In ScienceDaily German scientists are quoted: "The only solution is to reject Newton’s theory. If we live in a Universe where a modified law of gravitation applies, then our observations would be explainable without dark matter.”
<br>My goodness, how many ways can they tweak Milgrom's MOND?
Aero
24th April 2009 - 09:40 PM
I came across this statement within an article while looking for information from M. Tajmar. I guess I am not current, or something, because I need to ask if the following quoted statement is accurate. (Of course we know it should be Heim Theory instead of any competing theory  ) | QUOTE | It has been shown experimentally at CERN [14] that the Higgs boson does not exist in nature, so the Higgs mechanism and associated postulates such as sponta- neous symmetry breaking and asymptotic freedom must also be rejected on experimental grounds. This means that much of the standard model must also be rejected, i.e. those parts of it that depend on the Higgs mechanism - these include re-normalization and string theory. ECE theory is preferred by Ockham’s Razor because it uses only the concepts of geometry and general relativity.
<br>The quote is from this article.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:H2NNTc...l=us&lr=lang_en
The PDF version of the article is easier to read, here:
http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper75.pdf
AlexG
24th April 2009 - 10:04 PM
Since the LHC is the instrument which is expected to detect the Higgs, and since it's not yet operative, I don't see how that statement can be considered accurate.
In addition, it you look at the footnote (14), it doesn't reference anything. Literally, it simply repeats the statement.
Since that statement appears to be the lynch pin upon which the entire paper hinges, it appears to be bullshit.
Aero
24th April 2009 - 10:09 PM
Thanks. I guess my BS detector is still working, after a fashion.
prometheus
24th April 2009 - 10:21 PM
Alex is on the button - The LHC is not functioning yet and so the existence of the Higgs is unknown. That paper is found to be BS on that point, and if your house has 'roaches it probably has rats too...
Jossarian
28th April 2009 - 08:00 AM
CMB Cold Spot mentioned again.
Left-handed spiral galaxies dominate northern skies
| QUOTE | The evidence seems to indicate that left handed spirals are more common in the northern hemisphere, above the northern galactic pole. And although the signal is less strong, right-handed spirals appear more frequently in the south.
What's more, Longo says the axis of this alignment points directly towards the mysterious cold spot in the cosmic microwave background, which was discovered in the southern hemisphere in 2004
Nobody knows what caused the cold spot although there are no shortage of ideas. The cold spot could be evidence that our galaxy sits in the middle of a supervoid, a giant empty bubble, say some researchers. Others say it could be the imprint of a parallel universe beyond our own.
Read more at: Arxiv blog
Or in paper: Evidence for a Preferred Handedness of Spiral Galaxies
/Joss
AlphaNumeric
28th April 2009 - 09:06 AM
QUOTE (prometheus+Apr 24 2009, 11:21 PM) Alex is on the button - The LHC is not functioning yet and so the existence of the Higgs is unknown. That paper is found to be BS on that point, and if your house has 'roaches it probably has rats too... Further mistakes in the openning section include the claim that the SM cannot survive without the Higgs boson, renormalisation is based upon the Higgs mechanism and that string theory is part of the SM. Wow, talk about getting it immediately wrong. At least it means you don't have to read any further.
gdaigle
28th April 2009 - 03:05 PM
This may have interest. From April 27: http://www.eurekalert.org/bysubject/chemistry.phpParticle physics study finds new data for extra Z-bosons and potential fifth force of nature.In a forthcoming Physical Review Letter article, the University of Nevada, Reno physicists are reporting an analysis of an experiment on violation of mirror symmetry in atoms. Their refined analysis sets new limits on a hypothesized particle, the extra Z-boson, carving out the lower-energy part of the discovery reach of the LHC...
The Boulder team monitored a "twinge" of weak force in atoms, which are otherwise governed by the electromagnetic force...
The possibility of a fifth force could dispute the long-held belief that the force of gravity is the same for all substances.Although the fifth force and relationship to gravity was mentioned above, a prior arvix prepublication (http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0335 ) on Z′ by the author makes no such mention of connection to gravity. Z and W bosons are in a different symmetry group, SU(2), than gravitophotons, U(1)×U(1). What does Heim have to say about Z′ From my own interest it intersects with unverified anecdotal reports from inventors connecting gravitomagnetics to the weak force, but that's another story.
gdaigle
28th April 2009 - 05:45 PM
Actually, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0335 is the paper being referred to in EurekAlert.
Jossarian
30th April 2009 - 01:43 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Oct 26 2008, 11:25 PM) Just about the time I was going to acknowledge Joss's link about the intergalactic voids, more news came in from far, far away,... and, then, still MORE news came in from a Gamma-Ray Burst symposium in Huntsville last week. First, the news from way out there; the most distant Gamma Ray Burst yet detected ( GRB 080913) happened a whopping 12.8 billion (10^9) years ago. The curious point is that, despite the distance involved (same number of light-years), it was STILL recognizable as a gamma ray burst, meaning that its redshift of 6.7 didn't drop it far enough in energy to be mistaken for an X-ray burst. Recall that, according to Heim's theory, cosmological distance drains energy/frequency from incoming radiation due to quintessence, a.k.a., "dark energy," and shifts it to ever lower levels as it traverses space-time to our planet. This means, in essence, that the diameter of the "observable universe" depends on the energy level at which one is examining it. At gamma-ray energies, the Heim universe is orders of magnitude larger than our "current" cosmos. While "established" predictions put the age of our universe at ~13.7 x 10^9 years (+/- ~1/7), Auerbach & Ludwiger ( Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures, Journal of Scientific Exploration,Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 217-231, 1992) give the time of matter forming as between 15 x 10^9 (billion) and 40 billion years ago. The chaotic formation of matter (as Heim himself called it) occurred after an estimated 10^100 years of (apparently) uneventful expansion of our proto-universe, according to Heim Theory, and formation of matter happened throug hout it. The Heim universe is currently proposed as being ~6 x 10^109 light-years in diameter—a LOT bigger than 2.7 x 10^10 light-years, the 'recognized' value. By the reckoning of Heim Theory, there are way more stars, galaxies and matter beyond what is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. Heim mentioned in his Ottobrunn talk that there is no "fence" at the 'edge of our universe' (meaning the CMB as we see it from here on Earth), just more galaxies and voids. Since the incoming electromagnetic radiation of a gamma ray burst is so immensely energetic (~5 orders of magnitude greater than visible light), its 'event horizon' (the distance/time where enough energy has been drained by quintessence to make it undetectable) MUST be vastly farther away than the CMB. This means the "gamma-ray universe" goes well beyond what is presently thought to be "edge" of our little piece of Eden. So,... if Heim Theory wants to validate its cosmic genesis, let's look for bursts of X-rays that have the characteristics of gamma ray bursts; bursts from massive stars that formed 15 billion, or more, years ago and come from 'beyond the CMB.' Of course, that's easier said than done. Science has only recently acquired the ability monitor the energy bands that announce the mammoth, catastrophic events of hypernovae and merging black holes, which are thought to be some of the sources of the GRBs. If the diameter of the gamma ray universe is only twice the diameter of the presently-acknowledged size of our universe, there is an eight-fold increase in volume. With one GRB per day in "our" universe, there should be 2^3 more GRBs occurring. Is our present equipment up to the task of "seeing" them? That brings up the GRB Symposium just concluded in Huntsville. Several press releases were made: A Brief Mystery: What are Short Gamma-ray Bursts? The Oddball Hosts of Gamma-ray Bursts The Case of the Missing Gamma-ray BurstsThis last one shows that the search is on. IF Heim Theory is correct about the nature of our universe (or even close!), there are gamma-ray bursts coming in from all directions but at lower energy levels. Already, some workers think that more searching is called for. Soon now, it will be Showtime! I, personally, am rooting for Extended Heim Theory but let's see how this "universe" thing shakes out. It should be interesting,... very, very interesting! ;-) I'm sure that everyone know about GRB 090423 already: Most distant object in the universe spotted. GRB 090423 redshift ratio is 8.2, what ratio is needed for object to be positioned beyond Big Bang Universe border? I will love the moment when finally such far GRB will be observed. Imagine how Big Bang supporters become panicked in this day. We need this paradigm shift badly... /Joss
Jossarian
30th April 2009 - 03:18 PM
Seems that Swift satellite is best tool available today for detecting highly redshifted GRBs:
| QUOTE | Long Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) constitute an important tool to study the Universe near and beyond the epoch of reionization. We delineate here the characteristics of an 'ideal' instrument for the search of GRBs at z>6-10. We find that the detection of these objects requires soft band detectors with a high sensitivity and moderately large FOV. In the light of these results, we compare available and planned GRB missions, deriving conservative predictions on the number of high-z GRBs detectable by these instruments along with the maximum accessible redshift. We show that the Swift satellite will be able to detect various GRBs at z>6, and likely at z>10 if the trigger threshold is decreased by a factor of ~2. Furthermore, we find that INTEGRAL and GLAST are not the best tool to detect bursts at z>6: the former being limited by the small FOV, and the latter by its hard energy band and relatively low sensitivity. Finally, future missions (SVOM, EDGE, but in particular EXIST) will provide a good sample of GRBs at z>6 in a few years of operation.
