<br>hdeasy..
That dependence question, off course, is the key point, and is what I wanted to get back to ....

This experiment doesn't seem to clarify that dependency at all...
It is possible that rotating He could by itself (independent of other materials) produce the signal.

Surely the next experiment will be to clarify whether the signal has such a dependence.....or if it is independent.

A simple experiment arrangement can be set up to see if an anomalous signal could be achieved by helium rotation independently (without other rotating materials) .... something like:

1. fill a torus (say non-metallic toroid) with helium 4.

2. Setting the entire system into rotation beginning at a relatively high temperature ( 5 to 10 * K), and then ...(and take measurements at DIFFERENT angular velocities to test angular momentum dependence)

3. Continue taking gyro measurements while the temperature is dropped THROUGH the 4.2 * K boiling point...as it goes into liquid phase.

4. CONTINUING to drop the temperature through the lambda point (2.18 * K) where superfluidity sets in....and recording the gyro signal would allow one to see the effect of becoming a Bose condensate.

5. Then reducing the torus rotation (eventually to zero) and allowing the superfluid to continue to rotate (while taking gyro measurements) .

(As you know the superfluid will continue to rotate for hours and hours...just like the current in a superconductor).

6. Finally raise the temperature and continue to record ....as it goes back to He I state.



*
A signal has been show above 4.2 *K already, and it increases rapidly as 4 * K is approached, so I expect the liquid phase may yield some dramatic results.


However, there is always the possibility of the necessity of other interacting material...but I think the recent exper. obviates that.

JW

This is very, very speculative, but I wonder if discovering rotating helium as the main source of the anomaly could also be tied to an explanation for dark matter.

Tajmar, Droscher and Hauser have at one time or another discussed EHT's fifth and sixth forces being connected to dark matter and dark energy. Beck and deMatos have published on a relationship between dark energy and the physics of superconductors.

So I wonder if a next step for Tajmar could be a paper comparing the anomalous results for rotating helium to interstellar helium as a gravitophotonic basis for dark matter. What is the temperature of interstellar helium. Below 30K?

>It is possible that rotating He could by itself (independent of other materials) produce the signal.
>Surely the next experiment will be to clarify whether the signal has such a dependence.....or if it is independent.

It may be easy for them to test that - instead of filling an alumium cup with Liquid He, they could use the same shaped cup but made of plastic or some other non-conductor. Still, your procedure also sounds interesting.

Hi Greg:

Nice idea, but you'd need the cryogenic He rotating. Problem is, if it rotates round a star it tends to bunch up and heat up. On the other hand, it might be rotating round galaxies, which would make them lighter... I wonder if that's tenable? I suspect that the density of the instergalactic medium would not suffice. But when I get a few moment s I must do a back of envelope calculation on that. Anyone else fancy that to ouble check with an independent test?

The above proceedure I gave is similar to that used to test for superfluidity.

Tajmar is no dummy.
No doubt....The next step to characterize the helium by rotating a helium filled container and taking gyro measurements as temperature is lowered.

Surely, if the effect is verified, there would be implications for cosmology since helium fills the universe, but more importantly , the immediate concern would be the re-interpretation of a myriad of former terrestrial based cryogenic helium experiments.

My guess is that this is a quantum effect that affects the quantum vacuum on a local level....which mimics gravitomagnetism (transferring angular momentum through the vacuum). There is some prior empirical evidence which supports this.


JW

Hi all.
An interesting paper recently published on arXiv.org(arXiv:0710.2042v1)entitled"Gravitomagnetism in superconductors and compact stars"seems to cast a shadow on the experimental risults achieved so far by Dr.M.Tajmar or at least on his interpretation of the anomalous acceleration field measured around a fastly rotating superconducting niobium ring as caused by a sort of Lense-Thirringlike effect up to thirty orders of magnitude higher than the one predicted by General Relativity.
The author,Cosimo Bambi,of the Department of Physics and Astronomy of Wayne State University in Detroit,after reminding the ultrahigh density and the very low temperature of neutron stars'degenerate matter and after maintaining that the commonly accepted model as regards the structure of these objects foresees Cooper pair neutrons be in a superfluid state and that the residual little part of present protons forms a superconductive layer,points out that no anomalous effect on the motion of these stars has been observed as yet,neither in those five neutron stars present in known binary systems where even the slightest anomalies in orbital motion would be immediately noticed;and so comes to the conclusion that the known physics of neutron stars leaves out the existence of such anomalous gravitational phenomena beyond G.R.
It seems to me that the above is a very serious remark;mostly because it raises the always present and never solved problem of the astronomical evidence that have always seemed scanty in support of the anomalous gravitomagnetic phenomena that some claim to exist in nature in certain systems placed in special conditions.
I'd like to know what do you think about all that.
Besides I want to thank everybody in advance and express warm congratulations on the constancy and competence by which you all keep updated this fascinating thread.
Thank you again.

<br>
Hello Ted,

The author's conclusions hindge on the assumption that....
1. We know both the composition and the quantum state of neutron stars with sufficient accuracy to be able to compare their behavior with that of Tajmar lab based experiments....neither of which, in reality, is possible.

