Page 3 of 5
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:34 pm
I just looked at these. Number 3 is the one that makes sense and is doable within the next few years with the LHC. Number 2 seems too theoretical and number 1 is simply impractical for the foreseeable future.
It is also worth noting that the LHC can falsify EHT within the same time period as performing number 3.
there is also these;
or http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 113207.htm
if you need more.
the ideas for testing seem endless.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:42 pm
Once again, all paths lead to the LHC. We can all just sit back and watch for the next few years.
Heim Theory Home page.
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:38 am
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:30 am
Is it just me or has anyone else been spending far too much time thinking about Heim theory lately ?
Its has always striked me why equations for gravitational force and coulomb forces are so similar (inverse square)
Seriously if Hiem was right and it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational energy it could have a profound effect on fusion and how a reactor could work.
Polywell Fusion Makes Stars.
Imagine what you could do with gravity on your side.
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:37 pm
Keegan wrote:Seriously if Hiem was right and it is possible to convert electromagnetic energy into gravitational energy it could have a profound effect on fusion and how a reactor could work.
Care to elaborate?
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:19 am
^ Wish i could, but im still trying to get my head around what is possible with Hiem theory.
Polywell has some issues. A few are
Minimising negative effects from 3MVish Alpha particles. The first wall problem.
Electric Fields and Paschen arc discharging. Degrade virtual cathode hieght. The MV direct conversion grids will reak havoc with electron recirculation if it actually exists.
Gravity and electrostatics are both inverse square laws. Im really digging alot of what Hiem had to say.
If one can harness aspects of gravity it could solve alot of problems. Thats all.
But then again if one could harness gravity, would we even need large scale fusion reactors ?
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 4:30 pm
I also have been looking at Heim theory. His interstellar propulsion method seems similar to but not the same as what Dr. Tajmar has been working on. In February 2008, Martin Tajmar applied for an international patent for a "Process for the generation of a gravitational field and a gravitational field generator"
This is his recent experimental results, his latest, I think:
It is not the same as Heim theory based proposals, which to my knowledge, doesn't mention any temperature dependencies.
And, Yes, we will still need fusion reactors. Consider the energy needed to drive a large star ship 40 light years in any reasonable time. Heim's "warp drive" is really neat, but conservation of energy applies so it still boils down to Energy required = 1/2 * ship mass * delta V squared. Much much better than rocketry using reaction mass, but substantial nonetheless.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 5:05 pm
Keegan wrote:The MV direct conversion grids will reak havoc with electron recirculation if it actually exists.
No. The (innermost?) trap grid is there to separate the near-magrid region (with recirculation-favourable gradient) from the deceleration region (any electrons that make it out that far will be slammed into the walls).
The trick is to have the trap grid far enough out/at a low enough voltage compared to the magrid that basically no electrons make it out that far. This is a trivial requirement to meet once you know the operational energy of the electrons and have some idea of their thermal spread. It also won't bother the alphas.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:21 pm
Aero wrote:I also have been looking at Heim theory. His interstellar propulsion method seems similar to but not the same as what Dr. Tajmar has been working on.
Droscher & Hauser have explicitly linked the two since mid 2006.
Aero wrote:In February 2008, Martin Tajmar applied for an international patent for a "Process for the generation of a gravitational field and a gravitational field generator"
If the effect is issuing from the Helium, it may be a Heim effect. Metric engineering via the claimed Heim mechanism specifically cites use of low-Z material (preferably hydrogen) for the "gravitational" effect. The gravito-photons are claimed to be generated amidst that material.
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:38 pm
I have just finished reading through, "Magnet Experiment to Measuring Space Propulsion Heim-Lorentz Force," by Walter Droscher, Jochem Hauser, AIAA 2005 - 4321. I am beginning to see that the two approaches are very similar and very likely are utilizing the same principles.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:43 am
93143 wrote:The trick is to have the trap grid far enough out/at a low enough voltage compared to the magrid that basically no electrons make it out that far.
Dealing with these electrostatics will make the reactor big. Bigger than most people imagine. This incurs a big penaly when it comes to establishing and mantaining the vacuum.
These grids you speak of will still have to deal with alpha particles eroding them and contaminating reactor space.
Not insurmountable, just problematic as usual.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:47 am
This thread really needs The Hiem Space Propulsion Paper Repository
The Top two are simply richeous.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:14 pm
I have made a fascinating discovery. There is only one small IF, and that is, IF it turns out that Heim theory correctly describes the physics of field propulsion and the transition into another universe that originated as Dr. Heim has postulated, but with a different n number, then the following holds.
The different universes, having originated through mechanism identical to that of our own, must be quite similar to our own to the extent possible with a different n number. The value 0 < n <= 10E+10 is attributed to Heim Theory. Therefore, for values of adjacent n, it would appear that the fundamental properties of the universe would be very similar to our own. There may even be a similar planet to Earth in orbit around a star located very similarly to our sun. That is, once our spaceship transitions into the parallel universe and then if I look out the back window, I may not see any difference, the planet back there may look like Earth. And, If that is the case, why did I build the space ship in the first place? All I really need is to transition into the parallel universe and with a little thought, I bet we can figure out how to do that without leaving the ground. Just transition and I am on a different planet that may even have unused oil still in ground, or gold in California. Hmm, 10 to the tenth universes, I think that gives almost enough earths for each of us to have one.
Of course, this is a little worrisome, too, because if we can do it, THEY can do it. So if you don't hear from me again, you can suspect that THEY read this forum, too. I can only hope that THEY don't know my IP address.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:21 pm
The problem with this "drive" is that you can't actually get anywhere. If space is expanding, you're not actually moving toward anything.
OTOH, it would be perfect for an intergalactic getaway car.
EDIT: Hmm, this version seems to say they would shrink space in front, so I guess the above doesn't apply.
Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 4:28 pm
EDIT: You are right that heim's FTL drive does not violate relativity, but if it works then causlity will be violated.
No, it just means relativity is an inaccurate description of time.
I think we know this anyway, though, due to the conflicts with QM.
Causality cannot be violated. Quantum wavefunctions do not un-collapse; the very idea is absurd.