"We measured an acceleration even though the ring's motion hadn't changed at all," says Clovis de Matos, who works at the European Space Agency in Paris and established the theory behind the experiment. He thinks the results could be explained if gravity got a boost inside the superconductor. "Beck and Mackey's gravitationally activated photon would have that effect," he says.
The controversial experiment seemed to fall foul of Einstein's equivalence principle, which states that all objects should accelerate under gravity at the same rate. It implied that "if you have two elevators, one made of normal matter and one made of superconducting matter, and accelerate them by the same amount, objects inside will feel different accelerations", de Matos says. Astronomers may have seen a similar violation of the principle.
The odd acceleration detected in the niobium ring also suggests that energy isn't conserved in the superconductor, another major violation of known physics. Dark energy could solve that problem, however. "We did the sums and found out that energy wasn't conserved, but perhaps that was just because we were missing dark energy," de Matos says.
<br>The whole article is here:
Superconductors inspire quantum test for dark energy
/Joss
Neil Farbstein
26th June 2007 - 06:38 PM
QUOTE (Jossarian+Jun 26 2007, 11:09 AM) See this remark made by Clovis de Matos regarding ESA gravitomagnetic experiments: The whole article is here: Superconductors inspire quantum test for dark energy/Joss I'm unfamilliar with that aspect of Heim theory.
elarne
28th June 2007 - 06:56 AM
In an article of the german magazin "Bild der Wissenschaft" a new proposal is described extending space-time by two dimensions (1 time like and 1 space like). The researchers claimed to be able to explain the interactions between quarks without introducing a new undiscovered particle. I didn't find the original paper, yet. But here is a link to the article. http://www.wissenschaft.de/wissenschaft/news/279719.htmlSounds like other researchers are considering the same ideas as in HT.
Guest
28th June 2007 - 11:57 AM
QUOTE (elarne+Jun 28 2007, 06:56 AM) In an article of the german magazin "Bild der Wissenschaft" a new proposal is described extending space-time by two dimensions (1 time like and 1 space like). The researchers claimed to be able to explain the interactions between quarks without introducing a new undiscovered particle.
I didn't find the original paper, yet. But here is a link to the article.
Sounds like other researchers are considering the same ideas as in HT. <br>"A Two-Time Universe? Physicist Explores How Second Dimension of Time Could Unify Physics Laws" www.physorg.com/news98468776.html "Itzhak Bars: Research Interests" physics1.usc.edu/%7Ebars/research.html#2T There are plenty of 2T articles available with small effort of search.
elarne
28th June 2007 - 01:28 PM
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 28 2007, 11:57 AM)
"A Two-Time Universe? Physicist Explores How Second Dimension of Time Could Unify Physics Laws" www.physorg.com/news98468776.html
"Itzhak Bars: Research Interests" physics1.usc.edu/%7Ebars/research.html#2T
There are plenty of 2T articles available with small effort of search. Thanks. You caught me red handed. After reading the german article I haven't invested much time in searching for an english article - just had a short look at arxiv and co. Here again the link posted by Guest: http://physics1.usc.edu/~bars/research.html#2T
Guest
1st July 2007 - 02:33 AM
In mid-late march this year, the ESA reported an experiment where a superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm seemed to be influenced by a gravity effect. This effect wouldn't be related to Heim's predictions, would it? I am not physics savvy enough to tell the difference.
Jossarian
1st July 2007 - 10:18 PM
QUOTE (Guest+Jul 1 2007, 02:33 AM) In mid-late march this year, the ESA reported an experiment where a superconductor rotating at 6,500 rpm seemed to be influenced by a gravity effect. This effect wouldn't be related to Heim's predictions, would it? I am not physics savvy enough to tell the difference. The Extended Heim Theory successfuly explains gravito-magnetic effect observed during Martin Tajmar experiments. Here are some articles about M.Tajmar work: * Towards a new test of general relativity?* Anti-gravity Effect? Gravitational Equivalent Of A Magnetic Field Measured In LabHere are papers prepared by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser who further developed Heim theories. In this papers authors are claiming that M.Tajmar experiments are a proof of Extended Heim Theory: * Artificial Gravitational Field Generated in the Laboratory?* Spacetime Physics and Advanced Propulsion Concepts* Current Research in Gravito-Electromagnetic Space PropulsionHave a nice reading. /Joss
alice_or_bob
2nd July 2007 - 09:09 PM
Hi,
I was reading some of the LQT stuff before I found HQT and here's my two cent for it.
1. LQT uses spinnetworks as "structure for space"
C.Rovelli's work "Quantum Gravity" Page 242 the path integral of the spinfoam is represented by the wigner 6j symbol.
Ok, I do not know anything at all about that and the wigner 6j symbol is a far end of modern mathematics, can there be a coincidence ?
Spacetime in LQT comes out as tetrahedral "spinform" having 6 (!) vertexes and 4(!) planes
... Heim also used geometry...
2. in "Geometry Eigenvalues and Scalar Product from Recoupling Theory in Loop Quantum Gravity" p.6 (3.9) by Rovelli at al. the length of l0 (l index zero) the length of a spin foam vertex is calculated as 16Pi * (l Planck)^2 .
The question is, what will be the impact on Heim's theory to change the metron size by the factor of 16 pi or vice versa ?
Just some thoughts worthwhile a cup of tea....
Neil Farbstein
3rd July 2007 - 01:54 AM
QUOTE (alice_or_bob+Jul 2 2007, 09:09 PM) Hi,
I was reading some of the LQT stuff before I found HQT and here's my two cent for it.
1. LQT uses spinnetworks as "structure for space"
C.Rovelli's work "Quantum Gravity" Page 242 the path integral of the spinfoam is represented by the wigner 6j symbol.
Ok, I do not know anything at all about that and the wigner 6j symbol is a far end of modern mathematics, can there be a coincidence ?
Spacetime in LQT comes out as tetrahedral "spinform" having 6 (!) vertexes and 4(!) planes
... Heim also used geometry...
2. in "Geometry Eigenvalues and Scalar Product from Recoupling Theory in Loop Quantum Gravity" p.6 (3.9) by Rovelli at al. the length of l0 (l index zero) the length of a spin foam vertex is calculated as 16Pi * (l Planck)^2 .
The question is, what will be the impact on Heim's theory to change the metron size by the factor of 16 pi or vice versa ?
Just some thoughts worthwhile a cup of tea.... Alice will break down into tears as her whole world is torn apart.
Neil Farbstein
5th July 2007 - 04:03 PM
QUOTE (CCMan+Jun 24 2007, 08:38 AM) ORBO tech-you didn't hear it from me, but...
A piston-like device made of a material that is a superconductor. The piston is orb-like. (male) This partially orb-shaped piston sets into a magnetic orb hollow. (female) A brief charge through the piston quickly and easily lifts the orb magnetic piston. Fluid passively pours into the hollow. The charge is released and the very heavy orb piston's gravity crashes back into the hollow forcing the material to eject and allowing energy to be captured.
With particular materials, the charge is relatively small, renewable (even without solar), the cooling easy and the piston is kept going by the capacitor charges from the ejection and the surplus energy of ejecting material is stored for free.
There you are.
Paired Forces are the key to star travel. Last week the phyics .org webpage showed an article on a superconducting jet engine that uses less energy than regular jet engines. Amazing. The jets will make less noise and they'll fly at 3 times the speed of sound and they'll make less pollution.
CCMan
5th July 2007 - 05:35 PM
Thanks Neil, for the superconducting jet engine tip. I'll check it out. On my ORBO tech comment, I was just fooling around, that's not the real method they use. I just hope the stuff works. I'm sure the laws of thermodynamics won't be broken, because if it works, it'll push more physicists to take a look at magnetic energies in a 12 dimensional universe to account for it. CCMan 
bprager
5th July 2007 - 06:03 PM
I hope as well Orbo works. As of now it isn't. The first public display is delayed due to "some technical difficulties". Check it out here: www.astream.com/live/steorn/camera4.html 
Zephir
5th July 2007 - 06:24 PM
QUOTE (bprager+Jul 5 2007, 09:03 PM) I hope as well Orbo works. As of now it isn't. It is rotating indeed, you just cannot see it, because of advanced technology..  
makuabob
6th July 2007 - 03:18 PM
Well?,... Ummm,... Uuuhhh,...  I guess I'll have to 'fess up to a deeper skepticism than I did earlier in this topic. The image of the device (on a wooden floor) was unimpressive enough. It would be waaay too easy to have something beneath it, giving it that little extra umph! needed to make the 'demo' work smoothly. But I have to ask, in all seriousness, why all the opaque stands surrounding the 'device' in the image above? When one is trying to show all comers that the thingy works, I expect all the clear glass and/or Lucite® that can possibly be used! The stands are just too suspicious-looking. And get the device higher off of the floor, or make the floor tranparent,... ceiling, too.
Zephir
6th July 2007 - 03:23 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Jul 6 2007, 06:18 PM) .. why all the opaque stands surrounding the 'device' in the image above?... It seems, the Steorn's people are trying to reinstal their thing. Some motion detection system will be usefull. 
alice_or_bob
6th July 2007 - 06:38 PM
Why not build a ORBO radio or an ORBO mp3 player that plays for ever and sell it a quadrillion times. There is no such thing as a free anergy that "moves" real things.
Over a year is a long time to get this manufactred insted of creating an obscrue device that does not work at high temperatures from lamps as stated in the press relese today.
Maybe with heims theory you can open a channel that lets you transfer energy from one universe to another (the propulsion text states this happens at some 25 Tesla)
The energy you need to generate this high magnetic field will surely be much more than the outcome of energy from the "parallel universe" otherwise the other universe would have already "spilled all its energy into our universe". ok, you never know, maybe you can open a door and all the energy comes in for free..
Then you must say that "the 2 universes" are a closed system and you will find again that no energy can be produced in the sum of 2 universes.
To use free enegy, use a reliable source, the sun. The sun runs a complete ecosystem on this planet for quite a long time with "no input or eta > 1 ;-)".
bprager
6th July 2007 - 07:00 PM
Gracious, according to a recent announcement the entire demo has been canceled. www.steorn.com/news/releases/?id=1001 Quote: "Over the next few weeks the company will explore alternative dates for the public demonstration." 
yor_on
6th July 2007 - 07:16 PM
Ah yes , and i will be there with my newest Gizmo ! Yes folk's, that's the name of my new Holotropic Inverse Engineered ReActive ElectricitySink. And none of their free energy thingies will work as i will steal their energy and download it to my Gizmo... (demented laugh) he he he he he
But first...A...Nap :)
CCMan
7th July 2007 - 12:39 AM
Makuabob, They have put the device inside a clear block on the table if you look closely, so that no connecting devices can be use. The opaque tables, hmmm, I wonder... CCMan
CCMan
7th July 2007 - 12:51 AM
QUOTE technical problems arose during the installation of the demonstration unit in the display case on Wednesday evening. These problems were primarily due to excessive heat from the lighting in the main display area. Attempts to replace those parts affected by the heat led to further failures and as a result we have to postpone the public demonstration until a future date.” If the heat from lighting caused the imbalance of part of the system (heat is energy), there couldn't be many parts that could be affected that easily I would theorize. However, even so, any product so easily disrupted tells me that it is at the very least, unreliable and difficult to work with. CCMan 
Zephir
7th July 2007 - 01:03 AM
QUOTE (CCMan+Jul 7 2007, 03:51 AM) ...any product so easily disrupted tells me that it is at the very least, unreliable and difficult to work with... Of course, it doesn't correspond very much the proclaimed energy output 0.5 W/cm3 of device. Nevertheless, I'd remain patient. The development of some effective energy source is in the interest of the whole society by the same way, like the development of some unitary theory.
Tim
7th July 2007 - 05:21 AM
Seems like Steorn has taken over the thread... Not that I mind terribly seeing as there’s nothing new from Tajmar or Dröscher and Häuser. Wasn’t hdeasy part of Steorn’s SPDC? I know he’s under an NDA, but perhaps he could shed some light on what happened. Apparently another SPDC member (Frank Grimer) had a little bit of a meltdown and posted a bunch of stuff from the SPDC forum into the public forum so a precedent has already been set Anyway, it’s quite a shame. I counted myself as a hopeful skeptic but I think I’m now just a regular skeptic. On one hand you have to admit that things sometimes go wrong despite people’s best intentions and on the other you have so think, “how could Steorn possibly screw up this badly?” They did promise to demo the start/stop version if the continuous version didn’t work and instead we get a webcast of a plexiglas box. Color me unimpressed.
Tim
7th July 2007 - 05:22 AM
Double post. Sorry.
Neil Farbstein
7th July 2007 - 06:40 AM
QUOTE (Zephir+Jul 7 2007, 01:03 AM) Of course, it doesn't correspond very much the proclaimed energy output 0.5 W/cm3 of device. Nevertheless, I'd remain patient. The development of some effective energy source is in the interest of the whole society by the same way, like the development of some unitary theory. My laser fusion and Z machine fusion reactor designs also might help society in the greenhouse world as it is shaping up. It's 116 dgrees in Nevada and wildfires are out of control in the West. Help me find a scientist to review my article!
Zephir
7th July 2007 - 07:42 AM
QUOTE (Tim+Jul 7 2007, 08:21 AM) ...did promise to demo the start/stop version if the continuous version didn’t work and instead we get a webcast of a plexiglas box. Color me unimpressed.. You can still consider it as a sort of modern art perfomance, don't u....? 
alice_or_bob
7th July 2007 - 10:26 AM
Cool trick,
get money from investors, get attention from public and if it does not work, claim it was a piece of art.
CCMan
7th July 2007 - 11:50 AM
Orbo, man I have a love/hate relationship with that stuff. I really hope it has some uses though. It's very good to be wrong ocassionally, sometimes we forget that. On that note of sometimes it's very good to be wrong, Extended Heim Theory (12 dimensional space-time) is continuing to be worked on a great deal and a lot of folks need to be open-minded and be "glad to be wrong" about their physics models. I've been privy enough to know folks are going to waste their energy with anger and ego if they continue to work against EHT. But it's their energy, so long as they don't want help in conserving it, do with it as they wish. I doubt I could help them anyway. 
UncleMatt
7th July 2007 - 12:31 PM
Can we limit the posts in this thread to those related to Heim's Theory please? Its simple enough to start a thread to talk about other topics, so please do so rather than post off topic in this thread.
makuabob
7th July 2007 - 01:06 PM
Say!, you wouldn't happen to be Gobo's Uncle 'Traveling' Matt, would you? Anyway, the Orbo thing edged into the Heim Theory stuff as, if I recall aright, there was a claim it 'tapped into' some of the extra dimensions of EHT to "achieve" its operation. And sadly, as noted above, little new has come out concerning this thread's object. It seems worth noting that as modern scientists expound on the non-Newtonian gravitational force seen by Tajmar et al, the name "Heim" is conspicuously absent. Must NOT mention the elephant in the room. Not polite, at all!
Zephir
7th July 2007 - 04:51 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Jul 7 2007, 04:06 PM) Anyway, the Orbo thing edged into the Heim Theory stuff as, if I recall aright, there was a claim it 'tapped into' some of the extra dimensions of EHT to "achieve" its operation Yep. If the Orbo will be working, then it could serve for the (indirect) confirmation of the gravitomagnetic interaction existence. 
UncleMatt
8th July 2007 - 01:51 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Jul 7 2007, 07:06 AM) Say!, you wouldn't happen to be Gobo's Uncle 'Traveling' Matt, would you? Anyway, the Orbo thing edged into the Heim Theory stuff as, if I recall aright, there was a claim it 'tapped into' some of the extra dimensions of EHT to "achieve" its operation. And sadly, as noted above, little new has come out concerning this thread's object. It seems worth noting that as modern scientists expound on the non-Newtonian gravitational force seen by Tajmar et al, the name "Heim" is conspicuously absent. Must NOT mention the elephant in the room. Not polite, at all! The connection between the "energy machine" that has recently been discussed on this thread has ZERO to do with Heim's theory. The connection is SO tenuous as to be laughable. Whether there has been progress on Heim's theory or not, how is it appropriate to hijack the thread based on that lack of progress and instead discuss things that have nothing to do with the topic?
Zephir
8th July 2007 - 06:19 PM
QUOTE (UncleMatt+Jul 8 2007, 04:51 PM) The connection between the "energy machine" ... has ZERO to do with Heim's theory. The connection is SO tenuous as to be laughable. Frankly, I don't think this. The matter contains high amount of energy, being metastable with contact of the vacuum, but such energy cannot released easily. It's like the piece of wood with contact with atmospheric oxygen or even better the droplet of oil immersed into water, which has certain content of the surface tension energy. How to release such energy? Well, as we know, the surface tension of water decreases with temperature and pressure, the simplest approach is to compress and heat the mixture into so high temperature, the matter will merge with the oil seamlessly. This corresponds a putting of a piece of normal matter into tiny black hole. The vacuum near black hole is heavily compressed by the gravitation, so that the matter dissolves into radiation and the rest of matter will be swallowed by the black hole. Or we can put a piece of ultra-dense, precompressed matter (strangelet, droplet of neutron liquid or similar stuff) into normal matter, where it will initiate a phase transition of that matter into neutron star or black hole. This is nice, but still way is still pretty dangerous, furthermore we are required to have some strangelet and/or black hole. Which we haven't, until some LHC experiment will not finish with catastrophic success. Any ideas? It's completely practical problem - hot to release the energy hidden inside ordinary matter by some safe, controlled way? And at this point the Heim's theory proposes the solution.
alice_or_bob
8th July 2007 - 09:03 PM
Zephir:
What you are talking about is done in a fusion reactor : gain energy directly from mass.
And this is a quite dangerous technology as it emits radiation (neutrons) and uses a plasma in a very instable consition. A stable fusion has not been available for more than a fraction of a second. The input also is very high until you get output.
BTW there exists such a "machine" nearby. It is called the sun and generates a lot of energy....
Back to HQT :
There has been released an article about new particles found in space :
I am not allowed to post a direct link yo you have to search for :
Searching Extra Dimensions in Compact Stars
Authors: G.G. Barnafoldi, P. Levai, B. Lukacs
They claim it is a "virtually charged particle" but it has no "electrical charge"
They try to explain it with an enrolled (string) dimension.
Can that be neutral electrons that Heim predicts ? There exists a formula in this paper for the "charge" of the particle. Does this appear in Heims books ?
