Artificial gravity drive?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

hanelyp
Posts: 2255
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Artificial gravity drive?

Post by hanelyp »

Checking around NASASpaceFlight.com Forum > General discussion > Advanced Concepts, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=1821.15, I found a link to http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... PC2008.pdf Some experimental data for 'heim drive' in discussed, including data from gravity probe B. It would be interesting to see if this stuff holds up to further study.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Artificial gravity drive?

Post by djolds1 »

hanelyp wrote:Checking around NASASpaceFlight.com Forum > General discussion > Advanced Concepts, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=1821.15, I found a link to http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... PC2008.pdf Some experimental data for 'heim drive' in discussed, including data from gravity probe B. It would be interesting to see if this stuff holds up to further study.
Been following it since early 2006. Very interesting.

* In the Loop Quantum Gravity family of theories,

* dark energy is integral to it,

* predicts fundamental particle masses from pure theory with decent to excellent agreement with experimental values, and

* theoretical predictions are tracking with recent results well as noted above.

Downside is that it was one physicist's personal baby between the '50s and late '80s, and so qualifies as somewhat Left Field.

The scientists working on it have been taking the go slow make minimal outlandish claims path since the opportunity for near term validation popped up due to Tajmar's work in early 2006. Speaks well to credibility if nothing else.

However, its claim to fame prediction before 2006 usually kicks a hypothesis into the crank file. IMO, justified to gin up interest when likelihood for near term validation is minimal. But still requires one to be highly skeptical.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200

It is however elegant on multiple levels, IMO. Further older tech papers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theor ... on_physics

Duane
Vae Victis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Heim theory is certainly interesting, if somewhat speculative and very obscure. I've been following it for about the same time as Duane.

I briefly corresponded with Martin Tajmar at the ESA, who found that antigravity effect in a spinning superconductor that was many orders of magnitude greater than relativity predicts. He told me after later testing the effect does not seem to be limited to superconductors. I asked if he had considered Heim theory or something that might also explain the Pioneer anomaly, but he said they need more verification and understanding of the phenomena before trying to determine a theoretical framework.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 232140.htm

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

Thanks guys, certainly very interesting stuff.

The thing is i have always been very skeptical of UFO's because modern science in all its glory, hasnt been able to find an inkling of how they might work.

Its nice to know that some people are taking artificial gravity seriously. Yet its slightly concerning, considering technology like this could blow nuclear fusion away and make my contribution to the world equal to that of a tokamak researcher.....
Purity is Power

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

Thanks for posting it. Very interesting. I hope this forum keep being a point to reveal new interesting stuff, as well as all the Polywell discussion,

As far as I have read it seem to be the only unified theory which predicts accurately the masses of all elementary particles (am I right saying that it is the only one?), and even predicts some new particles not discovered till now. It can couple together Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. This theory is based on discretizing the spatial dimensions -proposing a minimum distance, or area- , the same way as Quantum Mechanics did by discretizing the energy interactions (Planck´s formula). I am not a physician but it makes sense that if you discretize the energy field you should probably make the same in the spatial field...

The funny thing of all this it is that its creator ,Burkhard Heim (1925-2001), had as childhood ambitions to develop a method of space travel, which contributed to his motivation to find such a theory. After publishing, nobody took care of his discoveries in part due to it was just in german language. Don´t you sound all this familiar compared with the mighty motivation of R.W. Bussard to travel into the space and design the Polywell? Heim tried to develop some propulsion enginees but later on he got concentrated just in his theory.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

jlumartinez wrote:Thanks for posting it. Very interesting. I hope this forum keep being a point to reveal new interesting stuff, as well as all the Polywell discussion,
This is the "General" subforum :)
jlumartinez wrote:As far as I have read it seem to be the only unified theory which predicts accurately the masses of all elementary particles (am I right saying that it is the only one?), and even predicts some new particles not discovered till now.
As far as I know EHT is the only approach to predict fundamental particle masses with good agreement to empirical accelerator values from pure theory. The Standard Model itself relies purely on empirically determined vlaues.

One of EHT's problems has been that it predicts a neutral electron that should've shown up in accelerator tests. Per the latest paper they are now apparently identifying that with dark matter.
jlumartinez wrote:It can couple together Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. This theory is based on discretizing the spatial dimensions -proposing a minimum distance, or area- , the same way as Quantum Mechanics did by discretizing the energy interactions (Planck´s formula). I am not a physician but it makes sense that if you discretize the energy field you should probably make the same in the spatial field....
Time, space, matter/energy are all defined in terms of a minimum unit of length.
jlumartinez wrote:The funny thing of all this it is that its creator ,Burkhard Heim (1925-2001), had as childhood ambitions to develop a method of space travel, which contributed to his motivation to find such a theory. After publishing, nobody took care of his discoveries in part due to it was just in german language. Don´t you sound all this familiar compared with the mighty motivation of R.W. Bussard to travel into the space and design the Polywell? Heim tried to develop some propulsion enginees but later on he got concentrated just in his theory.
More than that. Heim was a recluse. He had his arms blown off and lost most of his sight in a WW2 lab accident. A bit more like Steven Hawking - his only freedom being in his mind.

Duane
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Keegan wrote:Thanks guys, certainly very interesting stuff.

