I just read an update on the progress of heim theory. Apparently all claims of ftl have been dropped and the theory has now become more conservative in its predictions. Can anyone tell me if they know that the ftl proposal has been completely debunked or they've simply swept it aside to gain momentum on developing the initial theory and if that works out for them then theyre in a better position to make ftl claims again?
If no one knows then it would still be interesting to have answers for my previous questions even if they're now irrelevant.
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 8 2008, 10:04 PM)
I just read an update on the progress of heim theory. Apparently all claims of ftl have been dropped and the theory has now become more conservative in its predictions. Can anyone tell me if they know that the ftl proposal has been completely debunked or they've simply swept it aside to gain momentum on developing the initial theory and if that works out for them then theyre in a better position to make ftl claims again?
If no one knows then it would still be interesting to have answers for my previous questions even if they're now irrelevant.
Nothing I've seen indicates that the postulated FTL mechanism has been debunked. It appears to have been merely dropped as too far out after the Tajmar results made validation of EHT a real possibility.If no one knows then it would still be interesting to have answers for my previous questions even if they're now irrelevant.
Duane
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1
I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 9 2008, 03:22 AM)
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1
I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
My guess would be that the Heim Group is only going to address things that they have mathematical proofs for. However... particle mass formula from first order principles, and "new" forces of nature (Gg, Gq, & Ggp) should be enough of a disruption for the time being.
Sorry my sentence didn't make sense. I basically meant for all intents and purposes it's the same but not literally rhe same. Otherwise i would be negating the meaning of my sentence.
QUOTE (Inflaton+Apr 9 2008, 07:22 AM)
'dropped as too far out '- Djolds 1
I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
Just deemphasized for now. Brainpower and mathematical effort going toward the more conventional applications and rougher parts of the hypothesis (such as the mass formula).I know that's not the same as being 'debunked' as i put it but that's effectively the same thing isn't it?
Please correct me if i'm misinformed.
Duane
This is interesting. A team at Princeton found that the mechanisms for high temperature conductivity is very different from that of low temperature superconductivity. Whereas LTS relies upon electron bonding as the "glue", it seems that HTS relies upon electron repulsion. Here are two quotes:
"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".
This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity. Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory? And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?
"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".
This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity. Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory? And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?
replying to gdaigle
Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.
Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.
Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, it ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)
[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)
Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]
Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."
Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).
Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.
Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.
Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, it ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)
[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)
Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]
Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."
Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).
replying to gdaigle
Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.
Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.
Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, if ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)
[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)
Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]
Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."
Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).
Not a physicist. The HTc field seems to be opening up again with the new "iron-based" complex HTc compounds announced in Science and elsewhere in the last two weeks.
Whatever the implications for Tajmar's theories, results, and his interpretation of his results, these new materials are apparently shaking theorists up.
Back to Tajmar, I think one might separate out Tajmar's results from his theories. His results, if ultimately replicable, are fascinating. Perhaps his group's explanation of these results, their theories, may or may not be correct. But the "results" of the experiment would still stand. Confirmation of the experiment might not confirm the theory (of course, it may)
[In practice these experiments sound difficult to conduct, the signals are small, filtering out noise is very demanding, some of the results seem particularly weird, with all sorts of asymmetries (rotation/acceleration in one direction has different results that rotation in the other direction, etc.)
Canterbury NZ has apparently tried to reproduce these results in a slightly different setup and gotten different results, yet also with some odd signals, including asymmetries with an opposite sign (as I read it) from those in Austria (rotation of Earth and different hemispheres ??? This stuff gets really weird) ]
Bracketed stuff is just an indication of awareness of the difficulty/challenges--which Tajmar appears to acknowledge--in getting generally accepted, reproducible "results."
Once the data is a bit harder, I bet the theories will become more detailed and confident. Certain parameters will rule out various classes of options, etc. I just hope that there is sufficient funding to conduct careful experimentation sufficient to characterize the phenomenon (or phenomena).
Looks like your post definitely has a case of cooper pairing there Reptile.
JW...
.
.
QUOTE (gdaigle+Apr 14 2008, 02:25 PM)
This is interesting. A team at Princeton found that the mechanisms for high temperature conductivity is very different from that of low temperature superconductivity. Whereas LTS relies upon electron bonding as the "glue", it seems that HTS relies upon electron repulsion. Here are two quotes:
"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".
This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity. Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory? And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?
"High-temperature superconductivity does not hinge on a magical glue binding electrons together. The secret to superconductivity, they say, may rest instead on the ability of electrons to take advantage of their natural repulsion in a complex situation." ... "Unlike the electrons studied in low-temperature superconducting materials, the electrons in high-temperature superconductors that are most likely to bond and flow effortlessly are the ones that repel others the strongest when the environment is not conducive to superconductivity".