Zephir
8th July 2007 - 09:11 PM
QUOTE (alice_or_bob+Jul 9 2007, 12:03 AM) ...What you are talking about is done in a fusion reactor : gain energy directly from mass... I'm talking about much more general concept of gaining of energy - about complete conversion of mass into energy. One of main risk of LHC experiments planned is the formation of dense state of matter, which can swallow the whole Earth and convert it into radiation. At the moment, such possibility is feasible, at least theoretically, we should ask, how such conversion can be done by more feasible way? This corresponds the discussion about cold fusion, not about fusion as such. And just the gravitomagnetic concept of Heim's theory shows us the way, by which such conversion become feasible. Even better, such principle can be even combined with the Heim's gravitomagnetic drive concept. It basically means, it's possible construct the device, which would dissolve it's matter in the proper arrangement of gravitational and magnetic fields under creation of the "anti-gravity" propulsion at the same time. A sort of screw-propeller for vacuum. Such flying saucer would contain no separate fuel at all, only some fast rotating parts, which would dissolve into vacuum gradually under formation of the background independent drag. QUOTE (alice_or_bob+Jul 9 2007, 12:03 AM) ...Searching Extra Dimensions in Compact Stars They claim it is a "virtually charged particle" but it has no "electrical charge" ... This can be a quite possible, such particle will be related to the sterile neutrino. Bellow is the diagram of the Aether motion inside of negatively charged, neutral and positively charged particle. We can see, the neutral motion is sort of metastable arrangement of the motion. You can imagine, you're jumping along some dense urethane mattress. The mattress will undulate like regular toroid in radial direction.      At the moment, your jumps will become too intensive, the inertia of the mattress will be taken into account and the mattress undulations will obtain helicity, i.e. the charge. We can even met with such situation at the case of so called Widnall's instability of vortex rings: at the moment, the motion of vortex ring becomes too intensive, the parasitic vortex rings appears in his structure. This is the consequence of the phase transition of the vortex, i.e. the example of the spontaneous symmetry breaking. We can eliminate the probability of such parasitic undulations by increasing of the environment density, which exactly corresponds the situations, if we place the normal electron in the dense interior of black hole, I mean so dense, the electron will nearly dissolve in it. The double vortex of electron with helicity can change to regularly undulating vortex ring, analogous to the neutral neutrino. As you can see, the AWT can explain many intriguing aspects of Heim's and/or string theories easily on the background of common inertial mechanics.
alice_or_bob
9th July 2007 - 08:28 PM
You talk bullshit!
I am leaving this forum. No science done here !
Zephir
9th July 2007 - 10:09 PM
QUOTE (alice_or_bob+Jul 9 2007, 11:28 PM) I am leaving this forum. No science done here ! Bye, bye...
makuabob
13th July 2007 - 12:44 AM
| QUOTE | Back to HQT :
There has been released an article about new particles found in space :
I am not allowed to post a direct link yo you have to search for :
Searching Extra Dimensions in Compact Stars
Authors: G.G. Barnafoldi, P. Levai, B. Lukacs
They claim it is a "virtually charged particle" but it has no "electrical charge"
They try to explain it with an enrolled (string) dimension.
Can that be neutral electrons that Heim predicts ? There exists a formula in this paper for the "charge" of the particle. Does this appear in Heims books ?
<br>I had a look at this article (it was easy enough to find) and, as best I can understand, it does say that there is a stream (beam?) of neutral particles (apparently NOT neutrons) which obviously have a long life AND interact ready with matter.
I could not find the expected life times of neutral muons but I gather that the muons sensed in the underground detectors are by-products of the un-neutron particles once they've arrived here.
Anyone out there got a candidate from the "orthodox" family of particles?
gdaigle
13th July 2007 - 07:30 PM
FYI, there is a new article published by Clovis Jacinto de Matos in support of Tajmar's work. Title: "Possible Measurable Effects of Dark Energy in Rotating Superconductors": http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1797Also, Tajmar has a "work in progress" that should appear in the proceedings of the Intnl Conf. on General Relativity & Gravitation, going on now: http://www.grg18.com/www/list.html
DEK46656
14th July 2007 - 07:52 PM
OK, so there has been this "neutral particle" that has been an anomaly for years (back into the 80's). According to some information I found "Neutrons can be ruled out because they would decay in transit. X-ray photons and neutrinos have also been ruled out."
This unknown particle decays into a muon, or at least a muon detector is used to determine its existence. All of this implies that it cannot be the "neutral electron" due to the masses involved (muon's having more mass than electrons). Is that assumption correct?
Can anyone in this forum describe how a neutral electron (or any electron) decay into, or cause the production of, a muon? The only thing I remember about muons is related to "muon catalyzed fusion" from some years ago. I seem to recall that the production of muons used alpha particles (helium nucleus) in a particle accelerator.
makuabob
14th July 2007 - 08:26 PM
Says DEK46656,...
| QUOTE | ...According to some information I found "Neutrons can be ruled out because they would decay in transit. X-ray photons and neutrinos have also been ruled out."
This unknown particle decays into a muon, or at least a muon detector is used to determine its existence. All of this implies that it cannot be the "neutral electron" due to the masses involved (muon's having more mass than electrons). Is that assumption correct?
<br>Where did that information come from? Neutrons are extremely unstable alone but are not something that can be influenced by electro-magnetism ("neutron" = neutral one, or something like that) and won't be channeled out the poles of a star.
The article's reference to "muon showers" are those detected in the underground sensor arrays. These muons are byproducts of pions, in turn created when the "mystery" particle interacts (readily) with normal matter (e.g., earth's atmosphere or crust).
From the article:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | ...According to some information I found "Neutrons can be ruled out because they would decay in transit. X-ray photons and neutrinos have also been ruled out."
This unknown particle decays into a muon, or at least a muon detector is used to determine its existence. All of this implies that it cannot be the "neutral electron" due to the masses involved (muon's having more mass than electrons). Is that assumption correct?
<br>Where did that information come from? Neutrons are extremely unstable alone but are not something that can be influenced by electro-magnetism ("neutron" = neutral one, or something like that) and won't be channeled out the poles of a star.
The article's reference to "muon showers" are those detected in the underground sensor arrays. These muons are byproducts of pions, in turn created when the "mystery" particle interacts (readily) with normal matter (e.g., earth's atmosphere or crust).
From the article:
These particle-like objects are named ’cygnets’, and they must have the following properties:
(i) neutral, otherwise the path would be curved by the galactic magnetic field which would have deflected their arrival directions or have randomized it;
(ii) stable or long-lived, otherwise they would decay along their 10 kpc (∼ 30, 000 ly) long way;
(iii) strongly-interacting, since they produce hadron showers including pions, which decay into muons.
<br>Since neutrons can't last that long, and the above fact that a 'beam' of neutrons is unlikely anyway (don't see the Large Hadron Collider using neutrons, do you), the authors of the article dare to suggest that some ungodly thing (beyond our four-dimensional norm) must be occurring in that star.
That's the puzzle here. What neutral particle can be focused by the star's magnetic field and pumped out its pole? They suggest at least one additional dimension is needed to explain the enigma!
DEK46656
14th July 2007 - 09:05 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Jul 14 2007, 04:26 PM) Where did that information come from? Neutrons are extremely unstable alone but are not something that can be influenced by electro-magnetism ("neutron" = neutral one, or something like that) and won't be channeled out the poles of a star. I did a google search with some of the key words from the article and stumbled onto this article: Messengers of a "new physics"It's not exactly "peer review" but it was the closest thing I could find that gave any indication of particle mass of this mysterious neutral particle. I would assume that it between the two particle masses (neutrons and neutrinos) but that isn't actually stated anywhere.
makuabob
14th July 2007 - 09:26 PM
Got it! Thanks for the link. It seems consistent with the Searching Extra Dimensions in Compact Stars article. Wow! Something between a neutrino and a neutron?! Doesn't give them much room, does it? So,... this article means that there have been more pressing scientific issues for the past couple of decades than learning if the physics that is currently in use is WRONG? What could be more important than learning "Everything You Know is Wrong?!" (Apologies to The Firesign Theater.) Oh,.. Wait!,... Funding! That's waaaaay more important!
DEK46656
19th July 2007 - 04:02 AM
OK, the idea that there is an unexplained neutral particle, and it might "support" Heim theory (note: might, not does), has led me to think about other "things" that either need to be explained via Heim Theory, or could be supported by Heim theory. As an example, the expansion of the universe is supported by Heim Theory mathematical discovery of Qq (Quiescence). However, does it address things like the spiral galaxy paradox (the "arms" should be trailing more than they do)? This whole train of thought was started with this recent article on the Bose-Einstein condensate which made me wondering if Heim theory can account for / predict this state of matter. The article has some interesting observations (measurements) that would be intriguing to see addressed. I also came across this article with the statement "we don't understand the vacuum", which was called Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy. This had some discussion about the Higgs field and Higgs boson. The first two paragraphs are what I found enlightening... | QUOTE | The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor of physics at Boston University at the EPL symposium, “Physics In Our Times” held today (10 May) at the Fondation Del Duca de l’Institut de France, Paris.
“As it turns out, the vacuum is not empty - there is a difference between the vacuum and nothingness,” he stated. “Surprisingly, of all known ‘substances’, the vacuum is the least well understood.”
This in turn reminded me of a comment made by Zephir. First a disclaimer; I'm not for or against AWT, I don't know enough to argue one way or the other. I think he tries to "sell" it too much, but that doesn't take away from one idea / statement he made in this thread back in June.
Anyway, he was being "chased" by AlphaNumeric (and others) across the forums and it spilled over into this thread. His statement was…
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor of physics at Boston University at the EPL symposium, “Physics In Our Times” held today (10 May) at the Fondation Del Duca de l’Institut de France, Paris.
“As it turns out, the vacuum is not empty - there is a difference between the vacuum and nothingness,” he stated. “Surprisingly, of all known ‘substances’, the vacuum is the least well understood.”
This in turn reminded me of a comment made by Zephir. First a disclaimer; I'm not for or against AWT, I don't know enough to argue one way or the other. I think he tries to "sell" it too much, but that doesn't take away from one idea / statement he made in this thread back in June.