The thing is i have always been very skeptical of UFO's because modern science in all its glory, hasnt been able to find an inkling of how they might work.
Aside...

I've had a sneaking suspicion for quite awhile that if/when gravity control is cracked, small bits of the crank "gravity control" inventions over the years will be shown to have been inadvertantly effective. :)
Keegan wrote:Its nice to know that some people are taking artificial gravity seriously. Yet its slightly concerning, considering technology like this could blow nuclear fusion away and make my contribution to the world equal to that of a tokamak researcher.....
Yes. I'm sure we'll all shed the requisite 2 or 3 crocodile tears before our technerd Pavlovian salivation responses kick in. :)

Good odds high output power cores may still be needful. Interesting times if gravity manipulation can be integrated into the fusion designs.

Duane
Vae Victis

jlumartinez
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:29 pm
Location: Spain

Post by jlumartinez »

BlackLightPower claims also a new kind of gravity-like field according to the results offered by their Unified Classical Quantum Mechanics Theory. They state that can modulate the gravity on demand.

Look in this page for a pdf file called "Fifth Force" (pages 20 and 28 ) :
http://www.blacklightpower.com/techpapers.shtml

I still don´t know what to think about this theory of hydrinos. Opinions?

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Like others here, I have been following the EHT and Heim Drive stuff since early 2006. Droecher and Hauser have proposed an experiment based on something called boson-coupling for over a year now. Their most recent paper seems to be merely a rehash of things they have said in previous papers. Unless the experiment is prohibitively expensive to carry out, I think these guys need to run their experiment now.

From what little I know (I am not a physicist), EHT seems to have considerable merit as an alternative to String Theory. Indeed, I think EHT has more validity for the simple reason that it is testable and, therefor, falsifiable. I understand that String Theory is not testable with current technology, meaning that it is not science as far as I'm concerned.

People are interested in EHT because it represents the only plausible concept for field propulsion and, quite possibly, a method of FTL travel. Both the Alcuberrie and M-brane (String Theory) concepts for FTL are implausible.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

kurt9 wrote:Like others here, I have been following the EHT and Heim Drive stuff since early 2006. Droecher and Hauser have proposed an experiment based on something called boson-coupling for over a year now. Their most recent paper seems to be merely a rehash of things they have said in previous papers.
A couple new wrinkles. And the math is cleaner.
kurt9 wrote:Unless the experiment is prohibitively expensive to carry out, I think these guys need to run their experiment now.
Tend to agree. I think they're having some performance anxiety. If they're confident enough in their model and math to contradict Tajmar's latest findings, its time to run the lab bench unit.
kurt9 wrote:From what little I know (I am not a physicist), EHT seems to have considerable merit as an alternative to String Theory. Indeed, I think EHT has more validity for the simple reason that it is testable and, therefor, falsifiable. I understand that String Theory is not testable with current technology, meaning that it is not science as far as I'm concerned.
Nonsense. String/Brane/M Theory is entirely testable.

All you need is a particle accelerator the diameter of the galaxy. Simplicity itself.
kurt9 wrote:People are interested in EHT because it represents the only plausible concept for field propulsion and, quite possibly, a method of FTL travel. Both the Alcuberrie and M-brane (String Theory) concepts for FTL are implausible.
There is the WHIPIT method. :)

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/wo ... ction.html

Duane
Vae Victis

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

That's... interesting. Why do most online papers include diagrams that don't actually mean anything? Bad drawings of space ripples don't add much to the paper.

I would be interested to see the results of a 1E9 T magnetic field. I imagine that even if those people are off their collective rockers, it might produce some interesting effects.

The destruction of the lab and its surroundings are included in 'interesting.'

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

djolds1 wrote:

There is the WHIPIT method. :)

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/davis/wo ... ction.html

Duane

Tattoo detective, its not too late. To WHIPIT, into shape, go forward...

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Anyways, Eric Davis is now with the Earthtech people (http://www.earthtech.org).

Wormholes work better than WHIPIT.

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/A ... 08-747.pdf

In any case, tremendous amounts of concentrated energy are necessary to realize any of this stuff, which is why we need polywell IEC fusion.

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

Creating negative energy in the lab:

http://www.earthtech.org/publications/d ... ence_1.pdf

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

JohnSmith wrote:That's... interesting. Why do most online papers include diagrams that don't actually mean anything? Bad drawings of space ripples don't add much to the paper.

I would be interested to see the results of a 1E9 T magnetic field. I imagine that even if those people are off their collective rockers, it might produce some interesting effects.

The destruction of the lab and its surroundings are included in 'interesting.'
WHIPIT? It was sponsored through NASA, ergo I passed it along. At the very least it does not require "actual" exotic matter in an FTL application.

The author has credibility issues IMO. Tho I've seen Puthoff's name before in connection to an apparently credible investigation of the physical nature of inertia.

And yes. 1E9 Tesla fields would be "interesting." :lol:

Duane
Vae Victis

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Re: Puthoff,

Has been involved in psychic phenomenon. Or the psychics appropriated him.

He is usually written off as a crank for those reasons. I studied him a lot when I was involved with Norman Don and some of his experiments.

http://www.parapsych.org/members/n_don.html

I don't know how Dr. Don gets funded. Lots of theories. No verifiable results.

Simon
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply