Scientific Forums


Pages: (209) « First ... 204 205 [206] 207 208 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
gravitophoton
Posted: Apr 11 2012, 06:56 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 18-August 06

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (LostInPhysics @ Apr 11 2012, 05:20 PM)
hey, the link to the paper does not appear to work anymore... anyone else have another link for it?

the paper Heim's Theory of Elementary Particle Structures should be

here.
Top
kurt9
Posted: Apr 22 2012, 06:43 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 6-October 08

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -1


http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/747/2/...SearchPage=true

http://www.livescience.com/19796-dark-matt...ternatives.html

Dark matter appears not to exist, and scientists are scrambling to come up with alternative explanations for the way galaxies rotate. One of these explanations involves gravity consisting of three different forces.

I know John Reed comprehensively debunked the original Heim theory last summer. However, Droescher and Hauser's EHT is an independent derivation. I am also aware that Tajmar retracted his experimental results late last year as well. However, I do recall that the version EHT prior to 2006 was not dependent on the efficacy of Tajmar's low magnetic field experiments and, thuis, may still be a valid explanation.

Anyone care to comment on this.
Top
rpenner
Posted: Apr 23 2012, 06:07 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5777
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


What do you mean when you say "Dark matter appears not to exist"?

It's seen in galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmology.

If a paper like http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924 is published and survives, then we will have learned something new about our galaxy, but not necessarily about dark matter.

As Sean Carroll write:
QUOTE
If this were true, it would imply something funny going on with the distribution of nearby dark matter, which could have significant implications for direct searches here on Earth (see below). It wouldn’t really be much of a threat to the idea of dark matter itself, since there’s plenty of evidence for dark matter elsewhere. But it might mean that the distribution in the Milky Way was very different from the kinds of models we like to use, for example by being much lumpier.


But there remains substantial questions about whether the procedure and calculations were meaningful. Remember those OPERA guys were 6-sigmas confident and turned out to be completely wrong because their sigmas were irrelevant -- swamped by a problem that lurked since 2008 without being caught.


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
Jossarian
Posted: Apr 23 2012, 04:02 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 125
Joined: 18-September 06

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 5


QUOTE (rpenner @ Apr 23 2012, 06:07 AM)
What do you mean when you say "Dark matter appears not to exist"?

It's seen in galaxies, galaxy clusters and cosmology.

If a paper like http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3924 is published and survives, then we will have learned something new about our galaxy, but not necessarily about dark matter.

As Sean Carroll write:


But there remains substantial questions about whether the procedure and calculations were meaningful. Remember those OPERA guys were 6-sigmas confident and turned out to be completely wrong because their sigmas were irrelevant -- swamped by a problem that lurked since 2008 without being caught.

Here is 10 sigma significance result:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6368A Study of the Dark Core in A520 with Hubble Space Telescope: The Mystery Deepens

The 'Dark Matter' is not being seen directly. Although it is causing very significant gravitational effects (like gravitational lensing in above study). It was already discussed on this thread.
Heim/EHT speculated that our Universe is a just one of many other universes which form multidimensional Multiverse. Dark matter phenomenon might be due to gravity from other 'neighboring' universes influencing our own Universe.
Top
cocoyi
Posted: Apr 27 2012, 06:22 AM


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 27-April 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


hi, all

happy to be a member of you.

Hope i can learn more from you, thanks....
Top
Olaf
Posted: Jun 6 2012, 03:17 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-March 06

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


Northeim authorities publish official list of estate of Burkhard Heim

The town Northeim has published the official list (German language) at:
http://www.northeim.de/1044.html

Section "Zum wissenschaftliche Nachlass von Burkhard Heim im Stadtarchiv Northeim"

Also listed are parts of the estate, that are currently located at the publisher IGW (Prof. Resch) or at the Heim theory group.
The good news is that most of the scripts about syntrometry could be saved.
Also an old hard disk of a DOS pc could be saved that contains some early PASCAL programs. We hope that this will help us to detect the missing typos in the 1989 mass formula.

Also you find there a copy of Heims first blueprint for the Syntrometry script that he wrote when he still was a student. Surprisingly this already describes the full path that Heim has followed later for so many years.


--------------------
Excel Heim Mass Calculator and Pascal code: www.engon.de/protosimplex; heim-theory.org (Wiki)
Top
gravitophoton
  Posted: Jun 19 2012, 10:27 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 18-August 06

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Top
Blackhole
  Posted: Jun 19 2012, 06:23 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 14-June 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (TRoc @ Jan 10 2006, 04:40 AM)
Greetings,


This thread is for the purpose of discussing a Theory by Burkhard Heim, published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1992. [vol. 6, no.3, pp. 217-231]
Authors: T. Auerbach, I. von Ludwiger

Also related would be the nature of mass, gravity, and the nature of dimensions.


To start, here is the link to the paper.

The introduction:

The present article provides an overview of Burkhard Heim´s unified field theory of elementary particles and their internal structures (heim,1984,1989; v.Ludwiger, 1981). Various old and new concepts enter into the theory, including cosmology, quantum field theory, organizing processes similar to Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields (Sheldrake, 1985), and the existence of a smallest area in a 6-dimensional world. The main results of Heim’s theory are formulas for the masses of elementary particles. Results turn out to be in very good agreement with measured values.

This report is written with the aim of describing the basic architecture of Heim´s theory in mainly non-technical terms for the benefit of the average JSE reader with a scientific background, who is not necessarily a physicist. For this reason the terminology of field theory is often replaced by less specific but more readily comprehensible expressions. In an Appendix selected topics are discussed in more technical terms for the benefit of physicists.

The abstact:

Heim´s Theory is defined in a 6-dimensional world, in 2 dimensions of which events take place that organize processes in the 3 dimensions of our experience. A very small natural constant, called a “metron“, is derived, representing the smallest area that can exist in nature. This lead to the conclusion that space must be composed of a 6-dimensional geometric lattice of very small cells bounded on all sides by metrons. The existence of metrons requires our usual infinitesimal calculus to be replaced by one of finite areas. The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Elementary particles are complex dynamical systems of locally confined interacting lattice distortions. Thus the theory geometricizes the world by viewing it as a huge assemblage of very small deformations of a 6-dimensional lattice in vacuum. The theory also has significant consequences for cosmology.


TRoc

I am familiar with the theory of Burkhard Heim. There exist also a paper from a German physic professor, in which he write that it is impossible what Burkhard Heim wants.
Blackhole
Top
Mekigal
Posted: Jun 19 2012, 08:39 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (gravitophoton @ Apr 11 2012, 06:56 PM)
the paper Heim's Theory of Elementary Particle Structures should be

here.

complex structures such as houses . What is the matter with you people . That is almost as bad as the statement " It is easier for a house to build it self than for life to create it self . You guys need new terminology /analogies
You are waring out the house big time

Yeah I will go with the simplest form being 6 dimensional. I seen that paper before . It made a little more sense this time . I am thinking endless dimensions right now . All connected together like leap frogging . Little over laps connecting them . Shared space also . Like shadow and direct light .

I did like the multi universes influencing each other . I thought of that. The bumping causing differential with in the other universe ( being our own, or who evers) Then every thing grows out of the original differential. Once the pumping starts you have causation . Convection and condensation starts as a result of the original differential caused from the bumping of out side influence on the big bubble to bubble .

Could we tell if the outer reaches of space deform . If it is completely dark that is .
We can see the black hole distortion by the light it attracts right ? Then the question of gauging the age of the universe comes to mind . What is that judged off of ? The light we see ? Is it the light we pick up ? Like the Hubble telescope taking pictures of light objects .

Any way the lattice space . I kind of like that , but then you can see my bias in that . the 123456 yeah I can relate

That guy with the 3/7 thing . What was his name Wultaz or something . The object dealing with triplets in a circle doing strange things . The inverted 3 and the 7 in geometric form. I got to go see what his name was again . His work comes to mind for some reason
Top
gdaigle
Posted: Jun 21 2012, 12:11 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 3-May 07

Positive Feedback: 83.33%
Feedback Score: 6


Prof. Hauser gave a lecture yesterday in Braunschweig on "Emerging Physics for Space Propulsion and Energy Generation"
Top
djolds1
Posted: Jun 27 2012, 06:03 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 5-November 07

Positive Feedback: 57.14%
Feedback Score: 2


QUOTE (Blackhole @ Jun 19 2012, 06:23 PM)
I am familiar with the theory of Burkhard Heim. There exist also a paper from a German physic professor, in which he write that it is impossible what Burkhard Heim wants.
Blackhole

Do you have a link or cite for that paper?

On the gross scale, the Heim approach has some similarities to LQG, so it isn't entirely unprecedented. OTOH, there have been some withering and credible criticisms of the 6D and 8D Heim approaches over time. I do not give the Heim approach much credence these days, tho I still track it.
Top
Mekigal
Posted: Jun 27 2012, 04:13 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


That Metronic math reminds me of the circle thing where as a circle is an infinite sided polygon. So that right there dispels the myth that there is a limit to small . Course I am good with the 666 being the simplest bottom end limit . The crossings and resonances , the harmonies are to perfect . Even if they are not the smallest they are the simplest form of expression. You could just go with the 123 but that don't get you there in division . You need the other 3 to make it all work in its most segregated form other wise you would have evens piled on odds as if they were the same . Minors and majors would be the same . So if you want more than one segment your going to need the other pairings . That in mind is 2 groups of 3 which would be 6 and once you look at the 6 dimensional lattice you can see the segregation is at simplest form.
Sure you can have all the dimensions you want . All you can dream up, but the 6 is by far the easiest form or simplistic form. It all depends on how much you want to chop up the line . Can you cut it smaller ? Yeah I think so but then it is more of a loss of information . That is if we are talking about the smallest denominator that contains information . Not that cutting it up really looses information but rather the simplest form with maximum segregation of the parts is key in understanding even further gutting of the segments
Top
Mekigal
Posted: Jun 27 2012, 04:30 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


interesting . I didn't realize that before . The 210 repeat from zero . I don't know if it is a coincident and non related
6 raised 3 times is what 216. See that is 210+1
one being a unit of 6 . That is the first unit of repeat . That is if you consider zero a place marker because of zero being absent so the first unit would be 6 and the repeat would be 216 not 210 . It gets tricky cause your brain always wants to put the post in the count .
Think of a newel post on a banister . You got newel posts . One at each end and then you have spindles in-between the newel posts . Do you count the newel posts as a spindle or is the space divided up between the newel posts . You see what I mean . When you are step-wising space you got to think that through . Is the newel post part of the space or is the space between the newel posts and separate from the newel ?
Once you determine that then you can think it through . The division of space that is .
You got to make a commitment to one or the other before you can accurately divide space other wise your constant is not constant . If you go along not including it you can't had it in later down the line and expect it to come out in a symmetric form. You blow the symmetry all to hell by the introduction of the newel post halfway down the line or where ever the extra object is introduced . It is like dropping a beat or adding a beat . Yet you be pushed into a new dimension and the surroundings change dramatically and are still in a very rhythmic form but the nature is changed in the form by the introduction . So you can still follow by the same chopping it is the new starting point that takes it to the new dimension, not that any thing changed but the perception that it changed did . Your frame of reference changes not the space divided
so the major unit would be 0 to 210
the start of the next unit would be 216 yet the newel is still 210 to 420 for the next unit in the major unit . You don't count from 216 as it being the first unit. You got the illusion of loss if you do . It is like dropping one . You see what i am saying
0 to 210 and 210 to 420 . There is a shared element in the grouping where as 210 belongs to the 0 to 210 unit and it belongs to the 210 to 420 unit shared space . The 210 is shared space as the 420 will be shared space space with 210 to 420 and 420 to 630
You see the link in the chain created in that

O.K. that might sound confusing so to clarify I am talking about the -1 and the +1 of a minimum unit of 6. If the unit size is 6 then the -1 and the +1 resonates full circle at 210 from 0 . The next time you have the same occurrence is at 210

6x6x6 is a coincident unless you have to double the field . That may be the case



This post has been edited by Mekigal on Jun 27 2012, 05:09 PM
Top
Blackhole
  Posted: Jun 27 2012, 04:43 PM


Newbie
*

Group: Power Member
Posts: 25
Joined: 14-June 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


QUOTE (djolds1 @ Jun 27 2012, 06:03 AM)
Do you have a link or cite for that paper?

On the gross scale, the Heim approach has some similarities to LQG, so it isn't entirely unprecedented. OTOH, there have been some withering and credible criticisms of the 6D and 8D Heim approaches over time. I do not give the Heim approach much credence these days, tho I still track it.

I do:http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html
Top
Mekigal
Posted: Jun 27 2012, 09:21 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3210
Joined: 22-March 12

Positive Feedback: 0%
Feedback Score: 0


o.k this is it . It follows the same pattern as squares or similar. You got to raise the field also and then it raise like the square roots
so the growth is 72. You know how the growth of sq. is 2 right . 2x2, 3x3,4x4 5x5
how the growth is 2 where as 4 to 9 is 5 and 9 to 16 is 7 and 16 to 25 is 9
you see how those sq. through the number line grow by adding 2 . It continues on out to infinity by squares like that . By adding 2 to each subsequent number , so 25+11 will be next sq. then 36+ 13 will be the next sq.
you see that . Basic square rule for growth of squares

so now here it is
35x6
143x12
323x18
575x24
899x30

The left hand column is the pairing of -1 and +1 of the field
the right hand column is the size of the field .
The sum is the occurrence from zero and the growth is 72
How do we get that . More brake down
35 to 143= 108
143 to 323=180
323 to 575 =252

108 to 180=72
180 to 252=72
and so on out to infinity

well yeah your working the same way as square rules with just 1 less and one more than the square , but that is not what i am talking about . I am talking about predictability by increased fields and where the fields intersect . If you have a negative fall off one way and the positive fall off the other way in a predictable field it will grow exponentially . The field it self that is . The field is proportionate to the steady growth of the field . Meaning Identical patterns in the fields as they grow larger on a bigger scale

So now we got it right for raising each group to the 3rd power -1 field
lets try one
143x12=1716
1716+ one field size= 1728
12x12x12=1728
and that might look stupid cause of the ya so 1 less than sq and one more than sq. what do you expect ? , but that is not the thing . The thing is the raising of the field it self . Coupled with The negative movement and the positive movement of the field .
The point it comes back to the same pattern in the field . The growth of the field it self and when it repeats the pattern of the field and the predictability of field size by incremental constant of 72
Top

Topic Options Pages: (209) « First ... 204 205 [206] 207 208 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use