This may explain why Tajmar did not find any gravitomagnetic effect for HTS. His theory relies upon Cooper pairs to produce microgravity. Do others see this as support for Tajmar's theory? And since Droscher and Hauser have tied EHT to Tajmar's finding, does this give additional weight to EHT?
<br>
Thank you for the Pinceton article, gdaigle....but you are misinterpreting what it says.
I think if you read it again you will see ...
They are not claiming there is NO Cooper pairing in High Temp. SC. ( that is hardly deniable)....
They are merely saying that the 'glue' that binds the pairs together are different (different binding mechanism) for HTSC vs LTSC.
...And they are comparing characteristic repulsion of two electrons above T© to below T©....for each type of material.
JW
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 23 2008, 02:23 AM)
Anyone inetrested in funding my bucky rubber research? I have a cubic mm of the stuff and I dont plan to do much more research on it in the next few months unless I get some money to make it worth my while.
No; but I'll be glad to sell you a couple of genuine samples of the quantum vacuum from deep space that we have just obtained from NASA (from the Voyager's return trip).
These exquisite samples of deep space are perfect for experimentation; and you can do wonderful experiments like ....watching light pass through them completely unhindered.....
....watching them bend in a gravitational field....
...weighing them to prove they are totally weightless.
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...
Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.
Call 1-800-VACUUM .
QUOTE (Just Wonderful+Apr 23 2008, 02:46 AM)
No; but I'll be glad to sell you a couple of genuine samples of the quantum vacuum from deep space that we have just obtained from NASA (from the Voyager's return trip).
These exquisite sample of deep space are perfect for experimentation; and you can do wonderful experiments like ....watching light pass through them completely unhindered.....
....watching them bend in a gravitational field....
...weighing them to prove they are totally weightless.
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...
Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.
Call 1-800-VACUUM .
Thanks for nothing!
These exquisite sample of deep space are perfect for experimentation; and you can do wonderful experiments like ....watching light pass through them completely unhindered.....
....watching them bend in a gravitational field....
...weighing them to prove they are totally weightless.
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...
Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.
Call 1-800-VACUUM .
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 23 2008, 02:52 AM)
Thanks for nothing!
I am guessing you are overweight.Sandra
Thanks, Just Wonderful. I really did "step in it", didn't I? Don't know what I was thinking. I've made changes in my personal blog to reflect your comments.
QUOTE (Sandra doliak+Apr 23 2008, 04:12 AM)
I am guessing you are overweight.
Sandra
Sandra
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
What's prod=fessional?, is this a fraudian slip with regards to your imminent, soon to be cell 'mate' and lover-boy, Bubba?Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
What's prod=fessional?, is this a fraudian slip with regards to your imminent, soon to be cell 'mate' and lover-boy, Bubba?Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
QUOTE (Lizzy Frog+Apr 25 2008, 05:11 PM)
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Apr 25 2008, 03:12 PM)
Hey doliak! dont bother my friends in other forums. We hate your guts! Nobody wnans you here, so get rid of yourself!
Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
Neil, you've made some valuable contributions over time, but fishing for funding only makes you look like a troll and that lowest of lifeforms, the telemarketer. Doiliak has been writing alot of abusive violent stuff and is trying to ruin my prod=fessional reputtation. We should censure her or throw her offf the phys.org board.
If you have actual results with carbon variants, finding entrepreneurial funding will not be a problem. Oddball results, if any, need substantiation. Especially on a board with good calibre minds such as this. If you want to make such claims here, post results, lab setups, photos, or do not post. Meanwhile, if you want to be a valued contributor here, drop the funding requests.
Be a contributor, or be a trollboy. Your call.
Duane
Your right djolds1, this guy is a trollboy
I've been lurking through this site for over 2 years, and this guy Farbstein set off my fraud alarm with his first post. I googled his company Vulvox, and although I am not
current on carbon nanotube research, I am very current on protein expression and nuclear architecture research. (I am an active research scientist at NIA with Ph.D in Molecular Bio. & Biochemistry) His website's claims regarding protein expression, as well as a post suggesting lamin A as a cognitive/memory enhancer are both ridiculous.
(a splicing variant of lamin A is responsible for Hutchinson-Guilford progeria syndrome)
Furthermore, I Google earth'd his company's address (4 Crome Road, Syosset, NY) and
it is a single family home right off the L.I.E.
So if you're not contributing to the thread, stay the hell off!!
speaking of which, where has hdeasy, jreed and their like been?
and with that I'll take my own advice...........
I've been lurking through this site for over 2 years, and this guy Farbstein set off my fraud alarm with his first post. I googled his company Vulvox, and although I am not
current on carbon nanotube research, I am very current on protein expression and nuclear architecture research. (I am an active research scientist at NIA with Ph.D in Molecular Bio. & Biochemistry) His website's claims regarding protein expression, as well as a post suggesting lamin A as a cognitive/memory enhancer are both ridiculous.
(a splicing variant of lamin A is responsible for Hutchinson-Guilford progeria syndrome)
Furthermore, I Google earth'd his company's address (4 Crome Road, Syosset, NY) and
it is a single family home right off the L.I.E.
So if you're not contributing to the thread, stay the hell off!!
speaking of which, where has hdeasy, jreed and their like been?
and with that I'll take my own advice...........
QUOTE (auldsj+Apr 29 2008, 06:50 PM)
speaking of which, where has hdeasy, jreed and their like been?
Hopefully puzzling over the mass formula to see if it can be tweaked to work.Until the overdue summary paper comes out, or Tajmar releases more results to compare to the Heim approach, matters are in stasis.
Duane
oops - double posts
Hi - sorry for being absent so long from this forum: I was busy on other things. The only real bit of news on the Heim front is that the studies of Tajmar's experiment are increasing in number - one should start up soon at ESA: only fitting as it was in a mainly ESA sponsored study that the effect surfaced in the first place. It also seems there may be a patent in the offing using Heim theory for power generation. Whether this involves spinning magnets a la STEORN or not is not yet clear. But it's an interesting additional development, as Heim himself was even glad his theory seemed to have no power generation ability, as he thought it might have more bad effects than good.
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 3 2008, 02:11 PM)
Hi - sorry for being absent so long from this forum: I was busy on other things. The only real bit of news on the Heim front is that the studies of Tajmar's experiment are increasing in number - one should start up soon at ESA: only fitting as it was in a mainly ESA sponsored study that the effect surfaced in the first place. It also seems there may be a patent in the offing using Heim theory for power generation. Whether this involves spinning magnets a la STEORN or not is not yet clear. But it's an interesting additional development, as Heim himself was even glad his theory seemed to have no power generation ability, as he thought it might have more bad effects than good.
Power generation patent?
That is actually... discouraging. I would prefer to see cautious & incremental extensions of the Heim approach, focusing mainly on the math & logical structure of the hypothesis, before any significant claims beyond the tabletop propulsive demonstrator are made. Baby steps until the approach can be generally verified, or refuted. Something like this smells of a Pons- Fleischman jump into the blue that could backfire VERY badly.
Tho perhaps there have been significant refinements over the last 6-8 months which are not generally known.
Duane
> Something like this smells of a Pons- Fleischman jump into the blue that could backfire VERY badly.
> Tho perhaps there have been significant refinements over the last 6-8 months which are not generally known.
Well, the review paper is also being prepared by Droscher and that at the same time is presenting the theory in a more accessible way in a peer reviewed journal. That is moving the theory along. And extending the original fermion effect to this boson equivalent is indeed also adding to the original theory.
The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognises the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applicaitons. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.
Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.
> Tho perhaps there have been significant refinements over the last 6-8 months which are not generally known.
Well, the review paper is also being prepared by Droscher and that at the same time is presenting the theory in a more accessible way in a peer reviewed journal. That is moving the theory along. And extending the original fermion effect to this boson equivalent is indeed also adding to the original theory.
The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognises the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applicaitons. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.
Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.
QUOTE
...weighing the samples of space to prove they are totally weightless.
"Space" or NEAR Vacuum, is always with potential, hence will always consist of mass and or present with a presence via force and the velocities that created the Potential, and that even includes a NEAR vacuum from deep space! And therefore will be with weight QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...weighing the samples of space to prove they are totally weightless. |
"Space" or NEAR Vacuum, is always with potential, hence will always consist of mass and or present with a presence via force and the velocities that created the Potential, and that even includes a NEAR vacuum from deep space! And therefore will be with weight ....watching light bend in a gravitational field....
Light is the rise and fall of Potential to the mass propagating the Kinetic Energy and or Electromagnetic waves - And the quanta of the rise and fall in potential to mass propagating light is the experience of velocities, {V=PE/KE} this experience is considered as photons when we are dealing in Quantum Mechanics.
And to observe trajectory changes to the photons and or the rise and fall of potential implies changes in density to the mass propagating the said rise and fall in potential which BTW is best dealt with as Electromagnetic waves and or photons, being propagated in part via a compression point, such as a mass of particles where there are countless opposing velocities involved for each particles Potential, and the more opposing velocities that cross any given point the greater the compression and or gravitational field one would experience
I have had enough!
Look:- Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!
Here's why!
Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?
Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!
Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....
ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.
or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal. Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.
And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.
<br>I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...
It's true that if the prediction of a vertrical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe. Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get. Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.
I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...
It's true that if the prediction of a vertical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe. Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get. Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.
Droscher & Hauser have been working closely with Tajmar? That had been implied several places, but not solidly confirmed. Encouraging news to see them closely affiliated with a reputable established experiment.
As to the timing of the paper (Glyph of addict shakes/ON) I want my fix! (Glyph of addict shakes/OFF).
