Discussion:
Heims Hyperdrive? NO!
(too old to reply)
Jack Sarfatti
2006-01-05 19:34:24 UTC
Permalink
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:30 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jan 5, 2006, at 10:17 AM, PhD theoretical physicist, Andrew Beckwith
wrote:

I read that paper. It is insane. For one thing, space is NOT eight
dimensional. Alsovformula 9 in the paper is flat out wrong.


Bernd Prager <***@prager.ws> wrote:
"The Scotsman" today claims that US airforce and American Department
of Energy are interested in testing the possibility of "hyperspace"
propulsion device based on Burkhard Heim's theory.

Here's the article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

The paper describing the theory is here:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf

What do you think?


On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Just received

"The Scotsman" today claims that US airforce and American Department
of Energy are interested in testing the possibility of "hyperspace"
propulsion device based on Burkhard Heim's theory.

Here's the article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

The paper describing the theory is here:
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf

What do you think?"

I am still sure this Heim idea is not the way to go. I could be wrong
and will look at the paper when I get a chance. Low priority.

On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:50 AM, Dr. Eric Davis wrote:
Jack:

FYI!

Prof. J. Hauser has received the AIAA 2004 best technical paper award
for his paper on hyperdrive propulsion based on Heim's theory.

Eric


I once tried to read a paper by Heims. It seemed nonsense to me like
Yilmaz's papers. I could be wrong of course. Both theories seem ugly and
contrived. Einstein's is simpler and does the job when applied
correctly. What AIAA thinks has little credibility UNLESS Matt Visser,
Bill Unruh, Kit Green, Roger Penrose et-al have vetted it and say it's
kosher. The cognitive gap between the engineers and the relativity
physicists is too large.

If you understand the stuff below please give us a lecture on it.
Thanks. :-)

Another dimension? How do you get a ship through a tiny curled up
dimension? Even if dimension is large, photons and leptons and quarks
are stuck to the branes. Only gravity can travel in hyperspace. So the
whole idea seems crackpot. Egg on face of the AIAA! Where is Robert
Park? ;-)

Sandia?


Hyperdrive Engine Interesting Experts. New Scientist
<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200> (1/7 issue,
Lietz) reports, "Every year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual
conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category
went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new
type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would
propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could
leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's
just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised
kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious? The AIAA is certainly not
embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes
over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US
Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be
interested in putting the idea to the test."


NASA Said To Be Interested. The (UK) Scotsman
<http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006> (1/5, Johnston)
reports, "The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle
but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe,
... works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas
first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would
produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.
Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip
into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing
incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would
result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension." The story
adds, "Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward
the idea, told The Scotsman that if everything went well a working
engine could be tested in about five years." He also said "'NASA have
contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air
force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage.'"


The (UK) Sun <http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006000491,00.html>
(1/5, Sutherland) reports, "The US military is probing the possibility
of Captain Kirk-style "warp speed" using a concept called hyperdrive.
... A round trip to Mars would take five hours instead of 2½ years,
according to scientists."

Seems crackpot to me. But what do I know? ;-)



FROM: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006


Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip


IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space
travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated
by the United States government.

The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is
based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could
potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and
journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a
report in today's New Scientist magazine.

The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field
that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard
Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in
thrust for a spacecraft.

Also, if a large enough magnetic-field was created, the craft would slip
into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing
incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would
result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.

The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists
working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known
as the Z-Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields
required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the
theory withstands further scrutiny.

Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea,
told The Scotsman that if everything went well a working engine could be
tested in about five years.

However, Prof Hauser, a physicist at the Applied Sciences University in
Salzgitter, Germany, and a former chief of aerodynamics at the European
Space Agency, cautioned it was based on a highly controversial theory
that would require a significant change in the current understanding of
the laws of physics.

"It would be amazing. I have been working on propulsion systems for
quite a while and it would be the most amazing thing. The benefits would
be almost unlimited," he said.

"But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the
basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a
different opinion.

"It's our job to prove we are right and we are working on that."

He said the engine would enable spaceships to travel to different solar
systems. "If the theory is correct then this is not science fiction, it
is science fact," Prof Hauser said.

"NASA has contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the
[US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early
stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five
years [to build a test device] if the technology works."

The US authorities' attention was attracted after Prof Hauser and an
Austrian colleague, Walter Droscher, wrote a paper called "Guidelines
for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory".

Related topic

* Space science <http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=6>
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=6

This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

Last updated: 05-Jan-06 01:16 GMT


Research price for Professor Dr. Jochem Häuser


SALZGITTER - The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) in Washington D.C. is well known for everyone involved in the
aerospace industry. Experts from all over the world present their
diversified findings in aerospace affairs at AIAA conferences. With more
than 30 000 members the AIAA has evidenced to be a convincing organ in
international aerospace.

The Institute multiplexes know-how in the range of aeronautics in
numerous mixed teams since several decades now. Prof. Dr. Jochem Häuser
(Photo) is Senior Member at the AIAA since 1988 and is elected member
in the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion work group since 2004. The
group aims at the development of physical principles with correspondent
technologies of future astronautics drives, such as electromagnetic
based space shuttles or fusion- and antimatter driving gear. The AIAA
Technical Committee for Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion awarded
Häuser the AIAA research price 2004 for his publication "Guidelines for
a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory". This has
already been officially communicated to Häuser. He will be in
Tuscon/Arizona at July 13th in order to receive the honour - a
certificate - in the presence of numerous colleagues. "I am very pleased
about this high approval of our research work which has been jointly
achieved in four years with our fellows from the IGW (Institut für
Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft) of the University Innsbruck" announced
Häuser. The former head of the aero- and aerothermodynamics department
at the space agency ESA is now busy at the Fachhochschule
Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel. He is Professor for high-performance
arithmetic (computer simulation) at the Faculty "Karl-Scharfenberg" at
the University location Salzgitter. Beyond that the scientist is engaged
with a new research project dealing with physical fundamentals of non
chemical astronautics drive. That venture is promoted by the task force
innovative projects (AGIP) and the Ministry for Science and Culture in
Lower Saxony.





30 March 2005

Prof. Jochem Hauser

Mr. Walter Droescher

University of Applied Sciences

Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft (IGW),

Karl-Scharfenbergstr 55

Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck

38229 Salzgitter / GERMANY

Innsbruck, Austria



Dear Authors:

It is my pleasure to inform you that your technical paper entitled
"Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum
Theory". AIAA Paper 2004-3700, has been named the 2004 AIAA Best Paper
by the AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Technical Committee. AIAA proudly
presents Certificates of Merit to recognize such technical and
scientific excellence.

You are cordially invited to receive your certificate at the awards
luncheon on Wednesday, 13 July 2005, during the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference at the Tucson Convention Center, Tucson, Arizona.
Information about the conference can be found at www.aiaa.org
<http://www.aiaa.org/> . If you want to attend technical sessions or
plenaries, you must register for the conference.

The corresponding author, Prof. Hauser, will receive one extra luncheon
ticket if he registers for the conference. If you are not able to attend
the conference, your certificate will be mailed to you.

May I request that each of you RSVP your attendance at the luncheon to
me by 30 May 2005. Congratulations on this well deserved honor.

Sincerely,



Carol A. Stewart

Honors and Awards Liaison



On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


Technique I (not the only way perhaps)

On Jan 4, 2006, at 6:34 PM, d14947 wrote:

Jack you (inadvertently:] point to an important issue.

It was advertent.

....
After all, if we already have precognition, PK and so on, we may also be
able to operate the fields (Higgs electroweak?) that would allow us to
have a warp drive, right? Then we could join the big kids in the
galactic playground.

Lenny Susskind says one cannot manipulate the electroweak Higgs field
over large volumes - it is too stiff at 10^40 Joules per cc. He is
correct. However he means the Higgs intensity. I manipulate the
Goldstone Phase. Of course, the two may be connected nonlinearly.
However, there is more than one Higgs field. The electroweak Higgs field
give the masses of the elementary leptons & quarks, but it's the Planck
Scale Higgs field's 2 Goldstone phases that gives gravity.

In the simple case of n = 2 with only one Goldstone phase, toy model for
simplicity.

Higgs Field = |Higgs Field|e^i(Goldstone Vacuum Phase)

For metric engineering we have

Higgs Field + Control Field

The important cross term is

2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos[(Goldstone Vacuum Phase - Control Phase)

where |Higgs Field| STAYS CONSTANT as Lenny says.

&/\zpf ~ 2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos[(Goldstone Vacuum Phase -
Control Phase)

Goldstone Vacuum Phase - Control Phase = MODULATED VACUUM PHASE = Chi

BECAUSE the equilibrium Higgs field </\zpf > is very small, i.e. dark
energy density ~ 0.73 critical density for flat space universe

(0.73)(8piG/c^4)(Critical Energy Density) = </\zpf> = (Quantum of Area
Flux)^-1[|Higgs Field|^2 - 1]

Where Higgs Field is normalized to a pure number.

</\zpf> + &/\zpf = (Quantum of Area Flux)^-1[|Higgs Field + Control
Field|^2 - 1]

&/\zpf = (Quantum of Area Flux)^-1[2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos(Chi)
+ |Control Field|^2 ]

where Higgs Field||Control Field| >> |Control Field|^2

i.e. |Control Field|/|Higgs Field| << 1

TINY CONTROL SIGNAL is AMPLIFIED!


On Jan 4, 2006, at 4:12 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:


On Jan 4, 2006, at 3:30 PM, ***@aol.com wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Sarfatti <***@pacbell.net>
To: ROBERT BECKER <***@prodigy.net>
Sent: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0800
Subject: Hal Puthoff's "Matrix" paper examined

JACK
BE CAREFUL
The curvature tetrad field as an invariant Cartan 1-form is

RMK SAYS:
in my experience
USUALLY TETRADS ARE MATRICES OF FUNCTIONS, (0-FORMS),

By tetrad as used in GR is meant eu^a

guv = eu^anabev^b

ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v

The 4 tetrad 1-forms are then

e^a = eu^adx^u

So you probably call these e^a "co-frames"?


