The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

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.

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.

Swordmaker: "This is easily calculated given the known limits of the theoretical strengths of tissues.
100 ton animals are simply not possible under one G."

Hogwash. Utter ridiculous nonsense, and you people ought to be ashamed of yourselves, if you were even capable of shame, which obviously, you're not.
That makes you lesser forms of human beings, pal.
So don't be putting on "superior" airs...

First of all, as pointed out on this thread numerous times we have fossils of four-legged land-critters which grew over your magical 20,000 lb. limit not only from the age of Dinosaurs (65+ mya) but also the Oligocene (circa 25 mya) and even the current Holocene (10,000 bp).

So even without doing magical calculations, the facts refute your "gravity changes" hypothesis.

Second, all the calculations I've seen here are based on the weight lifting capacity of two-legged human beings, not four-legged slow-moving herbivorous beasts.
So, if you compare bone sizes of today's humans & elephants with those ancient beasts, you instantly see that they are scaled up to allow for their heavier weights.
Bigger beasts require bigger bones -- there's no magic to it, no fantasy "weight limit" and no change in gravity required, just bigger bones & muscles.

Third, real scientists (not phony-baloney nonsense peddlers) have actually studied this question, doing computer models based on sizes & weights estimated, and found them to work just fine, even up to 100 tons.
And, the problem over 100 tons is not bones or muscles, but rather joint strength, a matter about which the fossil record necessarily says very little.

Of course, if you had any interest in real science, you'd know all this already.
But you don't, because your real interest is anti-science, your desperate hope to discredit science enough to allow you to drive your own religious beliefs through whatever "holes" you can convince people exist.

Note to scale: human, Songhua River mammoth, today's African elephant.
Mammoth weight up to 20 tons, circa 10,000 years ago.
No magic calculations, no "gravity changes", just the observed facts:

Swordmaker: "Eleven thousand years ago Teratorns flew in the Andes.
Their fossils exist.
These were birds indistinguishable from modern eagles except for one major and decided difference.. . . teratorns had wingspans up to 45 feet and weighed an estimated 450 pounds!"

Sure, I "get" that your anti-science enthusiasm frequently overwhelms any respect for facts, but let's begin here:
The largest Teratorn ever found is called Argentavis, with wing-span max of 26 feet and weight up to 176 pounds -- less than half what you report.
Argentavis lived six to eight million years ago, not 11,000 years ago:

Teratorns from 11,000 years ago maxed out at 14 ft wingspans, weights around 35 pounds.
Today's largest flying birds, Kori Bustards reach up to 9 ft wingspan & 44 pounds.

Swordmaker: "The largest modern birds capable of flight are the Albatross with an up to 11 foot wingspan and weigh only 30 lbs. or some reports offer the Andean Condor with a reported 10.5 feet and 25 pounds."

Kori Bustard in flight:

Swordmaker: "Biologists and Aeronautics engineers tell us that a scaled-up eagle with muscular engines simply could not fly under its own power without a complete redesign of its "airframe and power plant" . . ."

They also tell us that bumblebees can't fly.
This proves nothing about those critters, only that some aeronautical engineers are freeekin' idiots.

Swordmaker: "...the Cretaceous had flying dragonflies, completely indistinguishable from modern dragonflies, except the Cretaceous model had FOUR FOOT WINGSPANS.
Such an insect could not fly under modern gravity. . . cube/square law, again. . . and its form factor would be far different at four feet than at four inches."

First of all, Meganeura's wing span was two feet, not four feet.
Second, it lived in the Carboniferous period (330 mya), not the Cretacious (100 mya).
Third, oxygen levels are said to have been higher during the Carboniferous, allowing insects to grow larger, but also, there were no predators to eat dragonflies in those days.
Finally, you need to utterly reject whoever it is that's telling you all those critters "can't fly".
They obviously did.

Swordmaker: "Either these animals magically defied all laws of aerodynamics or somehow magically broke the cube/square law, or something was drastically different about the environment in which flew undoubtedly flew a mere 12,000 years ago and back in the Cretaceous."

No, far from it.
According to "Occams razor" theory, the simplest and most obvious explanation is best: whoever is making up these "laws of aerodynamics" are freekin' idiots who have not the foggiest clue what they're talking about.
And whoever endlessly repeats such nonsense is obviously driven by an agenda which has nothing to do with science.

Swordmaker: "...anomalies from those eras, such as your 40,000 pound pachyderms that NO LONGER, and can no longer exist today."

But not because of any stupid "laws" you fantasize, rather because they were driven to extinction by changing climate, predators and/or diseases.

Swordmaker: "Megafauna exists nowhere on land today yet millions of years of evolution seems to show that mega size is a survival factor.
Why not today? What has changed?
The best answer seems to be gravity increased."

But that's not the "best" answer, it's the stupidest answer imaginable.
Any other reasonable explanation (i.e., climate, predators, diseases) better fits the facts as known.

Swordmaker: "...blood the mere SEVEN FEET from a Giraffe's 24lb heart to its brain is so high—300 over 200—that it would most likely cause any other animals' arteries to blow out before long!"

Unless, having evolved over many, many generations, heart, arteries & other pumps grew robust enough to accomplish the purposes.

Swordmaker: "Yet what was the size and weight of the blood pump possessed by Argentinosaurus—which weighed an astounding 400,000 pounds, was 125 feet in length, and had a 65 foot long neck—to have blood reach what ever sized brain it used?
The mind boggles thinking about it."

First of all, Argentinosaurus weighed 100 tons, not 200 tons.
Second, it was about 100 feet long (1/3 neck) and 24 feet high.
So typically, its head did not rise much above the level of it's body & heart.
Third, there's no "mind boggling" required, since all such critters had pea-brains requiring far less oxygen-rich blood than we assume today.

Speaking of oxygen -- note the geological eras' oxygen levels higher than present:

Swordmaker: "NOW, do you begin to grasp the problem?
This is an issue that simply cannot be swept under the proverbial rug.."

Yes, I see clearly that you sell blithering idiocy, that this cannot be swept under the proverbial rug, and you and your buddies should all seek out professional help with it.

Otherwise, there's no hope for you...

varmintman: "Weight estimates for the Argentinian teratorn vary, I’ve seen numbers between 170 and 250 lbs."

The actual estimates for Argentavis, as posted in #126 above are 158 to 176 pounds (80 kg) max.

"The ability to fly is not a simple question of weight ratios, except in extreme cases.
Size and structure of the wing must also be taken into account.
As a rule of thumb, a wing loading of 25 kg/m² is considered the limit for avian flight.[3]"

Arentavis' wing-span is estimated as 7.5 meters, perhaps a meter wide gives a theoretical limit over 400 lbs. -- far more than even your most outrageous estimates.

varmintman: "Likewise Christopher McGowan’s original volumetric weight estimate for the ultrasaur was 180 tons and a couple of the dinosaurs discovered since then are larger than that."

First, Swordmaker's reference in post #113 above was not to ultrasaur, but to Argentinonsaurus which is actually estimated around 100 tons, not the 200 tons Swordmaker claimed.
Second, the largest sauropod fossil ever found, named Bruhathkayosaurus, is informally estimated around 200 tons.
Third, your alleged "Ultrasaurus" is not fully established as a separate species, and has no formal weight estimate.
Fourth, "Ultrasaurus" was discovered by Haang Mook Kim in South Korea.
Your Christopher McGowan had nothing to do with it, pal.

varmintman: "I am not aware of a reason to like any of the later estimates better than the original volumetric estimate derived from known parameters of real animals."

First, there are no "real animals" to compare with pterosaurs.
The largest, Quetzalcoatlus', wing-span was estimated as high as 15 meters = 62 feet.
It's weight has been estimated as circa 500 lbs.
Given an expected wing-loading of 25 kg per square meter of wing, a 15 meter wing would support a pterosaur up to 800+ pounds.
A more reasonable estimate of 10 meter wings would still support 500 lbs in flight.

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.