For the patents - an example from American history that's always stuck with me. The cotton gin. Early 19th century invention. Improved the rate of cotton production by better than an order of magnitude. Transformed the slave system from a marginal thing to big business. The patent was jumped with impunity and the inventor wasted his life trying to enforce it, much like Tesla. When you're dealing with the really useful basic innovations, trying to enforce the patents is self-defeating. Better to take the glory and be feted, wined and dined.
Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.
Duane
<br>Ah! That's the tricky part about magnets! As one of the last bits of "magic" in our current universe, this 'thinking about' magnets is where the shell game begins.
An excellent example occurred a while back in a SlashDot posting about someone who discovered a "new" physical effect by sticking a permanent magnet onto the end of a running electrical motor with a steel shaft! The motor began spinning faster! But when tried on a motor with a brass shaft, no joy. The link below will get to the heart of the effect but, basically, nobody recalled what happens when the B-H curve gets pushed out of shape by a strong, steady magnetic force applied to an affectable material. SlashDot item about motor that speeds up...
I, too, advise caution when "free energy" is going to come from ordinary, everyday permanent magnets. Tajmar et al got their barely measurable effect by dipping into a special physical state. With all due regard to those thinking a set of plain magnets will supply energy,... well, I don't know what to say except better minds than ours have had decades to play with magnets and all that has come of it is "tricky" stuff. Before the Orbo thingy will be believable, it will have to run on its own, on a ten meter clear plastic pedestal, with no circle of stands surrounding it (like the stator poles of a motor!), transparent floor, ceiling, walls,... etc. That's because a finely balanced, well lubricated machine can seem to run forever.
But, I digress,...
We know well HOW magnetism and gravity affect things but Heim explained WHY they affect things. Until our world expands to include Heim's additional dimensions, it will still have "magic" in it and,..
Once it has expanded to include Heim's dimensions, we hope and expect new "magic" to appear. Otherwise, how dull it will be to live in a world where everything is known!
IIRC positive (repulsive) gravitophotons are what lower the inertial mass of the vehicle in the FTL application of the spacedrive. But let's see if the general approach and initial proposed technical application (STL spacedrive) work before moving onto further notional applications. Best to keep claims limited and credibility intact until EHT is verified (or refuted, in which case all of this is moot).
As a non-participating observer ("lurker" is so unflattering!) for about the last 15 months I have seen that, absent hard experimental evidence the remarkable explanatory power of EHT and its capacity to derive values for particle masses and lifetimes, etc. has encouraged the worthy participants on this board in animatedly discussing the whole subject at great length. And yes, now with the Tajmar connection there is the imminent hope of much greater progress still.
In light of this however, surely there is no harm, meanwhile, in posing the question as to whether generation of an attractive gravitation-like field is an idea compatible with the theoretical framework of EHT, as presently proposed. It is surely an interesting question, no?
For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.
What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil. At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.
However, I am not a physicist by profession, and so would hope to hear from those with a deeper theoretical grasp of what has already been proposed and discussed at such great length.
regards,
Anthony Longman
The proposed propulsion experiment (GME2) imparts a "push" force to the fuselage of the craft per schematics in the papers, not a "pull" force. It might be possible to use this for "artificial gravity" of a sort, but IIRC human biological systems don't treat these "push" forces as "gravity" and so the medical problems of microgravity still remain.
It might be possible to use a propulsion coil in a small volume to act as an "acceleration compensator," providing a locally equal counterforce to acceleration forces and allowing for high gravity acceleration. I'm uncertain if the coil needs to be physically coupled to a structure to impart force.
Three applications have thusfar been described:
Repulsive gravitophoton coupling with vehicle structure to reduce inertial mass.
The Tajmar device (GME1), force toward circumference.
The reference propulsion experiment (GME2), force along axis of rotation.
There may be additional ways to acquire gravitational effects along various different vectors, but they have not as yet been described much less even marginally demonstrated.
And to observe trajectory changes to the photons and or the rise and fall of potential implies changes in density to the mass propagating the said rise and fall in potential which BTW is best dealt with as Electromagnetic waves and or photons, being propagated in part via a compression point, such as a mass of particles where there are countless opposing velocities involved for each particles Potential, and the more opposing velocities that cross any given point the greater the compression and or gravitational field one would experience
QUOTE
....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them.
That's it!I have had enough!
Look:- Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!
Here's why!
Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?
Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!
Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....
ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.
or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ....and of course, watching trillions of particles and anti-particles appear and disappear so fast that you can't even see them. |
That's it!
I have had enough!
Look:- Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!
Here's why!
Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?
Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!
Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....
ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.
or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...
Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.
Call 1-800-VACUUM . 
DOH! 
Err~Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
I have had enough!
Look:- Anti-particles are only theoretical and in reality they simply don't exist!
Here's why!
Lets say our currency or Money is a systems mass and lets say the sums of money are individual particles in a closed room where I will imply the tangible cash is all we have to mess round with as all else is NO-thing! As the room is implied as the whole Universe, and lets say theoretically via on paper we had minus two hundred dollars in our hand, now can you tell me what we are working with in reality?
