Heims Hyperdrive? NO!

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?

ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.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

Luigi Caselli schrieb:

ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.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

"Marc Fettes" ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...

Luigi Caselli schrieb:

ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.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...rmula_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...rmula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/...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

Luigi Caselli schrieb:


If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...rmula_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...rmula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/...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

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

Luigi Caselli schrieb:


If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...rmula_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...rmula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/...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

Luigi Caselli schrieb:

If you go to
http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...rmula_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...rmula_1989.pdf some Heim
later corrections.
So the way to the formula is known.
Anyway at
http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/...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

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.

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!