The First Test That Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong

Softpedia.com ^ | March 24th, 2006, 12:39 GMT · | By Vlad Tarko

[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.

[varmintman]

You got it. A half a million foot pounds of torque would be ballpark for the combined max torque of all of the engines of the Yamato or the Musashi i.e. torque sufficient to drive a 65,000 ton ship through the water at some 30 knots. A large sauropod trying to hold his neck and head out horizontally would be looking at holding around that much torque with muscle and sinew and ligaments. In our gravity, that’s a joke.

[Kevmo]

As a synchronicity followup...

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html

Dr. Podkletnov also describes his “force beam generator” experiment in detail, and provides insights into improvements that he’s made over the last decade to increase the force produced by this experimental gravity-beam. The force beam is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field, and Podkletnov has described it as being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab, as well as capable of being tuned by even punch holes in solid materials.

Podkletnov recently published a peer-review paper on the force beam experiment entitled “Study of Light Interaction with Gravity Impulses and Measurements of the Speed of Gravity Impulses” along with co-author Dr. Giovanni Modanese, and describes the findings of his study, which involved measuring the speed of the force-beam using two separate, but cross-correlated measurement techniques. After careful testing, Podkletnov has found the speed of the antigravity impulse to be approximately 64 times the speed of light (64c), which he indicates does not conflict with modern interpretations of Relativity Theory.

- See more at: http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html#sthash.ML93XY44.dpuf

[varmintman]

Tom Van Flandern noted that the various experiments bearing on the phenomenon all indicate that gravity propagates instantaneously to within our ability to measure it.

www.metaresearch.org

[Kevmo]

More

*Abstract*
We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply
for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are
complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein
special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than
the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same
mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular
behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and
generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do
not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics
to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on
relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an
elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames
for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c, and further we
suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of
transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the
energy-momentum equations are to be invariant under the new
transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the
formulae m=(pinf/c)[(v/c)2 - 1]-1/2 and e=mc2 where pinf denotes the
limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the
requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and
energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit
of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic,
our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing
theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account
of a new aspect of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, which properly
allows for faster than light motion.

Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-physicists-special-relativity.html#jCp

[Kevmo]

I asked someone at Vortex to produce their evidence of C not being a constant... Here’s his response. It does not strike me as particularly compelling, but I never heard of the Sagnac effect before this.

---

The Sagnac effect is a very good example.

Then there are various interferometry drift experiments, and most have
shown some degree of drift, just far less that a static aether the earth
moves through, positive results are more common than not. Results are often
interpreted to agree with SR, but they don’t.

Then there are findings of the speed of light not being constant (which
might be a slightly separate things) varying along with the fine structure
constant.

Pulsar FTL has been widely reported, here is just one I found:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/10/pulars-superluminal-speeds-really-faster-than-speed-of-light.html

GPS Satellites have been reported to disagree with SR.. (below)

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.html <If the speed of light
was always the same, then why do you have to move the mirror for it to be
moving??? Wouldn’t virtual particles (and photons at that) be immune to
such ‘extra motion?

Podkletnov, Tesla, A submission to the International Tesla Symposium of an
FTL transmission by a researcher (may be locatable)

You must also consider that if you try and measure the 2 way speed of light
which really isn’t necessary (clocks can be synced together and separated
at low speed), but it greatly reduces the effects of motion since it adds
and removes speed, and then Lorentz transformations in an aether can make
it impossible with the 2 way speed.
Also consider that if you were trying to measure the speed of sound as a 2
way thing, and with cars moving toward and away from you, would you notice
the speed of sound effected?
If you were in a speeding car with the windows up and measured the speed of
sound, still no change.
If you measured the 2 way speed of sound on a fast moving platform with
wind moving by, would you measure a difference? Yes but only small since
the a mix of faster and slower sound readings.

I suggest that you look closely at anything claiming to be evidence of SR
and do your own interpretation....

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about
relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the
Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president
of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this
issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein’s theory of
relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been
proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein’s relativity. It agrees at first
order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not
explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.)

[Kevmo]

Here are some links:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/invalidation.html
http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v371/n6492/abs/371046a0.html
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/
http://www.anti-relativity.com
http://www.mrelativity.net/ <Many proofs against various aspects of SR
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10671635.htm
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
http://www.spheritons.com/Relativity_is_False.html
http://www.physics.semantrium.com/relativity.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html#.UxPpwvmSzCs
http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/abrunthaler/iiizw2.shtml
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1210.0;wap2 5 and 8 times
C

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the links, dear Kevmo!

I have no comments though as I am more focused on General Relativity (gravity as geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and therefore have little use for aether theories.

[varmintman]

One thing you ought to know... Ron Hatch, the man who holds most of the patents involved in GPS as I read it, claims that relativity is a bunch of BS and that GPS works entirely on Newtonian physics and that if you tried to make it work on Einsteinian physics, it would not work.

[Crusher138]

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.

Read up on Die Glocke and get back to me. You may be more correct than you think you are!

[Alamo-Girl]

If LIGO/Virgo succeeds in detecting gravitational waves then Ron Hatch is debunked in favor of Einstein's General Relativity. If LIGO fails then Hatch is vindicated and Einstein's theory fails.

It is really that simple. And most physicists believe that LIGO will succeed.

[varmintman]

Again, every meaningful test indicates that gravity propagates instantaneously to within our ability to measure. That does not sound like a wave to me...

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp