Monopole gravity waves "propagate" any distance in Planck time, which is about 10-44 seconds; hence, their effects appear everywhere almost instantaneously.
I don't recall any supporting math or experiments (other than what I already referenced about the GWD), but it does seem intriguing. I always wondered if Gravity could be presented as some form or variation of "quantum entanglement". I have to go back and re-read some of the EHT text to get the specifics about the "dimensional aspects" relating to gravity to see if anything clicks.
I would suppose that if anything could seriously offer a mathematical description of gravity being faster than C (4/3 C in EHT), then I would have to ask "how do you measure something faster than C when everything we have to make measurements are limited to C?"
So bringing this back around to the topic of the thread, and the question I asked earlier, what form of gravitational measurement could be performed to provide support for or against EHT?
Neil Farbstein
21st August 2007 - 03:58 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Aug 21 2007, 03:50 AM) Thanks hdeasy for the information; it will take a while for me to read through them, let alone understand them.
One of the things listed in the link that I provided before was about "Rhysmonic Cosmology" which proposed...
I don't recall any supporting math or experiments (other than what I already referenced about the GWD), but it does seem intriguing. I always wondered if Gravity could be presented as some form or variation of "quantum entanglement". I have to go back and re-read some of the EHT text to get the specifics about the "dimensional aspects" relating to gravity to see if anything clicks.
I would suppose that if anything could seriously offer a mathematical description of gravity being faster than C (4/3 C in EHT), then I would have to ask "how do you measure something faster than C when everything we have to make measurements are limited to C?"
So bringing this back around to the topic of the thread, and the question I asked earlier, what form of gravitational measurement could be performed to provide support for or against EHT? GR says gravity waves travel at the speed of light. Why would they go much faster? What could support such a conjecture?
Laidback
21st August 2007 - 05:31 AM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 21 2007, 01:58 PM) GR says gravity waves travel at the speed of light. Why would they go much faster? What could support such a conjecture? What would clear up this matter would be to consider the force in question.. Obviously for a force to exude force we must consider its momentum.. Gravities velocities originate from the opposite direction of the compression point, and for a Planet that would be the core. This implies the area that consists of a Planet is actually a compression point, put simply a mess of converging velocities (kinetic Energy) Now that we are treating gravity as a real exerting force rather than some magical pulling force we must consider why the further away from the implied compression point - Solids, Liquids, Gas and Near vacuum seems to be spread out more, and when I imply spread out I mean each theoretical Atom actually occupies a greater area that spans to its other neighboring spread out Atom. Now if we consider the speed of light remains always at the velocity @c even in a solid, we should understand why the velocity may seem to be slower in an area that is compressed as it is in a solid, when in fact if we spread out the solid area the velocities still take the same amount of time to traverse he area. so what has this to do with general and special relativity, well somewhere in my previous statements is our relative momentum for both gravity and the speed of light being one in the same speed.. Err~ does that make sense? Well then either way ~ enough said!? Cheers, Peter J Schoen.
hdeasy
21st August 2007 - 07:15 AM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Aug 21 2007, 03:50 AM) Thanks hdeasy for the information; it will take a while for me to read through them, let alone understand them.
One of the things listed in the link that I provided before was about "Rhysmonic Cosmology" which proposed...
I don't recall any supporting math or experiments (other than what I already referenced about the GWD), but it does seem intriguing. I always wondered if Gravity could be presented as some form or variation of "quantum entanglement". I have to go back and re-read some of the EHT text to get the specifics about the "dimensional aspects" relating to gravity to see if anything clicks.
I would suppose that if anything could seriously offer a mathematical description of gravity being faster than C (4/3 C in EHT), then I would have to ask "how do you measure something faster than C when everything we have to make measurements are limited to C?"
So bringing this back around to the topic of the thread, and the question I asked earlier, what form of gravitational measurement could be performed to provide support for or against EHT? As we saw before in this thread, the EHT work on gravity and the speed of grav. waves was examined and found wanting - Heim apparently had made an error in the form of the gravity law he wrote down at some of his lectures. Borje Mannson derived a corrected law - read about it at the end of the translation http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML His conclusion was: " The original Heim gravity differential equation is wrong, because of wrong interpretation of field mass. At least the coefficients must be wrong, as they will not lead to the correct first order correction term to Newton gravity. However, if the particle connection ρ=h2/Gm3 is correct, the Heim proper solution (The solution without field mass), can be made a bases for a solution of ordinary General Relativity field equations. The connection can be interpreted as a dark energy generation from ordinary masses. The cosmological constant could then be interpreted as the result of addition of all mass contributions to dark energy in visible universe. A relation between ρ, cosmological constant and mean density of matter can be established. I think the dark energy generation could be seen as a repulsion of space itself. All masses make the space around them to expand with a constant acceleration -GM/ρ2. Mass attracts masses, but repels space. This means that the repulsion acceleration is greater than normal attraction for r> ρ. It is not an ordinary repulsion, because it is space itself that “moves”. However for an observer it looks like a “real” repulsion. Of course all these conclusions are useless if Heims derivation of the particle connection also is wrong. " On the question of the speed of gravity again (as opposed to grav. waves) - in principle it need not be limited by c as this speed comes from Maxwell's equations and is valid for electomagnetic radiation. If gravity is in some sense decoupled from electromagnetism then it could have a different velocity limit. Reading through Van Flandern's article again, he makes the point that a large velocity is still compatible with General Relaitivity but not with Special Relaitivity. Hoiwever, as he says, ' Although faster-than-light force propagation speeds do violate Einstein special relativity (SR), they are in accord with Lorentzian relativity, which has never been experimentally distinguished from SR—at least, not in favor of SR. Indeed, far from upsetting much of current physics, the main changes induced by this new perspective are beneficial to areas where physics has been struggling, such as explaining experimental evidence for non-locality in quantum physics...'
Maringa
21st August 2007 - 09:38 AM
In a post I read somewhere on these forums (I cant trace it) someone suggested that maybe gravity is like a dimension in a yet-to-be-understood-type-of-space; much like how the length of an object just is, spatially.  Sounds wierd, but makes a bit of sense; length is easy to understand...not so for gravity, but maybe because we trying to fit it into something it cannot.
Zarabtul
21st August 2007 - 12:39 PM
Coloured FiltersFrom this site here showing what ways we can view moons. Then by taking data of when these moons emit these colors maybe we would garner another piece to the puzzle of glouns and what they may contain. If this is off base just say so... We have a running log of overwhealming astrological events and can easily find a pattern like those quarks that would be like a comet that comes by every 60 yrs. or so according to our time frame based on our movement around the sun. From here maybe we could begin to build an understanding of what the frequency of red, blue, yellow, and sometimes ??? I may be way off base with this speculation though I feel that since yellow is not good to use to study Mercury's moon and others may know of other moons that cannot be studied while looking through yellow tinted "glasses." I would like to know if we can get a pattern to this and maybe that would help you to understand why astrologers are so far ahead of quantum physcists in this area in many fashions so to speak. I propose we not look at our smallest particle to figure it out that we do not have the means for, but use the tried and true method of following history to find out that there may be another pattern in our Universe to explain this frequency we need to understand out. Kinda like an apple falling to the ground.
hdeasy
21st August 2007 - 02:00 PM
There is mention of Heim and the Tajmar experiments etc. in the Wikipedia page on anti-gravity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity . Oh and yes, Zarabtul, I really don't see what coloured filters and moon viewing and astrology have to do with Heim theory. So I do think it a bit off-base.
Astepintime
22nd August 2007 - 11:17 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 9 2007, 01:18 PM) Oh and I also edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory#H...m_gravity_force to point out that the NZ group had reproduced the effect!! Although I am new to this topic I did download the NZ paper and THEY apparently do not believe they have reproduced the effect. You might claim they did not correctly reproduce Tajmar's experiment (accelerating the disk - or whatever) and YOU might claim that YOU see their data reproducing the effect but this is quite different than saying that the NZ group has reproduced the effect. Seems to me to be wishful thinking but perhaps I missed something.
Maxwell's Demon
23rd August 2007 - 05:26 AM
| QUOTE | is there other research or indications that (E)TH is still viable?
<br>I guess that depends on how you define ‘indications.’ If I were to look at Heim theory now from the ideal scientist’s point of view, the short answer would be ‘no, because Heim theory hasn’t made any successful predictions, yet.’
That’s why jreed’s analysis dealt such a devastating blow to our most hopeful aspiration: an internally-consistent theory of particle rest masses derived from fundamental constants. Until or unless Heim theorists can publish a successful resolution to the ‘A Matrix value problem’ in equation form, or produce a sound and readily-testable experimental prediction, Heim theory remains conjecture.
To be fair, Heim theory still offers an as-yet unverified prediction of vertical ‘gravito-photon’ lift. But that would require continuous magnet field strength at or above the current threshold of scientific achievement:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...-4321Letter.pdf
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | is there other research or indications that (E)TH is still viable?
<br>I guess that depends on how you define ‘indications.’ If I were to look at Heim theory now from the ideal scientist’s point of view, the short answer would be ‘no, because Heim theory hasn’t made any successful predictions, yet.’
That’s why jreed’s analysis dealt such a devastating blow to our most hopeful aspiration: an internally-consistent theory of particle rest masses derived from fundamental constants. Until or unless Heim theorists can publish a successful resolution to the ‘A Matrix value problem’ in equation form, or produce a sound and readily-testable experimental prediction, Heim theory remains conjecture.
To be fair, Heim theory still offers an as-yet unverified prediction of vertical ‘gravito-photon’ lift. But that would require continuous magnet field strength at or above the current threshold of scientific achievement:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...-4321Letter.pdf
4.2 Magnetic Field Generation
In order to obtain a viable space propulsion system the Heim-Lorentz formula requires magnetic fields of several tens of Tesla and current densities of several hundred A/mm.
<br>…or a new, concise mathematical prediction. Perhaps a different kind of prediction exploiting the much higher field strengths of pulse magnets, for example, or a new and specific numerical prediction incorporating the use of a superconducting ring akin to Tajmar’s experiment. Something we can test now.
Of course I was glad to see the reference to Dröscher’s and Hauser’s work on Heim theory credited in Tajmar’s new paper. Clearly, something wonderful is happening in Tajmar’s lab, which nobody saw coming. Dröscher and Hauser seemed to arrive at a promising derivation of Tajmar’s results following the publication of his research, but explanations aren’t predictions.
