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; electrogravitics; generalrelativity; gravitomagnetics; gravity; gravityshielding; lenr; physics; podkletnov; relativitymyass; science; specialrelativity; stringtheory; superconductors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-291 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]

To: Kevmo

I remember that.

I wonder if they tried spinning in both directions.

Be interesting if, instead of weighing more, it was pushing itself through gravity like a propeller through water and turning in the opposite direction would make it weigh less.


21 posted on 02/20/2014 4:13:19 PM PST by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nvscanman

“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.”

Interesting observation, but hasn’t it been shown that the speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of the “first day”?


22 posted on 02/20/2014 4:13:53 PM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Interesting. I am now reading a book about quantum physics which points out fundamental disagreements between Einstein and Niels Bohr regarding quantum theory.


23 posted on 02/20/2014 4:14:02 PM PST by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

Yep.

Global warming in vogue, you want to publish, you publish about global warming.

Anti-global warming ? Sorry, not so many grants for that research.

Endowing the university system has paid off for globalists (well, their grandchildren).

They have most of the university system working for them.


24 posted on 02/20/2014 4:15:05 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: babygene; Alamo-Girl

Interesting observation, but hasn’t it been shown that the speed of light has been slowing down since the beginning of the “first day”?
***I think Alamo Girl is familiar with that evidence. She seems to think it isn’t the case. The problematic issue with C is in the first few milliseconds of creation when Matter supposedly moved faster than C.


25 posted on 02/20/2014 4:17:59 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“The problematic issue with C is in the first few milliseconds of creation when Matter supposedly moved faster than C.”

Isn’t that saying the same thing? I do believe that it is...


26 posted on 02/20/2014 4:22:55 PM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Hmmm...Spinning @ 6500rpm? Heck, every time I hear our dear leader speak that's about how rapidly my head spins...

So...If I stand on a bathroom scale while forced to listen to scumbag, I should gain some weight??

27 posted on 02/20/2014 4:25:07 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I don’t know what list this would go on, but it’s a strange story.


28 posted on 02/20/2014 4:25:54 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I hate to elevate the discourse this way but at last an explanation for why the shower curtain attacks.


29 posted on 02/20/2014 4:30:23 PM PST by Mr. Dough (Who was the greater military man, General Tso or Col. Sanders?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I like these quotes from Thomas Huxley:

Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact”....and...”The ultimate court of appeal is observation and experiment, not authority.” ~ Thomas H. Huxley


30 posted on 02/20/2014 4:34:57 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Read “Beyond Einsteins Unified Field” by John Brandenburg.

He explains how rotating electrical/magnetic fields yield something synonymous with anti-gravity.

We’ve had it for years.


31 posted on 02/20/2014 4:40:16 PM PST by djf (OK. Well, now, lemme try to make this clear: If you LIKE your lasagna, you can KEEP your lasagna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Interest.it fits a theory ive had for sometime..let me get back to you...but it may involve strings


32 posted on 02/20/2014 4:48:34 PM PST by tophat9000 (Are we headed to a Cracker Slacker War?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djf

We’ve had it for years.
***Yep, I suspect that is the case. Check out my keyword “electrogravitics”.


33 posted on 02/20/2014 4:52:22 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: djf

Anti-Gravity Patent Available For Development
Saturday, November 17, 2012 13:18
0

(Before It’s News)

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2012/11/anti-gravity-patent-available-for-development-2495864.html

Inventor Jeffrey J Nau received U.S. Patent 7,663,281 for a magnetic field generating device that is also an anti-gravitational generator. A primary object of the invention is to provide a generator utilizing electromagnetic forces to provide repulsion by creating an electro-magnetic field. Now that invention is available for licensing, purchasing the rights or a royalty agreement. According to Nau writing in the patent the device can be used to power self-steering levitating cars that would glide above metal guideways.

According to Nau, the magnetic field generator utilizes two concentric rings with similarly charged electro-magnets to repel the rings in opposite orbits around an electrically charged central core to create the magnetic field.

Gravity Opposing Repulsion Generator

Nau asserts a compact magnetic levitation vehicle or car can provide passenger comfort consistent with automobiles and travels suspended on ferromagnetic rails in evacuated tubes of minimal radial dimension extending between vehicle loading and unloading stations or at atmospheric conditions.

A pair of guides extend outwardly along opposite sides of the vehicle and contain magnetic elements. Electrically conductive, ferromagnetic, magnetic, or electromagnetic sections in the rails correspond to the magnetic elements in the vehicle guides. Linear motors or controlled interaction with rail members provide propulsion and braking. Extensive portions of the evacuated tubes are provided with two sets of rails, one set of rails functionally located above the other.

Rail switching is accomplished by selectively interacting with alternative levitation rails which are located at switching locations. Tube evacuation may be supplemented by vacuum pumps on the vehicle to draw in air during travel. The vehicle may have turbines which draw in air and exhaust compressed gases into cylinders.

FIG. 1 is a cut-away perspective view of the anti-gravitational generator 10 having a solid conductive sphere 12. The anti-gravitational generator comprising a central sphere 12 surrounded by an inner ring 14 within an outer ring 16, rotating about a vertical axis. A spherical core 12 is comprised of a core of conductive material and dielectric material insulated from outer engine casing, the outer surface is conductive/dielectric lines running vertically from pole to pole. Around the core 12 is an inner ring 14 that spins in one direction, looking from the top, counterclockwise, it is charged in one direction through brushes. An outer ring 16 placed around the inner ring 14 will spin in the opposite direction, clockwise and will be charged with an opposite flow of electricity through the brushes. Bearings and dielectric insulation are used to maintain electrical separation of inner and outer rings. The interface area is what drives the inner ring 14.

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tL192ZkltdnlvcnZqUS9USXdwSFlza2lfSS9BQUFBQUFBQUZkYy80M09ULWgwSEZSby9zNDAwL2FudGlnKzEuanBn

FIG. 2 is a cut-away perspective view of the anti-gravitational generator 10 having a spherical core 12 of conductive metal 20 with interdisposed dielectric material 18. Theanti-gravitational generator 10 is a gravity-opposing repulsion generator comprising a spherical core 12 surrounded by an inner ring 14 within an outer ring 16 rotating about a vertical axis. Shown are the clockwise rotation 50 of the outer ring 16 and the counter-clockwise rotation 52 of the inner ring 14. The core 12 is charged through the conductive mounting rod 22. the entire unit is enclosed within a housing 34 as depicted in phantom line.
B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tL192ZkltdnlvcnZqUS9USXdwenlXaWpySS9BQUFBQUFBQUZkay9BMXdmWFBfaV85ay9zNDAwL2FudGlnMi5qcGc=

FIG. 11 is an illustrated view of the induced magnetic field 62 provided by the present invention. As electrical input is evenly increased, the rings 14,16 will drive faster to a point where a resultant magnetic field 62 forms by charging the core 12, the magnetic field should increase.

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzEuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tL192ZkltdnlvcnZqUS9USXdxUW4tb3VTSS9BQUFBQUFBQUZkcy9LSGV0d01BaG5Wdy9zNDAwL2FudGlnK2ZpZysxMS5qcGc=
The magnetic levitation rotating machine can stably detect the displacement and rotating speed of a rotator and, at the same time, can reduce the size of the whole apparatus, that is, can render the whole apparatus compact.

The magnetic levitation rotating machine for supporting a rotator in a levitated state by magnetic force of an electromagnet or a permanent magnet comprises: a position detection plane provided in the rotator and a concave and/or a convex provided in the plane; a displacement sensor provided on the fixed side, for detecting the displacement of the plane including the concave or the convex; and a detection mechanism for detecting the displacement of the rotator and the rotating speed of the rotator from the output of the displacement sensor.