CO-FRAMES ARE MATRICES OF 1-FORMS,
CURVATURES ARE MATRICES OF 2-FORMS,
TORSIONS ARE VECTOR ARRAYS OF 2-FORMS.
CURRENTS ARE VECTOR ARRAYS OF 3-FORMS.


The integral of dA over closed surfaces surrounding point defects in the
Higgs field is quantized as integers x (Planck Area).

THE HIGGS FIELD ACCORDING T0 ATIYAH AND MASON AND WOODHOUSE
IS AN EXACT DIFFERENTIAL, AND THEREFORE IT IS HARD FOR ME
TO ASSOCIATED THE HIGGS WITH A CLOSED 2-FORM.

I never said that dA is the Higgs field.

In my model, there are 3 real Higgs fields with 2 independent Goldstone
phases theta & phi

I define

B/Lp ~ (dtheta)(phi) - (theta)(dphi)

Therefore

dA/Lp^2 = dB/Lp = 2(dtheta)/\(dphi)


Note that d^2A = 0 but we define a NONLOCAL Bohm-Aharonov "flux without
flux" as

BOHM AHARONOV IS due to a non exact but
CLOSED 1-FORM, NOT A 2-FORM

I know. That would be like "Area without area." I have generalized the
idea up one step to a nonexact closed 2-form.

In geometrodynamics, the generalized B-A effect gives the quantized
world hologram of "Volume without volume".

That is B is a geometrodynamics "line form".

dB is a geometrodynamics "area form"

d^2B = 0 would be the volume form, but it is locally zero. So I get
QUANTIZED nonlocal "volume without volume"

i.e. integral of the geometrodynamic AREA FORM dA over closed
non-bounding surface surrounding a point defect in the Higgs vacuum
order parameter is Lp^2 Integer.

It is AS IF there were a volume 3-form d^2B - it's locally zero but
nonlocally not zero - it's the ghostly volume integral of "zero" d^2B
that I DEFINE as equal to the surface integral of dB in a "singular"
extension of the Gauss theorem.

This is VOLUME WITHOUT VOLUME = World Hologram

Let d = exterior derivative on p-forms p -> p +1

& = boundary operator on p-coforms p -> p -1

Then in obvious Dirac notation where the "bra-ket" is a DeRham integral

<p|&p+1> = <dp|p+1>

OK I DEFINE

|&'p+1> to be a closed p coform that is not a boundary of a p+1 coform.

That is &|&'p+1> = 0

A stargate portal has this property where p = 2 because the p + 1 space
is multiply connected with "wormholes".

BY DEFINITION

<p|&'p+1> = <d'p|p+1> ~ Integer

When the p-homotopy group is non-trivial

<dp| is locally zero

but

<d'p| is a GHOSTLY nonlocal "flux without flux" p+1 form that does not
vanish in the DeRham integral sense.

This also explains why gravity energy is nonlocal and why the Yilmaz
theory is wrong.

In ordinary vacuum the total gravity energy density is locally zero, but
that does not prevent a non-zero Poynting flux of gravity wave energy
flow through a closed non bounding surface surrounding the source of the
gravity waves.
Conspiracy of Doves
2006-01-06 16:35:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Sarfatti
On Jan 5, 2006, at 10:17 AM, PhD theoretical physicist, Andrew Beckwith
I read that paper. It is insane. For one thing, space is NOT eight
dimensional. Alsovformula 9 in the paper is flat out wrong.
"The Scotsman" today claims that US airforce and American Department
of Energy are interested in testing the possibility of "hyperspace"
propulsion device based on Burkhard Heim's theory.
Here's the article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf
What do you think?
Just received
"The Scotsman" today claims that US airforce and American Department
of Energy are interested in testing the possibility of "hyperspace"
propulsion device based on Burkhard Heim's theory.
Here's the article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
http://www.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/theorie_raumfahrt/hqtforspacepropphysicsaip2005.pdf
What do you think?"
I am still sure this Heim idea is not the way to go. I could be wrong
and will look at the paper when I get a chance. Low priority.
bcc
FYI!
Prof. J. Hauser has received the AIAA 2004 best technical paper award
for his paper on hyperdrive propulsion based on Heim's theory.
Eric
I once tried to read a paper by Heims. It seemed nonsense to me like
Yilmaz's papers. I could be wrong of course. Both theories seem ugly and
contrived. Einstein's is simpler and does the job when applied
correctly. What AIAA thinks has little credibility UNLESS Matt Visser,
Bill Unruh, Kit Green, Roger Penrose et-al have vetted it and say it's
kosher. The cognitive gap between the engineers and the relativity
physicists is too large.
If you understand the stuff below please give us a lecture on it.
Thanks. :-)
Another dimension? How do you get a ship through a tiny curled up
dimension? Even if dimension is large, photons and leptons and quarks
are stuck to the branes. Only gravity can travel in hyperspace. So the
whole idea seems crackpot. Egg on face of the AIAA! Where is Robert
Park? ;-)
Sandia?
Hyperdrive Engine Interesting Experts. New Scientist
<http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg18925331.200> (1/7 issue,
Lietz) reports, "Every year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual
conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category
went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new
type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would
propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could
leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's
just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised
kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious? The AIAA is certainly not
embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes
over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US
Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be
interested in putting the idea to the test."
NASA Said To Be Interested. The (UK) Scotsman
<http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006> (1/5, Johnston)
reports, "The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle
but is based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe,
... works by creating an intense magnetic field that, according to ideas
first developed by the late scientist Burkhard Heim in the 1950s, would
produce a gravitational field and result in thrust for a spacecraft.
Also, if a large enough magnetic field was created, the craft would slip
into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing
incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would
result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension." The story
adds, "Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward
the idea, told The Scotsman that if everything went well a working
engine could be tested in about five years." He also said "'NASA have
contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the [US] air
force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early stage.'"
The (UK) Sun <http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006000491,00.html>
(1/5, Sutherland) reports, "The US military is probing the possibility
of Captain Kirk-style "warp speed" using a concept called hyperdrive.
... A round trip to Mars would take five hours instead of 2½ years,
according to scientists."
Seems crackpot to me. But what do I know? ;-)
FROM: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip
IAN JOHNSTON SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT
AN EXTRAORDINARY "hyperspace" engine that could make interstellar space
travel a reality by flying into other dimensions is being investigated
by the United States government.
The hypothetical device, which has been outlined in principle but is
based on a controversial theory about the fabric of the universe, could
potentially allow a spacecraft to travel to Mars in three hours and
journey to a star 11 light years away in just 80 days, according to a
report in today's New Scientist magazine.
The theoretical engine works by creating an intense magnetic field
that, according to ideas first developed by the late scientist Burkhard
Heim in the 1950s, would produce a gravitational field and result in
thrust for a spacecraft.
Also, if a large enough magnetic-field was created, the craft would slip
into a different dimension, where the speed of light is faster, allowing
incredible speeds to be reached. Switching off the magnetic field would
result in the engine reappearing in our current dimension.
The US air force has expressed an interest in the idea and scientists
working for the American Department of Energy - which has a device known
as the Z-Machine that could generate the kind of magnetic fields
required to drive the engine - say they may carry out a test if the
theory withstands further scrutiny.
Professor Jochem Hauser, one of the scientists who put forward the idea,
told The Scotsman that if everything went well a working engine could be
tested in about five years.
However, Prof Hauser, a physicist at the Applied Sciences University in
Salzgitter, Germany, and a former chief of aerodynamics at the European
Space Agency, cautioned it was based on a highly controversial theory
that would require a significant change in the current understanding of
the laws of physics.
"It would be amazing. I have been working on propulsion systems for
quite a while and it would be the most amazing thing. The benefits would
be almost unlimited," he said.
"But this thing is not around the corner; we first have to prove the
basic science is correct and there are quite a few physicists who have a
different opinion.
"It's our job to prove we are right and we are working on that."
He said the engine would enable spaceships to travel to different solar
systems. "If the theory is correct then this is not science fiction, it
is science fact," Prof Hauser said.
"NASA has contacted me and next week I'm going to see someone from the
[US] air force to talk about it further, but it is at a very early
stage. I think the best-case scenario would be within the next five
years [to build a test device] if the technology works."
The US authorities' attention was attracted after Prof Hauser and an
Austrian colleague, Walter Droscher, wrote a paper called "Guidelines
for a space propulsion device based on Heim's quantum theory".
Related topic
* Space science <http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=6>
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=6
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006
Last updated: 05-Jan-06 01:16 GMT
Research price for Professor Dr. Jochem Häuser
SALZGITTER - The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA) in Washington D.C. is well known for everyone involved in the
aerospace industry. Experts from all over the world present their
diversified findings in aerospace affairs at AIAA conferences. With more
than 30 000 members the AIAA has evidenced to be a convincing organ in
international aerospace.
The Institute multiplexes know-how in the range of aeronautics in
numerous mixed teams since several decades now. Prof. Dr. Jochem Häuser