If we’re going to maintain any credibility as scientific thinkers, I think it’s vital to avoid confusing ‘explanations’ with ‘predictions.’ Heim theory has made no significant verified predictions to date. If that doesn’t change, Heim theory will remain mere conjecture. That’s what Dröscher and Hauser need to work on if they want to earn credibility for their Heim theory ideas.
If they had predicted even this weird parity effect Tajmar et al are now reporting (a prediction which wouldn’t even require a numerical value to be of substance), I’d be reading up on Heim theory and extra-dimensional topology right now instead of typing about it.
But they didn’t. Which, under the circumstances, seems like a strike against them.
I suspect that others will empathize with this simple assessment of the situation: Dröscher and Hauser need to make a readily-testable prediction, or solve the ‘A Matrix value problem,' and there’s no time like the present.
Lagging behind Tajmar’s publications isn’t convincing, even if he’s referencing their work. And making unquantified predictions isn’t likely to have a catalyzing effect on research efforts.
Briefly, Heim theory needs a successful prediction. Until that happens, it's only a pretty hypothesis whistling in the wind.
hdeasy
23rd August 2007 - 06:48 AM
Hi Maxwell's Demon: (a) On Mass: The Heim theory group is right now exchanging ideas wtih John Reed essentially via myself as translator German -> English. What has come out so far is very hopeful as far as I can see - the HT group has indicated at least how 1989 excited states don't depend on the 1982 A values - hopefully we will see the same soon for the ground states and lifetimes and neutrino masses. I won't go into detail and it's better to wait for the exhange to conclude, but at least there is movement in this area again. (  On the Tajmar thing: it is true that Droscher & Hauser did not predict the effect with superconductors as they had focussed on fermions prior to Tajmar - bad luck! If they had started with bosons they would have predicted the experimental values. What is encouraging is that when they plugged in bosons, they got the right answers. They say this is based on coupling coeffcients from HT or EHT derived in the mid 1990s. Perhaps later they can show this more explicitly, as it is almost as good a prediciton, to show the bosonic result was inherent in the earlier work. In short, both areas are very hopeful. In addition, DH are finalising the layout of their peer reviewed review article to appear in 2008. So everything is finally coming together - references in mainstream literature to their theoretical analysis of the Tajmar effect, the review article and hopefully clarification of the mass spectrum controversy. Thus while one may perhaps not say that HT has made it into utter accertance, it is on the best way to getting there.
hdeasy
23rd August 2007 - 07:04 AM
Oh and about the NZ experiment: it was Tajmar et al. who stated in their paper that hte Canterbury results supported theirs. Yes, the NZ group was right to 'err on the side of caution'. But Tajmar's viewpoint is very understandable, as though the curve is noisy, the trends are always as expected, and strongly so from a statistical point of view. Even the graph in the NZ paper makes this plain  image url (how do you get a proper image embedded?)
Maxwell's Demon
23rd August 2007 - 09:45 AM
Hi Dr. Deasy, despite my skepticism, I’m grateful for your efforts to assist with this theoretical work, and to clarify the on-going issues of debate.
| QUOTE | (a) On Mass: The Heim theory group is right now exchanging ideas wtih John Reed essentially via myself as translator German -> English. What has come out so far is very hopeful as far as I can see - the HT group has indicated at least how 1989 excited states don't depend on the 1982 A values - hopefully we will see the same soon for the ground states and lifetimes and neutrino masses. I won't go into detail and it's better to wait for the exhange to conclude, but at least there is movement in this area again.
<br>I hope you’re right, and I’m glad to hear the work is moving ahead. Perhaps I should be more enthusiastic about the excited state values. But it was the promise of a rest mass formula which turned heads, and those heads will remain turned away until that promise returns. Frankly, an experimental verification of the new boson gravitophoton concept would be even better at this point. Because explanations are impressive, but predictions are proof.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | (a) On Mass: The Heim theory group is right now exchanging ideas wtih John Reed essentially via myself as translator German -> English. What has come out so far is very hopeful as far as I can see - the HT group has indicated at least how 1989 excited states don't depend on the 1982 A values - hopefully we will see the same soon for the ground states and lifetimes and neutrino masses. I won't go into detail and it's better to wait for the exhange to conclude, but at least there is movement in this area again.
<br>I hope you’re right, and I’m glad to hear the work is moving ahead. Perhaps I should be more enthusiastic about the excited state values. But it was the promise of a rest mass formula which turned heads, and those heads will remain turned away until that promise returns. Frankly, an experimental verification of the new boson gravitophoton concept would be even better at this point. Because explanations are impressive, but predictions are proof.
On the Tajmar thing: it is true that Droscher & Hauser did not predict the effect with superconductors as they had focussed on fermions prior to Tajmar - bad luck! If they had started with bosons they would have predicted the experimental values.
<br>Perhaps. Their math is over my head, so I can’t be sure. But a new experimental prediction which reaches a step –ahead- of Tajmar would convince me. The problem, however, is that their explanation of Tajmar’s results –seemed- to be based on the now-defunct theoretical explanation offered by Tajmar and de Matos:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf
| QUOTE | The high resolution gyro measurements rule out our previous theoretical model which predicted a coupling proportional to the material’s Cooper-pair and lattice mass density (Tajmar and de Matos, 2006b).
<br>QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The high resolution gyro measurements rule out our previous theoretical model which predicted a coupling proportional to the material’s Cooper-pair and lattice mass density (Tajmar and de Matos, 2006b).
<br>What is encouraging is that when they plugged in bosons, they got the right answers. They say this is based on coupling coeffcients from HT or EHT derived in the mid 1990s. Perhaps later they can show this more explicitly, as it is almost as good a prediciton, to show the bosonic result was inherent in the earlier work.
<br>I’m sorry, but I don’t think ‘almost as good as a prediction’ is worth a spoon of salt at this point. If they want to go back and elucidate issues like this after a bon a fide prediction, great. But honestly, I think only current advocates are going to care enough to embrace it. Acquiring new and top-tier advocates is going to require a successful prediction – that’s how science advances and that’s where they should be spending their energy. If they stall on an explicit short-term experimental prediction, it’s going to look like they’re afraid to disprove their own theory…and that’s ammunition for the nay-sayers, which no-one here wants to see.
| QUOTE | In short, both areas are very hopeful. In addition, DH are finalising the layout of their peer reviewed review article to appear in 2008.
<br>I can only assume that you’ve been privileged to see some of this unpublished article, so maybe you can tell us: what's the nature of this paper?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | In short, both areas are very hopeful. In addition, DH are finalising the layout of their peer reviewed review article to appear in 2008.
<br>I can only assume that you’ve been privileged to see some of this unpublished article, so maybe you can tell us: what's the nature of this paper?
So everything is finally coming together - references in mainstream literature to their theoretical analysis of the Tajmar effect, the review article and hopefully clarification of the mass spectrum controversy. Thus while one may perhaps not say that HT has made it into utter accertance, it is on the best way to getting there.
<br>I’m sorry, but that’s not how I see it today. References and analytical papers amount to good PR, but not new science.
In their ‘Advanced Propulsion Systems from Artificial Gravitational Fields’ paper, they offered this description (accompanied by a new diagram):
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...Abrreviated.pdf
| QUOTE | …In other words, this experimental setup would serve as a demonstrator for a propellantless propulsion system. It comprises a superconducting coil and a rotating disk of a special material.
<br>What is the ‘special material’ they mention here? That’s pivotal. I didn’t see anything more explicit about it in their paper.
Without it, this isn’t adequate:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | …In other words, this experimental setup would serve as a demonstrator for a propellantless propulsion system. It comprises a superconducting coil and a rotating disk of a special material.
<br>What is the ‘special material’ they mention here? That’s pivotal. I didn’t see anything more explicit about it in their paper.
Without it, this isn’t adequate:
Only a brief account is presented. The following assumptions were made for demonstration experiment GME II: N = 10, number of turns of the solenoid, current of about 1A (needed to calculate bz), diameter of solenoid 0.18 m, and vTq = 25 m/s. The disk should be directly above the solenoid to produce a magnetic field in z-direction only. This experiment should give an acceleration field ggp = 6x10-3gˆez; which is an appreciable field acting directly above the rotating disk.
<br>In my opinion, the Heim theory group needs to generate experimental data confirming the prediction of this lift effect. I doubt Tajmar will tool up to test it – he’s got his hands full with his own research.
So there are really only three options, as I see it:
1.) Run the experiment and get on the cover of Time magazine (if it works),
2.) Predict the precise values of further experiments from Tajmar’s camp –before- the tests are run, or
3.) Keep publishing analytical papers and remain a footnote within the theoretical physics community.
I want to be dazzled with predictive data, not appeased with theoretical explanations.
Show me the money ;)
Astepintime
23rd August 2007 - 06:23 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 23 2007, 07:04 AM) But Tajmar's viewpoint is very understandable, as though the curve is noisy, the trends are always as expected, and strongly so from a statistical point of view. Even the graph in the NZ paper makes this plain
Wow, in no way do I see the data as strong in a statistical point of view! Quite the opposite. This data after filtering still shows large fluctuations within each period of rotation! It appears that the error of each of the 5 averaging periods is a significant fraction of the deviation between the different data sets. Although I do not have the data itself it looks like the data is statistically consistent with a flat distribution! I would need many many more runs of this sort to be convinced of any statistical support for or against this frame-dragging phenomena. I mean the total experiment was what < 30 minutes! They only did this experiment once? This paper looks very strange, in no means am I an expert, but it looks filled with possible systematic errors and I am in bit of a shock that they would even write something up with only once quick experiment. In short, perhaps I skimmed over the paper to fast but I can't see this experiment supporting or not supporting anything.