<br>Here is the paper:
Gamma Ray Bursts from the early Universe: predictions for present-day and future instruments
/Joss
gdaigle
30th April 2009 - 04:01 PM
On a different topic, earlier this year Kostelecky and Potting (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.0662) described a theory of non-conventional gravitons as Nambu-Goldstone (NG) modes and saying that two of those modes propagate as physical fields. They called it "cardinal gravity".
Yesterday Carroll, et al (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.4680) cited Kostelecky and Potting in a paper reporting that those two NG modes have properties identical to those of the graviton in GR, are massless spin-2 particles, possess directional polarizations (labelled + and x) and have longitudinal oscillation in addition to the transverse oscillations predicted in GR.
My questions:
- Are these two NG modes describing the Gp polarizations (+ -) under EHT but viewed from a different vantage point without the benefit of EHT?
- What does EHT predict as to Gp oscillations?
makuabob
13th May 2009 - 06:12 PM
A new, super-sensitive microwave detector has been built at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It is planned (among other things) that this device will 'nail down' the Inflationary Stage of the Hot Big Bang theory by detecting "B-mode polarization" in the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), variations in polarization of the CMBR photons caused by a "conversion of energy into hot matter and radiation" in the first 10^-12 second of this same, alledged "Big Bang."  This should, one would think, have other 'fringe science' advocates shaking in their shoes (I think that's how that phrase goes) since the Big Bang is a no-starter WITHOUT the inflationary episode, but this article goes on to say: | QUOTE | Super-sensors To Discover What Happened In First Trillionth Of A Second After Big Bang
"The B-mode polarization is the most significant piece of evidence related to inflation that has yet to be observed," said Ki Won Yoon, a NIST postdoctoral scholar who will describe the project at the APS meeting. "A detection of primordial gravitational waves through CMB polarization would go a long way toward putting the inflation theory on firm ground."
...meaning that Inflation Theory is "a long way" from NOT being "on firm ground."
This does make me curious as to whether or not Heim Theory can expound on the nature of variations already observed in the CMBR. Some ideas were offered previously in this thread about the CMBR being a natural by-product of matter forming chaotically in the Heim universe. There is yet to be a Heim Theory statement of how the observed primordial proportions of H-He-Li were achieved. That's a really basic requirement of a cosmogony in THIS universe.
That said, is there ANY news of advancing work in Heim Theory (including EHT)? Any confirming experiments? Any peer-reviewed papers??
.... Sure is quiet out there!.... 
Maringa
14th May 2009 - 01:33 PM
extremely quiet
Jossarian
15th May 2009 - 07:52 AM
Yesterday (2009-05-14) at 13:12 GMT, the ESA launched successfully new and long-awaiting spacecraft: Herschel, the infrared telescope with a 3.5m mirror, and Planck, the CMB mapper. The spacecraft were carried by the Ariane-5, which lifted off from Kourou in French Guiana. They will stay in L2 to perform the research. This launch is one of the most expensive and important missions of the European Space Agency. Planck will measure the CMB with an accuracy more than 10 times better than the previous mission: Planck fact sheet. Seems we will got more information about strange artifacts like famous "CMB cold spot" - which can finally prove existence of quintessence field which is predicted by Heim Theory. /Joss
rpenner
15th May 2009 - 03:52 PM
But... That does not indicate that Heim theory is correct.
djolds1
15th May 2009 - 11:32 PM
QUOTE (Maringa+May 14 2009, 01:33 PM) extremely quiet Nothing new from Tajmar in almost a year, and the lecture summary from the Sacramento lecture, while tantalizing, is very condensed. Anyone know if AIAA provides or sells video of the lectures they sponsor?
Jossarian
16th May 2009 - 12:01 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+May 15 2009, 03:52 PM) But... That does not indicate that Heim theory is correct. Of course it will not prove for 100% that Heim Theory is correct. Existence of quintessence field is not covered by present standard theory of gravitation and cosmogony, so such evidence is needed to cause scientists to ask questions and look for correct answers. Is the EHT a correct one? Is there any better answer? We will see... /Joss
rpenner
16th May 2009 - 07:02 AM
Standard cosmology is the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter cosmology.
The lambda of GR is called quintessence" by some particle physicists.
Jossarian
17th May 2009 - 12:45 AM
QUOTE (rpenner+May 16 2009, 07:02 AM) Standard cosmology is the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter cosmology.
The lambda of GR is called quintessence" by some particle physicists. From wikipedia: | QUOTE | However, ΛCDM is a model. Cosmologists anticipate that all of these assumptions will not be borne out exactly, after more is learned about the applicable fundamental physics. In particular, cosmic inflation predicts spatial curvature at the level of 10^−4 to 10^−5. It would also be surprising if the temperature of dark matter were absolute zero. Moreover, ΛCDM says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter, dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance.
It is a model, they simply are trying to get some numbers correct.
Is this kind of stuff making standard theory more credible or not? Is Big Bang still needed to explain red shift if there is quintessence? Remember why Einstein introduced his cosmological constant?
I think that Heim's explanation is a much more simpler then this mess with dark energy & dark matter. Application of Ockham's razor gives a winner.
/Joss
makuabob
19th May 2009 - 06:15 PM
The use for the detectors reported here,... QUOTE (makuabob+May 13 2009, 01:12 PM) A new, super-sensitive microwave detector has been built at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It is planned (among other things) that this device will 'nail down' the Inflationary Stage of the Hot Big Bang theory by detecting "B-mode polarization" in the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), variations in polarization of the CMBR photons caused by a "conversion of energy into hot matter and radiation" in the first 10^-12 second of this same, alleged "Big Bang." ... |
has become clearer here... QUIET Science pageAdditional links give even more information about obstacles that the Inflationary Phase of the Hot Big Bang Theory faces. Heim Theory, of course, does not NEED to "explain" the CMBR since it is the natural result of all photons and matter chaotically forming at nearly the same instant (in a cosmological sense). The universe became 'fogged' with photons (radiation) and matter throughout. For ANY given observer, the 'fog' of radiation began to 'clear' once electrons were cool enough to combine with protons to form atoms. For a hypothetical observer, the 'Blinding Light' of the 'Big Flash' (created by the folding and warping of the Heim multi-dimensional proto-matrix at approximately 10^99 years after the triality of spheres began expanding—which, in turn, produced matter and radiation) filled the 'sky' in all directions as those photons travelling to the point of observation arrived from farther and farther away (the 'local' primordial supply being exhausted) and, thus, were redshifted due to quintessence. Years passed, millenia passed, eons passed!... OK, billions of years passed and, now, a 'bubble' of 'de-fogged' space has enlarged— for any individual observer, anywhere in the universe—to the point that quintessence has redshifted ("cooled") the remnant radiation to what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background. Are there anisotropies in it? Yes, not all matter and energy formed at EXACTLY the same instant, nor did matter and photons form in perfect homogeneity. If both of these conditions had occurred, the CMBR would be isotropic,... but we probably would not be here to see it! So the "BBB" (Big Bang Bunch) is getting governments (read "you and me") to pump billions into finding evidence to support their pet theory,... only, at their moment of anagnorisis, to find they've shoot themselves in their collective foot! At least, that's how it looks from the Heim Theory point of view.
gdaigle
21st May 2009 - 11:47 PM
By the way, I discovered a week ago that EarthTech (IASA), as stated on their Tajmar Experiments page, "... is not currently pursuing a replication of this experiment. We have decided to wait for additional results from Dr. Tajmar before before considering whether to proceed... All replication efforts are currently on hold."
makuabob
23rd May 2009 - 01:34 AM
Can someone help me out there? I was reading through some on-line science articles on astrophysics when I hit this:
| QUOTE | The Day The Universe Froze: New Model For Dark Energy
The theory is one of those that attribute dark energy to an entirely new field dubbed quintessence. Quintessence is comparable to other basic fields like gravity and electromagnetism, but has some unique properties. For one thing, it is the same strength throughout the universe. Another important feature is that it acts like an antigravity agent, causing objects to move away from each other instead of pulling them together like gravity.
In its simplest form, the strength of the quintessence field remains constant through time. In this case it plays the role of the cosmological constant, a term that Albert Einstein added to the theory of general relativity to keep the universe from contracting under the force of gravity. When evidence that the universe is expanding came in, Einstein dropped the term since an expanding universe is a solution to the equations of general relativity. Then, in the late 90's, studies of supernovae (spectacular stellar explosions so powerful that they can briefly outshine entire galaxies consisting of millions of stars) indicated that the universe is not just expanding but also that the rate of expansion is speeding up instead of slowing down as scientists had expected.
Now,... is this Heim Theory they are describing—without naming it as such—or it this something that leaked in from a parallel universe and onto the World Wide Web? 
mareg
23rd May 2009 - 09:53 PM
Forgive me if it's already been said before but I was wondering what kind of apparatus would need to be built if we were going to test the theory.
A very large spinning supercooled magnet or what?
Jossarian
26th May 2009 - 07:50 AM
QUOTE (mareg+May 23 2009, 09:53 PM) Forgive me if it's already been said before but I was wondering what kind of apparatus would need to be built if we were going to test the theory.