(Photo) is Senior Member at the AIAA since 1988 and is elected member
in the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion work group since 2004. The
group aims at the development of physical principles with correspondent
technologies of future astronautics drives, such as electromagnetic
based space shuttles or fusion- and antimatter driving gear. The AIAA
Technical Committee for Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion awarded
Häuser the AIAA research price 2004 for his publication "Guidelines for
a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory". This has
already been officially communicated to Häuser. He will be in
Tuscon/Arizona at July 13th in order to receive the honour - a
certificate - in the presence of numerous colleagues. "I am very pleased
about this high approval of our research work which has been jointly
achieved in four years with our fellows from the IGW (Institut für
Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft) of the University Innsbruck" announced
Häuser. The former head of the aero- and aerothermodynamics department
at the space agency ESA is now busy at the Fachhochschule
Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel. He is Professor for high-performance
arithmetic (computer simulation) at the Faculty "Karl-Scharfenberg" at
the University location Salzgitter. Beyond that the scientist is engaged
with a new research project dealing with physical fundamentals of non
chemical astronautics drive. That venture is promoted by the task force
innovative projects (AGIP) and the Ministry for Science and Culture in
Lower Saxony.
30 March 2005
Prof. Jochem Hauser
Mr. Walter Droescher
University of Applied Sciences
Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft (IGW),
Karl-Scharfenbergstr 55
Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck
38229 Salzgitter / GERMANY
Innsbruck, Austria
It is my pleasure to inform you that your technical paper entitled
"Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum
Theory". AIAA Paper 2004-3700, has been named the 2004 AIAA Best Paper
by the AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Technical Committee. AIAA proudly
presents Certificates of Merit to recognize such technical and
scientific excellence.
You are cordially invited to receive your certificate at the awards
luncheon on Wednesday, 13 July 2005, during the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference at the Tucson Convention Center, Tucson, Arizona.
Information about the conference can be found at www.aiaa.org
<http://www.aiaa.org/> . If you want to attend technical sessions or
plenaries, you must register for the conference.
The corresponding author, Prof. Hauser, will receive one extra luncheon
ticket if he registers for the conference. If you are not able to attend
the conference, your certificate will be mailed to you.
May I request that each of you RSVP your attendance at the luncheon to
me by 30 May 2005. Congratulations on this well deserved honor.
Sincerely,
Carol A. Stewart
Honors and Awards Liaison
Technique I (not the only way perhaps)
Jack you (inadvertently:] point to an important issue.
It was advertent.
....
After all, if we already have precognition, PK and so on, we may also be
able to operate the fields (Higgs electroweak?) that would allow us to
have a warp drive, right? Then we could join the big kids in the
galactic playground.
Lenny Susskind says one cannot manipulate the electroweak Higgs field
over large volumes - it is too stiff at 10^40 Joules per cc. He is
correct. However he means the Higgs intensity. I manipulate the
Goldstone Phase. Of course, the two may be connected nonlinearly.
However, there is more than one Higgs field. The electroweak Higgs field
give the masses of the elementary leptons & quarks, but it's the Planck
Scale Higgs field's 2 Goldstone phases that gives gravity.
In the simple case of n = 2 with only one Goldstone phase, toy model for
simplicity.
Higgs Field = |Higgs Field|e^i(Goldstone Vacuum Phase)
For metric engineering we have
Higgs Field + Control Field
The important cross term is
2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos[(Goldstone Vacuum Phase - Control Phase)
where |Higgs Field| STAYS CONSTANT as Lenny says.
&/\zpf ~ 2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos[(Goldstone Vacuum Phase -
Control Phase)
Goldstone Vacuum Phase - Control Phase = MODULATED VACUUM PHASE = Chi
BECAUSE the equilibrium Higgs field </\zpf > is very small, i.e. dark
energy density ~ 0.73 critical density for flat space universe
(0.73)(8piG/c^4)(Critical Energy Density) = </\zpf> = (Quantum of Area
Flux)^-1[|Higgs Field|^2 - 1]
Where Higgs Field is normalized to a pure number.
</\zpf> + &/\zpf = (Quantum of Area Flux)^-1[|Higgs Field + Control
Field|^2 - 1]
&/\zpf = (Quantum of Area Flux)^-1[2|Higgs Field||Control Field|cos(Chi)
+ |Control Field|^2 ]
where Higgs Field||Control Field| >> |Control Field|^2
i.e. |Control Field|/|Higgs Field| << 1
TINY CONTROL SIGNAL is AMPLIFIED!
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:15:17 -0800
Subject: Hal Puthoff's "Matrix" paper examined
JACK
BE CAREFUL
The curvature tetrad field as an invariant Cartan 1-form is
in my experience
USUALLY TETRADS ARE MATRICES OF FUNCTIONS, (0-FORMS),
By tetrad as used in GR is meant eu^a
guv = eu^anabev^b
ds^2 = guvdx^udx^v
The 4 tetrad 1-forms are then
e^a = eu^adx^u
So you probably call these e^a "co-frames"?
CO-FRAMES ARE MATRICES OF 1-FORMS,
CURVATURES ARE MATRICES OF 2-FORMS,
TORSIONS ARE VECTOR ARRAYS OF 2-FORMS.
CURRENTS ARE VECTOR ARRAYS OF 3-FORMS.
The integral of dA over closed surfaces surrounding point defects in the
Higgs field is quantized as integers x (Planck Area).
THE HIGGS FIELD ACCORDING T0 ATIYAH AND MASON AND WOODHOUSE
IS AN EXACT DIFFERENTIAL, AND THEREFORE IT IS HARD FOR ME
TO ASSOCIATED THE HIGGS WITH A CLOSED 2-FORM.
I never said that dA is the Higgs field.
In my model, there are 3 real Higgs fields with 2 independent Goldstone
phases theta & phi
I define
B/Lp ~ (dtheta)(phi) - (theta)(dphi)
Therefore
dA/Lp^2 = dB/Lp = 2(dtheta)/\(dphi)
Note that d^2A = 0 but we define a NONLOCAL Bohm-Aharonov "flux without
flux" as
BOHM AHARONOV IS due to a non exact but
CLOSED 1-FORM, NOT A 2-FORM
I know. That would be like "Area without area." I have generalized the
idea up one step to a nonexact closed 2-form.
In geometrodynamics, the generalized B-A effect gives the quantized
world hologram of "Volume without volume".
That is B is a geometrodynamics "line form".
dB is a geometrodynamics "area form"
d^2B = 0 would be the volume form, but it is locally zero. So I get
QUANTIZED nonlocal "volume without volume"
i.e. integral of the geometrodynamic AREA FORM dA over closed
non-bounding surface surrounding a point defect in the Higgs vacuum
order parameter is Lp^2 Integer.
It is AS IF there were a volume 3-form d^2B - it's locally zero but
nonlocally not zero - it's the ghostly volume integral of "zero" d^2B
that I DEFINE as equal to the surface integral of dB in a "singular"
extension of the Gauss theorem.
This is VOLUME WITHOUT VOLUME = World Hologram
Let d = exterior derivative on p-forms p -> p +1
& = boundary operator on p-coforms p -> p -1
Then in obvious Dirac notation where the "bra-ket" is a DeRham integral
<p|&p+1> = <dp|p+1>
OK I DEFINE
|&'p+1> to be a closed p coform that is not a boundary of a p+1 coform.
That is &|&'p+1> = 0
A stargate portal has this property where p = 2 because the p + 1 space
is multiply connected with "wormholes".
BY DEFINITION
<p|&'p+1> = <d'p|p+1> ~ Integer
When the p-homotopy group is non-trivial
<dp| is locally zero
but
<d'p| is a GHOSTLY nonlocal "flux without flux" p+1 form that does not
vanish in the DeRham integral sense.
This also explains why gravity energy is nonlocal and why the Yilmaz
theory is wrong.
In ordinary vacuum the total gravity energy density is locally zero, but
that does not prevent a non-zero Poynting flux of gravity wave energy
flow through a closed non bounding surface surrounding the source of the
gravity waves.
Lets wait until they actually do the experiments and see what the
results say.
Pod Spores Chumbly
2006-01-06 16:46:01 UTC
Permalink
Madness. But he was on TV for 10 seconds.
Autymn D. C.
2006-01-07 01:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Conspiracy of Doves, you uncouth internet-illiterate retard, don't
quote the whole post for your oneliner. And you misspelled Let's.
Stop cascading or die.

There are not eiht spatial dimensions; there are six. There are 14
dimensions in all. Read my "gimme money" thread on sci.physics. The
"weak force" is a misnomer. To make a huperdrive, one needs matter
with less mass than the ground state, not more--that takes slag from
unification. Make some axions and neutrinos first, then put them in a
modificate lihtsaber (Look up lightsaber in Google Groups for my
instructions.) to react them with the heavier matter now; then extract
the exotic matter yielden. To reckon out what to do with this exotic
matter, look at the site linken from the message wherein I wrote
"skeleton key".

-Aut
d***@yahoo.com
2006-01-08 19:02:12 UTC
Permalink
I haven't worked through any papers in more than 15 years, but it
seemed to be that some steps are missing. Also I noticed the word
"should" which is not promising in a paper. With pdfs there is no need
to save the trees. Is there a thesis with all the steps? Also there
is no discussion of spatial turbulence.

I once had an exam question where I got so far in a proof, and got
stuck. I then worked backwards from the desired result a step or two,
wrote this down, and got full marks.
Flatulent Flora
2006-01-06 22:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Sarfatti
On Jan 5, 2006, at 10:17 AM, PhD theoretical physicist, Andrew Beckwith
I read that paper. It is insane. For one thing, space is NOT eight
dimensional. Alsovformula 9 in the paper is flat out wrong.
If we listened to Physicists we would still be trying to invent the electric
light! It's engineers that make the modern world - let them build this, test
it and go from there.

Flora
m***@gmail.com
2006-01-07 05:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Well, I'd read that Heim's equations/formulae/theories/whatever were
able to calculate masses of fundamental particles very precisely. I
want to ask specifically about that. How could his formulae be
contrived to calculate the masses so accurately? To me, this seems very
important, as a widely accepted framework to calculate masses of
fundamental objects has not yet been established, and yet Heim's
"theory" is supposedly able to do it.

Can anyone please explain this aspect further? Did he just somehow
contrive a bunch of constants to force his formulae to work? Or is
there something useful somewhere in what he wrote?

I also wanted to ask about Hawking's Radiation in the context of the
speculation on "electrogravitics". If there is some relationship
between gravity and electromagnetism, as that advocates of that
speculation insist, then doesn't the proof of this lie with some sort
of counterpart or cousin to Hawking's Radiation?

Hawking said that the constant creation-anihilation of virtual particle
pairs in the dynamic vacuum could be infringed upon by the extreme
gravity of a black hole, such that at the event horizon some pairs
would be split apart by the extreme gravity before they could
recombine/anihilate, with some pair members being sucked into the black
hole and their counterparts escaping. This Hawking radiation has been
confirmed to occur.

So analogously, if this idea of "graviphoton" pairs combining to form
photons or electromagnetism force carrier particles is true, then
shouldn't an extreme magnetic field be able to similarly interfere with
creation-anihilation of the graviphotons (gravitational force carriers)
like the black hole does, in order to create asymmetry in gravitational
forces around the "event horizon" of an extremely powerful magnetic
field?

Isn't attempting to observe this then the path to experimental proof?

So is this why Hauser and Dorscher are proposing the use of the Z-pinch
machine or some powerful magnet in order to verify their claims?

Why then shouldn't such an experiment be useful, even if only to
de-bunk a particular speculative theory to seal off that possibility?
Luigi Caselli
2006-01-07 12:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
Well, I'd read that Heim's equations/formulae/theories/whatever were
able to calculate masses of fundamental particles very precisely. I
want to ask specifically about that. How could his formulae be
contrived to calculate the masses so accurately? To me, this seems very
important, as a widely accepted framework to calculate masses of
fundamental objects has not yet been established, and yet Heim's
"theory" is supposedly able to do it.
Can anyone please explain this aspect further? Did he just somehow
contrive a bunch of constants to force his formulae to work? Or is
there something useful somewhere in what he wrote?
IMHO it's really incredible that Heim's theory finds the correct particles
mass.
No other TOE theory can find this result.
It's also strange that, after computers confirmed Heim's mass formula in
1982(!), his theory remains in the shadow...
I'm still skeptical about hyperdrive but Droecker paper (and the prize he
won) it's really interesting.

Luigi Caselli
Marc Fettes
2006-01-07 13:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luigi Caselli
Post by m***@gmail.com
Well, I'd read that Heim's equations/formulae/theories/whatever were
able to calculate masses of fundamental particles very precisely. I
want to ask specifically about that. How could his formulae be
contrived to calculate the masses so accurately? To me, this seems very
important, as a widely accepted framework to calculate masses of
fundamental objects has not yet been established, and yet Heim's
"theory" is supposedly able to do it.
Can anyone please explain this aspect further? Did he just somehow
contrive a bunch of constants to force his formulae to work? Or is
there something useful somewhere in what he wrote?
IMHO it's really incredible that Heim's theory finds the correct particles
mass.
No other TOE theory can find this result.
It's also strange that, after computers confirmed Heim's mass formula in
1982(!), his theory remains in the shadow...
I'm still skeptical about hyperdrive but Droecker paper (and the prize he
won) it's really interesting.
The problem is, that the way to the formula is not knowing today. And
B. Heim is dead.

The formula has given to many solutions for particle-masses, the most
solutions give no real particles.

Heim predict 5 Neutrinos and partial electric charges and many others.

Marc
Luigi Caselli
2006-01-07 20:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marc Fettes
Post by Luigi Caselli
Post by m***@gmail.com
Well, I'd read that Heim's equations/formulae/theories/whatever were
able to calculate masses of fundamental particles very precisely. I
want to ask specifically about that. How could his formulae be
contrived to calculate the masses so accurately? To me, this seems very
important, as a widely accepted framework to calculate masses of
fundamental objects has not yet been established, and yet Heim's
"theory" is supposedly able to do it.
Can anyone please explain this aspect further? Did he just somehow
contrive a bunch of constants to force his formulae to work? Or is
there something useful somewhere in what he wrote?
IMHO it's really incredible that Heim's theory finds the correct particles
mass.
No other TOE theory can find this result.
It's also strange that, after computers confirmed Heim's mass formula in
1982(!), his theory remains in the shadow...
I'm still skeptical about hyperdrive but Droecker paper (and the prize he
won) it's really interesting.
The problem is, that the way to the formula is not knowing today. And
B. Heim is dead.
If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf you can
see how Heim mass formula was programmed on computer.
And also you can see in
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html
you can read lot of material about it.

And also if Heim is dead there are someone developing his theory as we can
see in the paper
Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heims's Unified
Quantum Field Theory
of Droscher and Hauser that has won an AIAA prize.

Luigi Caselli
Marc Fettes
2006-01-09 06:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luigi Caselli
If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf you can
see how Heim mass formula was programmed on computer.
And also you can see in
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html
you can read lot of material about it.
And also if Heim is dead there are someone developing his theory as we can
see in the paper
Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heims's Unified
Quantum Field Theory
of Droscher and Hauser that has won an AIAA prize.
I have seen this pages.

In the Heim-Theorie it is used an by Heim developed mathemathical
language.

After the dead of Heim other persons have working on the theorie to
understand this language.

If someone other develope the theorie after the dead of Heim, then this
theorie is no more the theorie of Heim.

http://www.heim-theory.com

In the page of selected solutions one can see that Heim predict a
second electron, where is these electron???

In the Heim-theorie all electric charges (electron) have 3 parts, why
we can not seen these in the electron???

How one can construct the space with Planck-squares???

Planck-squares haves no volumes!!!

How an formula to calculate the masses of particles can be correct, if
there are so many results they give not an real particle???

Marc
Autymn D. C.
2006-01-09 22:53:42 UTC
Permalink
dead -> death
working -> worken
dead -> death
predict -> predicts
electron, where -> electron; where
these -> this
parts, why -> part; why
we can not seen -> can we not see
haves -> have
volumes -> volume
an formula..can be -> can a formula..be
not an -> no
theses -> these
Marc Fettes
2006-01-08 13:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luigi Caselli
If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf you can
see how Heim mass formula was programmed on computer.
And also you can see in
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html
you can read lot of material about it.
And also if Heim is dead there are someone developing his theory as we can
see in the paper
Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heims's Unified
Quantum Field Theory
of Droscher and Hauser that has won an AIAA prize.
I know theses pages.

In the Heim-theory an individual mathematical language is used, that is
to be understood heavily for other scientists.

If somebody (Dröscher, Hauser) develops the theory further, the result
is no more the theory of Heim.

All charges (electron?) are built from 3 partial charges in the theory
of Heim. Why can one not see these?

How does one build from Planck squares a 3 dimensional space? Planck
squares are infinitely thin!

The fine structure constant Alpha is an approximation in the Heim
theory. Why should an approximation be better than the correct
mathematical calculation?

The Heim-theory predict a second kind of electron. Why we can not find
them?

Marc
Marc Fettes
2006-01-08 09:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Luigi Caselli
If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/E_Heims_Mass_Formula_1982.pdf you can
see how Heim mass formula was programmed on computer.
And also you can see in
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads/F_Heims_Mass_Formula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html
you can read lot of material about it.
And also if Heim is dead there are someone developing his theory as we can
see in the paper
Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heims's Unified
Quantum Field Theory
of Droscher and Hauser that has won an AIAA prize.
I know these pages.

In the Heim-theory an individual mathematical language is used, that is
to be understood heavily for other scientists.

If somebody (Dröscher, Hauser) develops the theory further, the result
is no more the theory of Heim.

All charges (electron?) are built from 3 partial charges in the theory
of Heim. Why can one not see these?

How does one build from Planck squares a 3 dimensional space? Planck
squares are infinitely thin!

The fine structure constant Alpha is an approximation in the Heim
theory. Why should an approximation be better than the correct
mathematical calculation?

Marc
m***@gmail.com
2006-01-08 17:51:25 UTC
Permalink
I hear what you're saying, but then I'm seeking a flat-out answer --
did Heim somehow contrive his formulae to force specific answers on
fundamental particle masses which were already known? ie. did he cheat
by retro-fitting his formula to match measured results?

When you say Heim's formulae give many solutions, does that then mean
it gives so many mass solutions that one was bound to be correct?
It seems to me that the odds of calculating the fundamental masses
correctly must be too slim to be attributed to random chance.

Is it possible that at least parts of his formulae are correct and
having merit, while perhaps other parts need to be discarded?

The accurate mass calculation conundrum seems significant and bears
further scrutiny, don't you think? It just seems very odd, and sticks
out like a sore thumb. I wonder why people have not bothered to
investigate it to at least de-bunk it, in order to bust any myths.
Myth-busting is an important part of science too, imho.

Heim's work needs to be investigated experimentally, whether to prove
it right or to prove it wrong.
Autymn D. C.
2006-01-08 15:36:18 UTC
Permalink
knowing -> known
Learn the difference between a gerund and a past participle, dumbass.
You have no excuse.
masses, the -> masses; the
Heim predict -> Heim predicted (past tense, not subjunctive!
Autymn D. C.
2006-01-08 20:38:32 UTC
Permalink
knowing -> known
Learn the difference between a gerund and a past participle, dumbass.
You have no excuse.
masses, the -> masses; the
Heim predict -> Heim predicted (past tense, not subjunctive!)
Autymn D. C.
2006-01-08 18:00:15 UTC
Permalink
knowing -> known
Learn the difference between a gerund and a past participle, dumbass.
You have no excuse.
masses, the -> masses; the
Heim predict -> Heim predicted (past tense, not subjunctive!)
d***@yahoo.com
2006-01-09 00:32:01 UTC
Permalink
I haven't worked through any scientific papers for over 15 years, but
it seems to me like there are a lot of leaps in the work.

With pdfs there is no need to save the trees. Is there a thesis with
all the workings?

Also there is no discussion of spatial turbulence.

It all sounds a little like Star Trek meets the Philadelphia
Experiment.
i***@gmail.com
2006-01-10 15:00:11 UTC
Permalink
The most obvious point is the magnetic fields that are obseved to
surround pulsars. Why don't they go into a hyperdimension?

The fields are much more intense than any generatable in the laboratory.
r***@hotmail.com
2006-01-10 15:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
The most obvious point is the magnetic fields that are obseved to
surround pulsars. Why don't they go into a hyperdimension?
The fields are much more intense than any generatable in the laboratory.
And they are spinning fast as well. You'd think they would zoom off out
the galaxy and into a hyperdimension as you describe, if the theory is
correct.

I think Heim set out to look for a propulsion system and tried until he
thought he got something. That's not a good approach. If his theory
really does predict the masses of fundamental particles then the least
we could do is to put his theory to the test. I am sure the US military
will do it sometime soon.

Loading...