Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong
Softpedia.com ^ | March 24th, 2006, 12:39 GMT | By Vlad Tarko

Posted on 02/20/2014 3:47:32 PM PST by Kevmo

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

This gravitomagnetic field is similar to the magnetic field produced by a moving electric charge (hence the name "gravitomagnetic" analogous to "electromagnetic"). For example, the electric charges moving in a coil produce a magnetic field - such a coil behaves like a magnet. Similarly, the gravitomagnetic field can be produced to be a mass moving in a circle. What the electric charge is for electromagnetism, mass is for gravitation theory (the general theory of relativity).

A spinning top weights more than the same top standing still. However, according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible. It should be so small that we shouldn't even be capable of measuring it. But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar. They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else. This may be the first empiric clue for how to merge together quantum mechanics and general theory of relativity in a single unified theory.

"If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough," says Tajmar, "it opens up a new means of investigating general relativity and its consequences in the quantum world."

The experiment involved a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute. According to quantum theory, spinning superconductors should produce a weak magnetic field. The problem was that Tajmar and de Matos experiments with spinning superconductors didn't seem to fit the theory - although in all other aspects the quantum theory gives incredibly accurate predictions. Tajmar and de Matos then had the idea that maybe the quantum theory wasn't wrong after all but that there was some additional effect overlapping over their experiments, some effect they neglected.

What could this other effect be? They thought maybe it's the gravitomagnetic field - the fact that the spinning top exerts a higher gravitational force. So, they placed around the spinning superconductor a series of very sensible acceleration sensors for measuring whether this effect really existed. They obtained more than they bargained for!

Although the acceleration produced by the spinning superconductor was 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, it is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Thus, the spinning top generated a much more powerful gravitomagnetic field than expected.

Now, it remains the need for a proper theory. Scientists can also now check whether candidate theories, such as the string theory, can describe this experiment correctly. Moreover, this experiment shows that gravitational waves should be much more easily to detect than previously thought.


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: alberteinstein; antigravity; bollocks; electrogravitics; generalrelativity; gravitomagnetics; gravity; gravityshielding; kevmo; lenr; physics; podkletnov; relativitymyass; science; specialrelativity; stringtheory; superconductors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-291 next last
Experiment Proves General Theory of Relativity to be one hundred million trillion times wrong!
1 posted on 02/20/2014 3:47:32 PM PST by Kevmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Rest assured you relativity denier that the general theory is settled science. :) :)


2 posted on 02/20/2014 3:52:30 PM PST by Holdem Or Foldem ( A Smith and Wesson beats four aces)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Here is a choice gem:

"according to Einstein's theory, the difference is negligible" Negligible? Heck I got audited by the IRS for payroll difference of $1.47 between State and Federal on a 6 figure payroll. That should have been negligible too.

3 posted on 02/20/2014 3:54:37 PM PST by Usagi_yo (Standardization is an Evolutionary dead end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Quite often when measurements and theory do not match
the issue is the quality, accuracy and methodology of
the instrumentation and how they are used that are the
issue. This will need to be looked at long and hard.
It wasn’t all that long ago that the announcement that
a particle actually might be moving FTL....it was then
announced that NO....we effed up on the instrumentation.

Time will tell.


4 posted on 02/20/2014 3:56:21 PM PST by nvscanman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
But now scientists from the European Space Agancy, Martin Tajmar, Clovis de Matos and their colleagues, have actually measured it. At first they couldn't believe the result.

Friend of mine when I lived in NM was a Senior Research Physicist at John's Hopkins before I met him. He told me in the 1980's the laws of physics do not tie. He said there would be a rethinking of the assumptions because they could not account for the mass to energy theory. But I am not impressed at the "discoveries" of the "European Space Agency" and their measurements. This sounds like a "popular science" article.

5 posted on 02/20/2014 3:57:00 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Texas is not where you were born, but a Free State of Heart, Mind & Attitude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

Yahbut... when was the last time you heard that measurement and theory were off by 20 orders of magnitude across 450 experiments?


6 posted on 02/20/2014 3:57:59 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Einstein tried to describe gravity as a kind of a four dimensional differential geometry thing. There is no way to start with that and believe that gravity ever could have changed three or four to one near the surface of our own planet but it’s an easy demonstration that it has. The largest dinosaurs would be crushed by their own weight in our present gravity.


7 posted on 02/20/2014 3:58:08 PM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Interesting that they spun the superconductor at 6500rpm.

This is well within the operating range of many car engines.

I would have expected the rotation to have had to been much faster...


8 posted on 02/20/2014 3:58:39 PM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Yahbut... when was the last time you heard that measurement and theory were off by 20 orders of magnitude across 450 experiments?

Global Warming.

(-:

9 posted on 02/20/2014 4:01:43 PM PST by MeganC (Support Matt Bevin to oust Mitch McConnell! https://mattbevin.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

Last time I heard of some weird results of spinning superconductors was from Podkletnov. He claimed to see gravity reduction of 2% above the superconductor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov


10 posted on 02/20/2014 4:02:01 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Maybe they were measuring wind from the moving object, or something.


11 posted on 02/20/2014 4:02:24 PM PST by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

The hard drive on my computer spins at 7200rpm. 6500rpm is therefore no big deal.


12 posted on 02/20/2014 4:03:26 PM PST by MeganC (Support Matt Bevin to oust Mitch McConnell! https://mattbevin.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chrisser

17 mile circumference X 6500 revs/min = 110,500 mi/min

6,630,000 mi/hr


13 posted on 02/20/2014 4:05:36 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
QUOTE: measurement and theory were off by 20 orders of magnitude across 450 experiments?

Global Warming. (-:

-------------------------------------

LOL!

14 posted on 02/20/2014 4:06:06 PM PST by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

It is when the path is 17 miles long....


15 posted on 02/20/2014 4:06:34 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
They hope other physicists will now conduct their own versions of the experiment so they could be absolutely certain that they have really measured the gravitomagnetic field and not something else.

NO. NO. NO. That's not how science is done nowadays. You first have a Hypothesis, then build a computer model then gather the data to test the model and if the data doesn't agree with the Hypothesis you " lose" the data and then call people Deniers who think your hypothesis is nuts.

16 posted on 02/20/2014 4:07:10 PM PST by Timocrat (Ingnorantia non excusat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman
Time will tell.

I agree, but isn't it exciting to see scientist actually check and double check, improve methodology and instruments... then put the findings out to critical peer review! So refreshing after Global warming settled science.

17 posted on 02/20/2014 4:09:02 PM PST by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

NO. NO. NO. That’s not how science is done nowadays. You first have a Hypothesis, then build a computer model then gather the data to test the model and if the data doesn’t agree with the Hypothesis you “ lose” the data and then call people Deniers who think your hypothesis is nuts.
***That’s why “science progresses one funeral at a time”. Einstein’s dead and cannot call these guys’ results nuts. What I do not understand is why this wasn’t totally jumped on with another replication measurement because any physicist who proves an aspect of Einstein’s theory wrong will have his name written in the history books.


18 posted on 02/20/2014 4:09:33 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Bush's fault!

Speaking of Bush, remember the Dems claim that under Bush, we were losing 750,000 jobs per month.

But now the Dems claim that being out-of-work is a good thing - lets one write poetry, or start a business, ...

So was that 750,000 lost jobs under Bush now a good thing?

Inquiring minds want to know?

19 posted on 02/20/2014 4:12:04 PM PST by eCSMaster ("It is not the color of his skin, ... it is the blackness that fills his soul")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

scientist actually check and double check, improve methodology and instruments... then put the findings out to critical peer review!
***They sure seem to be taking their time at it. This article is from 2006.


20 posted on 02/20/2014 4:13:09 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-291 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson