From: joh@gmx.net   
      
   "manofsanATyahoo.com"  writes:   
      
   > One of the more notable features of the equation he came up with, was   
   > that it is apparently able to calculate the masses of fundamental   
   > particles to high accuracy. So that's what I'm posting here to ask   
   > about -- does Heim's formula indeed do this, as is claimed? If so, then   
   > how does it do this when no other mainstream accepted framework exists   
   > to do this?   
   >   
   > Has Heim somehow cheated by arbitrarily contriving a formula to force   
   > it to come up with values already known from measurement? It's just   
   > that it seems extraordinarily unlikely for a formula to be able to   
   > calculate a variety of known fundamental particle masses to high   
   > accuracy, if it was just randomly cobbled together.   
      
   I know not more than you (if you've actually read the articles you've   
   linked to), but Heim's theory is said to attempt "to explain the nature   
   of elementary particles, along with their observed lifetimes and   
   discrete mass spectrum using a concept known as quantized   
   geometrodynamics. This concept involves an abstract mathematical object   
   embedded in 12-dimensional space. The space occupied by this object is   
   extremely small. In this model, all space consists of many quantized   
   surface elements on the order of 10-70 m^2 small."   
      
   This looks neither randomly nor conventional. Which does not have to   
   mean it is correct... I do not know how Heim got to his model (there is   
   a 1000-pages publication/translation of his works underway).   
      
   > Is there perhaps even just a portion of his formula that may posssibly   
   > have merit, while other parts should be discarded?   
      
   There is no way to tell except of testing the theory with experiments.   
   That Heim's stuff offers ways to do that seems to be the main difference   
   to similar far out theories like the string theory. If all or parts or   
   nothing of it has to be discarded... well. Time (and experiments) will   
   tell.   
      
   > Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to   
   > prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment   
   > which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil   
   > generating a powerful magnetic field.   
      
   Heim's theory proposes *two* gravity forces and that experiment is   
   designed to test for the second one. Since it is extremly weak, proving   
   it against quite powerful magnetic fields won't be an easy task.   
      
   What strikes me is that there has been some russian "scientist" years   
   ago who pretended to be able to modify gravity by rotating masses above   
   a magnetic field. As far as I know nobody was able to reproduce his   
   findings and he did not offer any substantial theory for his results.   
      
      
   Disclaimer: I'm just curious and in no way anything like a scientist in   
   these things. Still, this looks like something worth of trying to verify   
   or falsify experimentally, especially since Heim doesn't look like the   
   usual kook, although being almost deaf and blind and with no hands   
   surely is enough to turn strange and lonely. If he had been better   
   integrated with the academic community things might have been different   
   (but this certainly was very, very hard in the 40s and 50s with such   
   handicaps).   
      
      
           Jochem   
      
   --   
    "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no   
    longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."   
    - Antoine de Saint-Exupery   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)