This is made especially apparent since neutron star compositions and quantum states are simply assumptions based on our modeling, and also because the source of the anomalous (Tajmar) effect has not yet been fully characterized with respect to composition and quantum state.


In general, it is very hard to use cosmological assumptions (esp. concerning composition and quantum states) to invalidate terrestrial experiments.

Thanks for the report though....besides the implied (invalid) assumptions, his gravitational physics appears to be correct.

...And he does bring up some important related topics, in particular, like the Hess/Fairbank experiment, which discovered the quantization of angular momentum of helium and its inexplicable transfer of angular momentum to the container....which ought to be discussed here.
If anyone is interested ....I'll be glad to review it as relates to Tajmar exper.


JW

Well,... I guess I'll have to mention that the incredibly huge void in the universe that was associated with the "CMB" anomalous cold spot has been made to disappear!

Poof! Just like that!

All they had to do was pick a different (but, seemingly, valid) size of galactic parameter and the "hole" goes bye-bye!

Huge hole in the cosmos disappears

The bottom line: Why, we may have to actually point a telescope in that direction and see what's there,... or not, as the case may be.



On the other hand, the 'cold spot' has NOT been made to vanish!

Hi Ted & co.,

I was asked this question before about possible effects in neutron stars and I think the answer lies in a key observation of Tajmar's: i.e. the anomalous acceleration field is noted at a low temperature, which is several degrees above the critical transition point to superconductivity. Thus though the initial theory pointed to Cooper pairs as the culprits, these are a purely superconducting phenomenon, so the higher Tajmar temperature implied maybe another cryogenic, but non-superconducting process. This was actually given added weight by the latest wrinkle where Tajmar found it was the interaction of the rotating helium with the sample that caused the field.

So it is important to note that the key finding in recent work by Tajmar et al. is that the effect is cryogenic but possible not related to superconductivity. Another bit of evidence there was they found no effect for high temperature superconductors!! So it's all about cooling down the atoms: and that doesn't happen in Neutron stars!!! On the contrary: if there is a superconducting layer in those stellar atmospheres, it is the highest temperature superconductivity yet found. And so it's a non-starter for this effect. Recall that Droscher et al. showed that for high temperatures you have to go to fermions - i.e. normal iron, which is a somewhat different process.

So, if suggested by Eric Hudson of MIT, the source of the pseudogap just above superconductivity (and in the range of the higher Tajmar temperature) is due to a "charge-density wave"... what do you suppose the mechanism might be?

Please have a look at this snippet from Hauser & Droscher paper.
It's an answer to M.Tajmar paper: Search for Frame-Dragging-Like Signals Close to Spinning Superconductors, gr-qc/0707.3806v8.

As you can see H&D already pointed out that EHT model is not based on superconductivity but rather on symmetry breaking.
Is that a next successful prediction?

/Joss

I need to go back and review how the symmetry breaking mechanism changes between the fermionic and bosonic pathways. Info on the fermionic pathway is generous. That on the bosonic pathway is light, IIRC.

Duane

I wonder if this proposed particle here might have some explanation in Heim theory. Could this "millicharged fermion" be an excited state of Heim's predicted nuetral electron?

Hi Gdaigle..
Yes, its possible.....That is a valid point.

I don't think Tajmar will address that ....However, if Helium is shown to be the source of anomalous gravitomagnetic field, then I'm sure there will be plenty of papers suggesting Cosmological effects similar to what you are suggesting.

Interstellar Helium need not have low "temperature" per se.

In fact, the reports I've seen show a 'kinetic' temperature which corresponds to 6000 * C. for helium entering the local heliosphere.

But I think this is simply a measure of its velocity ....around 26 km/sec. upon entering the heliosphere of the solar system for example. The density is extremely low.....
possibly around 0.015 per cm.^3 so its not comparable to a 'real' temperature of interacting particles.

The point ?
Just to speculate....

The low temperature necessary in the (Tajmar) lab may be only a neccesary requirement for a quantity of partcles whose atoms are 'interacting' due to their high density.....Helium is known to be an ' interatomic interacting' fluid. At the low densities (of interstellar gas) the low temp. requirement (to be highly 'gravitomagnetic') may be mitigated....as the interatomic interaction becomes negligible. Furthermore, the Tajmar results begin at around < 30* K, so it appears that the gravitomagnetic signal doesn't require a Bose condensate.
Hope that makes sense....just specualtion..

Furthermore.....
It is the velocity that becomes important . In gravitomagnetic effects, for any particular amount of a substance, velocity is the determinant of the strength of the GM field.... (at least according to Gen Rel.)

Since interstellar He has a relatively high velocity and pervades large volumes of space, then IF the gravitomagnetic field of He is enhanced without condensation, then we'd expect some extra contribution of a GM field to pervade large volumes throughout the interstellar areas.

In terms of angular momentum, that could account for the anomaly of the extra angular velocity of the 'flattened' galactic rotation curves ....and provide an alternative solution for the dark matter (missing mass) hypothesis.
(Of course, this is all conjecture until a characterization of the GM effect of He is experimentally settled).

Did that make sense?

JW

<br>I think it can indeed be counted as a successful prediction - and DH did say so in their first papers comparing with Tajmar's effect. But note that they had been publishing papers on EHT and its forces several years before Tajmar made his announcement of a gravito-magnetic effect. The description of the forces EHT are based closely on Heim's books, published many years before. So in that sense it was an old prediction of the theory.

I'm proud to announce that BRAND NEW PAPER FROM HAUSER & DROSCHER has appeared on they webpage:

Gravity-Like Fields and Space Propulsion Concepts : 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 20-23 July 2008, Hardford, Connecticut.

Happy reading all!!

/Joss

Well, I don't know how to say this gently, Joss, but I'm not impressed at all; neither are any pier reviewers, (not even Physics arXiv folks). .... especially since their analysis is based upon some of Tajmar's results which have ALREADY been invalidated by Tajmar himself.

Tajmar ALREADY did an analysis of GP-B gyroscopes....(NOT based on EHT) ....which included the assumed 'frame dragging' effects which the Tajmar results seeemed to imply at the time.
See here:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0707/0707.3806.pdf (see pg.12 - 13).

HOWEVER, since that time Tajmar has re-done his niobium rotating experiments and found that the effect is NOT due to the rotating disk, but rather a result of the helium.

Apparently, (and amazingly) Droscher and Hauser appear to be totally ignorant of that latest result AND HAVE CONTINUED TO ASSUME THAT THE PREVIOUS TAJMAR CONCLUSION ABOUT THE ROTATING NIOBIUM DISK WAS STILL VALID.
Duh?

In fact they base their GP-B analysis on the assumed validity of Tajmar original results (pg.7 -8)...and then apply that to the GP-B gyros.

There are other serious problems in their report, but that is just the beginning ....

Sorry to sound so 'positive', but isn't the truth important anymore?.....OR are we simply trying to validate someone's particular theory?

This report is a clear case where subjective bias blinds even the most noble intentions.

JW

They're not ignorant at all. See reference 16.

The EHT mechanism can apparently adapt to the non-superconductive/critical temperature above superconductivity mechanism outlined by Tajmar in 0707.3806. No Cooper pairs required. But as to the helium-origination mechanism outlined in 0806.2271, either D-H think the EHT mechanism explains the stand-off in measured effect between the ring and Helium, or they are (sub)consciously ignoring it. As a qualitative guesstimate, a standoff is possible in EHT depending on the lifetime of the neutral gravitophoton before decay, I suppose. But Tajmar in 0806.2271 casts explicit doubt on the postulated vertical field effect proposed by D-H for the EHT bosonic mechanism test device.

As far as the hypothesized bosonic mechanism goes, its coming up on put up or shut up time. Tajmar has now basically rejected the 'cryogenic conductor as effect generator' hypothesis and raised serious questionas about the proposed related Heim effect. If he's mistaken, that needs to be illustrated. If the test stand unit is as simple as advertised, its time to run it.

That or explicitly drop the Bosonic mechanism and reexamine the fermionic pathway with the Tajmar results. Or possibly Tajmar has a refutation of 0806.2271 in the pipeline, but that is brazen speculation.

Duane

Hi folks. I just wanted to jump in here with a "thanks" for providing some review of the papers.

As much as I would like the theory to be true, I'm more interested in the truth than the theory, so this type of conversation is what I want most; scientific debate, analysis, and proposals for determining proofs one way or the other.

Keep up the good work.

PS: Just Wonderful, welcome to the thread. I've been meaning to say that for a while now.

Agreed. It would appear we are at a transition point. Either verify/demonstrate, rework the hypothesis, or drop the hypothesis.

JW - ditto.

Duane

Obviously, I favor the 'Big Picture' side of Heim Theory since I mostly comment on its cosmologic aspects. On the previous page, I gave a link to an item that mentioned the huge void associated with the 'cold spot' in the "Cosmic Microwave Background" had disappeared.

That hasn't resonated with some workers who, it seems, found strong evidence of "dark energy" (a.k.a., "quintessence" in Heim's theory) in the existence of both "supervoids" and "superclusters." Supervoids and superclusters point to dark energy

As more and more descriptions are given about the effects of "dark energy" on electromagnetic radiation propogating toward our planet from afar, it may start to dawn on more folk that the "CMB" is not the remnant of a "Big Bang" (with its terribly ad hoc, but unavoidable, "inflationary period") but, rather, as Heim described it, an 'event horizon' defining the energy limit for incoming radiation to arrive at our planet. Beyond this region, the expansion caused by quintessence ("dark energy,"... whatever!) subtracts enough energy from the incoming radiation to make it undetectable by us.

Things are looking up!

The conceptual outline of EHT is... aesthetically attractive as an elegant framework to build a GUT on.

But enthusiasm has limits.

I am entirely willing to accept that DH let their enthusiasm get out of hand in their latest paper, neglecting Tajmar's latest findings. If so, DH need to regroup, reassess and release a modified interpretation. Certainly JW's indictment of "other serious problems" does not encourage.

Alternatively, DH are confident about their numbers and the cryogenic conductor generated bosonic mechanism, believing either that EHT explains the variance with Tajmar's latest results or that Tajmar has overlooked something. In either case, Tajmar's results are now going off on a different tangent and its time to show EHT predicted real world results.

Enthusiasm is good, math is better, experimental demonstration is best.

Duane

Addendum to the announcement for the most recent paper at hpcc-space.de:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/

Our analysis (not yet published) based on EHT of the recent experiments by Tajmar et al. as of June 2008 suggests that the effects measured are not due to liquid He.

Following the links:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Pri...ter&f=16&t=4385

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/JPC2008.pdf

[Comments-rm:

First I like to defend Glasgow-borm Gary McKinnon who is facing a possible 60 year jail sentence for allegedly hacking Military Computers since 911 (BBC), I recall seeing another "Hacker" located in the USA stating before a USA Congressional Committee that only one UK site was not hackable from his perspective. Could it have been McKinnon's.

Obvious the USA wants McKinnon to not "fry him" but to use him to hack the current "enemies of the State". This is a 1984 double speak, a necessary evil of the Military Industrial Complex, Mouse (yes, MICKY MOUSE). Yes, McKinnon admits his mistakes, seems he was seeking information on UFOs.

He therefore could take the Insanity Plea.

But he is reported to have been checking out his notions that UFO Aliens have landed and the USA is covering this up to the near death penalty.

You know, the penalty for attempting suicide is the death penalty, for only the State can take life, self defense is not excuse. Terrorist? Governments or Individuals, lets get this one die-a-logged out.

Secondly, and more importantly, is "humor", you, the reader, "you more" than anyone, the Revolution is the Internet, ignorance is the only requirements, confusion is useful, it is my driver for overcoming on continual lack of being informed.

Why? Well I heard several days ago that the UK Hacker was checking out his notion that the USA and perhaps other supporters of the Mideast Oil Wars were hiding the fact that alternative energy from low atomic weight chemical elements was possible, and that the USA was hiding this fact.

I agree, they are, and is it clear to me that such energy is directly obtainable from the transition, here for brevity: boron to deuterium, a positive ion change that utilizes the knowledge that Lithium to Helium gives off energy, the H-bomb requires energy to move from Deuterium to Helium. Simple minded? Aliens use this to drive their warp speed inter galactic travels?

So McKinnon, I side with your efforts of the fossil fuel industry, Mickey Mouse as they appear too me, Mutually Assured Destruction Nuclear Energy Secretly Silenced (MADNESS), the neo Dr. Strangelove is not McKinnon.

In fact, I hope the records show that I have been intimidating USA's Madness too, let us all conspire to expose this current madness, the future lies ahead, the past behind us, the Moon Maiden smiles upon us all. Struggle and win the Peace by openness and interaction with all the peoples of our Planet worth saving.

Power to the people, the Internet is the Revolution,

best in peace workers of the world unite, from rmuldavin.

Post script: the technical use of the graviton is a rhetorical ruse, g-strings transmit electromagnetic energy transversely, gravity energy longitudinally.

A closest "pure" gravity force would be a symmetrical "slug" that travels along the g-string, some speculate (myself and others) at 20 to 40 times the speed of light (locally determined by the nature of the g-string, all 26 variables if you want).

Crazy? Of course, I take the insanity plea too.

There is more: the G and EM are unified.

The GEM was Diebold's web pc programing for intercepting their voting machine results and altering them, that got BUSH elected, that is State Terrorism.

McKinnon is a modern hero.

The physics for the H-bomb to direct electrical energy, thereby ending centralized State Power from fossil fuels is this:

the general form for the "photon" would be a helical wavelet and the g-string, somehow a response of the driving forces, say the solar emissions or other currently labeled nuclear mechanism. Raising consciousness for World Wide Wisdom is the Path for Peace.

Symmetry: Material, Mathematical, Muddled

[Comments-rm: Reading EHT, Heim's and others,

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/JPC2008.pdf

the following quote needs some discussion:

{{The approach of EHT is substantially different from GR and leads to the complete geometrization of physical interactions. But it reduces to GR, if the internal symmetry space is no longer considered.
Naturally, the number and type of interactions depend on the structure of internal space H8 whose subspace composition was determined in.7, 9, 25, 26 Contrary to the ideas employed in String theory, see for example,21 H8 is an internal space of 8 dimensions that, however, governs physical events in our spacetime. }}

[comment: The next paragraph I read, nicely done, but still reading for concerning the carrying the forces, G and EM:

particles or g-striing wavelets?

If you read the article "Surfacing the Universe" appearing in the New Yorker, july 21, 2008, by Benjamin Wallace Wells, about Garrett Lisi page 33 shows a photo in color of Lisi along side a plastic ball and stick construction appearing as a "polyhedra" construction.

I also studied Lisi's PhD Thesis, still doing so, the brief idea appears to be complexing the metrics for the everyday four dimensions with Re +Im times sqrt(-1), that gives eight dimensions, E8.

The problem with the complexing the metrics is the possible imposition using a grid layout that introduces additional complexities, as this statement might sow confusion. That is, the goal toward simplification might be to match the physical with the metrics, not inserting grids that are historical ones, especially for our attachments to local material human scale acquisitions.

So hang in here for a moment. We see the stars at night, so what grid for measurements shall we use? Right angles grids? Polar? Others?

The authors of the link above, Walter Dröscher1 , Jochem Hauser 2, present Figure 3 (page 7 of 19) which shows a ring looking like an enlarged wedding ring (perhaps a marriage between G and EM?) but still assumes, it appears, that gravitons and photons drag through a vacuum of space??.

However, here we just visualize time moving along the vertical axis, and assume the force travels as a helical, and I like the wavelets, since there is a pulse like existence that if fading into the inherent uncertainty of binary languages. In short, move the Figure 3 closed ring with time.

The helical wavelet does match then the Figure 3 ring, which is a static ring. Onward through this review.

Note I haven't answered the "grid" question. Polar girds seem to point to the stars and other geometric descriptions in our "macro" world. But we have learned what we see is not necessarily what is "out there" or what we are able to visualize taking place inside our heads, minds, bodies....

Now the question: If polar grids, what measurements might we use to cross the source of energy, light, or the electromagnetic with the gravity? Is a "drag" on our minds?

For help on this, thanks to Hans Dehmelt, University of Washington, circa 1998 Nobel Prize lecture notes, the flat equal lateral triangle electron with 1/3 charge quark vertices (felts).

And add to this Roger Penrose's works on "tiles", in particular that felts lie flat, that is three sided regular trianges. So, to jump start this writing, the classical regular polyhedra (equal edges) and the mathematical "basic model" the regular tetrahedron. The vertices are themselves "felts" both directions, a neat slight of mathematical handiness, allowing infinite series fading into noise level, and maybe origins at t=0 (ignoring using mirror symmetries).

The crossing of the gravity forces that generally came from the "stars" should be those angles at which the 1/3 charge electrons (and positrons too) have their three magnetic axis's: that is, pi/3 radians, on the average if the three axis repel each other to remain maximally separate.

Also think about the felts attracting each other when the magnetic fields are N to S, that is, the Pauli exclusion principle gets things close, maybe neutrinos, the three kinds are 1, 2, 3 felt wafers, stacked or hinged or a triplet "cap"?

To be continued, fire away readers, please, and again, thanks to McKinnon, who I am guessing must have attended the several year ago Glasgow Black Hole conference.

How many recall that in the book "Networking Nation" when an employee of FEMA went home and wrote a program to allow sharing of papers for a pending conference to include Press Nixon's daily one page briefings, and that the then Administration hard-liners (top downers) wanted the programer charged with treason.

Cooler heads prevailed: the local administrator took away his computer privileges for two weeks.

Was that a form of water boarding?

Best in our struggle on the Paths to Peace, from rmuldavin

Hi there RMuldavin,

Let me suggest something PURE AND SIMPLE..

Consider Gravity as a Force just as all the other forces are - As per Newtons Laws..

This would have us having to refer to a reference point and a distance to another reference point with respects to some relative notion that would result in a defined distance and or a single dimension such as (A Common Constant if you like) so that if I were to express or refer to a distance we at least are considering the same dimension and or distance, so that when we refer to force and or density, which in reality is a measure of distance that is either expressed as per general Relativity or as per Special Relativity.. In short the speed of light in a solid or a near vacuum..

So why have I mentioned this?

SIMPLE,

Because all dimensions for a given closed system must always equate to the total amount of Energy it consists of.. And if we consider the total content of the Universes Energy everything can be equated and or explained simply by working with its percentages.. eg a single dimensional Universe simply is 100% and a two dimensional Universe is a ratio of the aforementioned quanta..

And the key to understanding Gravities force begins here..

Two energy dimensions means one dimension is Potential energy and the other is Kinetic energy..

so that if we needed to model gravity we would first model 100% of the Universes Energy and by dividing the energy into two dimensions we should have two equal quanta's of energy but one shall be defined as Potential as well as height and the other as Kinetic energy or width..

Try It!? I am sure you will be amazed as to how much of an eye opener this exercise of treating the problem via the total energy one is working with can be when one is confronted with a problematic problem..

So if we place the quantities in what ever fashion we can point out density as in a near vacuum compared to a relative solid..

For example here I have depicted a solid compared to a relative Near Vacuum..

A Near vacuum "--"
A Solid "="

Note how the solid has compressed in one dimension but at the expense of kinetic energy, Also note if we broke down our model into four subsystems and or Potentials how we could depict gravity in action!

As in

Here are our four subsystems that make up our closed system the Universe..

"----" note that each quanta is a potential much like the whole universes energy is a Potential.. I would like to interject that I treat all potentials via as if a Force.

Lets now break down the Universe into two moments in time..

"----" Moment one where inertia is in the implied directions "{>>}{<<}"
"-=-" And moment two ">}{<>}{<" where after each potential and or force has now obtained equilibrium relative to allowable Potential to Kinetic ratios..