Obviously on paper negative connotations may work, but in reality an anti-dollar or negative dollar implies to a mass of money that simply cant be less than zero!
Once we hand our last quanta to else then that's it!
We have NO-Thing or NO money Now lets just change the above definition from money to energy and it should be obvious that....
ANTIPARTICLES simply are science fiction and they are not real! Oh sure! In theory, such bulls'hit is possible - But in reality? Come on! We all know mass, Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy and or a density greater than zero is energy and we should note energy CAN NOT be destroyed Nor created but rather exchanged, so the rise and fall in potential to mass must come via a velocity and or a Kinetic quanta from another Potential, density, Particle and or mass.
or if one simply still doesn't get it, the exchange of cash is only possible if one has more than no money in hand, any less than zero or no money then in reality you have money from else. Anti-particles! Phwerrrrrt!
You will have hours of enjoyment which will only be limited by your imagination...
Only a few samples left ...so orders your NOW....for the low - low price of only $25 per cubic cm.
Call 1-800-VACUUM .
DOH! Err~Cheers,
Peter J Schoen..
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 5 2008, 11:50 AM)
Well, the review paper is also being prepared by Droscher and that at the same time is presenting the theory in a more accessible way in a peer reviewed journal. That is moving the theory along. And extending the original fermion effect to this boson equivalent is indeed also adding to the original theory.
The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applications. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.
Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.
Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press? The patent is understandable as Droscher worked, like Einstein, in a patent office for many years. He obviously therefore recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights: it wouldn't be nice if he developed all the theory (he helped Heim complete his work and corrected a lot of mistakes Heim had made in dictation) and then EADS or Boing or some other company took it and then patented the applications. Remember e.g. Tesla selling out to Westinghouse.
Also, his power generation may not be as crazy as it sounds. The Irish company Steorn are still working away seriously on their magnetic motor, which might be based on similar principles. They say they will go public maybe within a year. They have also taken out patents. If these systems work, they should be much simpler and easier to demonstrate than cold fusion of Fleischmann and Pons, as the latter is a complex mix of chemistry, calorimetry, electrochemistry, engineering etc.
I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal.
Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.
QUOTE (djolds1+May 5 2008, 11:55 PM)
Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press?
Well, I would not count on a publication in PRL or any other major journal. I think a good arXiv paper is the best you can hope for. Remember all the problems that the surfer dude had with his E8 theory.
QUOTE (djolds1+May 5 2008, 11:55 PM)
Any guesstimations on when that review paper will finally hit press?
I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal. Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.
And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.
I can now see his familiarity with the patent process, but, well, my cautious/conservative approach on high risk/high potential matters like these isn't going to go away. Give me something proven like nuclear pulse propulsion and I'm much more liberal.
Assuming EHT works, its developers need to anticipate most reward as the recognition of the ages, several large cash honorariums and multiple tenured positions for life with benefits. The applications will simply be too wide spread. Patents will be jumped, its just too useful.And anything even semi-linked to the words "free energy" gives me the willies. Assuming EHT is correct, a foul up could kick it into pariah status for half a century, forcing redevelopment from scratch via LQG. I devoutly hope you're correct and this is not as risky as I fear. I find the elegance of the Loop Quantum Gravity/EHT family very appealing as a GUT candidate.
<br>I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...
It's true that if the prediction of a vertrical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe. Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get. Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.
QUOTE (hdeasy+May 6 2008, 02:07 PM)
I would guess Autumn: though since they have been busy as well with the Tajmar thing, it might delay publication a bit. Might go to Winter...
It's true that if the prediction of a vertical force system is born out, it will be confirmation of a major prediction of the theory and should instantly guarantee the main workers in the field all those benefits you list. Still, if Droscher was so long at the patent office, he might prefer to be safe. Funny, Einstein didn't patent a relativistic space drive, atomic energy or whatever. Maybe because he foresaw no really useful consequences of his theory, technologically speaking.
Yes, you're also right that association with "free energy" may be shooting themselves in the foot if it flops. But I have simulated some of the Steorn results and found a possible loophole in COE that could explain what they claim to get. Magnets are strange in a sense in that they are macroscopic dipoles - this is a sort of macro-quantum effect: the domains lining up are reminiscent of the emissions lining up in a laser cavity. So there might be something in this macro-quantum effective monopole bevaiour of a bar magnet's N and S that allows COE violation. After all, there was shock and horror at parity violation when it was discovered: it was thought to be a conserved quantity, but was violated in some weak reactions. If Heim theory can give an explanation of this COE - maybe in terms of gravito-photon or other particle exchanges with the vacuum, then it could have a theoretical base for this energy claimed by Steorn and other groups.
Droscher & Hauser have been working closely with Tajmar? That had been implied several places, but not solidly confirmed. Encouraging news to see them closely affiliated with a reputable established experiment.