Zarabtul
23rd August 2007 - 06:33 PM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Aug 23 2007, 09:45 AM) What is the ‘special material’ they mention here? That’s pivotal. I didn’t see anything more explicit about it in their paper. Without it, this isn’t adequate: In my opinion, the Heim theory group needs to generate experimental data confirming the prediction of this lift effect. I doubt Tajmar will tool up to test it – he’s got his hands full with his own research. So there are really only three options, as I see it: 1.) Run the experiment and get on the cover of Time magazine (if it works), 2.) Predict the precise values of further experiments from Tajmar’s camp –before- the tests are run, or 3.) Keep publishing analytical papers and remain a footnote within the theoretical physics community. I want to be dazzled with predictive data, not appeased with theoretical explanations. Show me the money  The special material is most likely plates of ceramic as that's the only thing they've found in the radio industry that can handle frequencies and voltages this high/low without shattering. Oh and there would be two of them... At least that's what we used to make lasers capable of burning off nuclear waste and I would think that on the same par. We didn't actually work on that part you'd have to talk to the manufacturer of the actual transmitter rather than the first stage of the laser to know this for certain, however at the time this was the proposal. This was 2000-2001 and we built it for China.
Jossarian
24th August 2007 - 10:03 AM
There is interesting article on SPACE.COM regarding gargantuan hole. See that snippet: | QUOTE | The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.
"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.
Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.
"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.
Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:
Any mass which is situated in the range between the upper border distance R0 and ρ must overcome a very weak repulsion force, if it wants to approach the source of field. Since this effect occurs only for very large distances, it is practically not observable.
And this one:
| QUOTE | Finally Heim found that cosmic red shift too is a result of the corrected gravitation law. Therefore each particle of this world must approach primarily against the repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world. (This corresponds to the field curve between ρ and R0.) This is using energy whereby each photon becomes longer in it's wavelength during this journey.
What do you think about this? Is there any other explanation for this phenomena?
One more thing. Mumbling about mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy isn't an answer.
/Joss
jreed
24th August 2007 - 01:53 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 23 2007, 06:48 AM) Hi Maxwell's Demon:
(a) On Mass: The Heim theory group is right now exchanging ideas wtih John Reed essentially via myself as translator German -> English. What has come out so far is very hopeful as far as I can see - the HT group has indicated at least how 1989 excited states don't depend on the 1982 A values - hopefully we will see the same soon for the ground states and lifetimes and neutrino masses. I won't go into detail and it's better to wait for the exhange to conclude, but at least there is movement in this area again.
Now that the Heim Theory Group has put its spin on this, let me add a few comments. My belief that the quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma used in the 1989 version are nothing more than another representation of the A matrix has been validated. I did an experiment with the 1982 version. I changed one component of the A matrix, A[1,6] by multiplying it by 2. I knew from previous work that this component is involved in the calculation of the mass of the muon. This gave me a new particle I called a "heavy muon" with a mass of 282. Then I plugged these new numbers into the 1989 program, and got the mass of 282. This tells me two things: The A matrix is critical in generating particle masses and finding the new quantum numbers and the new quantum numbers are just the matrix A in a new form. Anton Mueller says he can generate these quantum numbers without the A matrix. If this can be done that will be a big step forward in the validation of Heim theory. I'm waiting for these results with great anticipation. John Reed
hdeasy
24th August 2007 - 09:39 PM
Hi Maxwell’s Demon: QUOTE In my opinion, the Heim theory group needs to generate experimental data confirming the prediction of this lift effect. I doubt Tajmar will tool up to test it – he’s got his hands full with his own research. You must have seen that D & H have indeed predicted a change to the bosonic setup of Tajmar that would give a vertical thrust along the axis of spin. They are looking for funding for this and indeed it is not certain if Tajmar is ready to tackle that yet – he has his hands full re-doing the laser Gyro experiments on his first setup. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | In my opinion, the Heim theory group needs to generate experimental data confirming the prediction of this lift effect. I doubt Tajmar will tool up to test it – he’s got his hands full with his own research. |
You must have seen that D & H have indeed predicted a change to the bosonic setup of Tajmar that would give a vertical thrust along the axis of spin. They are looking for funding for this and indeed it is not certain if Tajmar is ready to tackle that yet – he has his hands full re-doing the laser Gyro experiments on his first setup.
So there are really only three options, as I see it:
1.) Run the experiment and get on the cover of Time magazine (if it works), |
They already got on the cover of New Scientist in Jan 2006 – just 10 months before Tajmar et al. made the same cover. Many saw it as more than a coincidence that in the winning AIAA paper they had predicted artificial gravity with a similar setup to Tajmar’s . No fear – they might indeed make Time as well if the latter setup is realised. So if there are any Forum members with a few million (or maybe even less) to spare, then now is the time to go for fame as backers of this historic experiment. Weren’t there a few CEOs out there? QUOTE 2.) Predict the precise values of further experiments from Tajmar’s camp –before- the tests are run, or Tajmar and D & H are at least talking, so something of that sort might indeed happen. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | 2.) Predict the precise values of further experiments from Tajmar’s camp –before- the tests are run, or |
Tajmar and D & H are at least talking, so something of that sort might indeed happen.
3.) Keep publishing analytical papers and remain a footnote within the theoretical physics community. |
The papers are important also. As for the review paper: no, there have been no sneak previews yet, as far as I am aware. QUOTE I want to be dazzled with predictive data, not appeased with theoretical explanations. Don’t we all? QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | | I want to be dazzled with predictive data, not appeased with theoretical explanations. |
Don’t we all? Show me the money |
If you have a couple of mil, then show us yours and the rig will be built!
Nick
24th August 2007 - 09:41 PM
Burkhard Heim fudged his theory until it worked.
hdeasy
24th August 2007 - 09:45 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Aug 24 2007, 01:53 PM) Now that the Heim Theory Group has put its spin on this, let me add a few comments. My belief that the quantum numbers n, m, p, sigma used in the 1989 version are nothing more than another representation of the A matrix has been validated. I did an experiment with the 1982 version. I changed one component of the A matrix, A[1,6] by multiplying it by 2. I knew from previous work that this component is involved in the calculation of the mass of the muon. This gave me a new particle I called a "heavy muon" with a mass of 282. Then I plugged these new numbers into the 1989 program, and got the mass of 282. This tells me two things: The A matrix is critical in generating particle masses and finding the new quantum numbers and the new quantum numbers are just the matrix A in a new form.
Anton Mueller says he can generate these quantum numbers without the A matrix. If this can be done that will be a big step forward in the validation of Heim theory. I'm waiting for these results with great anticipation.
John Reed Yes, let's hope this alternate derivation of the quantum numbers can be found. That seems to be the sticking point. As you may have seen in one of the mails I forwarded, the Heim Theory group has just got hold of some more archive material of Heim's and are hoping to learn more of the mass formula derivations from that.
hdeasy
24th August 2007 - 09:55 PM
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Aug 23 2007, 06:33 PM) The special material is most likely plates of ceramic as that's the only thing they've found in the radio industry that can handle frequencies and voltages this high/low without shattering. Oh and there would be two of them... At least that's what we used to make lasers capable of burning off nuclear waste and I would think that on the same par. We didn't actually work on that part you'd have to talk to the manufacturer of the actual transmitter rather than the first stage of the laser to know this for certain, however at the time this was the proposal. This was 2000-2001 and we built it for China. Possibly. It might be that a patent is in the offing, which is why D & H don't want to say exactly.
hdeasy
27th August 2007 - 06:58 AM
More exciting stuff on the horizon: It seems that Gravity B probe is also showing a gyro anomaly - and it may further confiirm the Tajmar effect! Droscher and Tajmar are talking on this and there might be a short piece by D&H or T&co. or a combinaton of the latest on these effects in the literature soon!
On the masses - the Heim-theory group is still interacting with John on this: it might be possible to resolve the A issue soon. So: a better Monday morning that most!
hdeasy
27th August 2007 - 08:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe...timeline#Future" On February 9, 2007 it was announced that a number of unexpected signals had been received and that these would need to be separated out before final results could be released. Consequently, the date for the final release of data has been pushed back from April 2007 to December 2007. Speculation on some internet sites, such as PhysicsForums.org, has centered around the source and nature of these anomalous signals. Several posters and alternative theorists (some skeptical of GPB and its methodology) have indicated that understanding these signals may be more interesting than the original goal of testing GR. " Where in these forums was this speculation going on? Anyone know? Since it seems the anomalous data may confirm Tajmar et al., even better than the Canterbury results, this is of great interest here.
Guest_Astepintime
27th August 2007 - 09:08 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 27 2007, 08:41 AM) Since it seems the anomalous data may confirm Tajmar et al., even better than the Canterbury results, this is of great interest here. Who suggests this? My understanding was that the GPB people were having electrostatic calibration problems. Why not let them finish their analysis before we jump to conclusions. "even better than the Canterbury results". Well, I take issue with this statement. It did not appear to me (nor to the Canterbury people) that their data supported Tajmar.
Zephir
27th August 2007 - 09:45 AM
QUOTE (Guest_Astepintime+Aug 27 2007, 12:08 PM) My understanding was that the GPB people were having electrostatic calibration problems. The Tajmar effects are dealing with magnetized particles behavior in gravitational field and they're should be quite pronounced, after then - in many orders of magnitude, then some subtle frame dragging, predicted by relativity.
hdeasy
27th August 2007 - 10:34 AM
@Guest_Astepintime: Yes, it's early days yet: so let's see what the GPB final report on the frame-dragging experiment says. But there is an indication already that the magnitude of the effect is in the same ball-park as the one noted by Tajmar et al.. Whether it is electrostatic or other artifacts or not should also become clear as soon as the report appears: it was to be out between April & December. Note the discussion of the ' polhole effect' posited as the reason for the ' surprises' seen in the gyro data: and note that all 4 gyros showed similar supposed electrostatic effects due to random patches. How likely was that I wonder? It might be why the calibration is taking so long and it might be what led to the suggestion of a similar mechanism to that of Tajmar et al. as the major reason for the observed drift: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl...es.html#polhode@Zephir: Again, the final report should tell us if the anomalies were ' good' data and indicative of a relatively (but maybe not general relatively ) large anomalous acceleration or if it was all just some artifact.
Astepintime
27th August 2007 - 06:34 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 27 2007, 10:34 AM) But there is an indication already that the magnitude of the effect is in the same ball-park as the one noted by Tajmar et al.
Tajmar did a calculation for GPB ?? Where is that? | QUOTE |
Note the discussion of the ' polhole effect' posited as the reason for the ' surprises' seen in the gyro data: and note that all 4 gyros showed similar supposed electrostatic effects due to random patches. How likely was that I wonder?
Well, since all the gyros were made the same way with sputtered niobium coatings I would expect similar patch charge effects. Perhaps the same systematic effect.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Note the discussion of the ' polhole effect' posited as the reason for the ' surprises' seen in the gyro data: and note that all 4 gyros showed similar supposed electrostatic effects due to random patches. How likely was that I wonder?
Well, since all the gyros were made the same way with sputtered niobium coatings I would expect similar patch charge effects. Perhaps the same systematic effect.
it might be what led to the suggestion of a similar mechanism to that of Tajmar et al. as the major reason for the observed drift: http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/hl...es.html#polhode
Who is suggesting this? Nothing in your link that I can find suggests this.
Zarabtul
27th August 2007 - 06:39 PM
Gotta read it all anymore
hdeasy
28th August 2007 - 01:25 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Aug 27 2007, 06:34 PM) Tajmar did a calculation for GPB ?? Where is that?
Mentioned in a private communication from Hauser a few days ago, who is talking with D & T. | QUOTE |
Well, since all the gyros were made the same way with sputtered niobium coatings I would expect similar patch charge effects. Perhaps the same systematic effect.
Since the likelihood of patches had been discounted as extremely unlikely by the precision manufacturers (praised for unprecedented accuracy), the probability of failure on all 4 spheres was small
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Well, since all the gyros were made the same way with sputtered niobium coatings I would expect similar patch charge effects. Perhaps the same systematic effect.
Since the likelihood of patches had been discounted as extremely unlikely by the precision manufacturers (praised for unprecedented accuracy), the probability of failure on all 4 spheres was small
Who is suggesting this? Nothing in your link that I can find suggests this.
<br>Nothing in the link, but in the private communication.
Maxwell's Demon
29th August 2007 - 06:17 AM
1.) Refraining from specifying the relevant compositional requirements of the material to test the superconducting iteration of the Heim theory ‘gravitophoton lift effect’ is poor conduct, and bad science. It brings to mind Podlketnov’s claims regarding the ‘secret’ of making the superconducting disc for his alleged ‘gravity shielding’ experiment.
I think the Heim group should be more concerned with providing –some empirical evidence- to keep their work out of the crank file, than worrying about patent rights.
Besides, a patent would be irrelevant to the physics. You can’t patent ‘a solid with X density of monatomic hydrogen,’ for example. That’s all we need to know, the relevant facts.
Since patent rights are irrelevant to the physics, that only leaves two explanations:
- They don’t know what the composition of the material should be, or
- They don’t want to specify for another reason (for example, a specific experimental trial could refute their theory)
2.) As far as money goes, if the Heim theory group doesn’t want to offer an explicit and feasible experimental prediction, or can’t provide a viable derivation of the ‘mass spectrum,’ I think their chances of getting $2M in funding will be miniscule. A theory without evidence is merely paper, and a theory without predictions is merely trash. And right now, Heim theory is rolling around the edge of the circular file. I earnestly hope that it will recover.
3.) The Canterbury group’s experimental attempt to detect Tajmar’s results is an especially troubling (though possibly unrelated) subject. It seems indemnifying enough to cast a shadow over Tajmar’s remarkable research, and yet it’s a pale effort at a replication of Tajmar’s experimental conditions. More baffling still, is their dismissal of their own data, which very clearly appears to –confirm- Tajmar’s result in the counterclockwise direction.
Why dismiss their own data? I would expect much more from qualified physicists. The counterclockwise signal is extremely compelling, yet they report a negative result. This is disturbing.
Why did they settle for a ~1000rpm rotation, when Tajmar’s group used a 6500rpm motor? Shoddy. I can’t think of a better word for it.
Why immerse the lead sample directly in the fluid Helium? Tajmar et al experimented with their materials above the fluid level; immersing the material in a fluid medium adds a new and unnecessary variable. I don’t understand why they’d do that.
Why not suspend the same kind of accelerometers around the rotating mass which Tajmar’s group used? It seems irresponsible to rely on one detector (the laser gyroscope), when additional data from other detectors would not only replicate the original experiment with greater fidelity, but might also offer revealing new details of what may be turn out to be new physics.
I think what disturbs me the most about the Canterbury paper, is that it focused entirely on the theory offered within Tajmar and de Matos’ March 2006 paper, instead of the experimental data, and it’s the data that counts. We need an experimental replication, not a theoretical replication. Tajmar’s follow-up experiments have led him to abandon the initial theory anyway. So the only thing the Canterbury group accomplished is discrediting a theoretical explanation of the effect…which Tajmar had already abandoned.
For these reasons, I think we need to disqualify the Canterbury results.
I hope another group will step up and conduct a bon a fide experimental replication. Shoddy approximations like this only cloud the questions raised by Tajmar’s research.
elarne
29th August 2007 - 01:24 PM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Aug 29 2007, 06:17 AM) 3.) The Canterbury group’s experimental attempt to detect Tajmar’s results is an especially troubling (though possibly unrelated) subject. It seems indemnifying enough to cast a shadow over Tajmar’s remarkable research, and yet it’s a pale effort at a replication of Tajmar’s experimental conditions. More baffling still, is their dismissal of their own data, which very clearly appears to –confirm- Tajmar’s result in the counterclockwise direction.
Why dismiss their own data? I would expect much more from qualified physicists. The counterclockwise signal is extremely compelling, yet they report a negative result. This is disturbing.
Why did they settle for a ~1000rpm rotation, when Tajmar’s group used a 6500rpm motor? Shoddy. I can’t think of a better word for it.
Why immerse the lead sample directly in the fluid Helium? Tajmar et al experimented with their materials above the fluid level; immersing the material in a fluid medium adds a new and unnecessary variable. I don’t understand why they’d do that.
Why not suspend the same kind of accelerometers around the rotating mass which Tajmar’s group used? It seems irresponsible to rely on one detector (the laser gyroscope), when additional data from other detectors would not only replicate the original experiment with greater fidelity, but might also offer revealing new details of what may be turn out to be new physics.
I think what disturbs me the most about the Canterbury paper, is that it focused entirely on the theory offered within Tajmar and de Matos’ March 2006 paper, instead of the experimental data, and it’s the data that counts. We need an experimental replication, not a theoretical replication. Tajmar’s follow-up experiments have led him to abandon the initial theory anyway. So the only thing the Canterbury group accomplished is discrediting a theoretical explanation of the effect…which Tajmar had already abandoned.
For these reasons, I think we need to disqualify the Canterbury results.
I hope another group will step up and conduct a bon a fide experimental replication. Shoddy approximations like this only cloud the questions raised by Tajmar’s research. You're absolutely right at this point. I have compared both experimental setups, too, and drew the same conclusion. But I was not couraged enough to say that the Canterbury results should be disqualified. And again, we have to wait for more replications. May be the Berkeley group can keep the pot boiling.
hdeasy
29th August 2007 - 05:34 PM
@Maxwell’s demon:
(1) Everyone has a right to protect a unique experimental setup - that’s totally different from patenting a force or the genome. So if D & H have a mod on the Tajmar setup that is the goods, they have a right to patent – I believe Tajmar is also into the patenting game.
You seem to be a bit negative. It’s also not so nice to refer to Heim as a ‘crank’ – reminiscent of some of the critics in the Wikipedia discussions, who got their comeuppance in the deletion campaigns that backfired. They backfired precisely because the evidence is growing. As far as theories of everything are concerned, it has produced a wealth of predictions – the neutrino mass is still outstanding, as well as the update on the anti-grav thing: the AIAA prize came just at the right time, just before Tajmar’s result. Excellent timing. String theorists are green with envy.
(2) You are are a bit out of date here. Even as we speak, John Reed is looking over an update on the 1989 code from the HT group: an improvement on what we had before, though it dates from 2003: it was a misunderstanding that we didn’t have the later version till now, which seems indeed to derive the quantum nos. explicitly and without the stop-gap A matrix of 1982. I am implementing it myself in Fortran 95 and will also look through the coded up formulae to ensure non-A (hee hee – reminds me of Van Vogt’s Sci-Fi classic – “ The world of null-A” ). So ‘a theory without predictions is merely trash’ – in that case String theory is in the bin. HT, though, has evidence and predictions.
(3) The Canerbury group’s data happens to have the correct shape. Whether that was a fluke of noise or not is a question that might be settled by probabilistic reckoning. The very fact that their setup deviated from Tajmar’s so much and they may still have caught an echo of the anti-grav is an indication of a possible robustness in the effect. I agree that the noisiness, different rev speed etc. disqualify the NZ experiment as an exact reproduction of the Austrian one. But the positive aspect is a tentative indicator that the effect is not so delicate that it will be difficult to reproduce. That bodes well for other experiments in the offing.
Yes, luckily the NZ stuff is not the only game in town: Now the Gravity Probe B data is a possible unexpected source of confirmation. And the other groups (Berkeley? Etc.) will announce data soon. Hopefully their sensors will be a bit closer to the spinning RING than the Canterbury DISK and go at the right speed etc. We shall see – but the first indications are encouraging.
Astepintime
30th August 2007 - 12:33 AM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Aug 29 2007, 06:17 AM)
More baffling still, is their dismissal of their own data, which very clearly appears to –confirm- Tajmar’s result in the counterclockwise direction.
Why dismiss their own data? I would expect much more from qualified physicists. The counterclockwise signal is extremely compelling, yet they report a negative result. This is disturbing.
<br> I disagree that the data supports Tajmar's results. It appears consistent with a flat distribution. They dismiss it probably for that reason! Strangely this was only ~30 minutes experiment! Why not perform it 20 times! I am shocked that they even wrote a paper.
Astepintime
30th August 2007 - 12:57 AM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Aug 29 2007, 05:34 PM)
(3)The Canterbury group’s data happens to have the correct shape. Whether that was a fluke of noise or not is a question that might be settled by probabilistic reckoning.
I disagree that the Canterbury data has the correct shape but I could be wrong. If someone would extract the data and post it I would be happy to calculate confidence levels --- but this is really something that the experimentalists should have done! | QUOTE |
Now the Gravity Probe B data is a possible unexpected source of confirmation.
What? I thought we agreed that it was to soon to say one way or another! They still are trying to perform critical calibrations.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Now the Gravity Probe B data is a possible unexpected source of confirmation.
What? I thought we agreed that it was to soon to say one way or another! They still are trying to perform critical calibrations.
Hopefully their sensors will be a bit closer to the spinning RING than the Canterbury DISK and go at the right speed etc. We shall see – but the first indications are encouraging.
What indications? I think that perhaps you tend to be to optimistic ( or I to pessimistic ). Although I do not know the details of EHT the small bits I understand look appealing to me --- but of course that has nothing to do with reality ! A discovery of this type requires exceptional proof --- no sense in getting worked up to soon.
I am curious if anyone has used EHT to post-predict the 'Pioneer Anomaly'. I understand MOND is able to get good agreement.
Maxwell's Demon
31st August 2007 - 02:41 AM
| QUOTE | And again, we have to wait for more replications. May be the Berkeley group can keep the pot boiling.
<br>I wish we had some confirmation that others were conducting experiments to test for the effect, all I’ve got is hearsay. Does anyone know, for a fact, that such attempts are underway?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | And again, we have to wait for more replications. May be the Berkeley group can keep the pot boiling.
<br>I wish we had some confirmation that others were conducting experiments to test for the effect, all I’ve got is hearsay. Does anyone know, for a fact, that such attempts are underway?
(1) Everyone has a right to protect a unique experimental setup - that’s totally different from patenting a force or the genome. So if D & H have a mod on the Tajmar setup that is the goods, they have a right to patent – I believe Tajmar is also into the patenting game.
<br>At this point, it’s suspicious and unscientific. I don’t begrudge anyone the right to protect their intellectual property, but nobody even has a proof-of-principle trial yet, and they’re holding back a vital component of the experiment from the scientific community. Two points:
One, there’s no indication that they even have a lab, let alone ‘a unique experimental setup.’ Nor is there any indication from them that they plan on building one for themselves. In which case, they have to rely on others…others who can’t build the setup to test their idea because the Heim group is holding back vital information. Thus, it appears they don’t want a test to be conducted, which is, yes, suspicious.
Two, Tajmar’s publication conduct has been exemplary, and bears no resemblance to this secret we’re seeing from the Heim group. Tajmar et al published a long series of highly-rigorous and peer-reviewed theoretical papers for years, then went ahead and tested their theory, and published exacting details of every component of their experiments down to the make and model (and price, iirc). And he had experimental results to back up his findings, which gave him substantial cause to protect his work. But he put the science first.
All I’m saying is that the Heim group would better serve their interests if they followed his example, rather than conceal vital experimental information.
| QUOTE | You seem to be a bit negative.
<br>I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. Somebody needs to prod the Heim group to focus on producing a successful prediction, because that's what they need right now. Ever since the mass formula ran into a brick wall, the credibility of their theory has been languishing in a ditch. Just look at how this thread has ground to a near halt. It's disparaging, don't you think? Ex post facto explanations aren’t going to get them back on track in the eyes of the scientific community. But a precise and readily-testable experimental prediction could turn the whole game around. I say this as a realist from a position of ‘tough love,’ not as an antagonist.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You seem to be a bit negative.
<br>I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. Somebody needs to prod the Heim group to focus on producing a successful prediction, because that's what they need right now. Ever since the mass formula ran into a brick wall, the credibility of their theory has been languishing in a ditch. Just look at how this thread has ground to a near halt. It's disparaging, don't you think? Ex post facto explanations aren’t going to get them back on track in the eyes of the scientific community. But a precise and readily-testable experimental prediction could turn the whole game around. I say this as a realist from a position of ‘tough love,’ not as an antagonist.
It’s also not so nice to refer to Heim as a ‘crank’ – reminiscent of some of the critics in the Wikipedia discussions, who got their comeuppance in the deletion campaigns that backfired.
<br>If I thought Heim was a crank, I wouldn’t still be following this discussion. I thought his approach of expanding GR topology into extra dimensions of finite cellular structure to explain quantum theory was brilliant, and I still do. My statement pertained to the ‘crank file’ of mainstream scientists, and my concern is to keep Heim’s work –out of that file-. My exact words were:
| QUOTE | I think the Heim group should be more concerned with providing –some empirical evidence- to keep their work out of the crank file, than worrying about patent rights.
<br>QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I think the Heim group should be more concerned with providing –some empirical evidence- to keep their work out of the crank file, than worrying about patent rights.
<br>the evidence is growing.
<br>No it isn’t, thus my concern. The evidence took -a monumental step backwards- when jreed discovered the A Matrix problem, and until that issue can be resolved, or until a detailed experimental prediction is forwarded, Heim theory will remain in a more tenuous position than it was in last year.
| QUOTE | As far as theories of everything are concerned, it has produced a wealth of predictions – the neutrino mass is still outstanding, as well as the update on the anti-grav thing:
<br>Given that –all of the other mass predictions- are now suspect, it’s difficult to hold up the neutrino mass prediction with much hope. But yes, the prediction still holds promise. Unfortunately, there is great difficulty determining how long we’ll have to wait for an empirical estimation of neutrino mass to confirm or refute this prediction.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | As far as theories of everything are concerned, it has produced a wealth of predictions – the neutrino mass is still outstanding, as well as the update on the anti-grav thing:
<br>Given that –all of the other mass predictions- are now suspect, it’s difficult to hold up the neutrino mass prediction with much hope. But yes, the prediction still holds promise. Unfortunately, there is great difficulty determining how long we’ll have to wait for an empirical estimation of neutrino mass to confirm or refute this prediction.
the AIAA prize came just at the right time, just before Tajmar’s result. Excellent timing. String theorists are green with envy.
<br>It was good timing. But I don’t think String theorists are envious...they’ve got enough funding to bury a small continent.
| QUOTE | (2) You are are a bit out of date here. Even as we speak, John Reed is looking over an update on the 1989 code from the HT group: an improvement on what we had before, though it dates from 2003: it was a misunderstanding that we didn’t have the later version till now, which seems indeed to derive the quantum nos. explicitly and without the stop-gap A matrix of 1982. I am implementing it myself in Fortran 95 and will also look through the coded up formulae to ensure non-A (hee hee – reminds me of Van Vogt’s Sci-Fi classic – “ The world of null-A” ). So ‘a theory without predictions is merely trash’ – in that case String theory is in the bin. HT, though, has evidence and predictions.
<br>Okay, maybe I was a couple of days out of date. It’s exciting to hear that the mass derivations could get back on track. If (Dr?) Reed blesses the new formulae, I’ll be delighted to start waving the Heim banner again. But if the particle mass issue –doesn’t- get resolved, then I only see these scant slivers of hopeful vindication:
- the neutrino mass prediction will someday be confirmed or refuted
- the superconducting gravitiphoton lift experiment may someday be explicitly stated, and then tested
- the original gravitophoton experimental prediction may someday be tested
That’s it, isn’t it? Because unless I’m missing something, we don’t yet have any ‘evidence’ to support Heim theory. Perhaps I’m uninformed. Would you be so kind as to make a list of the facts which constitute ‘evidence in support of Heim theory?’ I'd like to know, exactly, what keeps the fires of hope for Heim theory burning in your heart.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | (2) You are are a bit out of date here. Even as we speak, John Reed is looking over an update on the 1989 code from the HT group: an improvement on what we had before, though it dates from 2003: it was a misunderstanding that we didn’t have the later version till now, which seems indeed to derive the quantum nos. explicitly and without the stop-gap A matrix of 1982. I am implementing it myself in Fortran 95 and will also look through the coded up formulae to ensure non-A (hee hee – reminds me of Van Vogt’s Sci-Fi classic – “ The world of null-A” ). So ‘a theory without predictions is merely trash’ – in that case String theory is in the bin. HT, though, has evidence and predictions.
<br>Okay, maybe I was a couple of days out of date. It’s exciting to hear that the mass derivations could get back on track. If (Dr?) Reed blesses the new formulae, I’ll be delighted to start waving the Heim banner again. But if the particle mass issue –doesn’t- get resolved, then I only see these scant slivers of hopeful vindication:
- the neutrino mass prediction will someday be confirmed or refuted
- the superconducting gravitiphoton lift experiment may someday be explicitly stated, and then tested
- the original gravitophoton experimental prediction may someday be tested
That’s it, isn’t it? Because unless I’m missing something, we don’t yet have any ‘evidence’ to support Heim theory. Perhaps I’m uninformed. Would you be so kind as to make a list of the facts which constitute ‘evidence in support of Heim theory?’ I'd like to know, exactly, what keeps the fires of hope for Heim theory burning in your heart.
(3) The Canerbury group’s data happens to have the correct shape. Whether that was a fluke of noise or not is a question that might be settled by probabilistic reckoning. The very fact that their setup deviated from Tajmar’s so much and they may still have caught an echo of the anti-grav is an indication of a possible robustness in the effect. I agree that the noisiness, different rev speed etc. disqualify the NZ experiment as an exact reproduction of the Austrian one. But the positive aspect is a tentative indicator that the effect is not so delicate that it will be difficult to reproduce. That bodes well for other experiments in the offing.
<br>| QUOTE | I disagree that the data supports Tajmar's results. It appears consistent with a flat distribution.
They dismiss it probably for that reason! Strangely this was only ~30 minutes experiment! Why not perform it 20 times! I am shocked that they even wrote a paper.
<br>QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I disagree that the data supports Tajmar's results. It appears consistent with a flat distribution.
They dismiss it probably for that reason! Strangely this was only ~30 minutes experiment! Why not perform it 20 times! I am shocked that they even wrote a paper.
<br>I disagree that the Canterbury data has the correct shape but I could be wrong. If someone would extract the data and post it I would be happy to calculate confidence levels --- but this is really something that the experimentalists should have done!
<br>The data has the correct shape. The pertinent signal is indicated in Figure 4 of their paper, between 1000 and 1400 seconds: http://132.181.40.20/papers/SuperFrameDragging2007.pdf
And unfortunately, I think the only reference to the number of trials they ran was ‘several,’ which makes a confidence analysis impossible. And I remain concerned, given the often-too-dismissive mentality of mainstream scientists, that the negative assessment of the Canterbury group may do more harm than good, at least in the near-term.
| QUOTE | Yes, luckily the NZ stuff is not the only game in town: Now the Gravity Probe B data is a possible unexpected source of confirmation. And the other groups (Berkeley? Etc.) will announce data soon.