A very large spinning supercooled magnet or what? <br>Almost every one Droscher-Hausner paper covers that subject extensively, see: http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...005-4321-a4.pdfhttp://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...RevisedSept.pdfhttp://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...cted22April.pdfhttp://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...Abbreviated.pdfhttp://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/JPC2008.pdf/Joss
Jossarian
26th May 2009 - 07:56 AM
| QUOTE | Where the Equivalence Principle Breaks Down
Modified gravity theories violate the equivalence principle. If they are correct, we should see the effect in nearby galaxies.
One way to explain the puzzling acceleration of the universe is to modify Einstein's theory of general relativity to create a fifth force that can account for the acceleration. These theories have to be carefully constructed so that this fifth force works on the cosmic scale but not on the scale of planets like ours, where we'd have spotted it by now.
Today, Christopher Stubbs from Harvard University in Cambridge and a couple of buddies from Columbia University in New York city examine the consequences of this idea.
Their main result is that on a galactic scale, these modified versions of gravity would cause a failure of the equivalence principle: so gravitational and inertial mass would no longer be the same for galactic objects. That means large objects like galaxies would not all fall at the same speed.
That should have some easily observable effects. For example, small galaxies should accelerate faster than large galaxies while stars and diffuse gas in small galaxies should have different velocities, even if they
are on the same orbits.
So with the right kind of gear it should be possible to confirm the predictions of these modified theories of gravity or put strong limits on the influence they must be having.
<br>Better late then never.
Arxiv paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2966
/Joss
Ganondorf
27th May 2009 - 04:07 PM
Finding the higgs boson and measuring its mass would be another confirmation of the Heim theory. The higgs boson is hermetry form 16, whose mass was calculated at 182.7+-0.7 GeV. While finding supersimmetry will indeed prove this theory wrong. So the LHC will contribute to either confirm the theory or falsify it, or if it fails to detect both the higgs boson and any supersimmetry then it will add nothing.
The experiment proposed to produce a gravitional field orthogonal to the disc is not too costly, what i am wondering is why aren't they performing it right now. The qualitative predictions and some quantitative predictions of EHT (extended heim theory with 8+4 12 dimensions) are proven to be correct.
Not only would even only a qualitative confirmation provide propellantless propulsion, but being able to exploit an asimmetry between positive and negative energy densities can be used to obtain a clean and free energy source. Of course the total sum of energy densities is 0 but the interactions are different.
Ganondorf
27th May 2009 - 06:48 PM
To be more specific, there is a proposed experiment that does no longer require 25 tesla fields that could be done at a low cost, the sooner they do it the better.
sudilav
28th May 2009 - 11:38 AM
I have just registered as too my interest in this topic. I have known of Heim theory for a few years now and am finally looking into it again. Out of interest, could you provide a link or any more information as to the tests they are running? I would like to know how it gets on.. I am no physicist however i like to have an interest in any field of physics and Heim Theory is one of my favourites  .
bprager
29th May 2009 - 03:14 PM
QUOTE (Ganondorf+May 27 2009, 04:07 PM) Finding the higgs boson and measuring its mass would be another confirmation of the Heim theory. The higgs boson is hermetry form 16, whose mass was calculated at 182.7+-0.7 GeV. While finding supersimmetry will indeed prove this theory wrong. So the LHC will contribute to either confirm the theory or falsify it, or if it fails to detect both the higgs boson and any supersimmetry then it will add nothing.
Can somebody please clarify this? This site states: QUOTE "Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass."
Olaf
29th May 2009 - 03:51 PM
QUOTE (Ganondorf+May 27 2009, 04:07 PM) The higgs boson is hermetry form 16, whose mass was calculated at 182.7+-0.7 GeV. Can you please specify, in wich document the description of hermetry form 16 has been published? I do only know of 15 different hermetry forms in EHT, wihch containt a W- and the Z0-boson. A comparison between the 4 hermetry forms of HT and the 15 hermetry forms of EHT is in the Heim-theory.org WIKI at page "EHT".
gdaigle
29th May 2009 - 07:44 PM
If I may: www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42.pdfPage 7: "Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the Higgs particle that should exist, whose mass was calculated at 182.7±0.7 GeV" www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA5595JCP2007DarkAbbreviated.pdfPage 4: "Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the Higgs particle that should exist, whose mass was calculated at 182.7±0.7 GeV"
sudilav
30th May 2009 - 12:49 PM
I have read these before, i have however one question, @Ganondorf: wat is this experiment that does not require 25 tesla etc...
gdaigle
30th May 2009 - 01:20 PM
Sudilav, that is likely a reference to bosonic coupling as in Tajmar's original GME I (gravito magnetic experiment I) setup rather than the fermionic coupling requiring a strong magnetic field that D&H had first suggested. D&H then proposed GME II, a reconfiguration of GME I to allow an axially propulsive effect without application of a strong magnetic field. Here is an excerpt from the second link I posted, beginning with section 4 on page 9:
EHT ANALYSIS OF GRAVITO-MAGNETIC EXPERIMENTS
In the following EHT is used to perform an analysis of two gravito-magnetic experiments. The first one, termed gravitomagnetic experiment one, GME I, concerns the analysis of the recent experiments by Tajmar et al.. as described in Sec. 4.2. The second gravito-magnetic experiment, termed GME II, follows from theoretical considerations, obtained from EHT, and would lead to an AGF of completely different nature than GME I, namely an AGF acting parallel to the axis of rotation of the ring (disk), see Fig. 7, where the disk rotates with constant angular frequency.
GME II could serve as a demonstrator for a field propulsion principle without propellant as well as the basis for a novel gravitational engineering technology. In GME II the superconducting rotating ring, employed in the experiments by Tajmar et al., is replaced by an insulating disk of a special material in combination with a special set of superconducting coils. According to EHT, the physical mechanism is different from GME I in that the neutral gravitophoton decays into a positive (repulsive) and negative (attractive) gravitophoton, which causes the AGF to be directed along the axis of rotation of the disk. The coupling to Bosons is the prevailing mechanism in both experiments, but in GME I the resulting gravitophoton decays into a graviton and a quintessence particle. For Boson coupling experimental requirements, i.e., magnetic induction field strength, current densities, and number of turns of the solenoid, are substantially lower than for Fermion coupling (here the vacuum polarization is employed to change the coupling strength via production of virtual pairs of electrons and positrons) that was so far assumed in all our papers prior to 2006, see, for instance, refs. [17], [16], [10].
bprager
8th June 2009 - 04:10 PM
I read several discussions on the web that claim that M. Tajmar is retracting his original theory of gravitational effects in his experiments and now only talks about some novel physics ins general. Anybody know more about that if that is true?
gdaigle
9th June 2009 - 03:00 AM
With regard to GME I as described in M. Tajmar et al. (arxiv 0603033) an acceleration field of about 1e**-7 kg was measured for a single accelerometer. In GME II a force of 8.71 × 10**5 N (or 8.88 x 10**4 kg) was calculated for a coil of 0.5 m diameter. In comparison, the thrust for the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering Systems Engines is 2.7 x 10**4 N (or 2.75 x 10**3 kg).
Is it really projected to be that large of a force?
And bprager, those discussions may have been referring to Tajmar's dropping of non-zero mass gravitons (graviphotons), and his subsequent adoption of D&H's EHT and their proposed decay of a neutral gravitophoton.
Astepintime
9th June 2009 - 08:09 AM
QUOTE (bprager+Jun 8 2009, 04:10 PM) I read several discussions on the web that claim that M. Tajmar is retracting his original theory of gravitational effects in his experiments and now only talks about some novel physics ins general. Anybody know more about that if that is true? Where are those discussions? It is going on a year now and one would expect that if Tajmar was correct he would have published in a peer-reviewed journal by now. What is Tajmar retracting? The experimental data? Did he find systematic effects?
kurt9
9th June 2009 - 03:38 PM
QUOTE (bprager+Jun 8 2009, 04:10 PM) I read several discussions on the web that claim that M. Tajmar is retracting his original theory of gravitational effects in his experiments and now only talks about some novel physics ins general. Anybody know more about that if that is true? Perhaps you are referring to Tajmar's statement where he said he believed the effect was a property of rotating liquid Helium. There was discussion about this effect about a year ago when he made this statement. In any case, Droescher and Hauser were supposed to come out with a peer-reviewed review paper, something they were going to do last year. Perhaps they are busy with their experiment.
Aero
9th June 2009 - 03:52 PM
QUOTE (kurt9+Jun 9 2009, 03:38 PM) Perhaps you are referring to Tajmar's statement where he said he believed the effect was a property of rotating liquid Helium. There was discussion about this effect about a year ago when he made this statement.
In any case, Droescher and Hauser were supposed to come out with a peer-reviewed review paper, something they were going to do last year. Perhaps they are busy with their experiment. I don't know what is going on, I search almost every day; there is no news. It sure would be good to hear something, hopefully positive, regarding the theory.
nicholasjh1
9th June 2009 - 04:19 PM
Well hopefully the reason is that it's such a powerful new effect and change in physics that they want to get the jump on producing anything with it. You know they could have been hired by a government or something
bprager
9th June 2009 - 06:28 PM
QUOTE (kurt9+Jun 9 2009, 03:38 PM) Perhaps you are referring to Tajmar's statement where he said he believed the effect was a property of rotating liquid Helium. There was discussion about this effect about a year ago when he made this statement.