Note how a solid now exists in a Near Vacuum also note how some of the kinetic dimension has been transferred to Potential Energy or dimension in our model.. as in width transferred to height via the opposing velocities and or momentum (Kinetic Energy and or a Potential with momentum) has its momentum cancelled out, or rather transferred to Potential Energy.. At this point we should note all mass and or densities is with some momentum no matter what..

Also note
How opposing velocities have created the compression (relative SOLID), just as Gravities momentum has with respects to Black-Holes and or Galaxies Stars, Planets and our theoretical Particles..

We must always remember how in basic physics when two opposing velocities cross or experience each other they cancel out their respective opposing momentum..

Also note how if a velocity were to traverse the whole model (system or Universe) it would still take the same time, this is because where our model or system is solid the velocity would seem relatively slower, via twice the distance has been relatively compressed to half its distance.. Velocities there would be half the speed just as the speed of light in a solid reflects the above analogy as to gravities inertia..

And here's the thing, all mass, densities and or theoretical particles, they all must comply to force and motion laws if they are to be possible - Including Burkhard Heim's Theoretical Particle! And when we do the maths it should have no anomalies..

Having said this it should be a no brain-er, The speed of light has a lot to do with every THEORETICAL Particle and when one refers to the speed of light, we are actually referring to electromagnetic waves, and when one refers to electromagnetic waves one is referring to MASS and or its energy.. And well there is where Gravity and Electromotive forces are one in the same, only the Potentials that we are working with are in reference to different references..

I don't know if what I have just expressed makes any sense and whats more given some insight to the above requested discussion, and if not then perhaps I may need to wait a little longer - So with that said...

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Laidback, your suggests for simplifications will required some further searches and reading, on going now, however, a report for now:
===================================

http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v77/e124023
Phys. Rev. D 77, 124023 (2008) (10 pages)

Gravitational anomaly and Hawking radiation near a weakly isolated horizon
Xiaoning Wu,1,3 Chao-Guang Huang,2,3 and Jia-Rui Sun2,4
1Institute of Mathematics, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 2734, Beijing, 100080, China
2Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 918(4), Beijing, 100049, China
3Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (KITPC-CAS), P.O. Box 2732, Beijing, 100080, China
4Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100049, China.

(Received 27 November 2007; revised 27 March 2008; published 18 June 2008)
Based on the idea of the work by Wilczek and his collaborators, we consider the gravitational anomaly near a weakly isolated horizon. We find that there exists a universal choice of tortoise coordinate for any weakly isolated horizon. Under this coordinate, the leading behavior of a quite arbitrary scalar field near a horizon is a 2-dimensional chiral scalar field. This means we can extend the idea of Wilczek and his collaborators to more general cases and show the relation between gravitational anomaly and Hawking radiation is a universal property of a black hole horizon.
©2008 The American Physical Society
===================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman-Penrose_formalism
Newman-Penrose formalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Newman-Penrose Formalism is a set of notation developed by Ezra T. Newman and Roger Penrose[1] for General Relativity. Their notation is an effort to treat General Relativity in terms of spinor notation, which introduces complex forms of the usual variables used in GR.
The NP formalism is itself a special case of the tetrad formalism, where the tensors of the theory are projected onto a complete vector basis at each point in spacetime. Usually this vector basis is chosen to reflect some symmetry of the space-time, leading to simplified expressions for physical observables.
=====================================

[comments: I see I didn't save today's physorg.com"s Higgs article where Fermi Lab people combined data from two experiments to define more accurately, a yes or no thing, on the energy of lowest Higgs particle. There are four of them, if I recall correctly.

Higgs if triples, quarks or subquarks, powers of three, plus or minus, might span our micro and macro gross universes, ending the Infinitely large and small mathematical problems.

Higgs connect to all other particles in our Universe, and perhaps the foamy and symmetrical too.

Now to compost fish gut from our customer's fishing on Lake Michigan, thanks to the fly maggots and some sawdust, in ten days they have liguified all but the bones, but mercury level detection requires testing, some 200$/test, thus I have to truck them to our remote site.

Goal to go local and control composing gases, that give off unbearable odors.

Best in converging into a future of Peace, the Path may be the Social Networking provided by the Internet, best, rmuldavin

First, we have to consider the possibility that all our notions and concepts are only notions or concepts. Thoughts are only thoughts. All what we think is only what we think. The nature of our thoughts is imginary consciousness. The thoughts is no more than abstractions. The fact is: there is no “time”, no “space”, no “dimensions”, no “gravity” etc... Il we want to understand the réality; we have to think it from above our thoughts.

What we know for sure is: we are living what we are living... and we know what we are living because living is knowing (the experience-consciousness is not thought-conscieness and the experience-consciousness is without doubt, error and even without imprecision).


Lucien

lucien
Posted: Yesterday at 5:31 PM

Pentaquarks resonate with Peace, not yet the Pentagon.

Thanks for your comments, see you joined physorg forum yesterday, so we both can be considered students of the University of the Internet and other documents and experiences of sources of information (hopefully memory).

Your post does give cautions as to the idea that our word abstractions are notions.

In a way I do get above my own thoughts, if current research on some five centers of consciousness within our mind/brain/body are "scientific", and yes, there appears to remain "uncertainty", a concept I am still struggling to understand, but one which I experience knowing about much around me, the good news is that being a nave is apparently the best game theory strategy.

This introduction is an excuse to push ahead or two with the powers of geometric modeling.

Even since I purchased three soft cover volumes on string theory given for a course given on String Theory at the U of Michigan last year, and found at the end of the third volume that the model used for "String Theory" was a regular (equal sided) tetrahedron (constructed with flat equal lateral triangles (felts) the importance of word merchandizing (wm) and bean counting (bc), that starts off with a balance between the two that includes noise and uncertainty (a triplet of words).

Repeating again the importance of Hans Delmelt's and Roger Penrose's works, respectively, first, on the 1/3 vertices felt electron and second, on the flatness of tiles, especially felts, a neat connection can be made between the idea that our brains have five (5) centers which are somehow coordinated to give us "consciousness".

It turns out that five-felts connected do not lay flat, they form a 5-felt cap, just as 3-felts form a cap, a tetrahedron without a base felt.

On the physorg form often attention is given to the poster's display of visual, static and multimedia.

Take a look at a table of Atomic Masses, notice that Helium, 2He4 (two protons, and two neutrons) may give the relative abundance as mine, 99.99 percent.

There is no 2He5 listed, but 2He6 is, although a 2He6 is given with a half life of 805 milliseconds.

Lithium's are given as these: 3Li6, 3Li7, 3Li8, relative abundances (%) 7.5, 92.5, and blank. But 3Li8's half life is listed as 844 milliseconds, the lighter two half lives are not given.

Now, writing this for the first time in response to you last post maybe we can search for an answer to the following question:

If the pentaquark is a five felt cap, that does not lie flat, does it appear in resonance between 2He5 <=>3Li5? If so, cannot we all detect this resonance and utilize this observations to generate fuel cells, relatively safely to replace current fossil fuels.

The 2He5<=>3Li5 possible resonance is still a fossil fuel, and the goal of solar power is still on the social networking political agenda.

The paths to peace are likely many, the time for humans may be limited.

Welcome to the Revolution, non-violent and hopefully inclusive.

Thanks again to McKinnon, may the people of UK keep him in the land of the Magna Carter, and protect his freedoms to publish.

Links to knowledge:

arXiv:0806.3132v1 [gr-qc] 19 Jun 2008

Real Scalar Field Scattering with Polynomial Approximation around Schwarzschild de SitterBlack-hole

MolinLiu, HongyaLiu,† Jingfei Zhang, andFei Yu
School of Physics and Optoelectronic Technology,
Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, P. R. China

As one of the fitting methods, the polynomial approximation is a problem. In this paper, we employ this approach to handle the scattering of scalar field around the Schwarzschild -de Sitterblack-hole.

The complex relationship between tortoise coordinate and radial coordinate is replaced by the approximate polynomial. TheSchrodinger-like equation, the
real boundary conditions and the polynomial approximation construct a full Sturm-Liouville type problem. Then this boundary value problem can be solved numerically according to two limiting cases: the first one is the Nariai black hole whose horizons are close to each other, the second one
is when the horizons are widely separated. Compared with previous results(Brevikand Tian), the field near the event horizon and cosmological horizon can have a better description.}}

In further defense of Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon to remain in the UK, it appears his suspicion that USA and perhaps other goverments are hiding the possibility of non carbon based fossil fuels may be correct. Why were the Higgs experimental facilities shut down?

Join the "para-normals" not "para-noids".

Best, rmuldavin

Post Script: Have read IEE Security & Privacy, July/August 2008, Vol. 4, Number 4, Interview member of part of with Microsoft's Security Development Lifecycle strategy Team,, pages 6-10. It seems security is advanced by people like Gary McKinnon, and the UK should not yield to the Armaments Industry's financial power, feed by the People's tax burdens.

Increasing the power of all the people regardless of economic class is the goal of Democracy, openness for all is a path worth following, even if it may go into new, wild territories.

I only mean that past and future are in our minds and nowhere else.
Space and time etc... are only notions and the reality is that there is nothing like that. The "reality" is not what we think it is. All what we think is only what we think, an imaginary consciousness.

lucien & muldavin.
Why I got impression that your posts are weakly associated to this thread subject?
Is that a new mutation of spam?
Maybe this is due to my English not being perfect, but I can't find much sense in your posts.

/Joss

Jossarian I suspect you are correct. lucien & muldavin are some sort of bot spewing out something that is gibberish which is vaguely related to the topic at hand.

Agreed. Still, enthusiasm is an important part of a boot-strap process to get anything done. Speaking of which,...

I finally got to read this last D&H paper. It seemed overly repetitive, sort of a short-bus version of EHT. However,...

Perhaps I missed this previously, but it does mention Heim's 'neutral' electron as a "dark matter" source, apparently dismissing WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

Was that proposition put forth in a previous release?

