Gravity probe?

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 12:55:09 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2014 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:



On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:15:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Fri, 2 May 2014 20:09:52 +0000 (UTC), Greg Hennessy



wrote:







On 2014-05-02, wrote:



What happened to Gravity Probe B, the Stanford



experiment to test GR? They sent their detector



into orbit 3 years ago, but since then, no word.



Anybody here connected to that?







Could be prime grist for the conspiracy intellectuals -







The final results were released in May 2011. The results were



published in Physical Review Letters.







A copy can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456







Gravity probe B Is a disgraceful example of bad science passed off as



the real thing. The 4 gyroscopes were nothing but perfectly round



quartz spheres, which possess zero gyroscopic properties. Check your



Goldstein. This fundamental fact seems to have escaped the sponsors of



this experiment, also the 70 Phd's who earned their stripes trying to



straighten out the errors.



The balls did not have one point of support but floated in space. Any



sidewise pressure on the spin vector would simply add to the spin



vector without any resistance normally supplied by precession.



The gyroscopic property depends on the difference between moments of



inertia on the 3 axes. In this case they are all equal.



When supported by one point, such as a top, it will precess and resist



toppling, because I did my own testing. But when supported by 1 point



there is another set of equations that appliesbut of course not here.



John Polasek



Computer science data extrapolated from that mission was revised in order to obtain anything meaningful, so there's no telling what was actually measured because Earth isn't round nor without mascon issues, not to mention what modulation our moon contributes. In other words, far too many variables taking place.

You need to come to grips with this statement: a uniform sphere has no

gyroscopic properties. It is fatal.

There's also the problem that in setting up this experiment, it would

not have been possible to simulate it because it needs a gravity free

environment to float the Gyro Ball.

As I recall, the principal investigator enlightened us initiates by

boasting about the "extra inch". I take this to mean that instead of

going 25,000 miles around in orbit, the Einstein drag provided an

extra tilt that added 1.0" to what would otherwise have been

1,584,000,000 inches. Such precision is impossible, especially read at

the radius of 1 inch of the ball.

It looks to me like the experiment is fundamentally impossible.

John Polasek

It certainly was interpreted by those most at risk, instead of by any truly independent individuals that could have performed a purely objective analysis.

On Tue, 06 May 2014 15:55:09 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 6 May 2014 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:15:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 20:09:52 +0000 (UTC), Greg Hennessy

wrote:



On 2014-05-02, wrote:

What happened to Gravity Probe B, the Stanford

experiment to test GR? They sent their detector

into orbit 3 years ago, but since then, no word.

Anybody here connected to that?
A copy can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456



Gravity probe B Is a disgraceful example of bad science passed off as

the real thing. The 4 gyroscopes were nothing but perfectly round

quartz spheres, which possess zero gyroscopic properties. Check your

Goldstein. This fundamental fact seems to have escaped the sponsors of

this experiment, also the 70 Phd's who earned their stripes trying to

straighten out the errors.

The balls did not have one point of support but floated in space. Any


Guth:
Computer science data extrapolated from that mission was revised in order to obtain anything meaningful, so there's no telling what was actually measured because Earth isn't round nor without mascon issues, not to mention what modulation our moon contributes. In other words, far too many variables taking place.
JP
You need to come to grips with this statement: a uniform sphere has no
gyroscopic properties. It is fatal.
There's also the problem that in setting up this experiment, it would
not have been possible to simulate it because it needs a gravity free
environment to float the Gyro Ball.
As I recall, the principal investigator enlightened us initiates by
boasting about the "extra inch". I take this to mean that instead of
going 25,000 miles around in orbit, the Einstein drag provided an
extra tilt that added 1.0" to what would otherwise have been
1,584,000,000 inches. Such precision is impossible, especially read at
the radius of 1 inch of the ball.
It looks to me like the experiment is fundamentally impossible.
John Polasek
Excuse me, Brad, because I erased your message in the process of
pruning, but you're right, the results were judged by those with a
vested interest.
2 more points: see Eulers equations 5-36 of Goldstein where all the
action depends on the difference between moments of inertia, meaning
that there is no action, and no gyroscopic action, if there's no
difference.
Aside from that, the claimed 1 inch accuracy comes down to a distance
of 0.016 nanometers on a 1 inch radius, far short of a 400 nm
lightwave.
John Polasek

On Tue, 6 May 2014 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
wrote:

On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:15:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014 20:09:52 +0000 (UTC), Greg Hennessy

Computer science data extrapolated from that mission was revised in order to obtain anything meaningful, so there's no telling what was actually measured because Earth isn't round nor without mascon issues, not to mention what modulation our moon contributes. In other words, far too many variables taking place.
I'm replying to this message of yours because I accidentally wiped out
your latest message in which you pointed out that the results of the
experiment were judged by those who had a vested interest.

2 other points: See Euler's equations in Goldstein (5-36), where it is
plain that gyroscopic action depends on differences in moments of
inertia between axes and the quartz ball is therefore disqualified.

Just to highlight that the 1 "extra inch" is entirely unrealistic, it
amounts to .016 nm, so much shorter than a 400 nm wavelength.

John Polasek

On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:20:17 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2014 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth

wrote:



On Monday, May 5, 2014 8:15:47 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Fri, 2 May 2014 20:09:52 +0000 (UTC), Greg Hennessy



Computer science data extrapolated from that mission was revised in order to obtain anything meaningful, so there's no telling what was actually measured because Earth isn't round nor without mascon issues, not to mention what modulation our moon contributes. In other words, far too many variables taking place.

I'm replying to this message of yours because I accidentally wiped out

your latest message in which you pointed out that the results of the

experiment were judged by those who had a vested interest.



2 other points: See Euler's equations in Goldstein (5-36), where it is

plain that gyroscopic action depends on differences in moments of

inertia between axes and the quartz ball is therefore disqualified.



Just to highlight that the 1 "extra inch" is entirely unrealistic, it

amounts to .016 nm, so much shorter than a 400 nm wavelength.


John Polasek

It seems as oddly subjective science, and yet we've paid for it multiple times by now.

Not a very good if any return on investment.