In any case, Droescher and Hauser were supposed to come out with a peer-reviewed review paper, something they were going to do last year. Perhaps they are busy with their experiment. Thanks kurt9. I was frantically searching for the site I found this. I couldn't find it but yes, it was the discussion about the rotating helium. Sorry for digging out old stories.
djolds1
10th June 2009 - 01:54 AM
QUOTE (Aero+Jun 9 2009, 03:52 PM) I don't know what is going on, I search almost every day; there is no news.
It sure would be good to hear something, hopefully positive, regarding the theory. The most recent EHT info is the Sacramento presentation in March, and the summary paper at HPCC is lacking large segments of what the abstract promises to cover. So either the presentation was minimal, or far more in depth than what the public document discuses.
Maringa
11th June 2009 - 07:52 AM
QUOTE (nicholasjh1+Jun 9 2009, 04:19 PM) Well hopefully the reason is that it's such a powerful new effect and change in physics that they want to get the jump on producing anything with it. You know they could have been hired by a government or something I sincerely hope not...if EHT is everything it says to be, there will be a fundamental change in everything we know about, and that is way too important to think about profit. unfortunately that's the way life is...
nicholasjh1
11th June 2009 - 03:16 PM
QUOTE (Maringa+Jun 11 2009, 07:52 AM) I sincerely hope not...if EHT is everything it says to be, there will be a fundamental change in everything we know about, and that is way too important to think about profit. unfortunately that's the way life is... Well don't get me wrong, I'd rather it be public and everyone working on it, but it would be almost as nice if they were keeping it on the down low because of some huge breakthroughs that we'll see in the future. so here's to hoping that they are just getting irrefutable proof and methods so that when they really come out with something that everyone will have to start working on it. And that's wheter or not EHT factors in.
gdaigle
12th June 2009 - 10:30 PM
A very superficial series of articles on the nature of gravity is presented in the June 13 edition of New Scientist. Tajmar is mentioned in question 6, but not Heim nor D&H. Bahram Mashhoon is featured as well but little on his theory. Passing references also to Smolin and Penrose.
Aero
12th June 2009 - 11:28 PM
Apparently Tajmar is still working, although I don't understand what is going on. http://asmeconferences.org/TE09/pdfs/TE09_FinalProgram.pdfThis is the complete and only reference: QUOTE Development of a μ-Scale Turbine Expander for Energy Recovery GT2009-59092 Marcus Keding, Martin Tajmar, Piotr Dudzinski, Austrian Research Centers GmbH - ARC, Seibersdorf, Austria, Reinhard Willinger, Klaus Käfer, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria http://asmeconferences.org/TE09/pdfs/TE09_FinalProgram.pdf
Aero
13th June 2009 - 12:12 AM
The latest results that I know about, regarding Tajmar's experiment is that he now suspects that Helium caused the anomaly. Surely the anomaly wasn't a result of the super fluid Helium climbing the chamber walls and being measured by the Gyros. That is a question, any thoughts?
mareg
14th June 2009 - 03:23 AM
mispost. how do i delete?
nicholasjh1
15th June 2009 - 04:23 PM
QUOTE (Aero+Jun 13 2009, 12:12 AM) The latest results that I know about, regarding Tajmar's experiment is that he now suspects that Helium caused the anomaly. Surely the anomaly wasn't a result of the super fluid Helium climbing the chamber walls and being measured by the Gyros. That is a question, any thoughts? From what I understood of that report, Helium did cause the anomaly, but not in a normal fashion, It sounded like a new effect to me.
mareg
17th June 2009 - 07:45 PM
OK so I've been reading this paper: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...cted22April.pdfWhat I need to know is why they say this. According to our current understanding, the superconducting solenoid of special material (red), see Fig. (5), should
provide a magnetic induction field in the z direction at the location of the rotating disk (gray), made from a material
different than the solenoid.It's stated on page 15 of the paper. Is there a reason for this? I'm wondering why I couldn't make both the solenoid out of YBCO or some other high temperature or Type II superconductor. I'm trying to validate or invalidate this theory because not knowing if it's true or not is pissing me off a bit.
djolds1
18th June 2009 - 05:01 AM
QUOTE (mareg+Jun 17 2009, 07:45 PM) OK so I've been reading this paper: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...cted22April.pdfWhat I need to know is why they say this. According to our current understanding, the superconducting solenoid of special material (red), see Fig. (5), should
provide a magnetic induction field in the z direction at the location of the rotating disk (gray), made from a material
different than the solenoid.It's stated on page 15 of the paper. Is there a reason for this? I'm wondering why I couldn't make both the solenoid out of YBCO or some other high temperature or Type II superconductor. |
High temperature superconductors seem unworkable since cooper pair formation is explicitly cited as necessary for the lower-requirements Bosonic coupling mechanism, versus the huge magnetic fields of the earlier Fermionic coupling mechanism. Equations 12 through 15 in the paper you cited. Here is a good early review of the entire (Fermionic) process in sequential order: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...003-4990-a4.pdfNote that hydrogen is specifically cited as the preferred material for the disk/torus for "normal" acceleration. IIRC, higher Z materials (magnesium was cited) are preferred for the FTL application. QUOTE (mareg+Jun 17 2009, 07:45 PM) I'm trying to validate or invalidate this theory because not knowing if it's true or not is pissing me off a bit. You're not alone. Given boson coupling, the experiment seems generally simple to build and run, so some level of validation or invalidation should be doable.
mareg
18th June 2009 - 10:33 AM
QUOTE (djolds1+Jun 18 2009, 05:01 AM) High temperature superconductors seem unworkable since cooper pair formation is explicitly cited as necessary for the lower-requirements Bosonic coupling mechanism, versus the huge magnetic fields of the earlier Fermionic coupling mechanism. Equations 12 through 15 in the paper you cited. Here is a good early review of the entire (Fermionic) process in sequential order: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...003-4990-a4.pdfNote that hydrogen is specifically cited as the preferred material for the disk/torus for "normal" acceleration. IIRC, higher Z materials (magnesium was cited) are preferred for the FTL application. You're not alone. Given boson coupling, the experiment seems generally simple to build and run, so some level of validation or invalidation should be doable. For a test of normal acceleration a superconducting material that contains hydrogen isn't going to work. The only thing I could find was palladium hydride and that has a critical field of less than 1 Tesla. Could someone just answer these questions for me? If not then I'll find out on my own in time but I'd like to speed this up. 1. What material does the disk need to be made out of to get an appreciable acceleration field? Superconducting I understand but what is the chemical formula of disk? 2. If the B field is sufficiently strong enough does it matter what the solenoid is made of? If it does matter then what material does the solenoid need to be made out of? If I knew these I could probably start planning the construction of the damned thing.
djolds1
18th June 2009 - 11:31 AM
QUOTE (mareg+Jun 18 2009, 10:33 AM) For a test of normal acceleration a superconducting material that contains hydrogen isn't going to work. The only thing I could find was palladium hydride and that has a critical field of less than 1 Tesla.
Could someone just answer these questions for me? If not then I'll find out on my own in time but I'd like to speed this up.
1. What material does the disk need to be made out of to get an appreciable acceleration field? Superconducting I understand but what is the chemical formula of disk?
2. If the B field is sufficiently strong enough does it matter what the solenoid is made of? If it does matter then what material does the solenoid need to be made out of?
If I knew these I could probably start planning the construction of the damned thing. I think you misunderstand the setup. Page 15: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...cted22April.pdfThe red coil on the bottom is superconducting, but the gray rotating disk just above it is insulating. Assuming minimal other changes between the Fermionic & Bosonic variants of the experiment, the rotating disk should be packed with a low-Z material to see acceleration effects. The black cylinder labeled "m" is the payload. The Heim propulsion test unit is significantly different in form from the most recently reported Tajmar setup (info 13 months old). The 2003 paper I referenced earlier contains formulas for the necessary Z of materials used. It also reviews the metric engineering process for generating a Fermionic pathway acceleration effect step by step. Interpolating back and forth between the earlier Fermionic math and more recent Bosonic pathway is beyond me.
bprager
23rd June 2009 - 05:27 PM
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Aug 21 2006, 03:48 AM) I'l like to see some videos of it working nonstop. I bet no videos are available.
It's unbelievable. Put a 24 hour webcam on them and wait for the batteries to run down. This source stated today: Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this jury. It has for the past two years examined evidence presented by the company. The unanimous verdict of the Jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy. The jury is therefore ceasing work.
mareg
1st July 2009 - 12:23 AM
Alright, Now that I've gone over this paper in detail I have a question. If you can't answer the question or can't point me in the right direction please don't answer. I've been confused enough just trying to make sense of things and I'm not looking for someone to tell me what I already know, I just want the question answered in one sentence or less. In this paper http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...cted22April.pdfThis is said: | QUOTE | In this field propulsion experiment the superconducting rotating ring of the experiments by Tajmar et al. is replaced
by an insulating disk of a special material in combination with a special set of superconducting coils.
<br>Question: What are the chemical formulas for these materials? I do not need what properties the materials must have. I simply want the chemical formulas. No more.
Thank you for your time.
makuabob
2nd July 2009 - 12:51 PM
QUOTE (mareg+Jun 30 2009, 07:23 PM) Question: What are the chemical formulas for these materials? I do not need what properties the materials must have. I simply want the chemical formulas. No more... Like someone will just GIVE that information away?! It is more like Evgeny Podkletnov and HIS anti-gravity disc. He won't give the formula and process,... but you can HIRE him, give many assistants, lots of funding and HE will produce them for you. Ha! If the process you are curious about were anywhere near ready, governments would be assasinating the others' scientists to get the upper hand on the research. The info you want is not going to be posted on the Internet. Sorry!
Aero
4th July 2009 - 02:00 PM
QUOTE (makuabob+Jul 2 2009, 12:51 PM) Like someone will just GIVE that information away?! Mostly I agree with you. But hasn't Tajmar already published his suspicions that spinning super fluid helium is the source of his effect? Is super fluid helium an insulator? If so, then the chemical make-up of the Special insulating material is already known. Of course their may be better insulating materials, but then again, helium works and it may be the best. And I note here that in Tajmar's description, iirc, he didn't go as far as he could have to contain the spinning helium. His configuration may have allowed most of the helium to splash or spray out of the top of his spinning container unless the container was sealed more tightly than implied by the description.
Aero
4th July 2009 - 03:06 PM
Have we read and discussed these papers by Clovis Jacinto de Matos and others, including Possible Measurable Effects of Dark Energy in Rotating Superconductors?http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1797I found four or five recent papers by de Matos on arxiv.org. Haven't read them yet myself.
nicholasjh1
6th July 2009 - 05:59 PM
QUOTE (Aero+Jul 4 2009, 03:06 PM) Have we read and discussed these papers by Clovis Jacinto de Matos and others, including Possible Measurable Effects of Dark Energy in Rotating Superconductors?http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1797I found four or five recent papers by de Matos on arxiv.org. Haven't read them yet myself. I read the one you cited. looks very interesting. Claims with these experiments we may be able to determine the nature of 'dark' matter using superconductors, and that there are possible effects 20000 * (10 to the -4 too 2 (is that magnitude translation correct?)) greater if the effect can be made to work with the right superconductors.
rmuldavin
7th July 2009 - 02:53 PM
In regards {{Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory}}
Form jumping this morning, now reading on laptop:
{{Possible Measurable Effects of Dark Energy in Rotating Superconductors}}
arXiv:0707.1797
[comments-rm: From page 2:
{{In models of dark energy like the above one it is the new physics underly-
ing the cuto that can potentially lead to measurable effects in the laboratory
(see also [8] for related work). In Beck and Mackey’s model [6] dark energy
couples to superconducting matter only (and not to matter in the normal
state). This is theoretically consistent: If we assume that dark energy can
interact with superconducting matter only, we do not get any contradiction
from cosmological observations, since almost all of the matter in the universe
is not in a superconducting state. Given the above assumption of a possible
interaction between dark energy and superconducting matter one can then
constrain the interaction strength by making precision measurements with
superconducting devices.}}
This morning we were "discussing" on New Theories local models based on the literature from some string theories, my taste, the Hans Dehmelt circa 1998 triplet 1/3 vertexes electron, and so the above page 2 quote seems relevant.
It does seem that as gravity forces draws charge-mass together, any rotation of the masses not perfectly balanced would be conserved as the volume gets smaller.
If Black Holes have flat surfaces, zero absolute temperatures, and, ... are surrounded by a bubble outer shell, then, the power of fractional charges 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, ... regressions of a model of foamy infinite universes, we might avoid (set aside) the singularity that is infinite. At least set the noise or uncertainty to the smallest fractional charges, and consider the ... progression of powers of three to get to the edge of our bubble in the infinite foam. From Sea to Shining Sea.
Yet again, is "uncertainity" distributed uniformly at each regressing or progressing power of three?
Maybe. Let's be fair about uncertainty, is it not everywhere?
Enough: my ignorance is showing to your own efforts at understanding.
Best from rm.
Aero
7th July 2009 - 03:59 PM
From the above referenced paper:
| QUOTE | 12 Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Dr. Martin Tajmar for useful comments on an early
version of this paper.
The paper is heavily mathematical physics as one would expect. Calculation results are (quoting the paper), "in quantitative agreement with the anomalies seen in the experiments of Tate et al.[9] and Tajmar et al.[10, 11]."
I would say it more strongly, "The calculated results are in extremely close agreement with experimental results in all three cases." However, I do have a problem with it.
In reading the paper, it appears to me as though the paper focuses on one result from the case of the spinning Niobium rings. If that is correct, then it substantially weakens the conclusions of the paper.
Then I do have a second concern. The paper made no mention of Helium even though Helium is suspected to be the root source of the anomaly in Tajmar's experiments. If Helium rotating with the Niobium ring or creeping up the cryostat walls is the actual cause of the anomaly, then ... 
gdaigle
8th July 2009 - 07:10 PM
MOND is back in the news again: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/and http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2032...ter-theory.htmlDo we know what EHT might say about the precession of the perihelion of planets in the solar system?
Lunarlanding
8th July 2009 - 07:37 PM
QUOTE (Aero+Jul 7 2009, 03:59 PM) From the above referenced paper: The paper is heavily mathematical physics as one would expect. Calculation results are (quoting the paper), "in quantitative agreement with the anomalies seen in the experiments of Tate et al.[9] and Tajmar et al.[10, 11]." I would say it more strongly, "The calculated results are in extremely close agreement with experimental results in all three cases." However, I do have a problem with it. In reading the paper, it appears to me as though the paper focuses on one result from the case of the spinning Niobium rings. If that is correct, then it substantially weakens the conclusions of the paper. Then I do have a second concern. The paper made no mention of Helium even though Helium is suspected to be the root source of the anomaly in Tajmar's experiments. If Helium rotating with the Niobium ring or creeping up the cryostat walls is the actual cause of the anomaly, then ... That's good thinking aero. It does appear that Helium is the culprit according to Tajmar, and thus Droescher and guys are way behind the curve and seriously mistaken by trying to hitchhike upon Tajmar's experiments. They seem to be totatly unaware of Tajmar's new results. And apparently, as hard as it is for Tajmar to accept, his new results appear to invalidate previous theory about rotating superconductors.... I think he's stuggling with that .... it is sort of humiliating to admit when you are wrong. Droescher and Hauser certainly have not been able to do it....it does require some measure of character. However, you should be aware that the 'creep' effect of helium is not pertinant here since Tajmar's cryostat is not a static bowl of liquid helium, but rather, if I'm not mistaken, it is evaporative cooling which implies a VAPOR of helium that is blown over and cools the sample. Lunar 
gdaigle
9th July 2009 - 01:24 AM
| QUOTE |
It does appear that Helium is the culprit according to Tajmar, and thus Droescher and guys are way behind the curve and seriously mistaken by trying to hitchhike upon Tajmar's experiments. They seem to be totatly unaware of Tajmar's new results.
<br>Häuser and Dröscher did suggest a year and a half ago that there are no major friction effects with helium. Since the effect is not due to the mechanical friction of rotating gases the authors suggest Tajmar's anomalous effect must be due to other mechanisms.
Astepintime
9th July 2009 - 04:54 PM
QUOTE (gdaigle+Jul 8 2009, 07:10 PM)
Do we know what EHT might say about the precession of the perihelion of planets in the solar system? Good question, in fact a similar question should be asked about the pioneer effect. In a related paper "How Well Do We Know The Orbits of the Outer Planets?" by Page, Wallin and Dixon, AJ 697 June 1, 2009 it is shown that the current ephemeris of Pluto does NOT preclude the existence of the Pioneer effect". The orbit is just not characterized well enough yet to make that assertion!!
zenakuten
16th July 2009 - 11:51 PM
I had a revelation the other day which has lead me to the original 6 dimensional heim theory with it's two extra time-like dimensions. From my understanding of quantum mechanics, space-time is quantized, which roughly means that the universe is pixelated at the most basic level. It also means time is quantized, meaning time flows in descrete packets as well, similar to the frame rate of a computer monitor. If space is three dimensional and time is one dimensional, there is a problem when you try to calculate movement and rotation in three dimensions, called gymbal lock. If time were only one dimensional, particles would experience gymbal lock since the particle can only move in one cardinal direction per quantized moment of time. If you were to consider a particle as a pixel on a screen, the idea is synonymous with being able to only move one pixel in each cardinal direction; a diagonal move would require two. In order to avoid gymbal lock, time would need to have at least one dimension per cardinal dimension so that it could move diagonally in one step. If time only has one dimension as the standard model says, wouldn't we see gymbal lock in particle motions everywhere at the fundamental level? Anyway that's my idea. Please let me know why it's wrong
gdaigle
17th July 2009 - 01:47 PM
In my limited understanding, there are actually 5 time-like dimensions. In addition to T (time), the subspace S represents two time-like dimensions organizing "internal spatial” coordinates (both imaginary), while the subspace I represents two time-like dimensions representing "information” coordinates (also both imaginery). Ref: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/docu...RevisedSept.pdf (see Fig. 7) Though new to gimbal-lock, are you asking if the additional timelike dimensions allow rotation in a single movement rather than three discrete rotations? As if it were driven by a vector, similar to how quaternions are used in 3D rotations to solve gimbal-lock? Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuaternionCould be a connection, as Dröscher and Hauser refer to use of quaternions in the transformation from spacetime into internal space, M → H8 Ref: http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...er2007-0-42.pdf (see footnote #9) ... and they also mention that use of quaternions is under investigation. Ref: http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/doc...Abbreviated.pdf (just before section 2.1)
zenakuten
17th July 2009 - 03:07 PM
QUOTE (gdaigle+Jul 17 2009, 01:47 PM) ... Though new to gimbal-lock, are you asking if the additional timelike dimensions allow rotation in a single movement rather than three discrete rotations? As if it were driven by a vector, similar to how quaternions are used in 3D rotations to solve gimbal-lock? Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion... Yep, that's precisely my question. I should have mentioned quaternions in the original post. Quaternions solve the problem of gimbal lock by performing rotations in three dimensions in one operation. If space-time is quantized then it seems there must be one time dimension per spacial dimension in order to have three degrees of freedom rotationally speaking.
gdaigle
20th July 2009 - 04:49 AM
It has also come to my attention that internal space H8 has 8 coordinates and each coordinate is associated with a quarternionic field. In Energy Density of the Quaternionic Field as Dark Energy in the Universe, V. Majernik indicated that the interaction of quaternionic fields with ordinary dark matter fulfills the requirements for dark energy. Just this recognition that a field associated with a hermetry of H8 could generate quintessence is a small but positive affirmation.
gdaigle
20th July 2009 - 08:34 PM
Some months ago I noted that metamaterials had been used to simulate black holes, wormholes and other phenomena of GR. At the time I wondered if metamaterials could be used to predict effects of GR and if so, of EHT. Now Dr. Zhang has successfully used metamaterials in making bench-top laboratory predictions of GR. Would this be an alternative route to testing predictions of EHT?
Jossarian
22nd July 2009 - 02:27 PM
Update on Dr. Bussard's POLYWELL research:
| QUOTE | The Boys At Talk-Polywell Have Struck Paydirt
The boys at Talk Polywell have uncovered the details of the WB-8 contract.
Those details can give us some insight into how WB-7 has gone. From the looks of things - rather well.
See: Full article
/Joss
gdaigle
23rd July 2009 - 05:19 AM
I often run into definition conflicts in Droscher and Hauser articles with regards to labelling and coupling of gravitophotons. It appears terms are often switched.
For example, in AIAA205-4321 they state on page 5 that "The coupling constants of the two gravitophoton particles are different, and only the negative (attractive) gravitophotons are absorbed by protons and neutrons, while absorption by electrons can be neglected." Result: attractive gp couples with protons
In AIAA2006-4609 they state on page 14 that "The neutral gravitophoton decays in a gravitationally attractive (negative) and a gravitationally repulsive gravitophoton. The negative one interacts with the electron and the repulsive one interacts with the proton. Result: repulsive gp couples with protons
Then in LauncherSymPaper2007-)-42 they state on page 9 that " In the second
case, a positive (repulsive) and a negative (attractive) gravitophoton can be produced. The former seems to occur in Tajmar’s experiments, see section below, and the latter case should happen in the proposed field propulsion experiment outlined, see corresponding section." Result: attractive gp couples with protons
In JPC2008 on page 7 they state: "The second decay mode, ν 0 g p → ν + g p + ν − g p , gives a positive (attractive) and negative (repulsive) gravitophoton". Result: attractive gps are positive and repulsive gps are negative.
Could a senior member please make a determination on this. Is a repulsive gp negative or attractive? Does a repulsive gp couple with an boson or a fermion? Thanks.
eclidianhalf
24th July 2009 - 12:46 AM
Author by Jack L. Berlin Sunday, March 15, 2009 SPACE, NOTHING, NO LIGHT WITHOUT DARKNESS, IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE, My thoughts of a way time and dimensions created A shift in space, a movement, to move it takes time; the movement created a dimension 1st. The movement causes a vacuum and the 2nd dimension, the two dimension’s cause friction between the two. The friction created light and the 3rd dimensional substances, particles. While the first and second dimensions spin like a boomerang spewing out` (light (if light has something to do with the 3rd dimension) and different particle’s; there also creating a vacuum or black hole. As these particles accumulate they are gathering in the black hole where there is pressure. The 1st and 2nd dimensions friction between the two and spinning in different area’s of space may cause different particles to form. This accumulation and pressure of these substances in the black hole binds different elements and molecules and gasses together, eventually creating a mass of elements, gases and particles pressure causing heat, then an explosion breaking this mass including the breaking up of the vacuum (BLACK HOLE). THE BLACK HOLE, if the black hole is the foundation of gravity then the vacuum may be the smallest part of a substance of any excising mass. The black hole, or holes in space that don’t have mass that attract elements, gases and particles, may be as equal in volume to substances, particles and gasses that exist in the universe. As for white holes in space they may be the 1st and 2nd dimensions where things start their existence and there may have been more than one shift in space creating many boomerangs of white holes and black holes.  Author by Jack L. Berlin Sunday, March 15, 2009 SPACE, NOTHING, NO LIGHT WITHOUT DARKNESS, IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE, My thoughts of a way time and dimensions created A shift in space, a movement, to move it takes time; the movement created a dimension 1st. The movement causes a vacuum and the 2nd dimension, the two dimension’s cause friction between the two. The friction created light and the 3rd dimensional substances, particles. While the first and second dimensions spin like a boomerang spewing out` (light (if light has something to do with the 3rd dimension) and different particle’s; there also creating a vacuum or black hole. As these particles accumulate they are gathering in the black hole where there is pressure. The 1st and 2nd dimensions friction between the two and spinning in different area’s of space may cause different particles to form. This accumulation and pressure of these substances in the black hole binds different elements and molecules and gasses together, eventually creating a mass of elements, gases and particles pressure causing heat, then an explosion breaking this mass including the breaking up of the vacuum (BLACK HOLE). THE BLACK HOLE, if the black hole is the foundation of gravity then the vacuum may be the smallest part of a substance of any excising mass. The black hole, or holes in space that don’t have mass that attract elements, gases and particles, may be as equal in volume to substances, particles and gasses that exist in the universe. As for white holes in space they may be the 1st and 2nd dimensions where things start their existence and there may have been more than one shift in space creating many boomerangs of white holes and black holes.
AlexG
24th July 2009 - 12:53 AM
Garbage.
Where do all these cranks come from? Is there a course in high school on being a crank that I missed?
SirShanson
27th July 2009 - 11:27 AM
| QUOTE | Where do all these cranks come from? Is there a course in high school on being a crank that I missed?
<br>Yes, there are plenty on offer just go for something that involves no science but plenty of metaphysics, theology or a number of other subjects. The school you attend also has an impact.
UCAS are soon to enter clearing if you are interested!
uranusstars
27th July 2009 - 02:34 PM
Now I am sure that there are some good ideas in his work as well
Jossarian
28th July 2009 - 09:25 AM
My Google Alert had noticed me today about this: The quantum theory of reincarnationUser Pelham have commented this article and he mentions about 'Heim Theory'. I think you should read this: | QUOTE | Separately, have you ever heard of Heim Theory? I won't get into it much here, except to say that there are some reasons, some emerging evidence to suggest that it may be valid. (For instance, the math generated by Heim Theory is the only way to calculate the mass of a subatomic particle if you know it's trajectory and velocity. Nothing in quantum physics or the standard model comes close to the same accuracy.)
Anyway, Heim Theory posits 4 dimensions in addition to the 4 that we're familiar with. And it posits that the electro-magnetic force can serve as a bridge between the two sets of dimensions. It also posits that spacetime (our 4 dimensions) is granular, ie, it comes in discrete packets somewhat larger than the Planck length. In fact, there is now some evidence to support this aspect of Heim Theory. The world's most sensitive scientific device (known as the Geo 600--there's an entry in Wikipedia), which was devised to detect gravity waves from distant exploding stars, instead has picked up a background frequency that, curiously, coincides with the frequency one would expect if spacetime were, indeed, granular.
Now, this background frequency may instead simply be interference from earthly sources. So it will take another few months for scientists to sort things out. But it certainly bears watching because if spacetime granularity is confirmed, it will surpass all other human discoveries, in my humble but possibly overexcited opinion.
Anyway, back to my speculation. If Heim Theory is confirmed, this in turn will point to something popularly (or maybe obscurely) known as the holographic universe. What in heaven's name would that be? Think of a black hole formed by a burned-out, collapsed star. Around the hole is something called an event horizon. This is the invisible threshold at which anything approaching or passing by the black hole will be captured by its powerful gravitational field. But, it turns out (as physicist Stephen Hawking recently conceded), all the "information" that had previously been thought to be lost with the collapse of the star is instead retained--albeit in quantum chaotic form--in the event horizon, which fluctuates on a quantum scale along the literally 2-dimensional spherical surface that is the horizon.
Our universe, as we perceive it, is similar. The 4-dimensional world we live in is a holographic projection of a quantum granular 2-dimensional "event horizon" that surrounds it. This event horizon, being literally 2 dimensional, lacks time. In other words, it is immortal. We, our lives, everything that has happened or will happen is contained there. Forever. Nothing is lost. (So instead of the Hindu-like reincarnation you describe, a Nietzschean "repetition of the same" may be more in order.)
That's all fine and good. But there are also practical applications. If Heim Theory is correct, it not only would quite neatly serve as the unifying theory long sought by physicists and cosmologists but it would also render interstellar space travel practical. Using the electro-magnetic force to bridge the gap between the two sets of 4 dimensions, we could traverse the light years between our sun and the next star in 80 days or less. Mars would be an overnight trip, and you could eat lunch hear on Earth and reach the Moon by dinnertime. (The greater the distance to be covered, the greater the advantage to be had trekking in a Heim spaceship.)
The funny thing is, for somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion, Heim Theory could be tested and proved or disproved. One wonders why it hasn't. Or has it? The U.S. alone has--what?--about a $30 billion annual "black" budget. I'd be surprised if we, and perhaps others, haven't already checked it out. Could explain some UFO sightings, don't you think?
Anyone knows more about GEO 600 background frequency and its possible connection to Heim Theory?
/Joss
lzurha
28th July 2009 - 09:34 AM
is it posible to get negative mass?
gdaigle
28th July 2009 - 02:07 PM
Jossarian, In http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.4803 (Holographic Noise in Interferometers) by C. Hogan based upon his holographic interpretation of data from GEO600, he states: Holographic noise is not due to perturbations of a metric, but to a new kind of in-common movement of mass-energy relative to a classical metric. All the effects discussed here are described as variations of position, using a mass-energy position wavefunction relative to a fixed, flat metric, and emerge only insofar as positions are defined by measurements of mass-energy. This reliance upon position sounds a bit like EHT's spatial coordinates S subspace. Hogan also makes reference to an uncertainty in the transverse positions of the particle as " information, or number of degrees of freedom", and " macroscopic geometrical information". This may have relevance to subspace I and mention of quaternions both in EHT and as a solution to loss of a degree of freedom (gimbal-lock). As with any holograph, one would expect geometrical position and information to be key. ... As followup to my question on July 23 re: D&H contradictions, could you comment on whether a repulsive gp is negative or positive? And does a repulsive gp couple with an boson or a fermion? Thanks.
Astepintime
29th July 2009 - 08:37 PM
0n a closely related topic you may wish to check out some interesting solar system puzzles. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/--- the full article http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2469
djolds1
30th July 2009 - 09:11 AM
QUOTE (gdaigle+Jul 28 2009, 02:07 PM)
As followup to my question on July 23 re: D&H contradictions, could you comment on whether a repulsive gp is negative or positive? And does a repulsive gp couple with an boson or a fermion? Thanks. Almost all references cite negative gps as attractive and positive gps as repulsive. I would treat the entry in JPC2008 as a brain fart. And IIRC, positive/repulsive gps interact only with bosons. Per the Heim Theory Glossary, only attractive gps interact with fermions (absorbed by protons & neutrons).
gdaigle
30th July 2009 - 01:05 PM
Thanks, djolds1.
Lunarlanding
30th July 2009 - 09:49 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jul 29 2009, 08:37 PM) 0n a closely related topic you may wish to check out some interesting solar system puzzles. http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/--- the full article http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2469<br>Thanks astepintime. Apparently the flyby anomaly has been resolved by including the transverse doppler effect, which was left out in Anderson's original analysis. Although I haven't had time to go thru the details. Apparently the author has duplicated the formula found by Anderson by including transverse doppler into the equation. Thus no anomaly after all, simply include the correct relativistic correction...Others with info about the transverse effect applied to the satellite signals may want to verify. see here: http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxi...9/0809.1888.pdfLunar
Astepintime
31st July 2009 - 06:20 PM
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Jul 30 2009, 09:49 PM) Apparently the flyby anomaly has been resolved by including the transverse doppler effect, which was left out in Anderson's original analysis. Although I haven't had time to go thru the details. Apparently the author has duplicated the formula found by Anderson by including transverse doppler into the equation. Thus no anomaly after all, simply include the correct relativistic correction...Others with info about the transverse effect applied to the satellite signals may want to verify. see here: http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxi...9/0809.1888.pdfLunar Hi Lunar Thanks, I also caught that paper and what I believed happened is that Anderson and Nieto's paper was written for a proceedings prior to Mbelek's paper coming out. (Note that neither is peer-review, but that being said I believe Mbelek is probably correct and I would hope that soon the JPL guys would reanalyze the old data and verify this). The pioneer effect is old and the debate still rages on but I fall on the side of simple heat radiation effects as the cause --- however, I am shocked that another mission is not yet in the works to address this question. Rarely do deep space missions get a chance to focus on fundamental physics questions! You would think NASA would jump on this?? --- Also I have hear through the rumor mill that a report is being prepared on the Pioneer anomaly --so stay tuned. The AU increase is very small and at this time probably should not be believed. I don't really think this is the class of an true anomaly yet. BUT lets put a good laser transponder on Mars then not only would we kill this question we would also be able to accurately look at the post-Newtonian gravitational parameters (gamma,beta ...). Gamma-1 down to at least 10^-5. The lunar eccentricity rate anomaly - yea this looks like a real puzzle. The men referenced by Anderson and Nieto are "the" world experts and after a lot of work if they don't understand it IMHO it is a true anomaly. BUT, as I believe you would agree, that does not necessarily mean we need to change fundamental physics -- it just means we have good physics puzzle. -astepintime
Aero
31st July 2009 - 07:11 PM
The increase in the astronomical unit is based on equation 2.1 in the Anderson paper. Quoting from the paper,
| QUOTE | GMS k2A3; (2.1)
That is, gravitational constant times Mass of sun is defined to equal Gauss' constant squared times the astronomical unit cubed.
That's really cute, but what happens at the extremes? If the mass of the sun were to diminish to near Zero, then does the astronomical unit likewise diminish to near Zero? Well, maybe so as all but the mass of the sun are defined values, but celestial mechanics says that the radius of the earth's orbit would certainly not diminish to near Zero. In fact, the Earth's orbital radius would grow very large, should the mass of the sun diminish to near zero.
My conclusion is that it is invalid to use equation 2.1 to dynamically model celestial mechanics phenomenon.
djolds1
1st August 2009 - 06:04 PM
djolds1
1st August 2009 - 06:16 PM
QUOTE (djolds1+Aug 1 2009, 06:04 PM) Never mind? Goddamn sensationalist condensed-matter guys and their lying headlines. The electron has not been "split" into anything. This result shows that the bulk behavior of a group of electrons can be more easily described by fictional particles called a "spinon" and "holon".
These particles do not exist. They are just a more convenient description for the mass behavior of electrons in certain situations. This is analogous to how people talk about "sound waves" and "phonons" for vibrations: there is no such particle as a phonon, and no such discrete thing as a "sound wave", just air molecules vibrating back and forth. But the behavior of vibrating atoms and molecules is easier to talk and reason about when you introduce a thing called a phonon, and then describe wave phenomena in terms of that.
As an aside: electroweak theory (QED) makes some very definite predictions about the number and character of fundamental particles. If the electron really could split, we (high-energy physicists) would have seen it before now in measurements of things like the Z boson resonance.
I hate sensationalist bullshit like this headline.
-----
I think you mean "an electron is about as real as it gets". The whole point is that the many-body spectrum of a bunch of electrons is massively complicated, and beyond a handful it no longer makes sense to talk about each one's individual motion when there are far less energetic but well-defined states available.
At the end of the day, we're all looking at the low energy spectrum of some system, and trying to describe it in simple terms. A small bunch of electrons makes sense for what we call "the vacuum". People usually call excitations of this "vacuum" fundamental, and I would go with it if we knew that this vacuum was somehow preferred, beyond historical accident. Until we do, and even if we did, it might still make sense to simply treat it as we do any other material.
Finally, I'd like to weigh in against calling creating spinons and holons "splitting" the electron. Nothing has been split. We moved a certain amount of stuff (energy, momentum, etc.) between two systems, and found that it corresponds to different combinations of excitations. Dressing it up doesn't help anyone.
Lunarlanding
1st August 2009 - 07:00 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jul 31 2009, 06:20 PM) Hi Lunar
Thanks, I also caught that paper and what I believed happened is that Anderson and Nieto's paper was written for a proceedings prior to Mbelek's paper coming out. (Note that neither is peer-review, but that being said I believe Mbelek is probably correct and I would hope that soon the JPL guys would reanalyze the old data and verify this).
.
<br>Thanks for the response astepintime.....and for taking them one at a time. Yes; thankfully these guys are starting to date their entries...which isn't always the case for non-pier reviewed stuff ...and it can create quite a problem when they don't. I agree; the flybys are quite an interesting problem. Since the anomalous measurements are directly related to doppler ranging and telemetry I think the problem may turn out to be an oversight in the JPL orbital data formulation (and not due to new physics), possibly as simple as using the correct kinematics of relativistic transverse doppler shift as Mbelek has done. JPL uses what's called the Moyer formulation in their Orbital Determination....Its hard to imagine that it would not have included Transverse doppler; however, it may have simply been an incorrect kinematic application. I think it was originally placed in the ODP by Moyer in 1971 to 1981. Here's some of the navigational programs in use...most by Moyer. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=4294940963Anyone with access to copies of any of these? It may shed light on the veracity of our discussion here. I have no particular comment on the other anomalies. Lunar
Lunarlanding
2nd August 2009 - 03:59 AM
QUOTE (Aero+Jul 31 2009, 07:11 PM) The increase in the astronomical unit is based on equation 2.1 in the Anderson paper. Quoting from the paper,
That is, gravitational constant times Mass of sun is defined to equal Gauss' constant squared times the astronomical unit cubed.
