Re: GP-B Final results

On Mon, 9 May 2011 20:47:44 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse
<jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 9, 7:38 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 18:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Eric Gisse

<jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 9, 11:15 am, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2011 07:20:07 -0700 (PDT), WalterOrlov

<wor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 5, 12:40 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
NASA Headquarters Auditorium
300 E. Street SW
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Time: 1:00-2:00 pm EDT

Final Results to be Posted on this Web Page

From the beginning the mission went wrong:

"The first analysis of this data revealed unexpected anomalies. The
gyroscopes had behaved badly - wandering around and pointing in
strange orientations. Irregular patches on the surfaces of the spheres
were to blame. Everitt knew about these patches and expected
interactions with the housing that would create small forces, or
torques. But unanticipated patches on the housing itself amplified
these electrostatic interactions. 'The torques were 100 times larger
than we were expecting,' says Everitt. 'It was a horrible shock.'"

So, the error was 100 times the expected impact! Even for the amateur,
it is quite clear that the project failed. Today's jubilation over
alleged confirmation of general relativity is a mockery of the human

It is hard to understand how the team selected a perfect sphere to
represent a Gyro. The inertia tensor is completely degenerate-there is
no preferred axis. it would make the worst possible gyro. It's no
wonder they encountered a strange  wandering about.

Absent other forces, it isn't going to wander. It would just spin in

Of course it's not going to move laterally but the article pointed out
that it appeared to wander in angle at random just as if it were not

That is not true. At all.

You may wish to investigate the modeling and analysis done. Francis
Everitt has authored some papers on the subject...

Apparently they are not aware that that's because all the gyroscopic
forces self neutralize. A sphere is the worst possible choice for
gyroscopic action.

The ball has a tensor which can be shown as J times the identity
        1  0 0
         0  1 1 x J  = J
         0  0  1
If you apply arbitrary rotations R(A) the similarity transform, for a
second-rank tensor is, trivially,
               -R[J]R  = J
it is absolutely unaffected by the rotation and reduces to its
original native form.
In other words it doesn't matter how fast it is spinning, the sphere
itself can rotate independently, subject to random rotational drifts,
with zero gyroscopic consequences!

That's the point. The ball is free to rotate in any direction it

The rotation is detected using superconductivity, in a rather cool

Do some reading.

To me it appears that the experiment could not possibly have

Yes, I see the readout scheme, where the ball is coated with niobium
such that a magnetic field is created on the spin axis when the ball
is spun at 4000 rpm and they have the means on the stator of reading
this field out.
Try to understand this: the ball itself is not a gyroscope, it has
zero gyroscopic rigidity because there is no preferred axis. Another
way of putting it is that the ball has no grip on space, and keep in
mind, it is Einstein's grip on space that we're discussing.

You might be surprised at this: the experiment would remain
essentially unchanged if the ball were not spinning at all because it
has no gyroscopic properties, as I demonstrated (-RJR = J). The sole
function of the spinning is to generate the magnetic field and it is
ONLY this magnetic field that is preserved as a measure of orientation
in space. (Obviously there will be some disturbance from the act of
reading out the magnetic field).

Therefore I maintain that the thrust of this whole experiment is
severely misaligned. For whatever success is claimed for the findings,
we can only say that frame dragging (if any) only demonstrates its
effects on a magnetic field. To my understanding, a magnetic effect is
not the intent of the (purported) Einstein's frame dragging theory.
In addition, the frank assessment given above, e.g. "100 times
expected deviation, etc." should be given serious consideration before
proclaiming another brilliant success for Einstein.

John Polasek