough for present day observations.

It is humbling to consider the mind that produced this work; a prodigy whose near-fatal accident left him without hands and almost no sight or hearing. What amount of will power and survival instinct was needed to come to grips with such conditions AND produce a comprehensive explanation of our universe?!

Wow! Do I feel small, or what?!

Still,... thanks again, DEK46656. We needed that!

By AWT these spheres are the phases of Aether foam with different level of compactification, Whenever you'll compress a cellular object, it will create a nested level of foam in it, i.e. the foam filled by foam, recursively. The number of levels is limited by the geometry laws, though. With increased pressure the inner level of foam gradually dissolve, while new more general levels appears and this process is cyclical. So you cannot never detect many nested levels of Aether at the same time, which leads to rather low number of dimensions observable inside of each Universe generation and the influence of other dimensions can be neglected. By my opinion, from the ratio of energy density in each compactification level it should be possible to estimate the total number of Universe generation and/or the dynamics of Universe compactification.

I find it absolutely astounding as to how I have come to a very similar model to Heims theory of our Universe via a different path to his.. Although I haven't done a complete comparison with my personal model, which BTW has been based mainly on Electronic Theories in its earlier stages..

Having stated this here are some further considerations with respects to Heims Theory and what you have implied..

While the Heim's theory is single man theory, the development of which was effectively interrupted by Heim's death, it can still be heavily improved. The Heim's formula gives perfect agreement with experiments with compare to string theory developer by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists, while it still doesn't supplies NOTHING.

Even the qualitative insights of Heim's theory are much more closer to reality with respect of the AWT model.

Therefore it's evident, with respect of effectiveness (consumption of man-hours per prediction) the Heim's theory clearly wins...

Concerning the results in experimental bounds, the string theorists should be quite quiet, because of total lack of relevant predictions (cosmology constant, ISL violation prediction as an examples).

String theory matches all gravity phenomena, which is better than Heim managed. How many times are you going to be told that before you remember it?