<br>Neutral electron = dark matter was entirely new.

The math also seemed to be cleaner than previously, and there were a few new nibbles besides neutral electron = dark matter. But other than that, general agreement. Repetitive.

If DH are confident enough in their concept and math to contradict Tajmar's latest conclusions, then they're confident enough to run the lab bench test unit.

Duane

The neutral electron was always a major point of attack for critics of the theory. It seems that D&H have now concluded (whether from first principles or as an additional hypothesis) that this awkward particle is an example of non-ordinary matter, which is why it is not created in accelerator experiments etc. Let's hope that the long-awaited review paper will answer some of the quesitons abouthte derivation of these results.

I was always of the opinion that neutral particles were showing up in literature, however they were mostly being overlooked or ignored. In the past (on this forum) I noted this one first but a recent search showed an article challenging the observations. More recently there was this recent news article I read on physorg.

However, the idea of neutral electrons being dark matter is a bit confusing. I was under the impression that most if not all of the dark matter/energy issue would be addressed by the introduction of Gq (Quiescence)? Did I miss something that was published in the last year that reduced the impact of Gq on the "big picture"?

Back to reality...

Hi DEK; thanks for the kudos....I meant to post earlier.

For a change, it is good to hear from someone objective enough to filter everything through experimental reality before jumping on the bandwagon of someone else's abstract hypothetical theory.

In light of that and the recent Tajmar results showing the rotating helium to be the source of the accelerometer / gyro signals (as we discussed earlier), you will probably be more adept than most at perceiving the implications......(provided by this post).

The key point in the rotational dynamics of helium 4, (and that which is pertinent to Tajmar's latest findings), was revealed in a notable experiment by Hess and Fairbank (1967). Anyone worth his 'salt' in cryogenics, (with at least a graduate understanding in cryo), would be familiar with it and recognize its relevance here.

In that exper. rotating helium was shown to "expel" its angular momentum just like a superconductor expels a magnetic field! That's right ; it is not commonly known that liquid helium 4 (below a certain 'critical' velocity) actually expels angular momentum like an 'inertial' Meissner effect ! This is an experimental fact.

In the initial Hess/ Fairbank exper. the He angular momentum was transferred to the helium container, changing its rotational speed....and reducing the helium rotation.
This is quite amazing since the superfluidity prevents the transfer of the He momentum to the container by the normal means of friction.

No mechanism for the observed transfer was ever mentioned, and to my knowledge, none has ever subsequently been found.

Since Tajmar's experiments measure the acceleration 'field' outside the helium container, his experiment provides a field 'mechanism' whereby the angular momentum of the rotating helium can take place through the vacuum.
So, inevitably, Tajmar will no doubt be sure to re-address the Hess/ Fairbank experiment in light of his recent results showing He 4 to be the source of the anomalous accelerometer / gyro signal....(provided new tests confirm the latest helium results).


JW

OK; minor correction to the above statement from my previous post...

It should read....

"Since Tajmar's experiment measures the rotation 'field' OUTSIDE the helium container, his experiment provides a field 'mechanism' whereby the TRANSFER of angular momentum of the rotating helium can take place through the VACUUM."

By the way; here's the original Hess/ Fairbank abstract that I left out of the first post:
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v19/i5/p216_1

JW

JW, thanks for the kind words. I'd like to claim more skill and insight into this and other physic's subjects, but I'm not much more than a "medium read" (as opposed to well read) layman. I try to keep a level head about stuff I read, but for the most part I have to rely on others who are in the know to filter the fantasy from reality.

There are aspect to EHT that I find very intriguing; even if (current) experimentation doesn't support the theory I would still like to see research in the theory continue. This might seem opposite to what I stated in the earlier post, but what I consider important with the theory is the approach taken.

Admittedly this might be where my lack of knowledge shows itself, but since when has "not knowing what you're talking about" ever stopped a person from talking?

Anyway, from what I know, (almost) all attempts to consolidate GR with QM have been attempted from the QM side trying to find "something" to explain GR. Burkhard Heim took the other approach; starting from GR trying to explain QM. From what I have read so far, most of the basic postulates of (E)HT are in one way or the other in the latest unifying theories. The most "basic" postulates being the quantization of space-time, and the use of multiple dimensions.

Having read some of the earlier papers from the Heim Group, specifically the one where they won the AIAA award, I thought that they had a nice explanation of the approach taken to explain the "extreme claims" of the theory using the math that Heim developed, as evolved from the approach that Einstein developed.

Time for the disclaimer... I do not have the background to review the math for accuracy or correctness. However, for having been a published paper (if not fully qualified as a "peer review" publishing), I don't believe that anyone has specific reviewed the math and indicated that it was "wrong" or flawed. This brings me back to my point earlier: even if the experiments don't support the theory, the approach might be right. It may be that the math needs to be reviewed to resolve the differences.

So there is my 2 cents, for what its worth.

Some new information is available regarding dr. Bussard successors and Polywell: Fusion quest goes forward
Polywell has been already mentioned on this forum as possible source of energy for claimed Spaceship Heim Drive.