As to the timing of the paper (Glyph of addict shakes/ON) I want my fix! (Glyph of addict shakes/OFF).
For the patents - an example from American history that's always stuck with me. The cotton gin. Early 19th century invention. Improved the rate of cotton production by better than an order of magnitude. Transformed the slave system from a marginal thing to big business. The patent was jumped with impunity and the inventor wasted his life trying to enforce it, much like Tesla. When you're dealing with the really useful basic innovations, trying to enforce the patents is self-defeating.
Better to take the glory and be feted, wined and dined.Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.
Duane
QUOTE (djolds1+May 6 2008, 04:55 PM)
...
Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.
Duane
Very interesting points about magnets. I'd never quite thought about them in that manner before. Thank you for the insight.
Duane
<br>Ah! That's the tricky part about magnets! As one of the last bits of "magic" in our current universe, this 'thinking about' magnets is where the shell game begins.
An excellent example occurred a while back in a SlashDot posting about someone who discovered a "new" physical effect by sticking a permanent magnet onto the end of a running electrical motor with a steel shaft! The motor began spinning faster! But when tried on a motor with a brass shaft, no joy. The link below will get to the heart of the effect but, basically, nobody recalled what happens when the B-H curve gets pushed out of shape by a strong, steady magnetic force applied to an affectable material. SlashDot item about motor that speeds up...
I, too, advise caution when "free energy" is going to come from ordinary, everyday permanent magnets. Tajmar et al got their barely measurable effect by dipping into a special physical state. With all due regard to those thinking a set of plain magnets will supply energy,... well, I don't know what to say except better minds than ours have had decades to play with magnets and all that has come of it is "tricky" stuff. Before the Orbo thingy will be believable, it will have to run on its own, on a ten meter clear plastic pedestal, with no circle of stands surrounding it (like the stator poles of a motor!), transparent floor, ceiling, walls,... etc. That's because a finely balanced, well lubricated machine can seem to run forever.
But, I digress,...
We know well HOW magnetism and gravity affect things but Heim explained WHY they affect things. Until our world expands to include Heim's additional dimensions, it will still have "magic" in it and,..
Once it has expanded to include Heim's dimensions, we hope and expect new "magic" to appear. Otherwise, how dull it will be to live in a world where everything is known!
New Scientist last week had an interesting article reviewing four new theories for the origin and structure of space time. Three of these contain ideas that are strikingly reminiscent of Burkhard Heim's theory. It would seem therefore that ideas of this kind are gaining some traction in the theoretical community.
I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).
After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values. There has been much discussion of propulsion applications. I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS. There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc. Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).
Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?
Regards,
Anthony Longman
I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).
After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values. There has been much discussion of propulsion applications. I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS. There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc. Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).
Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?
Regards,
Anthony Longman
QUOTE (alongman+May 14 2008, 06:53 AM)
New Scientist last week had an interesting article reviewing four new theories for the origin and structure of space time. Three of these contain ideas that are strikingly reminiscent of Burkhard Heim's theory. It would seem therefore that ideas of this kind are gaining some traction in the theoretical community.
I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).
After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values. There has been much discussion of propulsion applications. I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS. There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc. Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).
Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?
Regards,
Anthony Longman
I also have a specific question for hdeasy and/or jreed (and anyone else who is willing to take a shot).
After re-reading some of the AIAA papers published by Droscher and Hauser with regard to the generation of propulsive artificial gravity fields from the vacuum, it is clear that HDT proposes the gravitophoton emerging from the vacuum with both positive and negative values. There has been much discussion of propulsion applications. I find myself wondering about the possibilities for the design of a device to generate attractive artificial gravity fields as in e.g. a tractor beam or an artificial gravity field for the inhabitants of the ISS. There would be obvious physiological benefits for long term space flight etc. Based on current efforts in the repulsive department, can anyone say whether this is likely to be theoretically/practically possible or not possible? (assuming current experments validate the overall theory).
Would either of you be willing to solicit the opinion of Droscher and Hauser on this question?
Regards,
Anthony Longman
IIRC positive (repulsive) gravitophotons are what lower the inertial mass of the vehicle in the FTL application of the spacedrive. But let's see if the general approach and initial proposed technical application (STL spacedrive) work before moving onto further notional applications. Best to keep claims limited and credibility intact until EHT is verified (or refuted, in which case all of this is moot).
QUOTE (djolds1+May 15 2008, 02:41 PM)
IIRC positive (repulsive) gravitophotons are what lower the inertial mass of the vehicle in the FTL application of the spacedrive. But let's see if the general approach and initial proposed technical application (STL spacedrive) work before moving onto further notional applications. Best to keep claims limited and credibility intact until EHT is verified (or refuted, in which case all of this is moot).
