Spaceship could fly faster than light

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

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

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

Post by TallDave »

It is not the same as Heim theory based proposals, which to my knowledge, doesn't mention any temperature dependencies

I asked Tajmar about this a while back, and he said subsequent experiments showed the temperature/superconductivity was apparently not that important.

I also mentioned Heim, but he said it was too early to talk about theories.

It's interesting to note that Tajmar's results violate relativity, but Heim predicts them.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

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

Post by djolds1 »

TallDave wrote:I asked Tajmar about this a while back, and he said subsequent experiments showed the temperature/superconductivity was apparently not that important.

I also mentioned Heim, but he said it was too early to talk about theories.

It's interesting to note that Tajmar's results violate relativity, but Heim predicts them.
Random web communication or closer association?

And d*mn do Tajmar's results violate GR. 18 Orders of Magnitude larger than the GR predictions.

Duane
Vae Victis

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Just help me out here, semantics re. violating relativity.
It's clear to me that relativity does not address this point of physics. What Tajmar is investigating is not frame dragging, it is some other phenomenon not suspected by GR. Now, (always assuming that Tajmar's results pan out) clearly GR is no longer adequate for our scientific needs, but has it been violated?
I do believe that frame dragging as predicted by GR was measured to within less than 1% (or 0.1%) by Gravity Probe B, even though there were other things going on with the gyroscopes.
This is quite important. It boils down to, "Can we trust GR for the things it does address, or is the whole GR structure of physics thrown into doubt?" I think that, up until this issue, every time GR was put to the test, it was shown to be correct. I really hate to throw away a track record like that.
Aero

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

Post by TallDave »

If the Tajmar effect is substantiated at the order of magnitude he claims (there's still some debate about that), then GR doesn't describe reality in that situation, just as it doesn't in situations where quantum effects matter.

Of course, GR works extremely well at describing reality in most situations. The less complete Newtonian physics model works great in lots of situations, too. GR is a refinement of Newtonian physics. Whatever supplants GR (LQG, string/M, Heim) will necessarily be a further refinement of GR (which as you corrrectly point out has been extensively verified across many many situations).
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Tajmar Biography

Post by gblaze42 »

He has an interesting Biography, from Wikipedia;
In 2006, Martin Tajmar and several coworkers announced their claim to have measured a gravitomagnetic version of the Frame-dragging effect caused by a superconductor with an accelerating or decelerating spin . As of April 2008, the effect has not yet been observed independently.

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"
Hmm Not that what he claims is incredibly speculative, but isn't he jumping the gun a bit, or more.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

As of April 2008, the effect has not yet been observed independently.
... isn't he jumping the gun a bit, or more.
Well, maybe, but on the other hand, the accuracy of your quote is debatable. In particular, independent support is claimed for Tajmar from two different sources. One from the lead plate experiment by the University of Canterbury in Christ Church, New Zealand, the other from the anomalous Gyro data from Gravity Probe B. But there is a problem. The support is mostly claimed for Tajmar by one Dr. Häuser who has a vested interest in Heim theory. He was Dr. Heim's assistant, protege, co-worker or something. It happens that Heim theory has always predicted this result and Dr. Häuser has been publishing prolifically about it since 2002, basically since Dr. Heim passed.
(Someone will correct me if I am wrong.)
To learn the details, read all of the papers referenced on Wikipedia for Heim Theory, then the papers cited by Keegan previously in this thread. Here, this one. http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/index.html Read the first paper, at least.

If you do that, then its time to buy Heim's books and really get down to it. :?
Aero

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

Post by djolds1 »

Aero wrote:Just help me out here, semantics re. violating relativity.
It's clear to me that relativity does not address this point of physics. What Tajmar is investigating is not frame dragging, it is some other phenomenon not suspected by GR. Now, (always assuming that Tajmar's results pan out) clearly GR is no longer adequate for our scientific needs, but has it been violated?
Heim doesn't violate GR so much as extends it. 8D EHT and the original 6D version are both in the Loop Quantum Gravity family of theories. They quantize the background spacetime. Matter is an emergent property of that quantized spacetime, highly complex geometric assemblages of fundamental planck length squared surfaces. Time likewise.

For instance, D&H claim the proton is an assemblage of 1E40 planck surfaces.

Both GR and QM are well tested and verified, in most instances. A GUT needs to account for that, as well as the freakish outliers that "standard" GR & QM theory do not address.
Aero wrote:Well, maybe, but on the other hand, the accuracy of your quote is debatable. In particular, independent support is claimed for Tajmar from two different sources. One from the lead plate experiment by the University of Canterbury in Christ Church, New Zealand, the other from the anomalous Gyro data from Gravity Probe B. But there is a problem. The support is mostly claimed for Tajmar by one Dr. Häuser who has a vested interest in Heim theory. He was Dr. Heim's assistant, protege, co-worker or something. It happens that Heim theory has always predicted this result and Dr. Häuser has been publishing prolifically about it since 2002, basically since Dr. Heim passed.
(Someone will correct me if I am wrong.)
Droscher was the one who teamed with Heim.

Hauser & Droscher teamed up somewhere before the first 2002 publication.

IIRC, early Heim Quantum Theory predicted fundamental particle masses as far back as the mid '50s, and Dark Energy in the mid '60s, before universal expansion was observed & dark energy hypothesized.
Aero wrote:If you do that, then its time to buy Heim's books and really get down to it. :?
The German group "Research Group Heim Theory" has provided a sequential description of 6D Heim Quantum Theory:

http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downlo ... s_en09.pdf

This reviews the 8D approach in conjunction with conventional MHD:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... od2005.pdf

And this is the most recent paper:

http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... PC2008.pdf
Last edited by djolds1 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Vae Victis

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

Post by djolds1 »

Edit - delete
Vae Victis

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Thanks,
I did have one of the documents already, I downloaded one more, but on the first link, got
The requested URL /protosimplex/downloads/heimmaps_en09.pdf was not found on this server
However, I do have this document, http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downlo ... 01.2en.pdf which seems similar.
Aero

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

Post by djolds1 »

Aero wrote:The requested URL /protosimplex/downloads/heimmaps_en09.pdf was not found on this server
However, I do have this document, http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downlo ... 01.2en.pdf which seems similar.
Not nearly the same.

I upped it to rapidshare:

http://rapidshare.com/files/146497473/h ... 9.pdf.html
Vae Victis

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

Post by Keegan »

^ Cheers for that Duane.

It was mentioned you were part of the EHT forum.

Whats happening over there ? Similar to TP ? Talentted people who could change the world, kicking and screaming as loud as they can, but no body hears them ? :wink:
Purity is Power

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

Post by djolds1 »

Keegan wrote:^ Cheers for that Duane.

It was mentioned you were part of the EHT forum.

Whats happening over there ? Similar to TP ? Talentted people who could change the world, kicking and screaming as loud as they can, but no body hears them ? :wink:
The attitude here on T-P is essentially that of boosters. We are very hopeful Polywell will work out, attempting to offer productive refinements, and enthusiastically exploring possibilities. Polywell is entirely plausible within known theory, after all.

The Heim thread at Physorg is much quieter. Fewer participants, FAR lower rate of traffic, minimal speculation beyond the stated criteria in the papers, and a skeptical critical analysis approach to new data. Infrequent posts by the really knowledgeable or well connected members throw in productive tidbits, and otherwise traffic remains light unless new Tajmar results or a D&H paper come out. No one is trying to get their hopes up. This is not the plausible application of proven theory, but the basic theory in and of itself, and a left field one at that.

Duane
Vae Victis

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

Post by Keegan »

^ Well to be expected really.

I mean certainly the level of mathematics is very advanced. That brings with it a certain persona.

Mainly i was wondering if they have problems with funding, hence have to rally for their cause.

Its all new to me, but i see the Heim camp having a few experiments going with spinning superconductors that are certainly alot cheaper than Polywell. At the same time they seem to be laying low refining the theory while waiting for Big Science to validate their predictions.
Purity is Power

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Duane, Thanks for the link, I got it now.
I do have a concern though , re - Tajmar's results. It has been bothering me since it was learned that the significant effect results from rotation of the super cold helium, more than from rotation of the selected sample.

Helium is a superfluid so cooper pairing is believable, but my concern is: Has Tajmar ruled out the mechanical effects that could conceptually arise from some of the weird stuff that Helium does as a superfluid? For example, under conditions which are beyond my knowledge, superfluid helium is reported to form a layer, one atom thick, that climbs the walls coating everything. If such a thing happened during the course of an experiment this layer would add inertia to the sample container which might be reflected as an acceleration, or something. I know it is a stretch, but the stakes are so high that I thought I'd bring it up.
Aero

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

Post by djolds1 »

Keegan wrote:Mainly i was wondering if they have problems with funding, hence have to rally for their cause.
Funding??

Droscher & Hauser are basically in the "Einstein working in the patent office" stage, working on the incomplete parts of the hypothesis. Mathematics of the theory. Tajmar's funded work provides hard data to compare EHT predictions to, but since Tajmar's equipment is not optimized to test Heim conjectures, the data generated is somewhat tangential to EHT.
Keegan wrote:Its all new to me, but i see the Heim camp having a few experiments going with spinning superconductors that are certainly alot cheaper than Polywell. At the same time they seem to be laying low refining the theory while waiting for Big Science to validate their predictions.
I agree, and have been voicing the same on the Heim board. Regardless of how interesting the post-Tajmar implications are, materials science has made huge leaps in generating high-Tesla fields recently, and the ability to test the more difficult "fermionic" pathway is now available. I want empirical results, or a d*mn good explanation of why not. In general I admire D&H's very cautious approach, the entire hypothesis could be prematurely rejected if a flawed experiment is run (shades of Pons-Fleischman), but enough already.

Duane
Last edited by djolds1 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vae Victis

Post Reply