A transport system has a pair of levitating rails, each of the levitating rails has a core with a plurality of coils extending circumferentially around each of the cores. The coils are perpendicular to the lengths of the levitating rails. Each of the levitating rails has an upper surface directly above the core. A vehicle has wheels that roll on the upper surfaces of the levitating rails in a nonlevitating position.

The vehicle has a plurality of magnets that create magnetic fields that pass through the coils while the vehicle is moving along the levitating rails. The magnetic fields induce current, which in turn causes an opposing magnetic field that levitates the vehicle. A steering rail having a plurality of coils is mounted to at least one of the guideways. Permanent steering magnets are located on each side of the steering rail to magnetically steer the vehicle along the guideways.

The object of the invention is to:

to provide a gravity-opposing repulsion generator utilizing electro-magnetic forces to provide repulsion by creating an electro-magnetic field superior to all surrounding forces

to provide a gravity-opposing repulsion generator wherein a pair of electro magnetic rings are disposed one within the other and encircling a central sphere that is electrically energized to opposing polarities to force the counter-rotational movement thereof

to provide a gravity-opposing repulsion generator wherein the rotational speed of the rings and the voltage applied thereto increases to a point to effectively achieve gravitational neutrality

to provide a gravity-opposing repulsion generator wherein the rotational speed of the rings and the voltage applied thereto are further increased to a point to provide repulsion from the Earth’s gravitational field by taking advantage of the north-to-north magnetic situation created by the electro-magnetic field created by the present invention

to provide a gravity-opposing repulsion generator having a central sphere comprising a combination of metal conductive material with dielectric material and having a conducting mounting rod forming a core extending vertically from opposing ends thereof
Gravity Opposing Repulsion Generator

If you are interested in licensing, purchasing the rights to the above invention or entering into a royalty agreement please contact the office of Michael I. Kroll as follows:

Michael I. Kroll
80 Skyline Drive, Suite 304
Plainview, New York 11803
Tel. #: 800-367-7774
Tel. #: 516-367-7777
Fax #: 800-367-7999
Fax #: 516-802-0510
E-Mail patent@invention.net

http://www.invention.net/nau.htm


34 posted on 02/20/2014 4:56:56 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Great. Now can the BS and build me a star drive!


35 posted on 02/20/2014 5:11:59 PM PST by Ronin (Dumb, dependent and Democrat is no way to go through life - Rep. L. Gohmert, Tex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

plus reviewing them for eight months as well. the experiments occured across three years and then 8 months of review.


36 posted on 02/20/2014 5:17:50 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Unless the internet is lying to me, and why would it, this is exactly what the NAZIs used in their spaceships to build their moonbase.


37 posted on 02/20/2014 5:23:22 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
one hundred million trillion times larger

Let's just call it rounding error and move on.

38 posted on 02/20/2014 5:25:20 PM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

The more Obama talks, the faster my head spins, causing me to want to lay down, so this must be a real thing they have discovered.


39 posted on 02/20/2014 5:29:49 PM PST by speedbird57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Einstein’s Theory of Relativity still stands.

Basically it says: “Everyone had relatives”. (Otherwise you wouldn’t be here).

So Einstein was right. They even opened a Bagel store named after him. One of the greatest honors the food establishment can bestow on someone.


40 posted on 02/20/2014 5:38:58 PM PST by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo
Experiment that is almost certainly wrong, or large galaxies would be sucking their local small cluster galaxies in at rates that astronomers would have seen a long time ago.

First: the article is wrong. The magnetic analogue of the gravitational field is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a consequence of the Lorentz invariance of physics, and was predicted by Heaviside in 1892, 14 years before the special theory of relativity, and 24 years before the general theory of relativity, using an analogy with Maxwell's equations (which were already Lorentz invariant) but no one [then] knew why.

Second: If the effect was genuinely a manifestation of a magnetic analogue of gravity (which does indeed exist) if it existed at the strength quoted, an enormous laboratory [called "the universe" -- you may have heard of it] would be able to duplicate the results in stars, galaxies, and clusters. It doesn't. That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously awesome "experiment" in eight years, but don't worry; some LENR researcher will no doubt be selling an "Einstein Was Wrong Relativity Generator®" any day now, for just $1 million per unit.

41 posted on 02/20/2014 5:44:35 PM PST by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

That’s why there has been no follow up to this blunderously awesome “experiment” in eight years,
***well, that must mean the vast majority of science is populated with guys like you, who prefer to act disdainfully rather than publish a retort to an experiment that is SO OBVIOUSLY wrong.

but don’t worry; some LENR researcher will no doubt be selling an “Einstein Was Wrong Relativity Generator®” any day now, for just $1 million per unit.
***It looks like I don’t need to worry about science losing its arrogance, either, huh? When there’s so many guys like you who have such vast knowledge and deem themselves worthy to denigrate others who are so much stupider than you. Nope, we can’t expect such arrogant bass turds to actually publish such a retort, to investigate it, to educate the public even after sucking off the guvmint teat their entire soul-sucking careers. Like you did. No, we can’t expect scientists to do their jobs. But we CAN expect them to act like unsufferable jerks and to cross thread boundaries on a conservative website so they can look SO EDUCATED. Yup, that’s about what we can expect from guys like you.

So, since you’re so educated, so smart, and so arrogant, it should be so easy for you to explain how large this effect should be when they set about measuring it. For instance, if it should show up as a milliwatt-level observation and they’re not seeing it except in the... uhh, femto(?)watt range, why is that? Well, smarty pants?

And while you’re at it, why is it that the F-P anomalous Heat effect that you so denigrate has been REPLICATED more than 14,000 times? Well, yerup, smart guy. Try to avoid all those freshman level logical fantasies you’ve been so famous for.


42 posted on 02/20/2014 6:02:49 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

I suspect the results will be shown to be in error because experiment has already shown that the effect cannot be more than 10 times stronger than Einstein’s prediction——i.e., detectors placed years ago would have picked up the effect if it were any more than 10 times the predicted strength. Still waiting on getting that last bit of sensitivity out of the experiment (in Louisiana, of all places).


43 posted on 02/20/2014 6:10:04 PM PST by Cruising Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cruising Speed

I suspect the results will be shown to be in error because experiment has already shown that the effect cannot be more than 10 times stronger than Einstein’s prediction
***The issue here is that the observed effect is 20 orders of magnitude LESS than Einstein’s prediction, although Fraudzagonner says the prediction belongs to Lorentz.


44 posted on 02/20/2014 6:12:12 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cruising Speed

10 times stronger
***That is 1 order of magnitude. 100 times would be 2 Orders of magnitude stronger, 1000 times 3 Orders, 1Mtimes 6 Orders, and so on. The observed effect is off by 20 orders of magnitude. we’re not talking 10 or 12X off, it’s one hundred million trillion times wrong.


45 posted on 02/20/2014 6:17:25 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: chrisser; Kevmo

Boyd Bushman placed two very strong magnets North to North and then placed them in a ball. He dropped them and a second ball the same size from the fifth floor of a bldg. at McDonald Douglas in Texas. The magnet holding ball arrived AFTER the non-magnet but otherwise identical ball.


46 posted on 02/20/2014 6:25:32 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Did he publish a paper on it?


47 posted on 02/20/2014 6:26:56 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: djf

Cancelling inertial mass ... ‘they’ have been doing it for decades now.


48 posted on 02/20/2014 6:28:37 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000; SunkenCiv

but it may involve strings
***Sounds like something Sunken_Civ would be interested in.


49 posted on 02/20/2014 6:28:38 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo; babygene; betty boop; TXnMA
Thank you for the heads up, dear Kevmo!

I think Alamo Girl is familiar with that evidence. She seems to think it isn’t the case. The problematic issue with C is in the first few milliseconds of creation when Matter supposedly moved faster than C.

It isn't that matter moved faster than the speed of light but rather that, in the inflationary model, the universe itself (space/time) expanded faster than the speed of light (in the very early moments.)


50 posted on 02/20/2014 6:53:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-291 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