Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Long-time Townsend Brown inquirer Jan Lundquist – aka 'Rose' in The Before Times – has her own substantial archive to share with readers and visitors to this site. This forum is dedicated to the wealth of material she has compiled: her research, her findings, and her speculations.
Post Reply
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by natecull »

In Townsend's 1950s gravitics writings - particularly in the Project Winterhaven documents, but also mentioned in Jacques Cornillion's "Project Montgolfier" writeup - there appears a division in Townsend's thinking between "static" vs a "dynamic" modes of "counterbary" (a term apparently meaning weight loss or propulsion: probably, like "barycenter", from Greek "barus" meaning heavy).

These two modes are NOT the "solid" vs "fluid" dielectric modes that we're aware of (ie the solid "gravitator" vs the air-based "saucer" or "fan"). Rather, they're something a little stranger: "dynamic counterbary" appears to be weight loss involving electrical current, while "static counterbary" was to do with Townsend's very peculiar idea of "gravitational isotopes" (like quartz sand, or loess clay), that could be potentially charged with static electricity via friction (the well-known phenomenon of triboelectricity), thereby leading to a semi-permanent state of weight reduction.

Unsurprisingly, this second "static counterbary" idea is very unusual and is not well-supported by mainstream physics at all. However, Townsend believed it could be happening on the Moon, as the cause of "dust fountains" (an apparently legitimate phenomenon in which moon dust lofts anomalously during the lunar day); Townsend's belief was that ultraviolet light was imparting an electrostatic charge to the dust, letting "static counterbary" kick in.

So much for Townsend's treatment of the term. I'd thought that "counterbary" was an old term going back to airships and dirigibles, and it might well be - but if you Google for the term today, however, you will mostly find Townsend Brown references and nothing else. Even Google's ngram viewer, which finds unusual word usage in books, does not appear to find anything except a 1950s bump and a post 1980s bump peaking in the mid-2000s.

However! The phrase "dynamic counterbary" or rather its German equivalent, "contrabarie", DOES appear in the writings of Burkhard Heim (1925-2001). 20 years Townsend's junior, Heim is a very controversial figure on the fringe of General Relativity physics who appears in some of the 1950s "gravitics" articles in which his name is linked to that of Townsend's. Townsend's use of Heim's phrase makes me think that the connection between the two must have been more than coincidental.

Heim has a group of followers who became briefly active around 20 years ago, and maintain a website at www.heim-theory.com. There is a 2021 PDF in English which is described here: https://heim-theory.com/?page_id=161 - actual direct link to the PDF here: http://heim-theory.com/wp-content/uploa ... d_Heim.pdf

The relevant mention is here, on page 26:
Heim's unified field equations postulate interactions between electromagnetism and gravity which are much stronger than the ones that can derived from Einstein’s geometrical theory on gravity.

As he factored in the field mass of the gravitation field (which Einstein had neglected due to its insignificance), Heim obtained his so-called contrabaric equation. According to that equation, the transformation of electric or magnetic fields into gravitational acceleration fields and vice versa should be possible.

Heim, who had always been a space travel enthusiast, was fascinated by such prospects. In 1955 he gave instructions to his family members regarding the construction of a certain device which could be used to prove that contrabaric effect.

The contrabaric equation states that the double rotation of the electromagnetic radiation vector and the source term cause the temporal change of a gravitative power density. Heim vaguely talked about that in Frankfurt in 1957, and in the magazine Flugkörper [Flying Objects] in 1959

Due to the possible technological consequences, however, he never completely published all of his theory on gravity and the contrabaric equation, and always hoped one day he would be able to verify that effect himself in his laboratory.
and a summary of Heim's 1950s timeline:
The lecture he held in Frankfurt in early November 1957 caused a sensation. “Is a new ‚worldview of physics’ imminent in Germany?” the magazine Neue Illustrierte asked on its cover, followed by “His colleagues call him a genius. The things he has talked about in Frankfurt come close to a sensation. Will he be proved right?” (Sketch 1; see p. 123 et seq.)

The magazine Stern cited an internationally famous professor of physics with the following words about Burkhard Heim: “His thoughts are of revolutionary boldness, of the kind of audacity of the mind that in the past centuries was able to overturn worldviews.”

A reputable British magazine on flight sciences regarded Heim's work as “a theor that greatly outperforms Einstein.”

Jean Cocteau placed a picture of “the inner eye of Heim” on the top of his painting of the great physicists (size 6x8 m²) for the Brussels Art Academy, next to the scientists Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Lee and Yang. (Sketch 2)

Heim was made lucrative job offers by Americans. Officers of the intelligence service kept him under surveillance and protected him against spies from East Germany.

In other countries, too, it got around that in Frankfurt someone had lectured about anew propulsion concept for astronautics. The space scientists von Braun and Sedov, a Russian, inquired Heim about that new propulsion system. The whole world was waiting for the publication of Heim's Theory, which he had only presented at congresses on astronautics in 1952 and 1957.

The popular German magazine Bild called for donations for Heim in November 1957. Heim’s objective was to gain publicity with his lectures in order to raise funds for his research. This worked out in part. The magazines Bild and Stern as well as the director of the aerospace company Bölkow supported Heim financially to such an extent that he could employ an assistant for some time.