Anyway, he was being "chased" by AlphaNumeric (and others) across the forums and it spilled over into this thread. His statement was…
By my humble opinion, the fundamental problem of string theory with compare to Heim's one is, it has not developed the model of vacuum structure, being observable matter centered.
The phrase “vacuum structure” was what caught my eye at the time, and ties right into the link about "Is vacuum empty" (and the corresponding quote / story) I provided.
So, with all of that said, can Heim Theory address these areas (vacuum structure, Quiescence / expansion of the universe, and possibly Bose-Einstein condensate) that are either "weak" or relatively new in the existing theories of "fundamental physics"?
Offering insights or predictions in these areas would go a long way to sway the main stream physicist in to consider Heim Theory.
Cheers...
Nick
19th July 2007 - 04:28 AM
Vacuum structure?
The structure of space as matter.
Mitch Raemsch -- Light Love --
Laidback
19th July 2007 - 11:30 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 19 2007, 02:02 PM) OK, the idea that there is an unexplained neutral particle, and it might "support" Heim theory (note: might, not does), has led me to think about other "things" that either need to be explained via Heim Theory, or could be supported by Heim theory.
As an example, the expansion of the universe is supported by Heim Theory mathematical discovery of Qq (Quiescence). However, does it address things like the spiral galaxy paradox (the "arms" should be trailing more than they do)?
Hi DEK46656, First let me express that my reasoning has me convinced the Universe is NOT expanding... This reasoning is based on the fact that Energy can NOT be destroyed nor created!.. And should we ever be able to come up with a method of summing up all of the universes Energy then that sum simply can not change.. With an expanding Universe and whats more the inference to it accelerating I think may have to do with the fact of our local area is actually being compressed whilst the rest of the Universe is responsible for this compression as it expands... This leaves the problem if one area of the Universe is measured with Red-Shift then obviously if we are being compressed, obviously we should be able to measure Blue-Shifting in some direction.. Alarmingly the core of every galaxy there is a massive collection of mass that is highly compressed! A BLACK-HOLE! could this be our compression point, which is also the cause for all mass to infer gravitational velocities.. Where all velocities that meet from all directions cancel each other out resulting in one mother of a Space-Time compression( denser mass), and it was this phenomenon that led me to reason what and how the various densities of mass was possible.. Is mass really the result from two or more meeting velocities? Well its pretty hard to let go of such a simple concept that ties in Relativity with Potential Kinetic energy... where the meeting velocities is the kinetic energy, that to the rest of the universe seems the two velocities cancel each other out as they remain to each other unchanged, A storage or a Potential Kinetic Energy source if you will.. it then struck me isn't that what mass is? Potential Kinetic Energy? If we now apply meeting velocities to an area wouldn't that area exude as a particle? My model of the Atom has the proton as a compressed area fully surrounded by much the same where in a realistic ideal simply consists of inbound velocities that are opposed by the outbound velocities that maintain the area with compression.. QUOTE I also came across this article with the statement "we don't understand the vacuum", which was called Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy. This had some discussion about the Higgs field and Higgs boson. The first two paragraphs are what I found enlightening... If we consider all that is possible to consist with a quanta of energy, a void and or vacuum simply can never be.. If you research as to what space is, you should find that space is at best Near Void and or Near vacuum, had space been a pure void then the electromagnetic spectrum could never be utilized for our Red/Blue-Shift measurements.. QUOTE (-> If we consider all that is possible to consist with a quanta of energy, a void and or vacuum simply can never be..
If you research as to what space is, you should find that space is at best Near Void and or Near vacuum, had space been a pure void then the electromagnetic spectrum could never be utilized for our Red/Blue-Shift measurements..The phrase “vacuum structure” was what caught my eye at the time, and ties right into the link about "Is vacuum empty" (and the corresponding quote / story) I provided |
.
NO! As I already stated Space is NOT void, if it were void we would not be able to see other Stars and Galaxies..
Our whole Universe is a single mass with various densities and although space seems to consist with no relative force and or velocities, it is drenched with forces, that are merely out of detectors ranges by either being beyond "c" or with a change that may take billions and billions of light years to be evident.
There is nothing mysterious about physics if one learns the basics on force and motion.
Know the above and it will become easy to disprove and or prove any theory..
Having said this I recommend everyone forget about Particle Theory! and instead research into Electronics and in-particular its field theories if you really want to undertsand our universe and its mass...
Cheers,
Peter J Sc????.
DEK46656
20th July 2007 - 02:42 AM
As analogy to my statement on AWT; Laidback, I'm not for or against other theories. I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate the merits or shortcomings. However  how do you explain something like photon entanglement with your opposing vector forces? My interest have been related to the possibility that Heim Theory works. If it is proven as such, great! If not, I'll be disappointed but accepting. What I consider to be one of the most important things about the theory isn't just in what it states, but also in the approach it took to come to its conclusions. Let me expand on this statement. As I understand the histories of the great discoveries of Quantum Mechanics and Special / General Relativity, almost everyone went the QM route. Hardly anyone followed Einstein and his works. His theories have stood the test of time, and proven themselves repeatedly against experimentation. Rolling forward through history, all the efforts to unify these two working models/theories have been from the QM side, trying to make QM explain what SR/GR demonstrates. No one attempted to take Einsteins works and go the other route (other than Einstein himself). That is what I would consider the tragic mistake of modern physics; only attempting to address the unification problem from the QM side. Along comes this nearly blind, nearly deaf, amputee from Germany that decides to attempt a solution from SR/GR. He develops great insights, intriguing approaches, and a very sound theory with supporting material (Mathematics). Whether his theory is right or wrong, the approach itself is deserving of serious consideration. The fact that he seems to sit in isolation on that side of the effort is just sad. There should have been just as many physicist working on the solution from that side (Einstein / Relativity) as there were on the QM side.
Fien
20th July 2007 - 05:43 PM
^^ Here Here!
bprager
24th July 2007 - 06:30 PM
Wasn't Martin Tajmar supposed to present new (or more detailed) results from his experiments at the Gravitational Wave Conference in Sydney this month? Has anybody heard any more details?
Zephir
24th July 2007 - 06:46 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 20 2007, 05:42 AM) My interest have been related to the possibility that Heim Theory works. If it is proven as such, great! The validity of Heim's theory was proven already. It enables to compute many properties of the whole spectrum of elementary particles with amazing precision, incomparable with any other theory. Even the conceptual agreement with AWT is very good, because the Heim's protosimplex model is rather close to the dynamic foam model of AWT.    QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 20 2007, 05:42 AM) No one attempted to take Einsteins works and go the other route (other than Einstein himself) The fact, you're don't know about it doesn't mean, such routes doesn't exist at all. In fact, they're many. For example, the Wheeler's or Yilmaz's gravity theory are good extrapolations of Einstein's field theory, based on it.
gdaigle
24th July 2007 - 07:03 PM
bprager, Proceedings from the conference are now available for AUD$85.00. Not sure if Tajmar's July 10 talk on "SEARCH FOR FRAME-DRAGGING IN THE VICINITY OF SPINNING SUPERCONDUCTORS" is included, though.
Laidback
25th July 2007 - 05:37 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 20 2007, 12:42 PM) As analogy to my statement on AWT; Laidback, I'm not for or against other theories. I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate the merits or shortcomings. However how do you explain something like photon entanglement with your opposing vector forces? My interest have been related to the possibility that Heim Theory works. If it is proven as such, great! If not, I'll be disappointed but accepting. What I consider to be one of the most important things about the theory isn't just in what it states, but also in the approach it took to come to its conclusions. Let me expand on this statement. As I understand the histories of the great discoveries of Quantum Mechanics and Special / General Relativity, almost everyone went the QM route. Hardly anyone followed Einstein and his works. His theories have stood the test of time, and proven themselves repeatedly against experimentation. Rolling forward through history, all the efforts to unify these two working models/theories have been from the QM side, trying to make QM explain what SR/GR demonstrates. No one attempted to take Einsteins works and go the other route (other than Einstein himself). That is what I would consider the tragic mistake of modern physics; only attempting to address the unification problem from the QM side. Along comes this nearly blind, nearly deaf, amputee from Germany that decides to attempt a solution from SR/GR. He develops great insights, intriguing approaches, and a very sound theory with supporting material (Mathematics). Whether his theory is right or wrong, the approach itself is deserving of serious consideration. The fact that he seems to sit in isolation on that side of the effort is just sad. There should have been just as many physicist working on the solution from that side (Einstein / Relativity) as there were on the QM side. The only problem I have with the Burkard Heim Particle structure is I don't know the details and or allowances that are made for the greater environment.. I refer to beyond the particles implied structure and where it meets with the rest of the universe! In particular I am referring to the area between one particle to the next? And what makes this area even possible? I mean what velocities can we assign and how do they correlate with the particles velocities? A Universe consisting of REAL Particles just doesn't work for me because it doesn't detail the areas that don't consist as part of a particle, so its just as well there is a model out there that doest rely on a Universe existing with a particle like structure!
CCMan
25th July 2007 - 07:20 AM
Metronhead, I might be remembering wrong, but in Heim theory, I believe that the distance in space where gravity is predicted to be zero (it's polar in Heim theory) is much greater than 10 to the 8th (lightyears) So I'm not sure Heim theory assumes gravitation is sufficiently weakened for that to be the major player. I thought it was the virtual particles in vaccum that added up to the extra effective mass, like the Dark Matter theory of holding the galactic rotation sufficiently together. I thought I saw that 10 to the 150th (lightyears) was the polarizing point of gravity, but I never saw where gravity is significantly weakend to have effects in galaxies. If you have a citation, let me know, I certainly could use the information. Thanks CCMan 
Zephir
25th July 2007 - 08:01 AM
QUOTE (Laidback+Jul 25 2007, 08:37 AM) ...a Universe consisting of REAL Particles just doesn't work for me because it doesn't detail the areas that don't consist as part of a particle... The Aether appears as an inhomogeneous continuum. Even the real particles consist from sparse grainy blobs, which are formed by younger compacted blobs like protozoa cells full of eggs, recursively.  
Zarabtul
26th July 2007 - 08:35 PM
death for one fall... EOD
Neil Farbstein
26th July 2007 - 08:44 PM
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Jul 26 2007, 08:35 PM) death for one fall... EOD What the hell is EOD? Is that that about the Scottsboro boys? END THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!
Laidback
27th July 2007 - 12:37 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Jul 20 2007, 12:42 PM) how do you explain something like photon entanglement with your opposing vector forces? I meant to comment on this earlier, But I damn well run out of time.. Anyway.. Here is my answer.. Why would I have to explain something that does NOT get a reference in the models that are referred to in the design of any Electronic equipment, And that INCLUDES the electronics for the "LHC" including its DETECTORS!, and what about the Electromagnetic fields utilized for the guidance of the compressed electromagnetic fields (particles) into each other.. surely you are aware if the implied compressed fields (particles) are influenced by an electromagnetic field then it must exist with the same forces as the fields being utilized? Imagine the details? The velocities! Note how Particles need not be referred to by me, but rather I have referred to the areas as compressed electromagnetic fields, whilst Physicists reason they are particles and whats more they reason that the areas that imply a particle is moved - Electronic Engineers in the design of an electron accelerator see it differently! They see the compression (particles) resulting from meeting velocities is what is shifted via the introduction of other velocities, and the only way to understand this clearly is when one needs to apply all of the fields to Newtons Laws on force and motion and to the dynamics of what is REALLY happening in the electromagnetic field, the same goes to how detection was possible! At first the advanced electronic models may seem very alien, because Basic electronics does refer to the electron area as some particle, but in advanced Electronics the Protons, Electrons and Neutrons are all treated only as theoretical particles via calculus, and whats more The atom also is only theoretical, in fact the model for our Atom will in the future be totally different once the Universities catch up to the Industries current models that consider the velocities that imply the electromagnetic force, which unfortunately have been kept under lock and key because of the huge advantages it holds over the competition who may still be referring to old models infected with outdated QM and QED's uncertainties. Its not until one needs to take a long hard look from another angle as to how an Electromagnetic wave is possible - Where one has had to sit down and insists basic Physical laws MUST be complied to, after all - Oceanic waves comply to Newtons Laws, so why treat an electromagnetic wave that is experienced in a field (mass) {as in The Universes Mass} any differently? Near vacuum simply is not a void! it is MASS! ALBEIT UNCOMPRESSED MASS or better implied as an uncompressed Electromagnetic area in a Field.. | QUOTE | The fact that he seems to sit in isolation on that side of the effort is just sad. There should have been just as many physicist working on the solution from that side (Einstein / Relativity) as there were on the QM side.
<br>Peer pressure is a powerful force, but REALITY OF TRUTH will win the day!
Its been a long, long time since I was introduced to QM and QED, and I should point out the calculus that implies to Particles is useless if one is not mind-full the quanta we work with is bound to theoretical boundaries.
Let me guess "THE STANDARD MODEL" is based much on QM and QED with out any referral to those boundaries?
Unfortunately some of QM and QED theory consider models that are based on a universe which can consist of nothing to be something, (I refer to those voids between the theoretical particles)
So let me avail a clue to those who advocate to Particles being a reality..
Get a pen and piece of paper and depict two of your theoretical particles, any two of "The standard Model"
Now consider two dimenmsionally how they in reality would imply the suggested strong and or weak forces, and in-particular consider the velocities that imply ones force for its structure which is to interact with the rest of the Universes Forces and or the velocities that imply those forces..
Also keep in mind they may have to conform to the greater environment as in whether it exists as part of a Near Vacuum, Gas, Liquid or Solid!
Here's another consideration and clue why particles simply don't work!
When we have two area's with different pressures and or potentials and they are exposed to each other what happens?
Now apply this reasoning to your Particles Forces and or structures with a void surrounding it?..
 Mwhuh~ha hu<choke~hack~Choke!>ah~hem  so how are those implied pure voids between particles possible? what forces are we referring to for this?
Err~ I hope I have availed much insight and considerations so ones own models may take on a REALITY that is not infected with magic and or deceptive religious like concepts and or constructs..
Cheers all..
yours,
Peter J Schoen.
Jossarian
27th July 2007 - 10:04 AM
--- Double Posting. Removed ---
Jossarian
27th July 2007 - 10:08 AM
Hi all, Some good news finally. M.Tajmar has published brand new article " Search for Frame-Dragging in the Vicinity of Spinning Superconductors" two days ago (25 July). What is really good in that? It's the first time when Tajmar references Dröscher/Häuser in his own article. I've got one question. The referenced article is: Dröscher, W., and Hauser J., "Advanced Propulsion Systems from Artificial Acceleration Fields," 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cincinnati, OH, July 8-11, AIAA-2007-5595, 2007. Anyone knows when I can find this paper? /Joss
1-Curioso
27th July 2007 - 04:54 PM
Jossarian This is the URL for the paper itself http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=5%3A7...A%40WP%20%20%0AThis is where I found it, look for 'Hauser' http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...teGet=09-Jul-07and if all that fails, email me. I have downloaded and will send to you.
hdeasy
27th July 2007 - 05:18 PM
QUOTE (1-Curioso+Jul 27 2007, 04:54 PM) Jossarian This is the URL for the paper itself http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=5%3A7...A%40WP%20%20%0AThis is where I found it, look for 'Hauser' http://www.aiaa.org/agenda.cfm?lumeetingid...teGet=09-Jul-07and if all that fails, email me. I have downloaded and will send to you. The first page is available here: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC07_...PV2007_5595.pdfWow! I am just back from holidays without internet access - this is a very pleasant surprise: Tajmar has referred to Droscher & Hauser's theory as well as his own heavy graviton idea as possible theoretical explanations. This is a major advance - a reference in a possibly key paper in modern physics. Things are moving finally! Thanks Jossarian for the alert! HD
Laidback
27th July 2007 - 11:00 PM
QUOTE ((DEK46656 @ Jul 20 2007+ 12:42 PM))
How do you explain something like photon entanglement with your opposing vector forces? <br>Just in case any one missed reading the below, let me repeat it.. I meant to comment on this earlier, But I damn well run out of time.. Anyway.. Here is my answer.. Why would I have to explain something that does NOT get a reference in the models that are referred to in the design of any Electronic equipment, And that INCLUDES the electronics for the "LHC" including its DETECTORS!, and what about the Electromagnetic fields utilized for the guidance of the compressed electromagnetic fields (particles) into each other.. surely you are aware if the implied compressed fields (particles) are influenced by an electromagnetic field then it must exist with the same forces as the fields being utilized? Imagine the details? The velocities! Note how Particles need not be referred to by me, but rather I have referred to the areas as compressed electromagnetic fields, whilst Physicists reason they are particles and whats more they reason that the areas that imply a particle is moved - Electronic Engineers in the design of an electron accelerator see it differently! They see the compression (particles) resulting from meeting velocities is what is shifted via the introduction of other velocities, and the only way to understand this clearly is when one needs to apply all of the fields to Newtons Laws on force and motion and to the dynamics of what is REALLY happening in the electromagnetic field, the same goes to how detection was possible! At first the advanced electronic models may seem very alien, because Basic electronics does refer to the electron area as some particle, but in advanced Electronics the Protons, Electrons and Neutrons are all treated only as theoretical particles via calculus, and whats more The atom also is only theoretical, in fact the model for our Atom will in the future be totally different once the Universities catch up to the Industries current models that consider the velocities that imply the electromagnetic force, which unfortunately have been kept under lock and key because of the huge advantages it holds over the competition who may still be referring to old models infected with outdated QM and QED's uncertainties. Its not until one needs to take a long hard look from another angle as to how an Electromagnetic wave is possible - Where one has had to sit down and insists basic Physical laws MUST be complied to, after all - Oceanic waves comply to Newtons Laws, so why treat an electromagnetic wave that is experienced in a field (mass) {as in The Universes Mass} any differently? Near vacuum simply is not a void! it is MASS! ALBEIT UNCOMPRESSED MASS or better implied as an uncompressed Electromagnetic area in a Field.. | QUOTE | The fact that he seems to sit in isolation on that side of the effort is just sad. There should have been just as many physicist working on the solution from that side (Einstein / Relativity) as there were on the QM side.
<br>
Peer pressure is a powerful force, but REALITY OF TRUTH will win the day!
Its been a long, long time since I was introduced to QM and QED, and I should point out the calculus that implies to Particles is useless if one is not mind-full the quanta we work with is bound to theoretical boundaries.
Let me guess "THE STANDARD MODEL" is based much on QM and QED with out any referral to those boundaries?
Unfortunately some of QM and QED theory consider models that are based on a universe which can consist of nothing to be something, (I refer to those voids between the theoretical particles)
So let me avail a clue to those who advocate to Particles being a reality..
Get a pen and piece of paper and depict two of your theoretical particles, any two of "The standard Model"
Now consider two dimenmsionally how they in reality would imply the suggested strong and or weak forces, and in-particular consider the velocities that imply ones force for its structure which is to interact with the rest of the Universes Forces and or the velocities that imply those forces..
Also keep in mind they may have to conform to the greater environment as in whether it exists as part of a Near Vacuum, Gas, Liquid or Solid!
Here's another consideration and clue why particles simply don't work!
When we have two area's with different pressures and or potentials and they are exposed to each other what happens?
Now apply this reasoning to your Particles Forces and or structures with a void surrounding it?..
Mwhuh~ha hu<choke~hack~Choke!>ah~hem so how are those implied pure voids between particles possible? what forces are we referring to for this?
Err~ I hope I have availed much insight and considerations so ones own models may take on a REALITY that is not infected with magic and or deceptive religious like concepts and or constructs..
Cheers all..
yours,
Peter J Schoen.
hdeasy
28th July 2007 - 10:05 AM
Yes, those are all exciting features of the latest Tajmar et al. paper:
* The Canterbury group was the first - Berkeley will no doubt follow shortly as will others. Then the snowball effect will be well and truly underway.
* The lack of direct proportionality to the Cooper pair density is puzzling - and the also the fact that the effect kicks in just before the critical temperature for superconductivity. This may or may not pose a problem for the EHT explanation, though I think not as the effect must be proportional to some combination of the Cooper pair and normal conduction electron density - i.e. the order of magnitude is right and the correction may even push the EHT prediction nearer to the observed value. Note that the kicking in just before the critical temperature for superconductivity supports the idea that normal electrons play a role together with the cooper pairs. There is much work to be done to analyse this effect.
* The parity breaking effect is also 'crazy' - as if the effect is rebounding off the local gravity and Earth rotation fields. It may mean some sort of feedback. Note that this is all for the tangiential artificial gravity. The fun could start with the attempt to get a vertical field as desribed in Droscher & Hauser's paper - let's hope that the effect then works in the upwards direction, with downwards push being suppressed!
* Since this is a crucial publication, of course Tajmar has to evince a note of caution - hence the comment 'If the frame dragging-like signals are confirmed, their explanation must be sought outside of general relativity'. They have essentially confirmed it in Canterbury - of course Berkely will be another feather in their cap.
Exciting times!
Hugh
hdeasy
28th July 2007 - 10:27 AM
Ahhh... The Canterbury group is more cautious - Tajmar saw a dip in their data similar to that in his but noisier. Like in his tests, parity was violated. But the Canterbury group say they saw no effect - almost certainly erring on the side of caution in their noisy data. See http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~physrin...ragging2007.pdfIt could be that the effect is harder to measure in larger superconductors - the vibratons may be larger etc. So if the effect is to be used, it might be better with an array of smaller - even nano- magnets instead of one big one.
makuabob
28th July 2007 - 07:57 PM
I have read Tajmar's newest paper (thanks, Jossarian, for the heads-up!) and looked through the Canterbury paper. Ummmm,... Did I just hear a bubble pop? I think Tajmar is saying his original findings were artifacts,... but now he's found something different. This one is probably real---if totally unexpected and rather puzzling! (And, I AM on his side!) However, his 'rings' were spinning at about double that of the old LP (Long Playing, not Low Pressure!) record albums. (You recall,... vinyl disc, mechanical pick-up, analog amplification.) So, Tajmar gets an effect (a confusing effect, but an effect) in his laser accelerometers ONLY in the clockwise direction! The Canterbury folk used a more sensitive laser accelerometer and spun their superconducting lead cylinder about 25x faster than said LP above, and say they got nothing! (Admittedly, it LOOKS like there is something there,.. but not much considering their superconductor was more massive and spinning way faster.) So where in the hell does that leave us? 
hdeasy
29th July 2007 - 09:38 AM
Hi Makuabob,
Yes, it is a strange new development - the clockwise-only and the smaller Canterbury result. One thing different to the Austrian setup was that their system was bigger, more powerful. It is too early to say, but the effect might be paradoxical not only in its parity breaking but in its size dependence. The law of diminishing returns might set in above a certain magnet size. A lot more testing has to be done, maybe scaling up gradually in size and rotation rate so as to build up a database over the relevant parameter space and thus identify the optimum - there might be a specific parameter range for which the effect occurs. The fact that the Canterbury result showed a ghostly reproduciton of Tajmar's results but almost washed out by noise is an indicator that the effect is real but does not, as Tajmar et al. say in their latest paper, scale simply with carrier density. Maybe it also scales non-linearly in even total boson and/or fermion conductor number.
Hey! Another thought - as the effect reverses in southern hemisphere, maybe the assymetry goes further and the effect is always weaker down south, due to the gravitational anomaly in the southern oceans experienced by satellites or some other such lattitude dependent factor. Wouldn't it be funny if the best place to launch a spaceship was found to be the North Pole? Opposite of the old preference of the equator for chemical rockets.
So you see, we are still at early days in interpreting the results. Hopefully the Berkeley or other results will fill in another region of the parameter space to be explored.
TRoc
29th July 2007 - 06:31 PM
Hi all,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record:
It is Resonance.
You can not increase a parameter by 25x, and stay within the "interaction zone".
Hugh is right in saying "..not only in its parity breaking but in its size dependence.." , and "..maybe scaling up gradually in size and rotation rate so as to build up a database over the relevant parameter space and thus identify the optimum - there might be a specific parameter range for which the effect occurs.." .
The specific parameter range needs to accommodate the "octave" (2x) as the dominant function. Such general terms as "size" and "rate" are obviously analogous to "space and time", or "frequency and wavelength", both of which have a very specific, and constant ratio or relationship to each other, and our measured constant velocity of the exchange.
Limits are very necessary in "practical" mathematics.
As we (the Scientific World) close in on determining the "frequency" of the "graviton", we will be able to eliminate this trial and error approach.
regards,
T.Roc
Laidback
30th July 2007 - 01:04 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 30 2007, 04:31 AM) Hi all,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record:
It is Resonance.
You can not increase a parameter by 25x, and stay within the "interaction zone".
Hugh is right in saying "..not only in its parity breaking but in its size dependence.." , and "..maybe scaling up gradually in size and rotation rate so as to build up a database over the relevant parameter space and thus identify the optimum - there might be a specific parameter range for which the effect occurs.." .
The specific parameter range needs to accommodate the "octave" (2x) as the dominant function. Such general terms as "size" and "rate" are obviously analogous to "space and time", or "frequency and wavelength", both of which have a very specific, and constant ratio or relationship to each other, and our measured constant velocity of the exchange.
Limits are very necessary in "practical" mathematics.
As we (the Scientific World) close in on determining the "frequency" of the "graviton", we will be able to eliminate this trial and error approach.
regards,
T.Roc I have a real simply question, which should be very easy to answer.. when you refer to the graviton, what forces -?! Or better yet! What velocities should I consider for it structure? And how do these velocities correlate with the rest of the universe? Perhaps I should advise everyone here I don't rely on the out dated University Model known as "The Standard Model" but rather a Model that is kept under lock and key because of its massive advantage over ones competition in the Electronics Industry who may still be referring to the out dated Universities models... Its time this advanced model is known to all.. Its going to be difficult without breaking my contract, but I reckon there are enough bright sparks here to work it out... So how about it? Can anyone explain Gravity with respects to REAL forces via velocities rather than just to a theoretical quanta elaborated and postulated as a Particle (graviton) implying Gravity? Look ~ Let me save you all decades of work and suggest you wont be able to, because the graviton does not conform to REAL physics, yes indeed I agree a graviton may work theoretically but not in reality especially if we are forced to consider beyond its theoretical boundaries! Besides, General and Special theory can point that out anyway!.. Any~Ho, have fun working it all out... And if anyone still advocates to theoretical particles as if they are real, keep in mind ALL Physics {Forces} {Velocities} {Calculus} MUST adhere to Newtons Laws on Force and Motion, including those theoretical particles that are implied as real! No ifs! and No buts!, if any one here is always mindful of this crucial key, they too will gain access to a powerful tool leading to the most accurate model one could ever need.. Massive Profits and success to you all!... Peter J Schoen.
TRoc
30th July 2007 - 02:36 AM
LB,
When I said {determining the "frequency" of the "graviton"}, the quotes were meant to stave off questions such as yours.. sorry. I don't buy it (graviton as a particle) either, so let me qualify/restate that part of my post:
..when we learn to measure the "subtle" (as in NOT huge shock waves) interaction of matter and matter called gravity, with the same accuracy that we are now doing with the interaction of light and matter, then "tuning into that resonance" should be academic.
I do agree that "velocity" will play an important role in this.
regards,
T.Roc
Neil Farbstein
30th July 2007 - 03:09 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 30 2007, 02:36 AM) LB,
When I said {determining the "frequency" of the "graviton"}, the quotes were meant to stave off questions such as yours.. sorry. I don't buy it (graviton as a particle) either, so let me qualify/restate that part of my post:
..when we learn to measure the "subtle" (as in NOT huge shock waves) interaction of matter and matter called gravity, with the same accuracy that we are now doing with the interaction of light and matter, then "tuning into that resonance" should be academic.
I do agree that "velocity" will play an important role in this.
regards,
T.Roc who invented grasvitons?
Laidback
30th July 2007 - 04:17 AM
QUOTE (TRoc+Jul 30 2007, 12:36 PM) LB,
When I said {determining the "frequency" of the "graviton"}, the quotes were meant to stave off questions such as yours.. sorry. I don't buy it (graviton as a particle) either, so let me qualify/restate that part of my post:
..when we learn to measure the "subtle" (as in NOT huge shock waves) interaction of matter and matter called gravity, with the same accuracy that we are now doing with the interaction of light and matter, then "tuning into that resonance" should be academic.
I do agree that "velocity" will play an important role in this.
regards,
T.Roc Ewps < one kick arz Red face> Sorry about that TRoc, I guess I should have stated "when any one refers to the Graviton" kin ya 4 giv me?
hdeasy
30th July 2007 - 01:43 PM
Now, in EHT as is made clear in Droscher & Hauser’s latest paper, there are 3 species of gravitational messenger particles, which are collectively called ‘gravions’ – the normal graviton, the gravito-photon(s) and the quintessence-gravion.
Note that the particle picture comes from a geometrical one in terms of sub-spaces, so it is not that the particles are the point like ping-pong exchange particles of the standard model. They are more distortions in multidimensional subspaces corresponding to the relevant force. Recalling that the Heim extra or trans- dimensions are all time-like, we see that sub-spaces are more correctly thought of as sub-spacetimes: the terms hermetry and poymetric are used instead.
Hey - while I'm brain-storming on this: we know that the gravito-photons come in 2 species - attractive and repulsive. But the Heim propulsion idea all along was based on the fact that the attractive gravito-photon was very weakly interacting with matter whilst the repulsive one had a stronger cross-section. What if the clockwise motion preferentially produces the repulsive and anti-clockwise the attractive - this could explain the assymetry in effect sizes.
elarne
30th July 2007 - 03:36 PM
Did anyone read the description of the experimental facility of the Canterbury group carefully, particularly with regard to differences to Tajmar's experiment?
Correct me if I'm wrong!
1) The Canterbury team used lead as superconductor, this means - Tajmar already stated - 84% in comparison to niob.
2) Tajmar is able to screen superconductivity. For this he used a magnetic coil combined with hall sensors on the other side of the ring.
3) The sensors are placed much closer in Tajmar's experimental setup.
4) A very important difference: The effect only occurs, according to Tajmar, during angular acceleration of the ring. The Canterbury group is measuring at constant angular speeds. They are actually filtering the data via low-pass filtering (see quotation). This means, they zero out all frequencies higher than 33.3s-1. But what about acceleration period?
| QUOTE | In presenting our final result these effects have been filtered out using
a zero phase delay (see Gustafsson 1996 [16]) 3rd order Butterworth low-pass
digital filter with an upper passband frequency of 33.3 mHz (30 s period).
Finally, the frequency deviation and its standard error have been calculated
over each 30 s period.
<br>What they try to measure is the "classical" frame dragging effect. I think, this explains why they are not able to reproduce the effect observed by Tajmar, doesn't it?
Tim
30th July 2007 - 03:56 PM
@elarne
You beat me to it. I was just skimming through both articles and trying to compare the experimental setups...
Tajmar setup:
Niobium
OD 150 mm - WT 6 mm - H 15 mm
Aluminum
OD 150 mm - WT 6 mm - H 15 mm
YBCO
OD 160 mm - WT 6 mm - H 15 mm
KVH DSP-300 Fiber Optic Gyro in a Faraday Cage
Colibrys Si-Flex SF1500S Accelerometer
Electric and Pneumatic drive motors
Canterbury setup:
Lead
OD 91 mm - WT 83 mm - H 38 mm
UG-2 Ring Laser Gyro
Electric drive motor
I'm no scientist, but aren't you supposed to try replicating the initial experiment when you're doing stuff like this? Canterbury has introduced so many new variables that it's no small wonder their results differed. The reversed parity violation is pretty cool though...
hdeasy
30th July 2007 - 04:40 PM
@Tim, Elarne,
Yes, it is almost certainly the big difference in setups that explains the weaker effect seen in NZ. Since it now seems very likely that there are opposite parity effects in North and South hemispheres, it would be strongly desirable for Tajmar et al. to re-run their experiment in New Zealand or Australia with rigs that they fly in from Seibersdorf. If they can then confirm that the only difference they see is a sign change, then the onus is on the Canterbury group or others to run experiments with setups closer to Tajmar's.
Tim
31st July 2007 - 01:59 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Jul 30 2007, 04:40 PM) Since it now seems very likely that there are opposite parity effects in North and South hemispheres, it would be strongly desirable for Tajmar et al. to re-run their experiment in New Zealand or Australia with rigs that they fly in from Seibersdorf. Easier said than done I would think Now that the Canterbury has published it’s results, can we anticipate when Berkeley might publish theirs or do we just have to wait? Patience was never one of my strong suits...
SJSVOB
31st July 2007 - 03:10 PM
If the extended Heim theory is correct how would this influence gravitational waves? Would LIGO be able to detect any?
samcox
1st August 2007 - 05:23 PM
The Schwarzschild "two-sphere" geometry which satisfies GR equations also has 6 space dimensions...two three-spaces, plus a single, single process time dimension. The universe, in an absolute sense in his model is observed only outward and inward at 360 degrees...microscopic/macroscopic.
See thread: "What Happened to the Antimatter"
An archived but updated description of the higher dimensional Einstein/Schwarzschild model dedicated to my wife is up at:
www.geocities.com/aletawcox
Best Wishes...
hdeasy
2nd August 2007 - 06:40 AM
QUOTE (Tim+Jul 31 2007, 01:59 PM) Easier said than done I would think Now that the Canterbury has published it’s results, can we anticipate when Berkeley might publish theirs or do we just have to wait? Patience was never one of my strong suits... I suspect the Berkely results will be out very soon, as the rumours about groups seeking to reproduce the effect started in Summer/Autumn 2006 - I just found another reference to the Caterbury efforts - they certainly had begun in Summer 2006: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/Conferenc...amme%202006.pdf"Measurement of a Super-Frame-Dragging effect. Bob Hurst Tajmar et al (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603033) have reported a Lense-Thirring (frame-dragging) effect from a rotating superconducting mass that is approximately 30 orders of magnitude greater than predicted by conventional theory. It brings the effect to a strength where it should be readily detectable by a ring laser gyroscope. We are currently building an experiment to attempt confirmation of this remarkable reported measurement. A superconducting lead mass will be rotated, and any effect on a nearby laser gyro will be measured."
elarne
2nd August 2007 - 08:26 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 2 2007, 06:40 AM) I suspect the Berkely results will be out very soon, as the rumours about groups seeking to reproduce the effect started in Summer/Autumn 2006 - I just found another reference to the Caterbury efforts - they certainly had begun in Summer 2006: http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/Conferenc...amme%202006.pdfBefore I started comparing both experimental setups I've found this conference program, too. But it was not rich in additional information, just saying "we are doing a similar experiment". Hopefully the Berkeley group will prove or disprove the results of Tajmar without the feeling of "Why the deuce did they do an experiment so different from Tajmar's one?"...
hdeasy
2nd August 2007 - 11:11 AM
Though not rich in technical detail, what I found excellent about that conference program entry was that it was one of the first signs I saw in the academic domain that at least some researchers were not only sitting up and taking notice of the Tajmar effect, but were being open about their amazement at its potential importance: "to attempt confirmation of this remarkable reported measurement".
elarne
2nd August 2007 - 01:59 PM
Absolutely! But from my POV, this seems to happen every 20 years or so. May be a kind of generation change.
But are there any hints, except the references to Häuser and Dröscher, that Tajmar is working on an extension of his experiment as suggested by H&D? I'm wondering if such a modification is too expensive.
| QUOTE | SJSVOB: If the extended Heim theory is correct how would this influence gravitational waves? Would LIGO be able to detect any?
<br>@hdeasy: Interesting question, isn't it? What does the expert say?
hdeasy
3rd August 2007 - 08:15 AM
There are several ways in which gravitational waves may be created in Heim theory. E.g. There is a theoretical possibility of generating gravitons from neutrons. If this happens in a system such as rotating neutron stars or supernovas then gravitons may be produced in sufficient numbers to be detected as a wave by detectors such as LIGO.
makuabob
3rd August 2007 - 06:04 PM
First, I must admit the (obvious to others) math error that I made in converting radians/sec to RPM. I missed the "2 x pi" part, in spite of knowing about it! Tajmar's rings were spinning at ~3800 RPM. The Canterbury rotation was at 900 RPM. Sorry, but I learned my math, it seems, from those rocket scientists who did the conversions for the ill-fated Mars probes. Next, elarne is quite right! Why do an experiment so much estranged from the original as to be pointless? Someone really, REALLY needs to develop a way to achieve the 25 to 50 Tesla magnetic field that Heim called for in his conversion of photons into gravitophotons. Has anyone out there heard of any breakthroughs in magnetic field intensity?
elarne
3rd August 2007 - 09:31 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Aug 3 2007, 06:04 PM) Someone really, REALLY needs to develop a way to achieve the 25 to 50 Tesla magnetic field that Heim called for in his conversion of photons into gravitophotons. Has anyone out there heard of any breakthroughs in magnetic field intensity? IIRC according to EHT the magnetic field of 20 to 50 Tesla is required to achieve measurable gravitomagnetic forces only for boson coupling (see "Conversion Equations for Hermetry Forms" in LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf). Tajmar's experiment promises the ability to reach this goal using fermion coupling with today's technology. So it seems to be a question of will and time rather than magnetic field intensity. Cool stuff! It's possible, right now! Where are the ventures? Come on, let's change the world! I'm so excited...
Neil Farbstein
3rd August 2007 - 10:05 PM
QUOTE (elarne+Aug 3 2007, 09:31 PM) IIRC according to EHT the magnetic field of 20 to 50 Tesla is required to achieve measurable gravitomagnetic forces only for boson coupling (see "Conversion Equations for Hermetry Forms" in LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42JHCorrected22April.pdf). Tajmar's experiment promises the ability to reach this goal using fermion coupling with today's technology. So it seems to be a question of will and time rather than magnetic field intensity. Cool stuff! It's possible, right now! Where are the ventures? Come on, let's change the world! I'm so excited... I was reading about nuclear fusion reactors and magnetic optical phenomena the other day; they mentioned Tesla fields that high but I forget exactly what they were saying.
makuabob
4th August 2007 - 12:14 AM
I did a short search to find something on high intensity magnetics and found that, as early as the beginning of the 1990s, a 21 Tesla field had been generated. There is an article ( ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=919866&isnumber=19883) but I don't have access to it. It also mentions a 21 Tesla field. I doubt it was a sustained field (e.g., more than a few seconds, if that long). I will continue browsing about,...
hdeasy
5th August 2007 - 05:10 PM
First, a correction, Elarne:
The 20 to 25 Tesla limit required to achieve measurable gravitomagnetic forces applies to fermion, not boson coupling. And it is for Bosons that the Tajmar et al. experiment works at much lower field strengths. Note that the latest paper by Tajmar et al. has a few interesting indications that the actual process involves a mix of bosons and fermions. This is firstly because the bosons in question are the Cooper pairs, and these should only come into operation below the critical superconducting temperature, Tc. But they found the artificial gravity kicked in a bit earlier than Tc and in in one material, Aluminum, it was present 2 to 3 deg above Tc!!! They weren't even expecting it from Aluminum - it was the material of which the sample holder was made - but when the empty holder gave a signal...
Secondly, the next step for EHT is easier than the 20 Tesla option - it is to do the EHT mod to the Tajmar setup that would change the force from tangiential to vertical. That experiment is just crying out to be done. After that, and with info they might have from seeming fermion involvement (e.g. with Aluminum) in the Tajmar setup, the extension to higher fields might become easier., and maybe fields of 5 or 10 Tesla will do as well for proof of concept. It's an exciting time and so many possibilities are opening up.
Finally, several people have wondered why the Canterbury group did not do an exact replication of the Tajmar setup. There are a few aspects to this. First, it was much easier for them to adapt the equipment they already had in their set-up - thus they used a disk instead of a ring, and their laser gyro, though more sensitive, was measuring in the far-field whereas Tajmar's was in the near field. That is the other aspect - the fact that they got anything at all despite these huge differences shows that the effect is robust!
hdeasy
6th August 2007 - 08:11 AM
QUOTE (elarne+Jul 30 2007, 03:36 PM) 3) The sensors are placed much closer in Tajmar's experimental setup.
4) A very important difference: The effect only occurs, according to Tajmar, during angular acceleration of the ring. The Canterbury group is measuring at constant angular speeds. They are actually filtering the data via low-pass filtering (see quotation). This means, they zero out all frequencies higher than 33.3s-1. But what about acceleration period?
Just to come back to these 2 points of yours, Elarne: (3) As I pointed out above, this is indeed the case and probably explains the noisier reading in Canterbury - they are measuring the far field. (4) It does indeed seem from the Canterbury graphs as if they are using constant speeds. However, the step function in their graph is explained in the text as "Horizontal lines are averages for each period of rotations". Thus the average might smooth out accelerations. However, they never mention an acceleration in the text, so maybe it is indeed costant velocity - unlikely, though, as there had to be a trnasition to the higher velocity with a ramp-up of some sort - even the Tajmar velocity profile resebles more a ramp up, then an almost flat plateau, followed by a ramp down.
makuabob
7th August 2007 - 04:03 PM
| QUOTE | Secondly, the next step for EHT is easier than the 20 Tesla option - it is to do the EHT mod to the Tajmar setup that would change the force from tangiential to vertical. That experiment is just crying out to be done.
<br>Alas!,... that is very likely NOT going to happen. Note the care with which Heim's name has been avoided in all of this! A reversible gravitational force just yells out Heim's work but,...
The wryly comic part of this is that "frame-dragging" is being invoked when the effect now observed is 30 orders of magnitude greater than Einstein's prediction for frame-dragging.
I think I see a couple of reasons NOT to hitch one's rising physics star to someone (Heim) so far ahead of their time: 1.) Heim was not "accepted" into 'orthodox' science, and 2.) it might be seen as 'infringing' on the EHT work of Droescher and Hauser (who themselves may be considered 'outside' of the 'orthordox' pursuit of "Science").
When Fame and Fortune(s) lie in wait, who makes the first move? As I mentioned many posts ago, what country, with the means to do so, ISN'T chasing after the control of gravity at this point in time? And, what distractions might they throw up to obscure that effort??
A quote from, I believe, the Elder Edda says,
"Be wise, but not overwise, for the hearts of the truly wise are seldom glad."
hdeasy
7th August 2007 - 09:03 PM
Yes but don't forget that Tajmar et al, in their latest paper, actually referred to the Heim theory explanation as one of 3 possible explanations - this is a huge improvement, as it's the first citation HT or EHT has received in a 'mainstream' paper for many years. It is great that Hauser is taking with Tajmar and the Canterbury group. I think that he should be able to get some group to do his and Droscher's experiment, even if he cannot get funding himself. Any millionaires out there willing to invest in that?
Tim
8th August 2007 - 12:24 AM
I just came across this article about a 26.8 Tesla Superconducting Magnet. According to the article, “it seems likely that this conductor technology can be used to make all-superconducting magnets with fields that will soon exceed 30 tesla. This far exceeds the 22- to 23-tesla limit of all previous niobium-based superconducting magnets.” The new “technology” is YBCO which I think I remember reading doesn’t have a particularly high current density, but I guess it can handle enough current to make a 26.8 Tesla magnet. I think the next couple of years could be very interesting...
Neil Farbstein
8th August 2007 - 04:31 AM
QUOTE (Tim+Aug 8 2007, 12:24 AM) I just came across this article about a 26.8 Tesla Superconducting Magnet. According to the article, “it seems likely that this conductor technology can be used to make all-superconducting magnets with fields that will soon exceed 30 tesla. This far exceeds the 22- to 23-tesla limit of all previous niobium-based superconducting magnets.” The new “technology” is YBCO which I think I remember reading doesn’t have a particularly high current density, but I guess it can handle enough current to make a 26.8 Tesla magnet. I think the next couple of years could be very interesting... paint the magnet with corbalite.
elarne
8th August 2007 - 06:30 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 5 2007, 05:10 PM) First, a correction, Elarne:
The 20 to 25 Tesla limit required to achieve measurable gravitomagnetic forces applies to fermion, not boson coupling. And it is for Bosons that the Tajmar et al. experiment works at much lower field strengths. Note that the latest paper by Tajmar et al. has a few interesting indications that the actual process involves a mix of bosons and fermions. This is firstly because the bosons in question are the Cooper pairs, and these should only come into operation below the critical superconducting temperature, Tc. But they found the artificial gravity kicked in a bit earlier than Tc and in in one material, Aluminum, it was present 2 to 3 deg above Tc!!! They weren't even expecting it from Aluminum - it was the material of which the sample holder was made - but when the empty holder gave a signal...
Sorry, you are right. I interchanged both terms by mistake. Bad slip of the pen. But my statement is quite right. A mod of Tajmar's experiment to achieve a measurable vertical force is possible. | QUOTE | (4) It does indeed seem from the Canterbury graphs as if they are using constant speeds. However, the step function in their graph is explained in the text as
"Horizontal lines are averages for each period of rotations". Thus the average might smooth out accelerations. However, they never mention an acceleration in the text, so maybe it is indeed costant velocity - unlikely, though, as there had to be a trnasition to the higher velocity with a ramp-up of some sort - even the Tajmar velocity profile resebles more a ramp up, then an almost flat plateau, followed by a ramp down.
<br>As I cited: the average comes along with a low pass filter. This might noticeably reduce the effect occurring in the measure data during acceleration periods.
And, sorry for answering late. I had 2 exhausting nights because of the birth of my daughter.
hdeasy
8th August 2007 - 07:37 AM
Congratulations on your daughter! Will you call her Heimina - combining Heim and Hermine from H. potter? No - all the best... i have 2 daughters, 10 and 13...
Jossarian
8th August 2007 - 03:00 PM
@elarne - my heartiest congratulations for you. Mine daughter Daria finished her 16 months yesterday . Maybe our children will have opportunity to visit other planets or even other star systems thanks to EHT Just imagine that! Regarding the latest paper from Dröscher/Häuser "Advanced Propulsion Systems from Artificial Gravitational Fields" - it has been stored at http://www.hpcc-space.de so I've added it to Heim Theory wikipedia page (see wiki:Heim_theory#Propulsion_physics). @Tim - thanks for link to article. Great news indeed. Now thanks to 30 Tesla superconducting magnets it might be possible to perform Type I gravitomagnetic experiment (Fermion coupling) instead to currently proposed Type II Boson coupling one. The second one has one big disadvantage because Cooper pairs are destroyed when magnetic induction exceeds critical value. The Fermion coupling experiment doesn't have such limit. It means that most likely Type II is much easier and cheap then Type I but the second one seems to be more practical to be used in further technical applications (like starship engines). Regards, /Joss
Neil Farbstein
8th August 2007 - 06:57 PM
QUOTE (elarne+Aug 8 2007, 06:30 AM) Sorry, you are right. I interchanged both terms by mistake. Bad slip of the pen. But my statement is quite right. A mod of Tajmar's experiment to achieve a measurable vertical force is possible. As I cited: the average comes along with a low pass filter. This might noticeably reduce the effect occurring in the measure data during acceleration periods. And, sorry for answering late. I had 2 exhausting nights because of the birth of my daughter. we could we'll get a more powerful gravitomagnetic effect if we use a bigger magnet, even if bosons are circulating through the material.
CuriousCat
9th August 2007 - 02:40 AM
Does John Reed post here any longer? Are any other theoretical physicists currently posting? Please excuse my posting if this has been recently addressed elsewhere.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