I agree that, clearly, experimental validation of the kind that one hopes will be forthcoming during the next 9 months or so will place discussion of the whole subject on a different footing. As a non-participating observer ("lurker" is so unflattering!) for about the last 15 months I have seen that, absent hard experimental evidence the remarkable explanatory power of EHT and its capacity to derive values for particle masses and lifetimes, etc. has encouraged the worthy participants on this board in animatedly discussing the whole subject at great length. And yes, now with the Tajmar connection there is the imminent hope of much greater progress still.
In light of this however, surely there is no harm, meanwhile, in posing the question as to whether generation of an attractive gravitation-like field is an idea compatible with the theoretical framework of EHT, as presently proposed. It is surely an interesting question, no?
For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.
What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil. At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.
However, I am not a physicist by profession, and so would hope to hear from those with a deeper theoretical grasp of what has already been proposed and discussed at such great length.
regards,
Anthony Longman
QUOTE (alongman+May 19 2008, 03:11 AM)
In light of this however, surely there is no harm, meanwhile, in posing the question as to whether generation of an attractive gravitation-like field is an idea compatible with the theoretical framework of EHT, as presently proposed. It is surely an interesting question, no?
For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.
What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil. At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.
For myself, after studying the papers published at the AIAA conference in 2007 and 2004, I am inclined to think that such a possibility is likely to be entirely consistent with EHT.
What became clear to me from a closer re-reading of these papers is that the hypothesized space drive -- which, I admit, I had first thought was associated with the repulsive force mediated by the positive gravitophotons -- on the contrary is conceived to operate through the negative (attractive) gravitophotons, interacting with the material in the rotating ring/disk above the magnetic coil. At an intuitive level, this suggests that with suitable adjustments to the input variables the direction of the force field above the disk could be easily reversed.
The proposed propulsion experiment (GME2) imparts a "push" force to the fuselage of the craft per schematics in the papers, not a "pull" force. It might be possible to use this for "artificial gravity" of a sort, but IIRC human biological systems don't treat these "push" forces as "gravity" and so the medical problems of microgravity still remain.
It might be possible to use a propulsion coil in a small volume to act as an "acceleration compensator," providing a locally equal counterforce to acceleration forces and allowing for high gravity acceleration. I'm uncertain if the coil needs to be physically coupled to a structure to impart force.
Three applications have thusfar been described:
Repulsive gravitophoton coupling with vehicle structure to reduce inertial mass.
The Tajmar device (GME1), force toward circumference.
The reference propulsion experiment (GME2), force along axis of rotation.
There may be additional ways to acquire gravitational effects along various different vectors, but they have not as yet been described much less even marginally demonstrated.
I understand that NASA doesn't believe in the relibility of Gravity Probe B's data. Since Droscher is a supporter of Tajmar and Tajmar's results are reportedly supported by data from GPB, this has the potential of removing corroborative evidence in support of EHT.
From the article:
"The noisy data meant that GPB could not measure the effects as precisely as astronomers had by firing laser beams at mirrors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.
GPB managers had asked for additional funding to March 2010 to try to extract more information from the data, but the review panel doubted they could reach their goals.
It warned that the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity "is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community". Gravity Probe B's principal investigator, Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, could not be reached for comment."
From the article:
"The noisy data meant that GPB could not measure the effects as precisely as astronomers had by firing laser beams at mirrors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.
GPB managers had asked for additional funding to March 2010 to try to extract more information from the data, but the review panel doubted they could reach their goals.
It warned that the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity "is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community". Gravity Probe B's principal investigator, Stanford University physicist Francis Everitt, could not be reached for comment."
The reason that only one form of force is produced by the gravitophotons is that the coupling constants for the two sorts are different. Only for the attractive gravitophoton is the cross-section for interaction large enough to cause an effect - the other only interacts very weakly. It may be possible to arrange for attractive ' tractor' beams if the right sort of setup is used - after all, just a modification of GME of Tajmar (tangential) gives GME2 of D & T (vertical, repulsive).
On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces (of the smase size! unbelievable coincidence!) that should have been excluded: read some of the superlatives about these spheres pre-flight -
http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXV3/gravity.html
"Gravity Probe B will contain four gyroscopes, the most accurate ones ever made. Once they are in orbit, they will be capable of detecting changes in their axes of rotation of 0.1 milliarc-seconds, a feat that cannot be equaled in ground-based experiments. "
http://www.edn.com/article/CA486569.html
"(GPB ) Gravity Probe B is the most sensitive and precise test-and-measurement experiment that designers have ever devised and implemented...
The heart of GP-B is a set of four gyroscopes, but they have little resemblance to the crude ones sold as toys or even the precise ones used for missile guidance. The gyros are electrically spun spheres the size of ping-pong balls (with a 1.5-in. diameter), spinning in a vacuum at 10,000 rpm, housed in a nine-foot-long chamber."