However, Heim hadn't seen the attacks coming that he saw himself subjected to from the community of “purely theoretical physicists”. With a few exceptions, they re sented him for his public appearances, as he had not presented his theory at a reputable physicists' congress and hadn't published his research in a professional journal first.

In the 1950s, space science wasn't taken seriously by German theoretical physicists. In their eyes, it was simply a pastime of technicians and dreamers – but no science. Born3, Heisenberg4 and von Weizsäcker5 regarded space science as a pure waste of money. Heim was called a “space-travel dreamer” and considered absolutely untrustworthy, and hence was shunned by the great physicists. When Heim announced the publication of an essay on gravitation and magnetism in a physics journal, the concerned subject specialist Professor Lamla advised to refrain from doing so. Only the relativity theorist Pascual Jordan6 saw a great colleague in Heim and prepared an experiment on gravitation with him.

Searching for "contrabarie", finds this 1961 DTIC document: a MSc thesis by John T Watson at Southern Methodist University, "Gravitational Control Research". It's a very once-over-lightly survey very much in keeping with "The Gravitics Situation" and other similar writeups of the era. PDF here: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0253588.pdf

(Paul and Jan, you may well have read this one before. I suspect I have. It's one of the many jigsaw puzzle pieces that have floated up out of the murky depths over the decades since 1959.)

Like the other writers, and the physicists like the Wittens and DeWitts of the era, John T Watson is extremely dismissive of Townsend Brown:
Several authors who have published articles of a popular nature on the control of gravitation during the past few years have not been bound by this definition of gravitational control. As a result, some of their statements about gravitational control (or "anti-gravity", a term acquired from the authors of science fiction) encompass a wide spectrum of theories ranging from those which may be applicable to those which are unrelated to gravitational control. A few of these articles actually do an injustice to the serious research which is being conducted relative to gravitational control either by presenting misconceptions or misinterpretations of the facts concerning the status of this research. Misconceptions have even allowed the inclusion of such proposals as ion and photon propulsive devices within the category of gravitational control. While this is an extreme case, there are other schemes which have been erroneously included in this category. The "electro-gravitics" concept of Townsend Brown is such a scheme.

Mr. Brown has received a moderate amount of publicity concerning his scheme for gravitational control.(1)(2)(3)(4) (5) * [Numbers in parentheses refer to articles in the Bibliography.] In the 1920's he conceived the possibility of constructing a device which would utilize the reaction between electrostatic and electromagnetic fields for the purposes of levitation and propulsion. Since he felt that his device was also utilizing an interaction between electromagnetic and gravitational fields, he referred to this principle as "electro-gravitics". Within the past ten years, a model of this device has been demonstrated and Mr. Brown feels that if he can improve the charge capacity of his model, it will operate with Mach 3 capability within the earth's electromagnetic field. Originally, Mr. Brown had attributed anti-gravity properties to his vehicle. Now it would appear that it is no more than a rather sophisticated utilization of known effects. Since it does not modify forces at the fundamental level of matter, the "electro-gravitics" device of Mr. Brown is not within the realm of the gravitational control concept which is to be discussed in this report.
1. Aviation Studies (International) Limited. Electrogravitics Systems . A Report Prepared by AviationStudies (International) Limited. London, England. February 1956.
2. Aviation Studies (International) Limited. The Gravitics Situation. A Report Prepared by Aviation Studies (International) Limited. London, England. December 1956.
3. Carew, Charles. "The Key to Travel in Space," Canadian Aviation. Vol. 32 (July 1959), pp. 27-32.
4. Intel. "Towards Flight Without Stress, or Strain -- or Weight," Interavia. Vol. 11, No. 5 (May 1956), p. 373.
5. Cleaver, A. V. '"Electro-gravitics: What it is -- or Might Be," Aeroplane. Vol. 92, No. 2376(March 15, 1957), pp. 385-87.
But Watson has a lot of time for Heim, and gives some examples of how Heim, circa 1961, used "contrabarie" - and therefore what Townsend might have been meaning when he borrowed Heim's terms.
The theory which appears to offer the most promise for application to gravitational control is that of Burkhard Heim, a physicist at the University of Goettingen,Germany.(22) Professor Heim calls his theory the meso-field theory
If the meso-field equations are approximated in such a way that the four dimensional space-time continuum results, and the matter fields are restricted to their electromagnetic characteristics, it is determined that there are two states of the meso-field. This indicates that if the meso-field does appear it must do so dually. These states were designated by Heim as the contrabaric state and the dynabaric state. The equations describing these states are operator-equations.

In the contrabaric state, the operator acts on electomagnetic waves to produce a gravitational field, along with gravitational waves.

The dynabaric state describes essentially the same process in reverse. The operator of the dynabaric state acts on the gravitational field to transform it into electromagnetic radiation.

The contrabaric state lends itself to experimental verification, according to Professor Heim. There are restrictions placed upon the generation of the dynabaric state which require the usage of a contrabaric transformer for it's development. Thus, the experimental effort is centered around the construction of a suitable contrabaric transformer. With the successful construction of the contrabaric transformer and the utilization of the dynabaric state made possible by this development, it becomes possible to accomplish some rather remarkable things.

Upon contrabaric transformation, the energy of the electromagnetic wave becomes a mechanical acceleration. The result of fixing this transformer in a suitable metal (presumably a good conductor) is that it accelerates the electrons in the metal, thereby functioning as a current generator. If the transformer is not held firm, it, and anything to which it is attached, will be accelerated. With the achievement of the dynabaric state, it will be possible to have a closed system. After the system is initially started, the dynabaric state of the meson field will provide electromagnetic radiation from suitably ionized metal fed continuously into it's field. The electromagnetic radiation can be contrabarically transformed into electric current, which will provide the power needed for the ionization of the metal. As long as the raw material for the ions holds out, this system will continue to operate. Professor Heim calls this operation dynamic contrabarie.
Emphasis mine. Note that "meson field" must be a typographical error, because as far as I can tell, Heim's "meso-field" is nothing to do with the "meson fields" (now called muons) that were the hot topic in particle physics in the 1950s; the derivation for both terms would be via Greek "mesos" as in "intermediate, middle", but through a very different pathway. Muons were initially called "mesons" because (iirc) their mass was midway between electron and proton. Heim was thinking about a mediating field.

Another hit on "contrabarie" finds this 2011 article about Heim and specifically his old "institute", and the salvaging of Heim's documents from the abandoned and decaying buiilding, with some interesting facts on his life.

https://www.engon.de/protosimplex/north ... nglish.pdf
Burkhard Heim, His Institute and His Legacy
By Holger-Detlef Klein
Heim founded the "Research Institute for Dynamic Contrabarie and Astronautics Association" in 1958 together with Helmut Goeckel at his suggestion, with the formal headquarters in Wiesbaden. Goeckel came from Wiesbaden and also lived there. The experiments were, however, carried out in Northeim in the laboratory on the ground floor. Heim split with Goeckel however, and this institute was disbanded in 1964 and replaced by the foundation "German Research Institute for Force-Field Physics and General Cosmology" with headquarters in Northeim. This Institute covered the entire ground floor. Heim worked there on his theory and he carried out experiments together with his colleague Wolf-Dieter Schott. Schott left the Institute in early 1972, and after that the premises were only used by Heim.
From his own theory, he could now predict new, as yet unseen effects. In physics, a theory is measured by how well its predictions agree with the experimental data. Heim was trying to obtain evidence of this experimental confirmation at the Heim Institute.

Heim's theory resulted in two major predictions:

1. First, electrically neutral rotating masses will produce a magnetic field.

2. Second, under special conditions electromagnetic radiation can be converted directly into mechanical acceleration similar to gravity.

It was not possible to check his first prediction experimentally, because at that time the measurement would would have taken a mass as large as a planet to verify the effect. He found however from this part of his theory, an explanation for the magnetic field of the earth.

To his second prediction he gave a name, he called it the "Contrabaric Effect". Heim now speculated that this "Contrabaric Effect” may be suitable for use as the basis of a powerful antigravity drive for spacecraft. He aroused much attention in the mid to late fifties with this speculation. He gave lectures and attracted the attention of the press. He wanted to obtain financing for experiments he was planning to verify this part of the theory.

However the press developed this story in a sensational manner and concocted a story that the Heim Institute was developing a “flying saucer”. In fact, he tried with very limited and primitive means, to develop a sufficiently sensitive measurement to verify the effect. He used a very delicate balance so that the weight of a sample mass, which should change slightly when this sample is suspended over his experimental apparatus, could be detected when the experimental device (the "Contrabator") is turned on and off.

The first attempt failed completely, because Heim needed a microwave generator for his experiment to succeed, however he could not afford to buy a microwave generator. Today these devices exist in the form of microwave ovens in kitchens in huge numbers, but at that time such a device was hardly affordable. Also, further experiments led to no clear result.

Later Heim worked on the idea that the desired effect must also appear in certain crystals and can be optically detected. To make these special crystals he used the chemicals. Unfortunately, he did not proceed past his preliminary tests, however, these tests were very promising. Heim’s coworker, Wolf-Dieter Schott left the Institute in 1972. He had since married and together with his wife purchased a property in Hanover. Now he needed to earn more money than he could while at the Heim Institute. Without competent help, Heim could not continue his experiments because of his severe disabilities.
Going on a journey, somewhere far out east
We'll find the time to show you, wonders never cease
User avatar
Jan Lundquist
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2023 7:19 pm
Spam Prevention: Yes

Re: Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by Jan Lundquist »

This is a great vein, Nate.

I had overlooked Heim, until I finally "heard" his name mentioned in the TOE short yesterday or the day before. I wanted to know more, and here you have posted it, already! You Kiwis are always ahead!

He was blind, partially deaf, and handless. My heart bleeds for him.

I am sure "counterbary" was mentioned in the old forum. I remember that it was one of those terms that had a charge for me when I heard it. Let me search and get back to you.

ETA: Chris Knight, AKA Andrew Bolland, brings something new to the discussion here.

Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by natecull »

Hi Jan. Yes, that quote of Andrew's is from Townsend's 1955 journal 1. The specific Qualight web page that he was quoting (now gone) has been archived, though I'm sure there are many other copies of the Journals (on Rex Research, probably, since Andrew credits that site for the HTML conversion).

https://web.archive.org/web/20070304213 ... /journals/

https://web.archive.org/web/20071023220 ... urnal1.htm

Mentions of "counterbary" in the journals:

Journal 1:
56. On the Meaning of "Field Shaping".
Dec. 27, 1957.

This suggests that, if a dielectric fluid is present (perhaps ether), it is moved in the opposite direction thru the solid dielectric material. Perhaps a kind of "ether pump" ... In the case of experiments on dynamic counterbary, the forces are similar probably.... In the case of units in multiple, where polarity is reversed in alternative units, field shaping may prevail over the usual neg-to-pos polarity arrangement, as dynamic counterbary sections in multiple connection
Townsend does seem to be using "dynamic counterbary" here in 1957/58 to mean his air-dielectric saucers. This doesn't seem to be quite the meaning that Heim used for "dynamic contrabarie".
57. Units in Multiple for Dynamic Counterbary.
Winston-Salem, NC,; Jan 1, 1958.

In the foregoing section, the use of field shaping was considered in multiple arrangement. The advantage of multiple connections is, of course, that lower voltages may be employed as the answer to larger sizes. Dynamic counterbary units then begin to look like this:
59. The Concept of the Gravitic Dipole as an Energy Storage Means.
Winston-Salem, NC; Jan. 5, 1958.

In the foregoing study of the Adamski Venusian scout ship and in the descriptive material pertaining to it found in the Adamski publication, the central pylon is referred to as place where energy is stored for the propulsion of the ship. It is stated that this central column must be recharged (by the mother ship), presumably as a storage battery is recharged...Even with the very highest K materials available now (say 10,000 to 30,000 K), it is unbelievable that enough electrical energy would be stored to provide the propulsion and dynamic counterbary required.
Townsend was all about the Venusian Scout Ship in 1958. He certainly wasn't the only engineer who was, cf Leonard Cramp in 1955 with "Space, Gravity, and the Flying Saucer"
60. Luminescence from highly-excited Materials; Gravito-Luminescence.
Winston-Salem, NC; Jan 5, 1958.

In general, the radiation may be similar to tribo-luminescence, may actually be associated with tribo-luminescence, since friction also produces counterbary.... For example, on the basis of electric corona, it is difficult to account for the oft-reported flame-red color noted in saucers in flight. It is equally difficult to explain the shift in color from blue-white to flame-red, as the saucer maneuvers.... the nature (intensity and color) of the luminescence might be a convenient indicator of the degree of gravitic excitation. In other words, the color would reveal the amount of static counterbary as well as the gravitic excitation or total stored energy.
This particular bit of "reverse-engineering" (ie wild guessing) is very similar to the reasoning processes of other engineers in the 1950s on, puzzling over reports of UFO sightings and their colours, and trying to infer anything about their propulsion mechanism. Townsend kind of stands out as ahead of the pack here. Or perhaps all of the other guessers were following his ideas here in 1958.

I'm almost wondering whether Heim and Townsend Brown both got this "counterbary" idea from somewhere else in the 1950s UFO community? Because they both have such slightly different usages of the term. I mean I get it, it's just a fancy way of saying "weight loss", but it's such a specific linguistic marker that *someone* must have originated it, yet I can't quite see the chain of causality between the two here.

By the way, Townsend writing in his private journal here has no reason to be putting on a "prairie chicken routine" for a gullible public. He appears to be genuinely interested in UFO phenomena, and a genuine believer of Adamski, not just pretending.
62. Possible Magnetic Components in the Venusian Scout Ship --- Continued from Par. 3, Sec. 58

The upper coil may be used to completely degauss the upper end o the pylon, or, working in conjunction with the lower coil, to distribute the field more evenly thru the pylon. Between these extremes, it could easily serve as as a central device for dynamic counterbary. By adding the magnetic component, total counterbary may be greatly increased.
And if my grandmother had wheels and could fly, she would also be a blurrily photographed hubcap / oil heater / chicken incubator. I just don't get why Adamski held such a fascination for otherwise very clever people. And yet this fascination is what the historical records show.
63. Rotation of the Cathode-Toroid vs the Control Grid, as a Gyro-Stabilizer.
Winston-Salem, NC; Jan 12, 1958

Speed of rotation would be a function of the current and the magnetic field. If the current for the dynamic counterbary passes also through the toroidal coil. The rotation would be controlled entirely by the current, as created by the voltage on the control grid.
Still more Adamski.
64. Field Shaping in Positive Ray Excitation.
Winston-Salem, NC; Jan 13, 1958.

In Sec. 54, the use of positive rays for purposes of excitation in static counterbary was discussed.
That's his "gravitational isotopes". Section 54 did not use the term "counterbary" but the more straightforward "loss of weight".
54. Static Counterbalance Produced by Positive Ray Excitation.
Nov 17, 1957.

Mass A suspended by a spring for observation of weight. Placed in vacuum chamber B, evacuated to 2.5 x 10-5 mm Hg, ionizing wire C serving as a source of canal rays which strike mass A at high velocity.

Upon stoppage of the canal rays, the high excitation potential is conducted to Mass A and distributes through it (in much the same effect as heating. Mass A gains gravitic potential to a value equaling the potential of the canal rays (during discharge).

Mass A then loses weight as it gains excitation potential, and rises within the vacuum chamber as the spring becomes less extended.
Canal rays or positive rays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode_ray) are beams of positively charged ions; valve era technology, Townsend's home ground.

Since (in Structure of Space, 1943) Townsend wrote that he believed that space far away from masses should be the same as a highly *negative* electric charge, and therefore that mass was correlated with a positive electric charge, I am baffled as to why here in 1957 he is thinking that a *positive* ionic spray ought to make a mass lose weight. Surely it would be the other way around? But maybe he's thinking only in the terms of his weird gravitational-isotope materials (such as, eg, loess or quartz beach sand, which aren't normally considered to be *especially* anomalous).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loess - 20% clay, plus sand and silt. Okay, if one thought that sand was quartz, and quartz can rectify electricity and/or convert acceleration to electricity via the piezoelectric principle, one could see perhaps some of the reasoning. "The energy of gravitational acceleration converted to electricity has to go somewhere, so perhaps the crystal loses weight". That's already quite a stretch, and breaks the Equivalence Principle of GR, but reversing it so that charging the crystal also causes weight loss... there must be a whole chain of reasoning going on inside the little "and then a miracle occurs" cloud on the whiteboard there, which I have never been able to parse out.

Anyway, that's the Townsendian "static counterbary" rabbithole, which is slightly different from the Townsendian "dynamic counterbary" rabbithole, and both of which seem subtly different from Heim's "dynamic counterbarie" and presumably "static counterbarie".

Going on a journey, somewhere far out east
We'll find the time to show you, wonders never cease
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by natecull »

A chronology of Burkhard Heim's life from the "Protosimplex" website:

https://www.engon.de/protosimplex/downl ... nology.pdf
protosimplex 1 www.engon.de/protosimplex
Chronological Overview of the Research of Burkhard Heim
(The numbers in parentheses refer to the corresponding page numbers in the biography written by I. v. Ludwiger
“Burkhard Heim” Scorpio Verlag 2010, ISBN 978-3-942166-09-6)

February 9, 1925 Born in Potsdam, Germany
1938 First working homemade rocket which reached an altitude of about 100 m
Experiments with explosives
1941 Study of thermite explosives, studies in biology, astronomy
1943 Attended high school and night school, and he also gave private lessons in his spare time, but his health breaks down (41)
Lack of completion certificate in high school, but good and very good grades in high school and night school at the same time (43)
16.5.1943 Experiments with high explosive thermite
Met with Professor Warner Heisenberg, where Heim proposed the creation of nuclear fusion by means of a shaped charge explosive device (60)
Joined the German Air Force in Holland, then moved to Cisterna
1944 Given leave of absence from the army, went to Berlin at the Chemical-Technical Imperial Institute to synthesize thermite explosives (73ff)
05/19/1944 accidental explosion of thermite explosives in his hands, suffered the loss of both hands, hearing and vision (83)
Resided in different hospitals, underwent many operations
1945, 1946 Escaped to Bavaria, and finally moved to Nordheim (102ff)
November 1946, began the study of Chemistry in Göttingen (5 semesters)
1949 physics, mathematics and astronomy majors (137)
1952 Development of a unified field theory, without using Einstein’s nonsymmetrical Tensors (151)
Geometric quantization
Unified electromagnetic-gravitational field strength tensor, formed using a group theoretical basis.
Six-dimensional metric structures in R6 (152) (268)
March 23, 1953 Recognition of the need for a formal method of logic that is independent of human dualistic logic (Syntrometry) (164)
Beginning of the development of an aspect-based logic.
1953 Further work on the Mesofield theory
Studies in philosophy, biology, psychology, anthropology, astrophysics and cosmology
August 31, 1954 Presentation to Einstein (180, 184)
May 9, 1955 Presentation at the 3rd International Astronomical Congress in Stuttgart “The Contrabarie as a solution of the astronomical problem” 2 hours (155 ... 157)
1955 Solution of the Contrabarie equation (191)
Design of an arrangement for experimental verification of this effect (192)
January 24, 1956 Written reports were delivered to Mr. Rideout at the “Gravity Research Foundation”: “A Report on the developement of the Principle of the Dynamic Contrabarie” (198) and “Bericht über die Entwicklung des Prinzips der dynamischen Kontrabarie” (German version)
800 preliminary experiments with waveguide rings for the construction of the Contrabarie mechanism (206)
October 5, 1956 Degree from the University of Göttingen, thesis “Hydro and Thermodynamics as well as Spectroscopic Studies of the Filament System of NGS 1952” (186, 208)
September 12,1957 First experiment with the Contrabator (214)
October 25, 1957 Presentation at the meeting of the German Society of Rocketry and Space Travel (DGRR), (illegal tape recording) (217)
1958 Studies of four-dimensional projective differential geometry and quantum electrodynamics of subnuclear structure (187)
Design of a Contrabaric transformer for the conversion of radar waves into anti-gravity (188)
Study of depth psychology and psychiatry (188)
1958 Many articles appeared in newspapers and tabloids about Burkhard Heim
Appearances on radio and in movie newsreels and television (226)
Start of a stipend by Ludwig Bölkow (224)
February 1958 Contact with Prof. Hedwig Conrad-Martius (philosopher) (235)
Presumption that x5 and x6 act as controlling organizational coordinates (without knowing about the mediating physical interaction)
September 1959 Presentation to the Astronautical Congress in Bremen with prediction of a weak lunar magnetic field, the existance of which was confirmed a year later by Russian researchers (243)
June 4, 1959 Publication in “Flugkörper” (Missles), Part 1 (249)
June 26, 1959 Presentation to the European Research Center for Gravitational Research (EFG) in Rome (254)
Development of finite difference mathematics for Metron calculations (262)
1959 Selector theory (262)
Mathematical determination of the limit of gravitational attraction (RH ), allowing for chaotic cosmic matter distributions at larger distances (264)
1960 Discovery of further possible interactions between gravitational and electromagnetic fields (262)
Mathematical investigation of the 6-dimensional world geometry (268)
Publication of the first Institute report (275)
1961 Keynote address at the conference of the Centre Européen pour les Recherches sur la Gravitation (CERG) (273)
Study of unusual phenomena in Photoporesis (276)
Application of Metronic calculations in the six-dimensional theory of infinitesimal world structures in R6 (281)
Found the four hermetries a) ... d) (286)
Spring, 1962 Lecture in Milan to a meeting of C.E.R.G. (283)
1963 Participation in the TV show “Perspectiven” (Radio Bremen) (284)
Lower bound of the ponderable mass spectrum, electron mass, elementary charge, proton mass, Sommerfeld fine structure constant (approximately)
Link between the diameter D of the universe and the Metron tau
Geometrization of the fundamental constants
Quasi-static universe
Ages of the world (the universe)
Metronic actualization intervals
Formation of matter 14 billion years ago (287)
1964 Development of a new highly sensitive gravimeter (10-3 g) (289)
324-page typed script about Syntrometry (unpublished) (292)
Solution of the field equations → Exchange of maxima and minima of geometric sequences (fluxes) in R6,
Metronic structure fluxes, Reduction to six basic flow patterns through structural isomerism
Theory of the internal structure of elementary particles
1964 Construction of an EEG with 0.1 uV sensitivity (300)
Proposal to use the device to detect changes in metabolic processes of cancer cells in the human organism (301)
Mathematical analysis of the interaction between photons and gravity (308)
Proposal to demonstrate the the Contrabarie effect with light instead of radar waves (308)
Contact with Prof. Hans Bender (310)
Death of his father and assistant Henry Heim. Then several years of standstill in working with theoretical problems (296)
1965 Experiments with and without Jürgenson to record paranormal Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) (312)
11/22/1965 critical written comments on these experiments (312)
By 1974 more of his own experiments on paranormal EVP, approximately 1300 attempts (320)
Experiments to optimize atomization of fuel for petroleum powered engines (298)
1966 Construction of an optical test bench for the Contrabarie experiments (332)
From 1967 Work on the mass of elementary particles based on the Protosimplex theory (331)
November 17, 1969 Lecture at MBB, Ottobrunn for about 14 scientists, including Pascual Jordan (342)
November 11, 1969 Request to Springer-Verlag to publish his 1,200 page manuscript on the development of the unified field theory (344)
1970 Solution of the basic syntrometric equations (World Selector) in component form of partial structures (331)
Submission of an article “Results of the Theoretical Representation of some Elementary Physical Quantities” to Physics Letters B (was not published) (349)
1971 Purchase of a desktop computer DIEHL Algotronik for testing the formulas obtained (although only 9 digit accuracy could be obtained for the calculated constants) (332)
Early 70’s Further work on Syntrometry and its application to biological and psychological problems (335)
November 28, 1971 Mass formulas for the ground states of elementary particles (356)
1973 Paper, “Properties of Elementary Particles Derived from Field Equations” submitted to Physical Review D and Il Nuovo Cimentao (was not published) (363)
1974 Lecture “The Cosmic Realm of Human Experience” presented to the fifth IMAGO MUNDI Congress (366)
1975 Participated in a panel discussion at Austrian Broadcasting, Salzburg on “Parapsychology and Religion” (Night Studio) on 02/17/1975 (376)
Submission of 370 typewritten pages of “Syntrometrical Maximum Telecentric” at MBB (384)
1976 Lecture “The Elementary Processes of Life” presented to the sixth IMAGO MUNDI Congress (366)
1977 Publication: “Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen” (Proposal for a Method to Find a Unified Description of Elementary Particles) in Zeitschrift für Naturforschung (369)
1978 Submission of the manuscript for Volume 1 “Elementary Structures of Matter” to the Springer Verlag for an English edition on 12/12/1978 (Publishing was put on hold by the publishing house) (379)
Interview with Peter Ripota at a meeting of Imago Mundi (408)
1980 Lecture “Post-mortem states?” presented to the seventh IMAGO MUNDI Congress (366)
First error prone version of “Elementary Structures of Matter” Volume 1 (380)
Publication of the book “Post-mortem states” (384)
Stipend from the firm MBB (2000 DM per month) to 1985 (389)
1981 Plan for an experiment using a rotating electrically neutral mass to generate a magnetic field (394)
Completion of Volume 2 of “Elementary Structures of Matter”
1982 Program for the mass formulas at DESY (had some minor bugs in programming)
1984 Publication of “Elementary Structures of Matter” Volume 2 (399)
Request grant from the German science ministry for the promotion of the rotation experiment (2 million DM) (395)
1985 Lecture by I. von Ludwiger, Auerbach, Harasim and Kroy “Laboratory Experiment for Testing the Gravi-Magnetic Hypothesis with Squid Magnetometers” for the proposed detection experiment (395)
From 1986 Together with Walter Dröscher worked on the derivation of interaction constants (402)
1986 Request to the Fachinformationszentrum, Karlsruhe, to review Volumes 1 to 3 (was rejected for lack of jurisdiction) (404)
1989 Substantially revised edition of Volume 1 (398)
Improved version of the mass formulas without additional weighting factors based on the derivations of volume 3 (425)
1992 Paper for the Journal of Scientific Exploration by Prof. H. Auerbach and I. v. Ludwiger: “Heim’s Theory of Elementary Particle Structures” (414), also published in 1993 MUFON-CES Volume 11 (416)
1993 Lecture “Basic Conditions of Health and Human Development”, presented at eleventh IMAGO MUNDI Congress (402)
Derivation of the interaction constants by W. Dröscher using cardinal number operations in R12 (415)
1994 Lecture Series by Burkhard Heim in the TU Berlin (May 13 to June 26) (422)
1995 H. Auerbach “Elementary Structures of Matter” for a magazine in Cambridge (not printed) (421)
1996 Volume 3, “Structures of the Physical World and Its Non-Material Aspects” (425)
Many health problems: fainting, intestinal tumors, inflammation of the pancreas (resulting from an operation), stroke with paralysis and inability to speak
Rehabilitation and restoration of ability to speak (436)
February 3, 2000 Lecture in the Pflaum Publishing on “Ethics in Complementary Medicine” (437)
Severe cerebral hemorrhage caused by clot interfering prescription drugs (437)
2001 Pneumonia
Burkhard Heim died on January 14, 2001 (438)
Establishment of the Heim Theory working group, www.heim-theory.com (442)
Recalculation of the mass formula with currently known more accurate values of the constants of nature, giving better results than 1982 (444)
Bifurcation of Heim Theory and Extended Heim theory (EHT) with further development of specific aspects of the latter with R8 by Walter Dröscher (444)
October 28, 2006 Death of Gerda Heim
2009 Corrected derivation of Heim’s theory of gravity with a presentation of the foundations of Mesofield theory by Dr. Konrad Green (previously unreleased) (148, 445)
K. Grüner. “Notes on Heim's Theory of Gravity” in MUFON-CES Report 12 (451)

Olaf Posdzech
February 19, 2011

English translation by John Reed
February 21, 2011
version 0.91
Various emphases mine.

So one of the first things that I see is that Heim came to the attention of the GRF - and presumably to Townsend Brown - and with the phrase "dynamischen Kontrabarie" no later than January 1956. With a presentation before that in Germany in May 1955.

Did Townsend use the phrase "dynamic counterbary" before 1955?

Heim's sponsor, Ludwig Bölkow , and why he always had a connection with the aeronautical company MBB (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm):

Ludwig Bölkow (30 June 1912 – 25 July 2003) was one of the aeronautical pioneers of Germany.
Bölkow's first job was with Heinkel, the aircraft company, before studying aero-engineering at the Technical University in Berlin. On graduation, in 1939, he joined the project office of Messerschmitt AG in Augsburg, where he served initially as a clerk, later as a group leader for high-speed aerodynamics, especially for the Messerschmitt Me 262 and its successors. In January 1943, he was appointed head of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 development office in Vienna. A year later, Bölkow returned to the Messerschmitt project office, which had meanwhile moved to Oberammergau. There he set up a program for the development of the Messerschmitt P.1101 jet fighter.[2]
After the war he created the Bölkow GmbH in Ottobrunn, which with time grew to the biggest aeronautics and spaceflight company, MBB (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm). In the early 1990s it was bought by DASA.

He carried out the construction of the first German satellite, Azur, launched in 1969.[3]

Bölkow was awarded the Ludwig-Prandtl-Ring from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Society for Aeronautics and Astronautics) for "outstanding contribution in the field of aerospace engineering" in 1972. He was awarded a Gold Medal by the British Royal Aeronautical Society in 1978.
Regards, Nate
Going on a journey, somewhere far out east
We'll find the time to show you, wonders never cease
User avatar
Jan Lundquist
Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2023 7:19 pm
Spam Prevention: Yes

Re: Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by Jan Lundquist »

Nate, two points because that's all I have time for...

Why did Townsend call it a Venusian Scout ship? I get that Adamski did, but did Townsend really accept that it came from Venus?

