Gravity Probe C



 Science > Physics > Gravity Probe C

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Tom Potter"
Date: 28 Jan 2008 08:27:58 AM
Object: Gravity Probe C
Excerpts from a couple of posts I made about Gravity Probe B
are listed below.
As I predicted on April 11,
the results to be annouinced on April 15
would be "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
As can be seen, the General Relativity Welfare Mothers
announced that they would
"announce the final results of the experiment in December 2007".
What were the "final results"?
Have they proven or disproven GTR,
or will they try to con the taxpayers out of a few billion
more dollars for "Gravity Probe C"?
Quote
======================
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Gravity Probe B results
Date: 15 Apr 2007 05:36:14 -0700
As I posted on 11 April 2007 Wednesday 5:06 PM,
=======================================
"as can be seen by the recent news,
over one billion of the tax payers dollars have been spent
on just one of the many projects to rationalize General Relativity
( Gravity Probe-B ).
Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
===============================================
Here is the report on the Gravity Probe B frame dragging experiment
which was released today 4/15/2007.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
"The other effect, called frame-dragging, is the amount by which the
rotating Earth drags local space-time around with it. According to
Einstein's theory, over the course of a year, the geodetic warping of
Earth's local space-time causes the spin axes of each gyroscope to
shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule angle of 6.606 arc-
seconds (0.0018 degrees) in the plane of the spacecraft's orbit.
Likewise, the twisting of Earth's local space-time causes the spin
axis to shift by an even smaller angle of 0.039 arc-seconds (0.000011
degrees) - about the width of a human hair viewed from a quarter mile
away - in the plane of the Earth's equator. GP-B Scientists expect to
announce the final results of the experiment in December 2007,
following eight months of further data analysis and refinement.
<Data has been on file for two years, and although over one billion
dollars has been spent on this particular rationalization of General
Relativity, they need at least eight more months to <cook the books?>
==============
End quote
--
Tom Potter
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
.

User: "Eric Gisse"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe C 28 Jan 2008 02:19:55 PM
On Jan 28, 5:27 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Are you going to analyze the data yourself to find the "fraud" or are
you just going to claim they did such a good job faking the data that
you can't tell?
.

User: "Ken S. Tucker"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe C 31 Jan 2008 03:06:14 AM
On Jan 28, 6:27 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Excerpts from a couple of posts I made about Gravity Probe B
are listed below.

As I predicted on April 11,
the results to be annouinced on April 15
would be "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."

As can be seen, the General Relativity Welfare Mothers
announced that they would
"announce the final results of the experiment in December 2007".

What were the "final results"?
Have they proven or disproven GTR,
or will they try to con the taxpayers out of a few billion
more dollars for "Gravity Probe C"?

Quote
======================
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Gravity Probe B results
Date: 15 Apr 2007 05:36:14 -0700

As I posted on 11 April 2007 Wednesday 5:06 PM,
=======================================
"as can be seen by the recent news,
over one billion of the tax payers dollars have been spent
on just one of the many projects to rationalize General Relativity
( Gravity Probe-B ).

Papers on the General Relativity experiment will be forthcoming
in a few days, and maybe, just maybe,
the scientists on the taxpayer dole,
who promoted this project will make the astounding announcement
that "Yes Virginia, frame dragging MIGHT occur."
===============================================

Here is the report on the Gravity Probe B frame dragging experiment
which was released today 4/15/2007.

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

"The other effect, called frame-dragging, is the amount by which the
rotating Earth drags local space-time around with it. According to
Einstein's theory, over the course of a year, the geodetic warping of
Earth's local space-time causes the spin axes of each gyroscope to
shift from its initial alignment by a minuscule angle of 6.606 arc-
seconds (0.0018 degrees) in the plane of the spacecraft's orbit.
Likewise, the twisting of Earth's local space-time causes the spin
axis to shift by an even smaller angle of 0.039 arc-seconds (0.000011
degrees) - about the width of a human hair viewed from a quarter mile
away - in the plane of the Earth's equator. GP-B Scientists expect to
announce the final results of the experiment in December 2007,
following eight months of further data analysis and refinement.
<Data has been on file for two years, and although over one billion
dollars has been spent on this particular rationalization of General
Relativity, they need at least eight more months to <cook the books?>

American's are good mass production engineer's
(until japan and china beat them), but bad at
science. It's the profit culture, or lack of knowing
how science and business relate.
If the administration says "we need more scientists"
then the bar is lowered, voila, more scientists.
Need 10,000 more Ph.ds, suddenly "navel lint" is
a respectable grounds for a thesis, it's that culture,
extreme political conformity, chase the bucks.
Meanwhile the US trade deficit is $250 billion/year,
the debt is soaring to $100k/US taxpayer and the
economy is in a tail spin....gee I wonder why???
Fact, the US cannot mass produce theoreticians.
Following WW2 the US bought up theoreticians
cheap, and made them "naturalized americans"
Einstein and von Braun are famous examples.
True, the US can build an instrument, but they
can't figure out why it won't work, that requires
a "trouble-shooter".
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=98=A0Relf?="

Title: Gravity Probe B's =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9C?= final results =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9D.?= 28 Jan 2008 05:23:35 PM
Re: Gravity Probe B's “ final results ”,
The December 2007 date has been moved to May 2008,
and independent verification will come years after that.
.
User: "Eric Baird"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe B's final results . 30 Jan 2008 10:03:17 PM
On 28 Jan 2008 23:23:35 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Re: Gravity Probe B's final results ,

The December 2007 date has been moved to May 2008,
and independent verification will come years after that.

Damn! Weren't they supposed to be finished by last May or something?
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC
.
User: "Ken S. Tucker"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe B's " final results ". 31 Jan 2008 01:52:26 AM
Hi Mr. Baird.
On Jan 30, 8:03 pm, Eric Baird wrote:

On 28 Jan 2008 23:23:35 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Re: Gravity Probe B's " final results ",


The December 2007 date has been moved to May 2008,
and independent verification will come years after that.


Damn! Weren't they supposed to be finished by last May or something?

=Erk= (Eric Baird)http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC

Nice looking effort. One of the 1st relativity books I
purchased was Martin Gardner's "Relativity for the
MIllion" back in Gr.9, very readable, a few basic
equations. more insight than rigor, good diagrams,
and inspirational.
As to your approach using "aberration", I've see that
to be exceptionally rigorous. I've posted a few briefs
on "Modern Space Time" at this site,
http://physics.trak4.com/
for my friends, that you may find helpful, that support
that approach.
Best of luck in your writing career Eric.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
.

User: "Eric Gisse"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe B's " final results ". 30 Jan 2008 11:34:06 PM
On Jan 30, 7:03 pm, Eric Baird wrote:

On 28 Jan 2008 23:23:35 GMT, Jeff?Relf <Jeff_R...@Yahoo.COM> wrote:

Re: Gravity Probe B's " final results ",


The December 2007 date has been moved to May 2008,
and independent verification will come years after that.


Damn! Weren't they supposed to be finished by last May or something?

=Erk= (Eric Baird)http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC

Yea, as I suspected. The relativity "book" is pretty much mathematics
free and written by someone ignorant of the domains of application
regarding SR and GR.
.



User: "Sam Wormley"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe C [Gravity Probe B reports] 28 Jan 2008 11:03:22 AM
Tom Potter wrote so stuff:
[snipped]
GP-B POST-FLIGHT ANALYSIS
MISSION UPDATE DECEMBER 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/final_report/GPB_FinalPFAR-091907-scrn.pdf
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/final_report/GPB_FinalPFAR-091907-prnt.pdf
.
User: "hanson"

Title: Re: Gravity Probe C [Gravity Probe B reports] 28 Jan 2008 12:26:33 PM
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:uVnnj.5572$yE1.2743@attbi_s21...


Sam said that "Tom Potter wrote so stuff" in:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b60aff3dc17b9d4 >
[snipped]


Sam Wormley wrote:
GP-B POST-FLIGHT ANALYSIS
MISSION UPDATE DECEMBER 2007
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/final_report/GPB_FinalPFAR-091907-scrn.pdf
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/final_report/GPB_FinalPFAR-091907-prnt.pdf


hanson wrote
So, Sam,
Notwithstanding that you snipped Potter's comments,
what does it say in the two 12.6 MB *pdf's which nobody
is going to read after reading in the 1st link:... "that GP-B
is on an accelerating path toward reaching good science
results."... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... Big fucking deal!
So Sam, did Potter just crank you into you counter cranking
him, that you posted this silly Stanford tripe?
What gives, Sam?... Potter sounded much more rational
and productive then what is written in your links... ahaha...
As usual, Sam, thanks for the laughs.... ahahahahanson


.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER