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

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

Post by djolds1 »

Aero wrote: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.
I raised the issue of "mechanical" effects when the paper was brought up for discussion. Those smarter than I in physics pointed out that controls were exercised to rule "mechanical" effects out.

Discussion thread starts toward the bottom of page 139:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=2070
Vae Victis

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

Post by TallDave »

Here's the last email Tajmar wrote me, FWIW:
Hello,

Thanks for the link. I'm of course aware of the Pioneer anomaly - but I was not aware that other fly-by anomalies were found.

As I still don't really understand the cause for my phenomena I can not link it to the Pioneer anomaly either.

In any case, it does not seem to be a superconducting effect after testing more materials. You can always find the latest information by looking inthe arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3806

Best regards,

Martin Tajmar.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

GPecchia
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:10 pm
Location: Edwall WA

Post by GPecchia »

kurt9 wrote:
gblaze42 wrote:

1) http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/ ... 5086.shtml

2) http://www.news.wisc.edu/13422

and 3) http://www.physorg.com/news10682.html

and there are many more if you google it.

I mean it sounds that people who believe in heim theory want it to work, which is subjective.
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.


I am curious about the LHC confirming or disproving EHT. Does anyone have specifics?

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

Post by TallDave »

Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would falsify all existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Also, it is not certain whether Heim theory would be able to accommodate the existence of the Higgs boson, the only undiscovered particle expected in the Standard Model, and one which has not been predicted by the published versions of the Heim mass formula. Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theor ... the_theory
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

GPecchia
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:10 pm
Location: Edwall WA

Post by GPecchia »

TallDave wrote:
Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would falsify all existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Also, it is not certain whether Heim theory would be able to accommodate the existence of the Higgs boson, the only undiscovered particle expected in the Standard Model, and one which has not been predicted by the published versions of the Heim mass formula. Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theor ... the_theory
Thanks for the reply and link. The next couple of years will indeed be interesting. Too bad it will be another couple of months before the LHC can start colliding protons.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

gblaze42 wrote:[q

I understand now, your basing which theory would provide the best path to FTL in the shortest time, if proven correct. Personally I don't believe their is a an easy way to do FTL. For example, the 60 Tesla magnetic fields needed to negate gravity, or possibly push a spacecraft into "Hyperspace". If this were true there would be no magnetic stars which revolve in seconds and have magnetic fields of 10 gigateslas! By EHT they should drop into "Hyperspace" and/or be moving at light speed across the universe because of the "anti-gravity" effect they produce.
I believe that Cleaver and Richard Obousy have given us at least the understanding that it is possible to move faster than light, if not directly, by the space around us. This gives great hope that some day they or someone could reduce the energy cost to levels almost attainable by human civilizations.
Not quite, the 60 tesla field is what is needed in normal space, and I believe in a 1 g field. A large star, obviously, has a much larger gravitational boat anchor of mass to deal with so would require a much much higher tesla field density to get the same effect. It stands to reason the more mass you are moving and the higher the gravity field you are in, requires greater magnetic field density.

The question relevant here is whether it is possible to get a 60 T field generated from a 100 MW polywell fusion plant.

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

Post by djolds1 »

IntLibber wrote:Not quite, the 60 tesla field is what is needed in normal space, and I believe in a 1 g field. A large star, obviously, has a much larger gravitational boat anchor of mass to deal with so would require a much much higher tesla field density to get the same effect. It stands to reason the more mass you are moving and the higher the gravity field you are in, requires greater magnetic field density.

The question relevant here is whether it is possible to get a 60 T field generated from a 100 MW polywell fusion plant.
IIRC, 13 Tesla is required for a 1 meganewton effect, 45 meganewtons are achieved at 20 Tesla, and 30 Tesla is the threshold for the FTL effect.

The magnetic fields are purported to be used for metric engineering in a specific experimental setting. Various Heim gravity artifacts would be expected to show up around a star, but not necessarily the FTL effect.

Duane
Vae Victis

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

Post by gblaze42 »

IntLibber wrote:
Not quite, the 60 tesla field is what is needed in normal space, and I believe in a 1 g field. A large star, obviously, has a much larger gravitational boat anchor of mass to deal with so would require a much much higher tesla field density to get the same effect. It stands to reason the more mass you are moving and the higher the gravity field you are in, requires greater magnetic field density.

The question relevant here is whether it is possible to get a 60 T field generated from a 100 MW polywell fusion plant.
Okay so how does the magnetic field flux scale per amount of mass? With magnetar's we are dealing with not 60 to 70 tesla's of flux we are dealing with billions of tesla How does Heim theory scale for magnetic flux per unit of mass, as you say it should?

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

Post by Aero »

Here is a new forum thread on Heim theory. Interesting.
http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/ ... =11&p=9986
Aero

kurt9
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

What happened to the Physorg forum on Heim Theory? I've noticed that the Physorg website says the forum is closed for "maintenance". The discussion was quite good there.

Post Reply