Re: Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- From: "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondouglas@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:01:14 -0700
On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, frankli...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:58 am, "Douglas Eagleson" <eaglesondoug...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I have often mentioned the term "polhode" in these status updates,
with a parenthetical reference to the motion of our gyroscope rotors.
Typically, a few days later I then receive a number of email messages,
asking for more information about this exotic word-what is the polhode
motion of the gyro rotors, and why is it important to the GP-B
experiment? In this month's GP-BMission News story, I will attempt to
answer these questions in more detail. I am most grateful to our GP-B
science team for their time and invaluable assistance in writing this
story. -Bob Kahn
A quote is given from the Stanford ProeBwebsite. A force has
effected significantly the data and I was wondering if this polhode
motion was measured on earth while it was gimballed?
A perfect mission did not occur and the interpretation has required
significant polhode signal removal, I think. Does anybody know
exactly.
My problem is the degree of force as strength apparently effected.
And to attribute after the fact a correct is a defective experiment.
The whole thing may have just gone down the tubes, theory verification
wise.
On a lighter note, I commented recently on a frame dragging force
being the cause of apparent dark matter. The guy calls this force,
"spinity".
An apparent problem is the degree of simliarity of the two forces in
general!
I say Stanford needs to confess, and claim spinity's existence!
Spinity! look over on sci.physics.relativity in the past two days.
I have been awaiting the results of the Gravity Probe B only to find
out that any significant results will not be released until November
2007. What the heck is going on? Your post seems to indicate that
there has been some kind of failure in the data collection assumptions
and no valid data may be forthcoming. Is this true???
Personally, I think that the results, if honestly analysed, will point
to something different - the existence of a preferred frame of
reference corresponding to zero velocity in the aether. If the aether
exists and absolute velocity can be determined, then the major effects
on the Gravity Probe B experiment will be the result of the gyroscopes
dragging and changing direction through this aether. They may see that
if they analyse their data properly, they will see a signal which
corresponds to an effect of a fixed frame - the same one identified by
the COBE satellite as a fixed frame moving at 300Kph in the direction
of the constelation leo. This signal should totally swamp any signal
they are trying to measure from frame dragging. They also won't be
able to subtract out this effect and come up with a genuine result
until they recognize this. Could this be possible?
fhuprobe- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
A temporary frame of reference as abstract aether appears.
All content causes and to have effect then implies aether, states the
theory you have.
I have the alternative somewhere posted. The basic quandery appears
the second the universe was applied. IN order to have theory classes
consistent. Your theory makes this possible:
A aether as universe related must then be stated. You distance
yourself from cosmology by form of theory, but it would likely solve.
.
- References:
- Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- From: Douglas Eagleson
- Re: Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- From: franklinhu
- Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- Prev by Date: Re: Layman's question about Gravitational waves
- Next by Date: Re: Death of reductionism and emergence of ... well ... emergent phenomenon
- Previous by thread: Re: Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- Next by thread: Re: Gravity Probe B-failure or special new success?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