........
My conclusion is that it is invalid to use equation 2.1 to dynamically model celestial mechanics phenomenon. Aero; I don't really understand fully what Anderson, et al. are getting at in this article ; However, just to give you a heads up,....this particular equation used to define AU is simply a modified version of Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion, namely, .... GM = (2Pi/T)^2 X R^3...... (where T = orbital period; R = avg. orbital radius; M = sun's mass) Apparently, k ('Gauss constant') in Anderson's eqn. is simply defined as the inverse of the period (times 2pi) in Kepler's equation. IOW,... k = 2pi / TSo it is consistent with known orbital dynamics. Lunar
Aero
3rd August 2009 - 05:09 PM
Lunar, OK - you are right of course, but that does not change the situation of the application of the equation predicting totally wrong results at the extreme. From http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/au.htmlQUOTE
ASTRONOMICAL UNIT (AU)
1 AU = 149,597,870.691 kilometers
Definition: An Astronomical Unit is approximately the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun. It is a derived constant and used to indicate distances within the solar system. Its formal definition is the radius of an unperturbed circular orbit a massless body would revolve about the sun in 2*(pi)/k days (i.e., 365.2568983.... days), where k is defined as the Gaussian constant exactly equal to 0.01720209895. Since an AU is based on radius of a circular orbit, one AU is actually slightly less than the average distance between the Earth and the Sun (approximately 150 million km or 93 million miles). If the mass of the sun were to instantly go to zero, the Earth would fly off in an tangent to its orbit. It would not move to the prior location of the sun and tightly orbit the void, as equation 2.1 predicts. The equation does not allow for a change in sign at any value of solar mass so how does one use it to predict a correct intermediate value of AU when when the extrema gives totally wrong results? I have a different idea to explain the result although maybe it has already been accounted for. I doubt it has, or I wouldn't post this. Quoting from the paper. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
ASTRONOMICAL UNIT (AU)
1 AU = 149,597,870.691 kilometers
Definition: An Astronomical Unit is approximately the mean distance between the Earth and the Sun. It is a derived constant and used to indicate distances within the solar system. Its formal definition is the radius of an unperturbed circular orbit a massless body would revolve about the sun in 2*(pi)/k days (i.e., 365.2568983.... days), where k is defined as the Gaussian constant exactly equal to 0.01720209895. Since an AU is based on radius of a circular orbit, one AU is actually slightly less than the average distance between the Earth and the Sun (approximately 150 million km or 93 million miles). |
If the mass of the sun were to instantly go to zero, the Earth would fly off in an tangent to its orbit. It would not move to the prior location of the sun and tightly orbit the void, as equation 2.1 predicts. The equation does not allow for a change in sign at any value of solar mass so how does one use it to predict a correct intermediate value of AU when when the extrema gives totally wrong results?
I have a different idea to explain the result although maybe it has already been accounted for. I doubt it has, or I wouldn't post this. Quoting from the paper.We conclude that at least the uncertainty part of the reported increase in the AU (Krasinsky & Brumberg 2004) of
(15 +/- 4) cm / yr is reasonable. The universe is expanding at a rate given by the Hubble constant. Wikipedia Hubble Constant = 74.2 ± 3.6 (km/s)/Mpc or Hubble Constant = 3.5973175E-05 ± 1.745E-06 (cm/sec) /AU Seconds per year = 60 x 60 x 24 x 365.25 = 3.15576E+07 sec/yr Increase in AU per year due to expansion. Delta AU = 1.1352271E+03 (cm/yr) /AU The increase in AU due to expansion of the universe swamps the estimated (measured) value. Caveat - Maybe I should multiply by the number of seconds in the round trip light time instead of by seconds per year. And maybe I should use the Earth to Mars range instead of one AU as the distance over which the universe is expanding. Or maybe I should use the difference in orbital radius of the Earth and Mars. I don't mean to insist that this is the right explanation but I'd be interested in any thoughts on the subject.
Lunarlanding
4th August 2009 - 08:30 PM
QUOTE (Aero+Aug 3 2009, 05:09 PM) Lunar, OK - you are right of course, but that does not change the situation of the application of the equation predicting totally wrong results at the extreme. .....If the mass of the sun were to instantly go to zero,.... <br> Well, aero; the Keplerian equation was never intended to predict results for , what you refer to as the 'extreme', namely, for a variable mass. In reality, the Kepler 3rd law (of which Anderson eqn. is a variation) determines the orbits of ALL orbital bodies by KEEPING the central mass CONSTANT. It was never intended to be otherwise. ....OR you can switch to a DIFFERENT system where there is a DIFFERENT central mass, but mass REMAINS constant. The reason for this is simple: The constant in the Keplerian equation for ANY solar orbit is GM / 2(pi) .. ( M = solar mass). IOW, the ratio of avg. orbital radius cubed to the orbital period (T) squared is the SAME for ALL planets. IOW,.... R^3 / T^2 = Constant for all planets and bodies orbiting the sun... and THAT CONSTANT is GM / 2(pi).......... Now, you can use that SAME equation to find the distance or period of any satellite in orbit around the earth simply by switching the M in the eqn. to represent mass of earth.
....Or you can simply measure the avg. distance and orbital period of ANY earth orbiting satellite and DETERMINE the mass of the earth!!  In fact , Kepler , knowing the earth's orbital period, and estimating the distance to the sun, was able to determine the mass of the sun in the early 1600's !!  That's the genius of Kepler and the beauty of this amazing equation. Lunar BTW; the equation also works for eccentric orbits; simply use the average orbital radius, (add the perihelion distance and the aphelion dist. and divide by 2)
Lunarlanding
4th August 2009 - 08:51 PM
QUOTE (Astepintime+Jul 31 2009, 06:20 PM) Hi Lunar
The AU increase is very small and at this time probably should not be believed. I don't really think this is the class of an true anomaly yet. BUT lets put a good laser transponder on Mars then not only would we kill this question we would also be able to accurately look at the post-Newtonian gravitational parameters (gamma,beta ...). Gamma-1 down to at least 10^-5.
-astepintime Hi again, astepintime....back to this....I agree with you. The amount of AU variation is so tiny that I can't see that it has been actually isoalted from all the noise of the background planetary perturbations, etc..... I am far more interested in this issue, for example, of the empirically measured change in the radiactive decay rates with distance from the sun....IOW, a seasonal variation with distance....quite a discovery and currently unresolved with greater implications for basics nuclear physics.... See : http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283Lunar
Aero
5th August 2009 - 12:33 AM
Lunar, thank you for the refresher course on the basics. It is clear that you have a good handle on Kepler's equation. You and I may be agreeing, re. the invalidity of using Kepler's equation to estimate changes in AU, hence changes in solar mass. QUOTE Well, aero; the Keplerian equation was never intended to predict results for , what you refer to as the 'extreme', namely, for a variable mass. I use the extreme as the example because the solution is very clear cut. However, the sign of the solution (change in the value of AU) must be the same (positive) for any value of reduction in solar mass and negative for any value of increase in solar mass. Quoting from Andersen's paper now. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Well, aero; the Keplerian equation was never intended to predict results for , what you refer to as the 'extreme', namely, for a variable mass.
I use the extreme as the example because the solution is very clear cut. However, the sign of the solution (change in the value of AU) must be the same (positive) for any value of reduction in solar mass and negative for any value of increase in solar mass.
Quoting from Andersen's paper now.
However, rather than increasing, the AU should be decreasing, mainly as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation, and to a much lesser extent to the solar wind.
<br>That statement is just wrong. The value of AU should decrease with orbital drag, increase with solar wind pressure (an effective reduction force directed along the solar gravitational acceleration vector {radial}, which can be cast as a solar mass reduction) and AU should be increasing as a result of loss of mass to solar radiation. Here I am using the definition of AU as the radius of an unperturbed circular orbit a massless body would revolve about the sun in 2*(pi)/k days, and not the defined constant value.
I would agree with your remark in a subsequent post that the true answer is lost in the noise of the data, but using Kepler's equation for the basis of analysis won't find it.
Regarding my remarks about Hubble's constant and the expansion of the universe, note that the resulting value of increase of AU, Delta AU = 1.1352271E+03 (cm/yr) /AU or 11.35 meters/year is about an order of magnitude to large for the analysis performed. From the paper, | QUOTE | | Taking account of the factor of three in Eq. 2.1, we can normalize the result of the covariance analysis to a standard error in the AU of 3.0 m, represented by k1 in the rank 12 matrix. The corresponding rank 9 standard error, where it is assumed that all the remaining ve singular values are perfectly known, is 2.5 m. Of course the invalidity of using Kepler's equation as the basis for this analysis makes these standard errors suspect as well.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|