Heim's Gravity Engine?

An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/a...Quantum-Theory

http://www.americanantigravity.com/d...rief-Rev-A.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Hyper...,_AIAA_ award

--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

It's also highly possible that this theory doesn't have any validity. It
relies on a bunch of things that should be relatively easy to detect in
accelerator collisions--yet nothing has been found to back it up.

--
Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org


"Mike Dennis" wrote in message
. ..
"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

It's also highly possible that this theory doesn't have any validity. It
relies on a bunch of things that should be relatively easy to detect in
accelerator collisions--yet nothing has been found to back it up.



Thanks for the input. But, I do hope Heim was right. We need such a means
of propulsion. Heating up gasses and expelling them out of a nozzle has its
draw backs -- mainly the mass of propellant needed to go anywhere.

Did you read about Heim? He had a horrible lab accident as a young man and
lived most of his life deaf, blind and with grossly deformed hands. I am
certain his physics work gave him a will to live.

Danny Dot
www.mobbinggonemad.org

Mike Dennis wrote:
"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

It's also highly possible that this theory doesn't have any validity. It
relies on a bunch of things that should be relatively easy to detect in
accelerator collisions--yet nothing has been found to back it up.

Negative graviphotons are already in use as optical tweezers and
tho the terrminolgy is a bit different, Tajar & de Matos's experiment
demonstrates some validity.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm


Sue...

"Sue..." wrote in message
s.com...

Mike Dennis wrote:
"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute
of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

It's also highly possible that this theory doesn't have any validity. It
relies on a bunch of things that should be relatively easy to detect in
accelerator collisions--yet nothing has been found to back it up.

Negative graviphotons are already in use as optical tweezers and
tho the terrminolgy is a bit different, Tajar & de Matos's experiment
demonstrates some validity.


Yeah, I'd agree the terminology is a bit different--as in "we're not talking
about the same thing at all..."

I'm talking about physical evidence--not unproven theories piled upon other
unproven theories. If you want to play here you have to understand that
many people here know what these words actually mean.

Mike Dennis wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message
s.com...

Mike Dennis wrote:
"Danny Dot" wrote in message
...
An engineering friend of mine sent this to me. The American Institute
of
Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) has published papers on this idea.

It is a way to propel a spacecraft using the action of gravity.

My friend tells me it is possible that highly classified programs are
attempting to make this form of propulsion as we speak.

It's also highly possible that this theory doesn't have any validity. It
relies on a bunch of things that should be relatively easy to detect in
accelerator collisions--yet nothing has been found to back it up.

Negative graviphotons are already in use as optical tweezers and
tho the terrminolgy is a bit different, Tajar & de Matos's experiment
demonstrates some validity.


Yeah, I'd agree the terminology is a bit different--as in "we're not talking
about the same thing at all..."

I'm talking about physical evidence--not unproven theories piled upon other
unproven theories. If you want to play here you have to understand that
many people here know what these words actually mean.

So far not a trace of a Higgs mechanism has been detected
http://www.fnal.gov/ ..and the
results of the first direct experiment of Einsten's gravity are due
around
the end of the year.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

So... to-date the Tajmar/de Matos experiment IS the best proof...
or disproof as the case may be.

Sue...