<br>The GPB data –could- offer some surprises. Let’s hope so.
May I ask if you -know for a fact- that there are other groups actively working to test Tajmar’s claims? I don’t even care where they are. But you say that data will be announced soon, which suggests first-hand knowledge.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Yes, luckily the NZ stuff is not the only game in town: Now the Gravity Probe B data is a possible unexpected source of confirmation. And the other groups (Berkeley? Etc.) will announce data soon.
<br>The GPB data –could- offer some surprises. Let’s hope so.
May I ask if you -know for a fact- that there are other groups actively working to test Tajmar’s claims? I don’t even care where they are. But you say that data will be announced soon, which suggests first-hand knowledge.
Hopefully their sensors will be a bit closer to the spinning RING than the Canterbury DISK and go at the right speed etc. We shall see – but the first indications are encouraging.
<br>Agreed, we can’t know whether any of the plethora of new variables introduced by the Canterbury group foiled the effect, and the geometry of the sample may have played a part in producing a weak signal. I can’t fathom why they settled for a rotation rate of ~900rpm when a few thousand would’ve put the signal intensity well above the noise level (if it does indeed exist, of course). All they needed was another plastic bearing at the bottom of the chamber. I guess somebody got stingy with their lunch money :(
| QUOTE | I am curious if anyone has used EHT to post-predict the 'Pioneer Anomaly'. I understand MOND is able to get good agreement.
<br>I always loved MOND, I guess I’ve always tended to root for the underdog. But since there only seems to be a handful of theorists on the planet who are familiar enough with EHT to perform the calculations, I’d rather see them focus on producing bon a fide experimental predictions, than more of this ex post facto business which is more like preaching to the choir than earning a larger congregation…
Astepintime
31st August 2007 - 09:39 AM
QUOTE (elarne+Aug 29 2007, 01:24 PM) The data has the correct shape. The pertinent signal is indicated in Figure 4 of their paper, between 1000 and 1400 seconds: http://132.181.40.20/papers/SuperFrameDragging2007.pdfAnd unfortunately, I think the only reference to the number of trials they ran was ‘several,’ which makes a confidence analysis impossible. And I remain concerned, given the often-too-dismissive mentality of mainstream scientists, that the negative assessment of the Canterbury group may do more harm than good, at least in the near-term. Well, I think we disagree. I believe their data is consistent with a flat distribution. If someone can extract the data from the figure it is quite easy to then calculate the confidence level that their data is consistent with a flat distribution. Until I see those numbers I remain unconvinced. | QUOTE |
I always loved MOND, I guess I’ve always tended to root for the underdog. But since there only seems to be a handful of theorists on the planet who are familiar enough with EHT to perform the calculations, I’d rather see them focus on producing bon a fide experimental predictions, than more of this ex post facto business which is more like preaching to the choir than earning a larger congregation…
Well, there are still members of the choir that could have their faith reinvigorated.
jreed
31st August 2007 - 01:42 PM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Aug 31 2007, 02:41 AM)
No it isn’t, thus my concern. The evidence took -a monumental step backwards- when jreed discovered the A Matrix problem, and until that issue can be resolved, or until a detailed experimental prediction is forwarded, Heim theory will remain in a more tenuous position than it was in last year.
The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising. John Reed
Maxwell's Demon
31st August 2007 - 02:55 PM
| QUOTE | If someone can extract the data from the figure it is quite easy to then calculate the confidence level that their data is consistent with a flat distribution. Until I see those numbers I remain unconvinced.
<br>Knock yourself out, Astepintime. I found a pretty good fit with 143 data points. Probably should’ve doubled-checked these. It looks like they tossed out a point between running and resting intervals, so I’ve clustered them accordingly below:
1.) -0.7
2.) -0.5
3.) -0.38
4.) 0.122
5.) 0.505
6.) 0.2
7.) -0.02
8.) 0.515
9.) 0.97
10.) 0.285
11.) -0.208
12.) 0.103
13.) -0.26
14.) -0.2
15.) 0.7
16.) 0.664
17.) 1.105
18.) 0.67
19.) -0.05
20.) -0.26
21.) -0.28
22.) -0.086
23.) -0.09
24.) -0.49
25.) -0.387
26.) 0.188
27.) 0.447
28.) 0.767
29.) 1.268
30.) 0.828
31.) -0.35
32.) -0.78
33.) -0.575
34.) -0.11
35.) 0.018
36.) -0.06
37.) 0.002
38.) 0.025
39.) -0.1
40.) 0.222
41.) -0.218
42.) -0.856
43.) -0.4
44.) 0.0
45.) -0.316
46.) 0.075
47.) 0.46
48.) 0.36
49.) 0.001
50.) 0.025
51.) -0.05
52.) 0.187
53.) 0.118
54.) 0.1
55.) 0.425
56.) 0.16
57.) 0.146
58.) 0.989
59.) 1.29
60.) 1.089
61.) 0.587
62.) 0.468
63.) 0.54
64.) 0.394
65.) -0.132
66.) -0.232
67.) 0.627
68.) 1.089
69.) 0.189
70.) -0.667
71.) -0.626
72.) -0.352
73.) -0.491
74.) -0.59
75.) -0.05
76.) 0.367
77.) 0.246
78.) 0.461
79.) 0.391
80.) -0.62
81.) -0.63
82.) 0.308
83.) 0.271
84.) -0.62
85.) -0.362
86.) 0.497
87.) 0.186
88.) -0.91
89.) -0.95
90.) -0.556
91.) -0.818
92.) -1.324
93.) -1.169
94.) -0.998
95.) -0.593
96.) -0.457
97.) -0.508
98.) -0.327
99.) -0.032
100.) -0.139
101.) -0.364
102.) -0.342
103.) -0.296
104.) -0.263
105.) -1.00
106.) -1.04
107.) 0.122
108.) 1.18
109.) 0.347
110.) -0.563
111.) -0.062
112.) 0.798
113.) 0.803
114.) -0.316
115.) -1.174
116.) -0.95
117.) 0.187
118.) 0.833
119.) 0.392
120.) -0.288
121.) -0.10
122.) 0.247
123.) 0.151
124.) 0.108
125.) 0.267
126.) 0.358
127.) 0.634
128.) 0.719
129.) 0.162
130.) 0.318
131.) 0.842
132.) 0.669
133.) 0.228
134.) 0.495
135.) 0.962
136.) 1.191
137.) 0.751
138.) 0.039
139.) 0.038
140.) -0.188
141.) 0.185
142.) 1.301
143.) -0.65
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | If someone can extract the data from the figure it is quite easy to then calculate the confidence level that their data is consistent with a flat distribution. Until I see those numbers I remain unconvinced.
<br>Knock yourself out, Astepintime. I found a pretty good fit with 143 data points. Probably should’ve doubled-checked these. It looks like they tossed out a point between running and resting intervals, so I’ve clustered them accordingly below:
1.) -0.7
2.) -0.5
3.) -0.38
4.) 0.122
5.) 0.505
6.) 0.2
7.) -0.02
8.) 0.515
9.) 0.97
10.) 0.285
11.) -0.208
12.) 0.103
13.) -0.26
14.) -0.2
15.) 0.7
16.) 0.664
17.) 1.105
18.) 0.67
19.) -0.05
20.) -0.26
21.) -0.28
22.) -0.086
23.) -0.09
24.) -0.49
25.) -0.387
26.) 0.188
27.) 0.447
28.) 0.767
29.) 1.268
30.) 0.828
31.) -0.35
32.) -0.78
33.) -0.575
34.) -0.11
35.) 0.018
36.) -0.06
37.) 0.002
38.) 0.025
39.) -0.1
40.) 0.222
41.) -0.218
42.) -0.856
43.) -0.4
44.) 0.0
45.) -0.316
46.) 0.075
47.) 0.46
48.) 0.36
49.) 0.001
50.) 0.025
51.) -0.05
52.) 0.187
53.) 0.118
54.) 0.1
55.) 0.425
56.) 0.16
57.) 0.146
58.) 0.989
59.) 1.29
60.) 1.089
61.) 0.587
62.) 0.468
63.) 0.54
64.) 0.394
65.) -0.132
66.) -0.232
67.) 0.627
68.) 1.089
69.) 0.189
70.) -0.667
71.) -0.626
72.) -0.352
73.) -0.491
74.) -0.59
75.) -0.05
76.) 0.367
77.) 0.246
78.) 0.461
79.) 0.391
80.) -0.62
81.) -0.63
82.) 0.308
83.) 0.271
84.) -0.62
85.) -0.362
86.) 0.497
87.) 0.186
88.) -0.91
89.) -0.95
90.) -0.556
91.) -0.818
92.) -1.324
93.) -1.169
94.) -0.998
95.) -0.593
96.) -0.457
97.) -0.508
98.) -0.327
99.) -0.032
100.) -0.139
101.) -0.364
102.) -0.342
103.) -0.296
104.) -0.263
105.) -1.00
106.) -1.04
107.) 0.122
108.) 1.18
109.) 0.347
110.) -0.563
111.) -0.062
112.) 0.798
113.) 0.803
114.) -0.316
115.) -1.174
116.) -0.95
117.) 0.187
118.) 0.833
119.) 0.392
120.) -0.288
121.) -0.10
122.) 0.247
123.) 0.151
124.) 0.108
125.) 0.267
126.) 0.358
127.) 0.634
128.) 0.719
129.) 0.162
130.) 0.318
131.) 0.842
132.) 0.669
133.) 0.228
134.) 0.495
135.) 0.962
136.) 1.191
137.) 0.751
138.) 0.039
139.) 0.038
140.) -0.188
141.) 0.185
142.) 1.301
143.) -0.65
The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising.
John Reed
<br>See, it’s talk like that makes me all tingly inside. I’ll be waiting anxiously to hear the results of your analysis, good sir.
Astepintime
31st August 2007 - 08:51 PM
QUOTE (Maxwell's Demon+Aug 31 2007, 02:55 PM)
Knock yourself out, Astepintime. I found a pretty good fit with 143 data points. Probably should’ve doubled-checked these. It looks like they tossed out a point between running and resting intervals, so I’ve clustered them accordingly below:
Thanks Max. I was hoping that someone had code to easily extract the data. Ok, since no errors are given for the data points in the figure I will assume that the errors are normally distributed and looking at the different periods (rest, rotation) I can estimate the sigma of the distribution. The first 31 data points are well distributed as a Gaussian with a sigma of ~ .54. The entire data set gives a sigma of .57. Assuming the errors to be .57 the chi-square = ~82 with degrees of freedom (df) = 143 Which is very reasonable!! Yielding a Q=(1-p) of > ~10-4 Definitely consistent with a flat distribution! I think we would agree any larger error bars and the data is totally meaningless. Heck, even if we pick a small error of .33 (which is clearly to small) the chi-squared = ~141 Almost perfect for a flat distribution! NOW I would bet that the data is ALSO consistent with the Tajmar's results! But you see that is the POINT. The data does not support the Tajmar's results because you cannot rule out a flat distribution.
hdeasy
31st August 2007 - 09:01 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Aug 31 2007, 01:42 PM) The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising.
John Reed Hi John, Yes, I have got a fair way to converting the Fortran to F95 - it was in F77 or similar: problem is that F95 is code sensitive etc. So I have to correct some of the code to get it to run. Nearly there - got through initital setup: just a problem in the main loop. I agree that as yet I see no sign of A being used and it looks encouraging. Hugh
Laidback
31st August 2007 - 10:57 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Sep 1 2007, 06:51 AM) Heck, even if we pick a small error of .33 (which is clearly to small) the chi-squared = ~141 Almost perfect for a flat distribution! |
.33 Error?  WOW! Isn't .33 inferring "1/3" or 33% error? Surely there's a Typo!?  Cheers, Peter J Schoen..
DEK46656
31st August 2007 - 10:59 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Aug 31 2007, 09:42 AM) The Heim Group has given me the Fortran code for the newer Heim version. I'm coding it up in Mathematica so I can get a better understanding of what it involves. So far, it looks like the A matrix is not used in finding the masses. The new version is able to find the quantum numbers n, m, p and sigma with an algorithm. It all looks very promising.
John Reed When you first discovered the "source" of the A Matrix, was it also present in the documentation about the formulas and such, or was it something buried in the code (a bug) that was intended to be fixed and just wasn't. I guess I'm concerned that if someone wrote the code to produce the formulas presented in the literature, then it should be possible to do the same without any input from the Heim Theory Group. Consider it a form of "peer review", but for the software. Do you feel this is possible, or is there something that needs to be changed in the documentation to resolve the A Matrix issue?
jreed
31st August 2007 - 11:24 PM
QUOTE (DEK46656+Aug 31 2007, 10:59 PM) When you first discovered the "source" of the A Matrix, was it also present in the documentation about the formulas and such, or was it something buried in the code (a bug) that was intended to be fixed and just wasn't.
I guess I'm concerned that if someone wrote the code to produce the formulas presented in the literature, then it should be possible to do the same without any input from the Heim Theory Group.
Consider it a form of "peer review", but for the software. Do you feel this is possible, or is there something that needs to be changed in the documentation to resolve the A Matrix issue? When I first looked into the 1982 version, the A matrix was present in the equations and a suggestion given for its values. Only in reading Heim's books did I learn the source of the values. Heim said that he had to fix the values to obtain correct ground state masses. I assumed that in the following work this hadn't changed. Apparently that assumption is incorrect. It looks like Heim made further progress and found a way to derive masses without the A matrix, so the A matrix should no longer be part of the discussion. It should be possible to derive these formulas, but trying to understand Heim theory is not an easy task. I don't think anyone has succeded in doing that. All we have are Heim's final equations and his initial assumptions, but making the connection between his starting point and final equations is most difficult. John Reed
darzhliebek
1st September 2007 - 01:14 AM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Aug 31 2007, 08:51 PM) Ok, since no errors are given for the data points in the figure I will assume that the errors are normally distributed and looking at the different periods (rest, rotation) I can estimate the sigma of the distribution. The first 31 data points are well distributed as a Gaussian with a sigma of ~ .54. The entire data set gives a sigma of .57.
Assuming the errors to be .57 the chi-square = ~82 with degrees of freedom (df) = 143
Which is very reasonable!! Yielding a Q=(1-p) of > ~10-4
Definitely consistent with a flat distribution!
I think we would agree any larger error bars and the data is totally meaningless.
Heck, even if we pick a small error of .33 (which is clearly to small) the chi-squared = ~141 Almost perfect for a flat distribution!
NOW I would bet that the data is ALSO consistent with the Tajmar's results! But you see that is the POINT. The data does not support the Tajmar's results because you cannot rule out a flat distribution. Hello everyone, I've been reading this discussion for a while now. Nice to see really exciting work going on at the moment and some good scientific discussion on a subject with tremendous implications. Finally I feel I may have something to contribute  @Astepintime... I dont really agree with your analysis of the data. If you look back at the plot posted by HDeasy (pg111) you'll see that the blocks of data posted by Maxwell's Demon correspond to... 1. no rotation 2 +ve rotation 3. no rotation 4. -ve rotation 5. no rotation So if we do a simple equal variance T-test between the unrotated and +ve rotation data we can see that the Sagnac Frequency Deviation during rotation is statistically different to that at stationary at the 85% confidence level (P=0.152) - This isn't entirely convincing, however... Repeating this for the -ve rotation data shows that the SFD during -ve rotation is statistically different to the SFD at zero rotation at the 99.999% confidence level (P=6.4e-6) I believe that this is a more correct analysis. Now, I completely agree that there is a severe lack of data so the results aren't very robust, but it is a bit heavy-handed to write them off entirely. Looking forward to results on the mass derivations - and also updates on Gravity B
hdeasy
1st September 2007 - 04:39 PM
Hi Max's demon..
| QUOTE | I wish we had some confirmation that others were conducting experiments to test for the effect, all I’ve got is hearsay. Does anyone know, for a fact, that such attempts are underway?
<br>Many months ago Tajmar indicated in an interview that several groups were attempting to reproduce his effect. I think it was someone else who mentioned Berkeley. No-one then said anything about Canterbury, so that was a bonus. As would be Gravity B. Let's just be patient - in a few weeks the next group will certainly make themselves known. We already see that an important group in NZ has made the effort. THis shows the physics community was indeed impressed that a first rate experimenter like Tajmar had been successful.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I wish we had some confirmation that others were conducting experiments to test for the effect, all I’ve got is hearsay. Does anyone know, for a fact, that such attempts are underway?
<br>Many months ago Tajmar indicated in an interview that several groups were attempting to reproduce his effect. I think it was someone else who mentioned Berkeley. No-one then said anything about Canterbury, so that was a bonus. As would be Gravity B. Let's just be patient - in a few weeks the next group will certainly make themselves known. We already see that an important group in NZ has made the effort. THis shows the physics community was indeed impressed that a first rate experimenter like Tajmar had been successful.
One, there’s no indication that they even have a lab, let alone ‘a unique experimental setup.
Hauser has a lab but not equipped for this sort of test. D & H are theorists in this area - so of course they are looking for experimenters to confirm their predictions.
| QUOTE | All I’m saying is that the Heim group would better serve their interests if they followed his example, rather than conceal vital experimental information.
<br>The Heim group has no funding for experiments until now and have thus concentrated on theory. Again - if anyone reading this would care to fund an exciting experiment... Also, it's not a question of hiding results: the theoretical derivations of Heim's results are difficult. The Heim-theory group had a sketched derivation on their web-site up to a year ago but removed it to re-work it. As they have no funding it's taking time to re-do that. Droscher is the best theorist still on Heim theory: he and Hauser have just come from the US after talking with the editor of the review journal they will publish with next year. That will be at least peer reviewed. Don't blame them: as I say they aren't funded and Heim had this eccentric wish to avoid publication via normal channels.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | All I’m saying is that the Heim group would better serve their interests if they followed his example, rather than conceal vital experimental information.
<br>The Heim group has no funding for experiments until now and have thus concentrated on theory. Again - if anyone reading this would care to fund an exciting experiment... Also, it's not a question of hiding results: the theoretical derivations of Heim's results are difficult. The Heim-theory group had a sketched derivation on their web-site up to a year ago but removed it to re-work it. As they have no funding it's taking time to re-do that. Droscher is the best theorist still on Heim theory: he and Hauser have just come from the US after talking with the editor of the review journal they will publish with next year. That will be at least peer reviewed. Don't blame them: as I say they aren't funded and Heim had this eccentric wish to avoid publication via normal channels.
Ever since the mass formula ran into a brick wall, the credibility of their theory has been languishing in a ditch.
You can see from John's latest post that the 1989 code does indeed seem to avoid he A matrix he had feared was still present. Okay - communication between him and the HT group was a bit slow, but we're getting there. So the mass predicion is recovering and the D & H prediction for the anti-grav improvement to Tajmar's setup is still outstanding. So a realist would be more optimistic now .
| QUOTE | If (Dr?) Reed blesses the new formulae, I’ll be delighted to start waving the Heim banner again. But if the particle mass issue –doesn’t- get resolved, then I only see these scant slivers of hopeful vindication:
- the neutrino mass prediction will someday be confirmed or refuted
- the superconducting gravitiphoton lift experiment may someday be explicitly stated, and then tested
- the original gravitophoton experimental prediction may someday be tested
That’s it, isn’t it? Because unless I’m missing something, we don’t yet have any ‘evidence’ to support Heim theory. Perhaps I’m uninformed. Would you be so kind as to make a list of the facts which constitute ‘evidence in support of Heim theory?’ I'd like to know, exactly, what keeps the fires of hope for Heim theory burning in your heart.
<br>Well, the formula may be back on track (see above). The list you give up there is mighty imppressive compared to String Theory;
grounds enough to retain hope, I should think. Also there is
- the 'q-gravion' or quintessence force of Heim may explain Dark Energy.
If all these predictions come true than there will be cause for celebration.
Jossarian
1st September 2007 - 08:56 PM
@hdeasy:
| QUOTE | the 'q-gravion' or quintessence force of Heim may explain Dark Energy
I've posted earlier about so called gargantuan hole and that apparently photons passing thru it lose energy exactly as EHT already predicted it.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | the 'q-gravion' or quintessence force of Heim may explain Dark Energy
I've posted earlier about so called gargantuan hole and that apparently photons passing thru it lose energy exactly as EHT already predicted it.
There is interesting article on SPACE.COM regarding gargantuan hole.
See that snippet:
| QUOTE | The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.
"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.
Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The CMB is an imprint of radiation left from the Big Bang, the theoretical beginning of the universe.
"Although our surprising results need independent confirmation, the slightly colder temperature of the CMB in this region appears to be caused by a huge hole devoid of nearly all matter roughly 6 to 10 billion light-years from Earth," Rudnick said.
Photons of the CMB gain a small amount of energy when they pass through normal regions of space with matter, the researchers explained. But when the CMB passes through a void, the photons lose energy, making the CMB from that part of the sky appear cooler.
Isn't that a confirmation of Heim's corrected gravitional law?
Just see that part:
Any mass which is situated in the range between the upper border distance R0 and ρ must overcome a very weak repulsion force, if it wants to approach the source of field. Since this effect occurs only for very large distances, it is practically not observable.
And this one:
| QUOTE | Finally Heim found that cosmic red shift too is a result of the corrected gravitation law. Therefore each particle of this world must approach primarily against the repulsive gravitation component of almost the whole remaining world. (This corresponds to the field curve between ρ and R0.) This is using energy whereby each photon becomes longer in it's wavelength during this journey.
What do you think about this? Is there any other explanation for this phenomena?
One more thing. Mumbling about mysterious Dark Mater or Dark Energy isn't an answer.
/Joss
jreed
4th September 2007 - 06:29 PM
QUOTE (hdeasy+Sep 1 2007, 04:39 PM) You can see from John's latest post that the 1989 code does indeed seem to avoid he A matrix he had feared was still present. Okay - communication between him and the HT group was a bit slow, but we're getting there. So the mass predicion is recovering
. @Hugh, I've completed my programming of Heim's unpublished 1989 equations to derive the extra quantum numbers (n, m, p, sigma) that I thought were coming from the A matrix. I can now say for certain that the A matrix is not involved with this new version. In addition, I can derive particle masses with only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge without the A matrix. This is what I had hoped to be able to do. These results agree with Anton Mueller's results. I'm able to get accurate masses for the 17 test particles I have tried this program on. The worst mass comparisons with experimental data are the neutron, 939.11 vs 939.56 experimental and the eta, 548.64 vs 547.3 experimental. All the others are closer, sometimes agreeing to 6 digits. I thought I might be able to put in any set of quantum numbers for an untested particle and get a mass. This didn't work. I tried the rho+ meson, quantum numbers k=1, P=2, Q=2, kappa=1 or 2 and charge +1. This gave masses of -2000 and + 8. This meson has an experimental mass of 768. However on reading further, the rho is an excited state of the pion, so I used the old 1982 program that calculates excited states, and the first excited state of the pion has mass 775. All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics. John Reed, Ph.D (physics)
Tim
4th September 2007 - 06:53 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 4 2007, 06:29 PM) All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics. Now this is exciting! I'd stopped mentioning the mass calculations when telling people about EHT because of jreed's previous work with the 1982 formula. Now I guess I can start mentioning them again. Awesome! I would like to extend my sincere thanks to jreed, hdeasy, and all the other's who've taken the time to do actual work (from translating to physics to programing) relating to Heim Theory.
gdaigle
4th September 2007 - 08:25 PM
Hugh and John,
Congratulations on these early results. This is very exciting news.
TRoc
5th September 2007 - 12:07 AM
Hi all,
Thanks for the even harder task of going through that again, with serious doubt in your mind, Dr. Reed. I am very glad to hear that there was no "foul play" involved, and that HT looks promising.
Can you repeat which constants/input are used for those mass derivations?
Thanks,
T.Roc
Astepintime
5th September 2007 - 01:06 AM
QUOTE (darzhliebek+Sep 1 2007, 01:14 AM) Now, I completely agree that there is a severe lack of data so the results aren't very robust, but it is a bit heavy-handed to write them off entirely.
Hi darzhliebek, I agree with you that the T-test is more appropriate to use here; the conventional statistic for measuring the significance of a difference of means. However, let’s look at this statistic when you estimate the measure for ALL the pairs of data sets. Data set 1 [1,30] = no rotation Data set 2 [33,58] = +ve rotation Data set 3 [60,80] = no rotation Data set 4 [82, 108] = -ve rotation Data set 5 [110,143] = no rotation Data set 1-2 Ttest = 1.28 df= 55 Prob = .206 1-3 Ttest = 0.31 df= 50 Prob = .76 No rotation comparison 1-4 Ttest = 3.94 df= 56 Prob = .0002 1-5 Ttest = -0.52 df= 63 Prob = .60 No rotation comparison 2-3 Ttest = -0.79 df= 45 Prob = .43 2-4 Ttest = 3.15 df= 51 Prob = .0027 2-5 Ttest = -1.75 df= 58 Prob = .085 3-4 Ttest = 3.16 df= 46 Prob = .0028 3-5 Ttest = -0.76 df= 53 Prob = .45 No rotation comparison 4-5 Ttest = -4.30 df= 59 Prob = .0001 The first thing you see is differences between the probabilities with the No-rotation samples used. Heck, between themselves the no rotation samples have probs of 76%, 60% and 40%. The comparison of the 4-5 and 3-4 data blocks show a T-test difference almost factor of ~30 apart! These two facts worry me, each suggesting possible ‘systematic’ errors that remain unaccounted for. Normally one considers the difference between means to be very significant when the prob is < ~ 0.001. However, the standard is raised when considering physics break-through experiments. For the student T-test in this experiment I would think it should be no greater than .0001 for all comparisons made over many days (or months) of running. Another ‘simple’ way of looking at the problem, as I first mentioned, is to just ask the question is the distribution of the data consistent with a flat distribution. The chi-squared estimates suggests that a flat distribution cannot be ruled out. The Canterbury people themselves estimated the slope to be 2.3 +/- 1.4 microcycles per radian which is within 2 sigma of no slope at all (flat) ! We both agree that the results are not robust and I am not really being so heavy-handed to write the data off completely but I believe the burden of proof is so much higher in cases of this type. So being conservative I would still say that IMHO the data does not support the Tajmars results (but does not ‘fully’ contradict it either).
makuabob
5th September 2007 - 01:31 AM
| QUOTE | All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics.
<br>Yes, very encouraging, especially to those of us who barely have our heads far enough out of the muck to see what's realy going on!
I don't know if it will bear fruit, but I've e-mailed my sister-in-law's child (I don't want to put any pressure on him/her in his/her area) at UC Berkeley to ask if any local 'word' is passing around about the Tajmar experiments.
Now,... should I get out my Captain Kirk or Engineer Scotty uniform?... Decisions, decisions! 
DEK46656
5th September 2007 - 04:03 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 4 2007, 02:29 PM) All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics.
I would also like to offer a "thank you" for the work you have put into testing this, as well as one to hdeasy for his assistance. I have been of the opinion that EHT had a good chance due to its inherent elegance. Fortunately, that isn't a requirement for "proof", but it sure helps carry a person through during those dark times when a theory may not stand up to review. I would take it then that things like the neutral electron are still in the picture? I keep wondering if possible evidence for it is related to something I brought up on a Jul 14 2007 posting about Cygnus X-3? If the mass formula can pass muster (which seems likely), and Tajmar's experiment is showing signs of Ggp, then some of the other predictions of EHT should be addressed as well.
Maringa
5th September 2007 - 08:42 AM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 4 2007, 06:29 PM) All this is very interesting. I think Heim theory might be correct. Much more work needs to be done on calculating interactions, excited states and decay products, but I think all this will turn out to be important, perhaps leading to a new area of physics. rather a new era of physics? A deep and heartfelt thank you for the work you have done, and the willingness to consider looking at it again (and at hdeasy too)...I think many on this forum have always felt that there was still something in Heim Theory despite all the setbacks, I truly hope it only gets better from now on. lemme go back to designing my star ship! Maringa
jreed
5th September 2007 - 12:38 PM
QUOTE (Maringa+Sep 5 2007, 08:42 AM) rather a new era of physics?
A deep and heartfelt thank you for the work you have done, and the willingness to consider looking at it again (and at hdeasy too)...I think many on this forum have always felt that there was still something in Heim Theory despite all the setbacks, I truly hope it only gets better from now on.
lemme go back to designing my star ship!
Maringa When I discovered what Heim had said about the A matrix in his book, I was really disappointed. I thought that was the end of the mass calculations. The new equations have given me renewed hope that Heim may have been right, and this does point to a new understanding of physics. We may have a long journey ahead of us in learning about Heim's ideas. They are all new and different than any physics I'm familiar with. The mass numbers don't lie, however. John Reed
hdeasy
5th September 2007 - 03:12 PM
QUOTE (jreed+Sep 5 2007, 12:38 PM) When I discovered what Heim had said about the A matrix in his book, I was really disappointed. I thought that was the end of the mass calculations. The new equations have given me renewed hope that Heim may have been right, and this does point to a new understanding of physics. We may have a long journey ahead of us in learning about Heim's ideas. They are all new and different than any physics I'm familiar with. The mass numbers don't lie, however.
John Reed HOORAY! Congratulations on excellent work, John. This is indeed exciting and very welcome news. Thanks for working so fast to incorporate th updates from Anton and it's great that your results agree with his. The point about the excited masses also being in the right ball park adds to the satisfaction of your latest work. Since it's now apparent that there is no fudge factor in the 1989 code, it does, as you say, bode well for Heim Theory. I haven't quite finished getting my version of the code working. But I will speed up now and look again through the code and equations. Some day it would be great to have the mass formula derivation back on the Heim-theory web site. Maybe another thing to look forward to in 2008. It's very reasuring that some of the new masses agree with experiment to up to 6 decimal places. Yes, as the propulsion side of EHT is also progressing with the Tajmar effect, the ' road map' to getting Heim's work recognised posthumously is back on course.
hdeasy
5th September 2007 - 05:07 PM
Thanks to all who said thanks to me too: though in this case John must take most of the credit. Also a big thank you to the Heim Theory group for coming forward with the full 1989 code.
As for other predictions such as the neutral electron - well, it was never ruled out by experiment, as far as I know. The search for heavy neutral leptons concentrated on super-heavy leptons and not so much in the electron mass range.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) then we can concentrate on a full derivaton of the mass formula, complete with eigen-values. 