So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed, returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), the experimenters delayed for an unprecedented time - half a year, where normally they rush to publish a.s.a.p. There were speculations of all sorts. They tried everything and in the end could only make the hypothesis, in desperation, that the most accurate experiment ever was actually unbelievably sloppy. They unfortuantely refused to listen to Tajmar's suggestion to consider his explanation.
On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces (of the smase size! unbelievable coincidence!) that should have been excluded: read some of the superlatives about these spheres pre-flight -
http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXV3/gravity.html
"Gravity Probe B will contain four gyroscopes, the most accurate ones ever made. Once they are in orbit, they will be capable of detecting changes in their axes of rotation of 0.1 milliarc-seconds, a feat that cannot be equaled in ground-based experiments. "
http://www.edn.com/article/CA486569.html
"(GPB ) Gravity Probe B is the most sensitive and precise test-and-measurement experiment that designers have ever devised and implemented...
The heart of GP-B is a set of four gyroscopes, but they have little resemblance to the crude ones sold as toys or even the precise ones used for missile guidance. The gyros are electrically spun spheres the size of ping-pong balls (with a 1.5-in. diameter), spinning in a vacuum at 10,000 rpm, housed in a nine-foot-long chamber."
So when these spheres, the most exquisitely ever constructed, returned unbelievable results (that agree with Tajmar), the experimenters delayed for an unprecedented time - half a year, where normally they rush to publish a.s.a.p. There were speculations of all sorts. They tried everything and in the end could only make the hypothesis, in desperation, that the most accurate experiment ever was actually unbelievably sloppy. They unfortuantely refused to listen to Tajmar's suggestion to consider his explanation.
Just re-read Droscher and Hauser's comparison of the hypothesized space drive set-up with the familiar practice of accelerating spacecraft via gravitational slingshot around a planet -- in this case the acceleration field generated above the rotating disk stands in for the gravitational field of the planet. Using the analogy of the rubber sheet deformed by a bowling ball to illustrate curvature of space by a planetary mass, one can visualize a positive (repulsive) gravitophoton field as causing a (very slight) local upward displacement of the rubber sheet, while a negative (attractive) gravitophoton field causes a relatively much larger downward displacement of the sheet (due to different strength coupling constants as hdeasy points out). One can imagine a device like Tajmar's original (GME-1) setup causing a transient depression in the rubber sheet model -- interesting, but not directly useful for propulsion. The proposed GME-2 experiment (if it works) will produce - in the rubber sheet analogy - a sustained depression whose focus is additionally displaced away from the center of the device -- accomplished by the spinning disk which interacts with the field and displaces its 'center' some distance along the disk's axis of rotation. The result in free space would be that the engine, ship and payload would 'fall' towards the low point of the depression in the rubber sheet analogy, but since the drive holds this low point away from the center of mass, a continuous acceleration will result.
Conversely, one can visualize that on the far side of the 'low point' - away from the drive device - there will be a reverse gradient as, in the analogy, the rubber sheet returns to its normal undisturbed level. So at a suitable distance away from the drive device one would experience a gravitational attraction TOWARDS the device --- providing the generation of an attractive gravity field with the many potential beneficial uses that would follow.
Conversely, one can visualize that on the far side of the 'low point' - away from the drive device - there will be a reverse gradient as, in the analogy, the rubber sheet returns to its normal undisturbed level. So at a suitable distance away from the drive device one would experience a gravitational attraction TOWARDS the device --- providing the generation of an attractive gravity field with the many potential beneficial uses that would follow.
Yes, Alongman - your description sounds reasonable. Note that any fear that the effect only works on the Earth (clockwise in North, anti-clockwise in South) seems to be allayed by the GPB effect. If that probe experienced the effect then the space drive should indeed work in space! That is the beauty of the GPB result.
Now GPB was in a polar obit - i.e. it orbits north-south, passing periodically over the north and south poles! I wonder if there was any systematic effect as it was over the north and south hemispheres?
I must see if I can find out.
Now GPB was in a polar obit - i.e. it orbits north-south, passing periodically over the north and south poles! I wonder if there was any systematic effect as it was over the north and south hemispheres?
I must see if I can find out.
Hi all,
hdeasy
hdeasy
| QUOTE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| On NASA's dismissal of the GPB data - rather amusing: They postponed an announcement for many months on the data as they couldn't believe the results - then they decided the results could only be explained by unbelievable sloppiness in construcion of the metal spheres that left electrostatic patches on their inner surfaces .. <br> Interesting post, that brings up many questions. I don't think that it (blame) can be pointed to the construction: QUOTE (->
|
is that which would take into account the Tajmar / deMatos effect. As I mentioned to Publius some time back, the greatly enhanced gravitomagnetic field of the gyros should not influence the frame dragging precession portion of the experiment.....BUT that was ONLY considering its interaction (or lack of interaction) of a SINGLE gyroscope with the earth's gravitomagnetic field.
The more I read, the more it seems to be total speculative rubbish, with no physical underpinnings, and I can understand why there are no pier review reports. 