Talk:Heim theory/Archive 1

message: *Some good external references are absolutely necessary. 
*Should the relevant parts from Burkhard Heim moved here or would a re-write be better?
*12-dimensional? Wasn't it 6? 
*: See the new introductory paragraph, I've explained it here.HappyCamper 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do 

message: @Hdeasy: The splitup between the two articles Burkhard Heim and Heim-Theory would work best, if this article Heim-Theory would concentrate on the theory content, so to say the hard facts and the biography article Burkhard Heim on the personal side,  Heim's handicap, working style, etc.
In this reasoning I'd prefer to remove especially:
Those modern physicists who find fault with such a paucity of publications would do well to recall that the modern pressure in academe to publish several papers per year or lose tenure was not present 50 years ago. Also, Heim could afford to operate outside the university milleau and thus was immune to this pressure which often results in premature publication. Einstein went through a long period of 'incubation' before producing his revolutionary relativity theory. Heim's incubation period was somewhat longer (ten times), but then if his theory was all the more revolutionary perhaps the longer the incubation the better.
I don't do it now, to not disturb your editing and to wait for your opinion.
Pjacobi 22:05, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
Yes - why not move that section to the main Burkhard Heim page? Could you do that? I just answered you on 'E' at the talk page there, by the way.--hughey 11:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitup details 

message: I also found these links. This one appears to suggest that the metronic space of Heim is like "ether"
These two are in German. Could someone determine if the pdf contains any information we could use for the article?
Other links
These links of any utility? HappyCamper 03:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The German links are broken, but in the future, I'm of moderate usefulness in translating physics in German.  I mostly only know technical terms in quantum mechanics though.  --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other links with different points of view 

message: I managed to re-solve Heim's DE in the "gravitation" section. I've figured out everything except for some integration constant in his notes. The solution is difficult to interpret because the function has a bunch of infinities.
It turns out that the result is related to:
: \int \frac{1}{1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 4x}} dx + C = \int \frac{l+1}{2l(l-1)} dl.
I haven't figured out how Heim decided to take either the positive or negative root. Furthermore, from his paper, it seems that x can range from 0 to infinity, but the result here is only real if x is from 0 to 0.25. There are all sorts of other things hidden in these equations. Some help would be nice :) HappyCamper 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravitation 

message: Someone needs to work out whether Heim Theory is a proper noun or not. Most other theories are not capitalised. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, the page is at "Heim theory" and both seem amicable. I am not sure whether there are established conventions for "Heim theory" or "Heim Theory" yet. It is unclear to me whether the German usage of the terminology warrants a capitalization in English. --HappyCamper 12:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: Hey, it looks like the USAF wants to test Heim's theories and build and "hyperdrive". There is also an article in Slashdot. Should we mention it in this article? --Pezezin 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, add it in if you like :-) --HappyCamper 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I ran this by my crank-detection physics professional friends, who said that they believe the theory is most likely wrong, far from demonstrably right, but not crank material.  It appears to be done in a manner consistent with known physics observations and be formulated in a manner which encourages further test and analysis, unlike typical crank theory.  It is most likely not correct, based on consensus, but it doesn't appear to fall into the category It's not right.  It's not even wrong..  Georgewilliamherbert 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, this particular "scientist in training" (but published scientist nonetheless) is pretty firmly convinced that Heim theory is neither an accurate description of nature nor a well-defined theory of physics.  If you'd like to make the changes you just suggested, I won't stop you, but I'm guessing that the Heim supporters here will object.  I've been trying to be a bit less actively hostile myself, and with the recent bit of publicity I suspect that a moderately more thorough discussion might be worthwhile (if it made comparisons to mainstream science clear).  But a rewrite of at least the introduction along the lines you suggest might be a good thing.--Steuard 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So - no real scientists working on it, eh? What an ignorant comment. Droscher is a theoretical physicist in the Austrian Patent office and Prof. Hauser is a very prolific scientist - see that hppc link to his documents and you will see how much he's published on Magnetohydrodynamics, new computing techniques etc. And for years he was head of a department at ESTEC - but then the ignorant comentator who appears not to have read the New Scientist article probably doesn't know what this is. Look down through the history of discussion here before raking over such old hat. The theory has evinced quite a positive reaction amongst many physicists - see e.g. the forum discussion at  to see that some have even programmed up the mass formula in JAVA, independently of the Fortran implementation, with almost as much accuracy in particle mass prediction. The head of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion effort was impressed by the potential of the theory but would like to see more detail on the derivation of the mass formula before pumping moeny into a Z-machine test . Finally look at the open letter from the Heim-theory group  . From the latter we see that a " We are willing, however, to give some clarifications. concerning fundamental problems of chapter D such as the conversion of Christoffel symbols to a tensor because of a polymetric statement or the derivation of the eigenvalue problem. That chapter is only presented in German at the moment. An English language version is forthcoming after time for a revision. 
A talking book (CD) is in preparation which plays back Heim’s voice during a series of lectures and discussions on his theory. The possibility of an English version is being discussed at present. A sample of his voice will also be presented on our web-site.
Finally, a reviewed paper is now being prepared which gives an introduction to Heim’s Theory and the extension to eight dimensions, necessary for the realization of the new space propulsion method." --hughey 17:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting news... 

message: I see no reason why Heim wanted to have so different names for those two dimensions (entelechy and aeon). Perhaps they are like X and Y in the real world, aren't they ? I mean, S2 is perhaps totally isotropic. Do you have any opinion about this ? --Serenity-Fr 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, mathematically speaking, you could call the coordinates anything - I guess Heim just liked those two names in particular. I don't think those coordinates are interpreted as the sort of "spatial" coordinates we are familiar with though. --HappyCamper 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  entelechy and aeon 

message: After a long time learning about Heim Theory and collecting ideas, I think i'm gonna rewrite the entire article. I want to reorder it, add more information and clarifications, and express all the issues the theory currently has. So if nobody opposes, in the next few days I will do it. --Pezezin 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go right ahead. :-) --HappyCamper 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting 

message: The last link of Propulsion physics is now broken :
Droscher, W and Hauser, J, "Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics," Log No 021, STAIF, American Institute of Physics, 2005 (pdf)
I wonder why Droscher's laboratory has suppressed (moved?) all pages about Heim's theory. If someone can find the a new link, it would be great.
:These pages were removed after the University of Innsbruck had been warned that Droscher, Hauser, and their "laboratory", the IGW (Institut fuer Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft) were using a University of Innsbruck affiliation without authorization. The IGW is a private institute and not a part of the University of Innsbruck.
::Please sign your comments! ---CH 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New broken link