Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

JSTang, you are talking about the mythical dragging of "empty space" by mechanical pistons. That has nothing to do with GR or, apparently, reality.

Frame dragging happens because momentum contributes to gravity, but for a given massive particle there is a frame where it's momentum is zero. So Relativity + Gravity + extended rotating massive body = Frame dragging.

The Earth doesn't spin very fast so frame dragging is much less impressive than the contributions to gravity from its mass alone.

Rpenner:

Mythical dragging of "empty space" by mechanical pistons is so funny, it may even be true.

Cut it to the chase, momentum, gravity, massive particle, reference frame & rotation are all secondary, internal / intrinsic nature of Space Time is Primary :

In this thread, the question is :
Can specific space time be contained, and transported ?

A matchbox can do it, however , let's make inside space-time obviously differ from outside by using a metallic hollow ball, with some rotating objects in it .... just like a solar system inside a hollow shell.

You may even put a Schrödinger cat in.

Now you have TWO different world, the internal structure is not available to outside
... (note) sort of ... let do a reality check.

===========================
note:
1) Frame "dragged" is a natural consequence if space-time can be dragged ... not even worth mentioning.
2) Under certain consideration.. akin to a black hole ?
3) Some trick issue is skipped intentional... such as momentum, gravity, mass, reference frame, rotation, containment, transportation.... indeed, each can be a whole new chapter of it's own.
4) Here, Space Time mean Space time AND it's structure (note) . Emptiness is not an appropriate characterization.
5) Structure is a whole new topic.
6) This is just physics , even awareness up to GR is assumed, GR is not claimed.

[Moderator: Unsupported gibberish masquerading as physics instruction. Suspended 20 days.]

This post has been edited by rpenner on May 6 2011, 02:38 PM

Hi. Looks like lambda (cosmological constant) in Einstein's equation is a reason for "Dark Energy":
http://techie-buzz.com/science/dark-energy-confirmed.html

Heim went event further then Einstein, he explained this is happening because gravity starts to be repulsive at large distances. Finally there is confirmation.

Does this mean that Big Bang theory is false?

No, it means Heim was wrong in the derivation of his gravity theory. Read the papers by Borje Mansson and Anton Mueller here:

http://home.comcast.net/~djimgraham/INDEX.HTML

Not only was Heim's equation for gravity wrong, but he misinterpreted the solution of that equation.

I started to derive the equations from my translation of Heim's book, but found so many errors that I gave up.

jreed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20110616/tc_zd/265803

Anybody know how to contact William Droscher or Jochem Hauser?
This would be an ideal forum for them to present their ideas. Maybe occasional poster Hdeasy or someone could. This looks like a revival of the advanced propulsion concepts program that was out of NASA a few years ago.

That would been seen as evidence that their ideas are crackpot and anti-scientific.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and in science ideas are tasted by the most relevant experts as part of peer review, publication (or not) and consequent adoption of ideas (or rejection of them). Galileo, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein went through this (or similar) tasting process by the experts of their day.

Said ideas, to be a scientific theory must be precise, usefully descriptive of reality and communicable to experts. In many cases, the original presentation to the experts (say Einstein's 1905 description of Special Relativity) is made communicable to a wider audience by those who follow. Thus Minkowski's description of space-time (1908) is the standard textbook language (including Einstein's 1920 pop-physics book) and the basis the treatment of Special Relativity in modern particle physics.

But there is no scientific reason for Droscher or Hauser to repeat their claims here, when the bulk of the physics community is waiting for a demonstration of a useful and precise description of reality. One of the main areas that "Heim theory" falls down in is communicability, given that the mass formulas themselves are complicated and change between Volume I and II without discussion.

check this out: http://www.hpcc-space.de/aboutUs/haeuser/index.html

regards
g.

...and I believe it is Walter Dröscher.

...it is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dr%C3%B6scher

I've been thinking about this whole business of the "ring floating free" and it occurs to me that there's no significant difference between this set up, and the demonstration of a magnet floating above a superconductor.

A superconducting Nb ring, rotating or otherwise, should float free above an operating solenoid because of the expulsion of the magnetic field from the superconductor.

None of the equations I've seen seem to take that into account.

recent discussion in the german wikipedia on the topic:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Burkhard_Heim
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red...g#Burkhard_Heim

for the interested de.readers here....

Well, that's generally conclusive.

Thanks for the input, John.

John,

You wrote this a few years ago. Are you now convinced this is just pure coincidental numerology?

Since I posted that I have done a lot of work with Heim Theory. First I tried to come up with the mass of the Tau lepton. Since I had the equations in a state that should give me this mass if I entered the correct quantum numbers for the Tau, I tried that. This experiment failed. The equations blew up. I noticed that the discovery date for the Tau was later than the other particles Heim had masses for. It was discovered in 1975. The latest discovery date for a particle that Heim's equations give a correct mass for is the K meson, discovered in 1947. Of course, there is the well known discrepancy of the neutral electron, and many more new particles not in Heim's results. It's almost as if Heim's theory is like a snapshot of particle data taken before 1975.

So, I decided to go back to Heim's books and translate them. This took a long time but I finally got to the end of Volume I, chapter II. Before starting on chapter III I decided to take a look at Heim's gravitation theory which starts in section 4 of chapter II, Gravitational Space Structure and its Extrema. I was hoping to come up with an answer to the problem of "dark energy" since Heim claimed to be able to show that gravitation becomes repulsive as distance becomes greater than a certain distance due to the mass of the gravitational field. When I looked at the equations given in the book, the starting equation for the gravitational potential is given on page 77. This is supposed to be the Laplacian, expressed in spherical coordinates. But this equation is WRONG. I looked in my copy of "Methods of Theoretical Physics" by Morse and Feshbach where the equation is given correctly to confirm this. In order to get his incorrect equation to work, Heim had to assume that the azimuthal angle is fixed. Why should this be necessary when spherical symmetry is involved? Heim should have seen this error and corrected it. Any undergrad physics student has seen this equation and should be able to write it correctly. Heim made two errors but finally came out with the equation he wanted. I did some more research and found the articles by Anton Mueller and Borje Mansson I mentioned in my earlier posting.

I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work.

jreed

Hi John,

I was lurking on this forum for the past 5 years hoping to find some answers. Looks like I finally got them thanks to you!
I only wonder what Hauser and Dröscher are doing. Do they fail to see the same errors? The books are written in their native German after all.

Anybody from this forum can ask them for comment on Dr Reed's findings?