Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein's Space-Time Theories

Source

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c588c44653c.jpg[/atsimg]
Einstein's predicted geodetic and frame-dragging effects, and the Schiff Equation for calculating them.

Researchers have confirmed two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, concluding one of NASA's longest-running projects. The Gravity Probe B experiment used four ultra-precise gyroscopes housed in an Earth-orbiting satellite to measure two aspects of Einstein's theory about gravity. The first is the geodetic effect, or the warping of space and time around a gravitational body. The second is frame-dragging, which is the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.

Gravity Probe-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision by pointing at a single star, IM Pegasi, while in a polar orbit around Earth. If gravity did not affect space and time, GP-B's gyroscopes would point in the same direction forever while in orbit. But in confirmation of Einstein's theories, the gyroscopes experienced measurable, minute changes in the direction of their spin, while Earth's gravity pulled at them.

The project as been in the works for 52 years.

The findings are online in the journal Physical Review Letters.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c1e5d6c413c.jpg[/atsimg]
Artist concept of Gravity Probe B orbiting the Earth to measure space-time, a four-dimensional description of the universe including height, width, length, and time.



I had to share this for all of the Einstein haters on this site. It seems as of lately people are trying very hard to disprove this man's ideas even though they come through in a lot of experiments.

I think rather than people going against Einstein, they should be working with his numbers and ideas. I am not saying not to think outside of the box, I am just saying if it has been proven and works, why fix it?

Any thoughts?

Pred...

Interesting news.
I can imagine some other people who also dont use the search function will also post it again later on today.

Previous thread.

Thank you. I read about that earlier this year and appreciate your posting their findings. Opens up lots of possibilities beyond my pay grade and understanding. Seems to me this enforces the idea of travel from point A to B by bending space if I understand this at all.

reply to post by predator0187
I am no scientist but let me explain this the best I can.
If you are familiar the Niels Bohr Model of the atom it would help. Using this model we founded modern chemistry with countless beliefs to mankind.

But this model is correct only when used to describe certain chemical reactions.

The problem was, and is, that this model is wrong and the parts that are wrong opened up a new world of quantum physics and countless other particle sciences along with new energies to explore.

Holding to an old model that has way to many cracks is a sure way to miss some very important discoveries.

But these old models are still very useful in teaching and learning. But just to be clear the holding on to old models of science is why it took 20 years for cold fusion to come and they had to change the name in order to save face.

This is dogma and science looks more and more like religion every day.

Does frame dragging lend any credence to the "dead" Aether?

I for one cannot shake it. In my mind it must exist in some form. Hendrik Lorentz believed it to exist until the day he died (arguably an even more brilliant mind than Einstein). I'm quite aware of the former arguments against it by the way.

Is it now just called the "Fabric Of Spacetime"?

reply to post by Ubeen


Niels Bohr was not wrong, neither was Einstein or Newton.

The important thing to remember (and this applies to mainstream science of course) is that they all have their place. No more, no less. Einstein added an "*" to Newton's equations and I have no doubt an "*" will be added to Einstein's. Einstein's equations will likely be superseded but they are, and probably will always be extremely effective in the appropriate context. I agree with you more than you might think by the way.

reply to post by Ubeen


Huh? That model was never meant to be taken literally. Educate yourself before you throw around words like 'religion' and 'dogma'.

reply to post by Ubeen


Well I am very familiar with the Bohr model for the atom, and while when it was made it was a way to visualize what the atom looked like. That is not what the atom looks like though as the electrons form a wave pattern, from the probability of where the electron might be. We still use Bohr's model though because what we understand in particle physics is hard to give a picture to, we can understand it's math but to visualize the actual atom is a little more different.

It's kind of like the idea of a 4th dimension, that math can be understood much easier than the concept.

Science is based on learning and facts, that change continuously, if this experiment had turned out another way then we would have figured out what went wrong with calculations, and modified our science. Religion does nothing of the sort, they still believe the earth is 6000 years old.

Comparing tested and proven science to religion is true ignorance IMO.

Pred...

Originally posted by predator0187

The project as been in the works for 52 years.

It's about time!
Thanks for sharing.

I had to share this for all of the Einstein haters on this site. It seems as of lately people are trying very hard to disprove this man's ideas even though they come through in a lot of experiments.

I think rather than people going against Einstein, they should be working with his numbers and ideas. I am not saying not to think outside of the box, I am just saying if it has been proven and works, why fix it?

I got the impression that Einstein expected someone to come along after him and do the same thing to his theory that he did to Newton's classical mechanics. That seemed to match observation for the most part too, except for a few little things that didn't add up like precession of Mercury. There are still a few things that don't add up right and it won't surprise me at all if we have to tweak Einstein's stuff the way he tweaked Newton's stuff...but that's not really the same as throwing it out. Newton's mechanics still works pretty well at non-relativistic speeds, and it did match observation, though it wasn't the complete answer. Observations seem to agree with Einstein's theory but it may not be the complete answer either.

When we can't account for 95-96% of stuff in the universe like dark matter and dark energy, that's not a trivial problem. But people like to point at that and say it means Einstein is wrong...but that conclusion doesn't logically follow. The solution may or may not involve anything in Einstein's theories...we just don't know much about dark matter or dark energy yet.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Tweaking is good though as that is the only way to positively improve your theory. I think Einstein expected his theories to be tweaked as well, as that is the only way to advance. And with our understanding only explaining about 5% of the universe we need constructive criticism, and hopefully we make a large breakthrough soon because dark matter/energy seems to have everyone stumped at the moment.

Dark matter/energy is a weird one, they had those experiments set up underground and found nothing. Same with the experiments testing for gravity waves. I honestly think scientists learn more from bad experiments than good ones, though both help progress. We need another great thinker...

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


This is cool news, however I can't stand the diagrams they make for illustrating this concept. There isn't a 2D fabric that we are sitting on like in the picture... Rather it is a 3D spacetime curving vortex towards the center of the earth, isn't it?

The frame dragging reminds me of the aether experiments as well, only it isn't an aether in the old sense, but a quantized ZPE or vacuum density of the spacetime medium.

Nasa Article

Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity.

Is this the same gravity probe b that NASA had to come up with "corrections" to the gyro data algorithms for electrical charges that interfering with the gyros in order to get the results they wanted?
So, a creative interpretation of the raw data "proves" that Einstein was right all along?
This project was an epic failure and massive waste of money.

The electrostatic patches also cause small torques on the gyroscopes, particularly when the space vehicle axis of symmetry is not aligned with the gyroscope spin axes. Torques cause the spin axes of the gyroscopes to change orientation, and in certain circumstances, this effect can look like the relativity signal GP-B measures. Fortunately, the drifts due to these torques have a precise geometrical relationship to the misalignment of the gyro spin/vehicle symmetry axis and can be removed from the data without directly affecting the relativity measurement.
Both of these discoveries first had to be investigated, precisely modeled and carefully checked against the experimental data before they could be removed as sources of error. These additional investigations have added more than a year to the data analysis, and this work is still in process. To date, the team has made very good progress in this regard, according to its independent Science Advisory Committee, chaired by relativistic physicist Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., that has been monitoring every aspect of GP-B for the past decade.

news.stanford.edu...
So, it was electricity in space that was fooling their expensive precision sensors into believing Einstein was wrong? That's funny, because the amount of movement the probe should encounter due to "warping" of space-time" is minuscule compared to all the other effects taking place on the probe. All it takes is creative interpretation of the data and corrections to get needed .039 arc-seconds(.000011 degrees) per year.

"Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein's Space-Time Theories" WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. God, evolutionists and atheists can you stop being arbitrary and gullible and believing whatever is claimed as evidence for evolution? Can you do that? Read it and blush and weep you simpleton anti-scientific myth-spreaders who lack the common sense to fact check: gravity.tk...

Would I be wrong in saying that antimatter is/is a type of "frame dragging"?/? Would I also be wrong in saying that the picture of the general theory of relativity is misrepresented, that gravity extends to all reaches of the universe. That there is no "stop/flat part" to the pocket.

Originally posted by You2Two2AreSpecial
Would I be wrong in saying that antimatter is/is a type of "frame dragging"?/?

Yes.

The experiment did not measure any aspect of gravitation and antimatter.

Can anyone explain what this means in the simplest terms possible?

Originally posted by ch0senbygrace
"Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein's Space-Time Theories" WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. God, evolutionists and atheists can you stop being arbitrary and gullible and believing whatever is claimed as evidence for evolution? Can you do that? Read it and blush and weep you simpleton anti-scientific myth-spreaders who lack the common sense to fact check: gravity.tk...

This guy says it is a hoax. Can anyone prove him wrong?
Thanks in advance.

reply to post by predator0187


So gravitational changes in or around Earth will alter the effects of time? So perhaps the general belief that "time is passing faster" is indicating a gravitational change in the solar system/galaxy that while minuscule is detected by our more animalistic senses?

reply to post by ch0senbygrace


A religious nut case that claims it's wrong because the evidence doesn't appear to suit him, but offers no alternative or reasoning for his claims.