| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KoenigMKII
United Kingdom
42 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 15:53:41
|
Here is a link to a web site that has all the info on the recently launched NASA satellite. Surprisingly enough, the scientists responsible seem not have to have forgotten the scientific mehod, and have an open mind on the results.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
The obvious question for TVF is is "what does the Meta Model predict for the outcome of the experiment??" |
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 22 Apr 2004 : 16:39:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by KoenigMKII
Surprisingly enough, the scientists responsible seem not have to have forgotten the scientific mehod, and have an open mind on the results.
What you call "not forgetting the scientific method", I would call "dodging the scientific method". Dr. Everett, the PI on the experiment, refuses to make any prediction for this experiment. Apparently, the team will wait and see what develops, then explain it with GR and announce another triumph for GR regardless of what the result is.
quote:
The obvious question for TVF is is "what does the Meta Model predict for the outcome of the experiment??"
Until orbital elements and gyro specifics are released, MM cannot make specific predictions. Hopefully, that will be remedied after the one-month initialization and testing period. -|Tom|- |
 |
|
|
Astrodelugeologist
120 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 00:41:03
|
So if the data is in agreement with General Relativity, relativists claim it as a success, and if it isn't, they construct an ad hoc hypothesis and claim it as a success anyway?
That's not scientific at all. |
|
|
|
Jan
Netherlands
287 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 03:16:31
|
Tom,
I've given this frame dragging a little thought. Suppose we do observe a disalignment of the gyros of gravity probe B, could this be a result of elysium dragging instead of the alleged frame dragging scenario? |
|
|
|
KoenigMKII
United Kingdom
42 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 10:29:13
|
Tom, Polar orbit at 400 miles high is a faily quick orbit, if the gryros are as sensitive as claimed, won't GP-B detect the instantaneous position of Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars etc, rather than the light-time delayed ones, if MM is correct?
The GR bridgade have a "get-out-of-jail-free-card" ready for this.. or do they? |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 10:50:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jan
I've given this frame dragging a little thought. Suppose we do observe a disalignment of the gyros of gravity probe B, could this be a result of elysium dragging instead of the alleged frame dragging scenario?
Yes, frame dragging is a sort of elysium-dragging phenomenon. It arises because Earth's rotation drags inertial frames or elysium with the "solid" Earth somewhat, producing an extra precession.
I think that GR expects the inertial frame to be dragged with Earth's rotation at full speed. But it is difficult to find experts who will commit on that point. MM expects much less elysium dragging than GR probably does. And in MM, the precession mechanism is just the torque applied to the pendulums by elysium "rotational spin". However, it will be very difficult to assure that other unforeseen effects will not invalidate the interpretation of any result seen. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 10:57:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by KoenigMKII
won't GP-B detect the instantaneous position of Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars etc, rather than the light-time delayed ones, if MM is correct?
No. The full tugs of the planets are already almost negligible except over long time periods, so the tiny differences between instantaneous and delayed tugs would be even more negligible. And that is standard dynamics, having nothing to do with MM. Although "geometric" GR does not interpret instantaneous gravity as a propagation faster than light, it does recognize that gravitational force cannot be modeled with a light-speed delay and still get valid orbits. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Meta
102 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 11:21:57
|
Gravity Probe B
http://www.rgrace.org/126/145gravframe.html
The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that frame dragging and geodetic precession is caused by the intrinsic spiraling of space itself first, not matter. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that spiraling space causes the earth and all other planets and moons to spin and precess within the even larger spiraling field of the sun. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that Einstein is precise and has his relativity precisely backwards or his followers do, yet, Gravity Probe B will confirm that the perfectly backward, earth-referenced results are in perfect accord with the perfectly backward, earth-referenced Relativity.
But none of Relativity's earth-referenced spin and twist or Gravity Probe B's results are reality. It is space that is the source of first spin and IS both "charge" and "gravity".
Meta
rgrace@rgrace.org
Impossible Correspondence
http://www.rgrace.org/index.html
|
|
|
|
KoenigMKII
United Kingdom
42 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 11:42:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by tvanflandern
quote:
Originally posted by KoenigMKII
won't GP-B detect the instantaneous position of Sun, Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus, Mars etc, rather than the light-time delayed ones, if MM is correct?
No. The full tugs of the planets are already almost negligible except over long time periods, so the tiny differences between instantaneous and delayed tugs would be even more negligible. And that is standard dynamics, having nothing to do with MM. Although "geometric" GR does not interpret instantaneous gravity as a propagation faster than light, it does recognize that gravitational force cannot be modeled with a light-speed delay and still get valid orbits. -|Tom|-
I don't quite understand. If the Satellite is changing its position wrt Moon, the Satellite would be seeing over 1 Second in light time delay for a gravity signal (if no information can travel faster than light). In 1 second a 400 mile polar orbit satellite can travel a good distance. How can that difference be negligible for a satellite that is sensitive enough to detect "frame dragging"?
OK I can agree that the NASA team will use Einstein's equations that have infinite speed gravity plugged into them, so the instruments will not be set up to show the difference.
But the satellite does get FTL information (Moons postion) and if it were calibrated with light time delayed gravity, it would show a FTL gravity signal... ??
Sorry if I am making a total fool of myself.. but something is bothering me about this. |
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 12:01:41
|
KoenigMKII
in my view they won't detect the instaneous position of the Sun or other planets.
why? because they measuring the SPIN of astronomical bodies and seeing it's effects.notice that in jets coming from some galaxies,these jets are at the poles,now since every mass spins and that the spin for each mass varies the ability to produce visable jets also varies.(it is also dependent on the acceleration and volume)so that actually each spining mass has this same action,yet is unseen.
following this,which by the way is a hydrdynamic point of view,this means that at the Earths poles there is a slight jet action which may block any influence the Sun or planets may have.since also they have jet action but not in the direction of the earths poles.
more latter!!
any comments people!!?
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 23 Apr 2004 : 22:02:03
|
further,also there is the influence of the position at the equatorial of all Suns,planets etc. which reach out into the surrounding space.this influence(an example of which for instance that can be seen,rings around Neptune,Uranus etc.)if we start from the equatorial of the Sun moving then out,this influence then starts an interference pattern(a little like ripples in a large pond but with the ripples all differing in size,depth and reach of influence but together has become a steady overall pattern) with Mercury,Venus then Earth,Mars and so on.now these might cause, because of the complex patterns that evolve along with the vertical depth of the patterns might,possible, over come the effects of,what i think is only a slight jet action at the poles of the Earth.also you have the equatorial patterns that are coming in from Pluto,Uranus(interesting twist here!!) Neptune etc.
it will be curious to see what they find happens!! |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 12:35:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by KoenigMKII
If the Satellite is changing its position wrt Moon, the Satellite would be seeing over 1 Second in light time delay for a gravity signal (if no information can travel faster than light).
Gravitational force always acts so nearly instantaneously that no delay has ever been detected. Light-speed delays would be easy to detect.
Now that SR is falsified in favor of LR by the FTL propagation speed of gravitational force, the old idea that information cannot travel FTL is gone.
quote:
In 1 second a 400 mile polar orbit satellite can travel a good distance. How can that difference be negligible for a satellite that is sensitive enough to detect "frame dragging"?
That difference is not negligible. But both GR and MM treat gravity as acting nearly instantaneously, which gives the correct orbits. Light-speed delay gives the wrong orbits.
GR always knew this was the case. But the rationalization was the now-discredited "geometric" interpretation, in which gravity is not a force that propagates, but simply a curvature of spacetime, thereby not violating SR's prohibition against FTL propagation. The problems with that viewpoint are many:
* It is an effect without a cause. (Curvature alone cannot initiate motion.)
* It requires the creation of new momentum ex nihilo.
* Gravity is a force in 3-space by definition: the time rate of change of 3-space momentum. It must propagate to connect its cause (source mass) to its effect (target body).
* Spacetime has no spatial component.
* Etc. as in our 2002 paper in Foundations of Physics.
quote:
But the satellite does get FTL information (Moons postion) and if it were calibrated with light time delayed gravity, it would show a FTL gravity signal... ??
"Light-time-delayed gravity" (whatever that is) can't be made to work in even the most rudimentary applications to orbits, as even simple computer experiments show.
quote:
Sorry if I am making a total fool of myself.. but something is bothering me about this.
The fault for this confusion is not yours. A lot of physicists have been sweeping this sleeping dragon under the rug for the past century. The dragon has now awakened, and is angry. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Jim
1582 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 20:35:15
|
| I'm confused again-I thought the speed of gravity in SR&LR was the same as the speed of light and in MM was FTL. Now you say all these models have gravity at FLT or am I missing something else too? |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 21:32:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim
I'm confused again-I thought the speed of gravity in SR&LR was the same as the speed of light and in MM was FTL. Now you say all these models have gravity at FLT or am I missing something else too?
The two choices for gravity (meaning gravitational force) are near-infinite speed or no propagation at all because gravity is not a force. No one who knows what he/she is talking about claims that gravitational force propagates at speed c.
You are probably thinking of gravitational waves, which everyone (including me) agrees must propagate at speed c. However, gravitational waves have nothing to do with gravitational force, and in that way are really mis-named. Gravitational waves are waves of elysium, the light-carrying medium, also called space-time medium, aether, and gravitational potential field. Physicists used to think that the gravitational potential field caused gravitational force, but it now seems clear (to me, at least) that gravitational force causes gradients in the gravitational potential, not the other way around. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 21:54:09
|
Tom
so how does MM account for the Spin of all astronomical bodies? and why is this fundamental property of the Universe basicly ignored? |
|
|
|
Jim
1582 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 21:58:33
|
| I'm not thinking of waves at all. The speed of gravity was just last year being kicked around and "they" said it was equal to the speecd of light and you said it was FTL. The Jupiter and some star alignment was a big deal at the time. |
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2004 : 22:41:02
|
[quote:
In 1 second a 400 mile polar orbit satellite can travel a good distance. How can that difference be negligible for a satellite that is sensitive enough to detect "frame dragging"?
That difference is not negligible. But both GR and MM treat gravity as acting nearly instantaneously, which gives the correct orbits. Light-speed delay gives the wrong orbits.
GR always knew this was the case. But the rationalization was the now-discredited "geometric" interpretation, in which gravity is not a force that propagates, but simply a curvature of spacetime, thereby not violating SR's prohibition against FTL propagation. The problems with that viewpoint are many:
* It is an effect without a cause. (Curvature alone cannot initiate motion.)
_____________________________________________________________________
ANS:True, but actually there's SPIN!!
_____________________________________________________________________
* It requires the creation of new momentum ex nihilo.
____________________________________________________________________
ANS: NO actually it doesn't, SPIN!! now don't get me wrong Tom, but SPIN has been ignored in your theory for the most part.
|
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 00:37:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by north
now don't get me wrong Tom, but SPIN has been ignored in your theory for the most part.
I don't get you wrong because I don't get you at all. Spin is just angular momentum being conserved. What has that got to do with gravitational force??
Please be specific. No "magic wand" arguments. -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
tvanflandern
USA
2793 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 00:49:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jim
The speed of gravity was just last year being kicked around and "they" said it was equal to the speecd of light and you said it was FTL. The Jupiter and some star alignment was a big deal at the time.
The Kopeikin matter was resolved to the satisfaction of everyone except Kopeikin. His paper and claims about the speed of gravity were rejected. But he was later allowed to publish his experimental data as the first measurement of light bending by a planet.
Kopeikin failed to realize the very points I made above about the differences between gravitational force propagation and changes in gravitational potential fields. He was criticized not just by me, but by every mainstream relativist who chose to comment.
As usual, the popular science media covered the original sensational claims, but gave little if any coverage to the very-non-sensational outcome. If popular science media is what you mainly see, it is not too surprising that you missed it. But with each development, our web site added a short note and a citation just before the "Summary" near the end of our report on the Kopeikin affair at http://metaresearch.org/media%20and%20links/press/SOG-Kopeikin.asp -|Tom|- |
|
|
|
Jan
Netherlands
287 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 06:22:38
|
Tom,
quote:
Kopeikin failed to realize the very points I made above about the differences between gravitational force propagation and changes in gravitational potential fields. He was criticized not just by me, but by every mainstream relativist who chose to comment.
Why doesn't the media wait until scientific results have been sufficiently critized? After all, the media has a moral obligation to report news with a minimum of subjectivism.
Kopeikin's results on "speed of gravity" were presented by major news websites on relatively short notice. It seemed as if his results were fully accepted by the scientific community, but you clearly pointed out that this is not the case. Moreover, knowledgeable relativists were among those who raised objections.
Has the general public been misled by Kopeikin's results? (it surely looks that way)
|
|
|
|
north
Canada
518 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2004 : 10:43:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by tvanflandern
[quote]Originally posted by north
now don't get me wrong Tom, but SPIN has been ignored in your theory for the most part.
I don't get you wrong because I don't get you at all. Spin is just angular momentum being conserved. What has that got to do with gravitational force??
Please be specific. No "magic wand" arguments. -|Tom|-
___________________________________________________________________
Ans: in my way of thinking gravity is "ordered space" and it is the Spin of Galaxies,Suns,planets,Moons etc. that orders it. or gives space direction. to me space is filled with a 3D fluidic matrix thats in a state of non-direction or movement until acted upon.because of this matrix there is an instantaneous,in a solar system for example,of, if i may put it this way,gravity communication between the Sun and all of it's planets,moons etc.,although the further away from the Sun a planet is of course the less this is. and this "communication" is complicated by the coming together of all the spining masses space of influence,sort of like many ripples in a large pond meeting at many different places,angles and degrees of. this is where fluid-dynamics comes in, it is able to give a 3D picture of the dynamics and to my mind will give a complete picture of all the Universes astrophysical dynamics.now i have sought out a computer program which would enable me to do precisely this,however at the moment i have been told that there is no computer powerful enough to do this.
just a little note, i think that i can safely say that my view predicts galaxy jets,spiral arms and other equatorial dynamics.also there are other considerations such as magnetospheres and their influence,the travelling of the solar system it's self through space,the Milky Way itself. all these considerations and many more will all come under the analysis of fluid-dynamics.
no "magic wand" here!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gravity Probe B