And secondly, I remember that Townsend once told Linda about a scientist he knew who had suffered terrible wounds in an experiment gone wrong. I wonder where that account would fall in the TTB chronology?

Keeper of the Flame
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Burkhard Heim and "Dynamic Counterbary"

Post by natecull »

Why did Townsend call it a Venusian Scout ship? I get that Adamski did, but did Townsend really accept that it came from Venus?
I'm not sure. I think it was just the style of the time - in the circle of UFO-watching engineers which would have included NICAP in the USA and Flying Saucer Review in the UK - to call it the "Venusian Scout Ship" whether or not they believed Adamski.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned Håkan Blomqvist of UFO-Sweden (now the Archives for the Unexplained) but for some reason I seem to have one of those odd synchronistic connections with him, because I found and read one of his books in the public library back in the 1980s in New Zealand. (Not entirely synchronistic, perhaps, since Riley Crabb of Borderland Sciences had retired to New Zealand earlier that decade, so there was a bit of a swirling underbelly of Theosophical-aligned weirdness under our country's placid seeming normality.). So as well as inhaling the Townsend Brown legendarium, I also hit my teenage years with a more than usual awareness of the deeply Not Nuts and Bolts strangeness of the whole UFO scene. For that reason I kind of ran screaming from it for quite a few years. As did Blomqvist, I believe, before coming back to the subject later in life.

Anyway. Blomqvist in his blog ( https://ufoarchives.blogspot.com/ ) - a bit like Michael Swords at "The Big Study" - has spent several years detailing the anomalous links to Adamski's story. I mean, I find Adamski's saucer profoundly visually implausible... and yet it seems like quite a few people around him claimed to have seen them. So many that it almost seems like there's an inherent eeriness about that image. Like Whitley Strieber's grey alien face, it does weird sideways things to the brain and I don't quite like it. Steven Spielberg's flashing, technological saucers are much tamer, more understandable. Adamski's... it oozes 1930s in its design, with brute-force overtones I don't enjoy. I *want* very much to think that it's a fake, but I've always feared that it's not. And if it does indeed come from another world, I don't much like the beings who chose to use (or copy, or project) that decade's industrial design language as their "hello" symbol.

An example of some of the odd synchronicity around Adamski, from Leonard Cramp's "Piece for a Jig-Saw" (1966):
I would most earnestly stress that I have not deliberately set myself the task of supporting Adamski out of personal inclination, rather have
I set myself the task of discovering the truth as an engineer. At this juncture I would like to take the opportunity to place on record an interesting fact about the central inducer shield or column, which some readers may remember I showed in the cut-away frontispiece of Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer in 1954, which otherwise would not be known publicly.

The late Waveney Girvan introduced me to Desmond Leslie, author of Flying Saucers Have Landed, and we discussed some of George Adamski's photographs. I mentioned the likelihood of the central column to Mr Leslie, whereupon he gave me a sketch made by Adamski showing the same thing clearly. This sketch was also later printed in Inside the Space Ships. At that time it would have been natural, therefore, if readers of my book, in which I portrayed the central column, had harboured the thought that either Adamski or I had directly or indirectly influenced one another, but this was not so; I considered the idea independently, but Adamski had already placed it on record in the sketch. It is just one more little technical point in George Adamski's favour, unknown to the public, which I have to mention, for, together with the other data I shall offer, it looks as though many of us may have a lot of reproachful thinking to do.

Some time after the publication of Space, Gravity and the Flying Saucer I received a letter from Mr Adamski, in which he very warmly commended
my sketch of the interior of a 'scout ship'. He asked me frankly if I had ever been inside one, and if not, he went on to say, 'it was the nearest
representation an earthman could get by mere imagination alone.' I offer this with no sense of self aggrandizement, rather as a measure of his
sincerity, after all, I never wrote to Adamski, therefore he was not obliged to write to me.

It would be natural if the reader suspected that some of my conclusions had been influenced by reading Inside the Space Ships, but this is not so, for strange as it may seem, only very recently have I read this completely, and have been rather astonished to recognise some of these facts myself.
If Townsend Brown was wired into this circle of people who like Cramp and Leslie were fascinated by Adamski, then I can see how he also might have come to the conclusion that there was something more than just simple fakery going on.

And yet! At a basic emotional level, I don't like the Scout Ship and I don't trust it. It feels like something that could have been designed and built in 1930s Germany and that comparison doesn't make me feel happy. I don't want it to be a real thing. And of course, whatever the 1950s "space beings" might have been, they don't seem to have been straightforwardly honest dealers in their relationships with humans. They seem to exist as thoughtforms in a kind of twilight world made out of pieces of science fiction.

And yet, despite that.... I also get a kind of warm feeling for their message, goofy as the trappings were. The warnings about nuclear apocalypse and ecological disaster (and perhaps also AI takeover), 70 years later, feel even more urgent than before. Even though every specific warning about every specific apocalypse never comes true. I also feel like there probably are beings watching us, who have been with us for a very long time, who wish us well. It's all very complicated.

Going on a journey, somewhere far out east
We'll find the time to show you, wonders never cease
Post Reply