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.
Probably a misprint. Most likely sensible = sensitive.
If it is so incredibly, 20 orders of magnitude wrong, then show how. That isn’t too much to ask of an adam henry scientist who’s sucked off the guvmint teat his entire career. I know enough about you that we can’t ask you to stop being an a-h, but at least we can ask you to do the job that we as taxpayers subsidized you for.
Fredzagonner, Fraudzagonner, FRaudhole.
Look, a-h. I don’t care which is more, Einstein’s prediction or the effect. One is larger than the other. Tell us WHY, instead of being an a-h all the time.
You’re so quick to jump on me for something. But you are INCREDIBLY SLOW to actually explain why something is 20 orders of magnitude off, one way or another. With each passing post you loudly proclaim how much of an a-h you are.
You already mentioned Heaviside. Repeating it just proves your a-hness, nothing more. Explain 20 orders of magnitude rather than continuing to be an a-h.
It will take some time to verify these results.
***The article is 7 years old. Scientists sure are taking their time.
Can you say, “spuriously-generated [false] accelerometer signals”?
***I’ve never seen any instrument generate 20 orders of magnitude (OOM) of error. Maybe 1 OOM, that’s about it. And these guys did the experiment 250 times. That’s a lot of times repeating the same 20 OOM error.
Why is it that scientists have so much trouble looking into something so blatantly erroneous but so little trouble acting like a-h’s? It is a mystery without end.
Ya think?
Sorry, my sarcasm isn't what it used to be. :-)
That appears to be the same Martin Tajmar as in this article. That’s 2 anomalies he has scored. He’s committing career suicide.
A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. The fact that the limitation imposed by muscle dynamics is approximately 20,000 lbs means that any larger limit allowed by consideration of joints or anything else is irrelevant.
Bad Expermients Trump Nothing®, Amen is a registered trademark of The Church of Zarguna, Scientist, which is solely responsible for refuting fatuous potty-mouthed gasbags on FR.
And yet, we have elephants as recently as 10K-y ago, which weighed over 40,000 lbs. Was the Earth’s gravity also much weaker as recently as a mere 100 centuries ago in your “theory?”
>”The hard drive on my computer spins at 7200rpm. 6500rpm is therefore no big deal”<
If your Computer stats Levitating, let us know.
The only explanation you have for 20 orders of magnitude worth of measurement error is how much of an adam henry you are. AdamHenry*BandWagon Index® is high, so guys like you are joining.
But that is not a "fact", and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading cockamamie lies.
The real fact of this matter is that other, more recent mammal bones have been found of land-critters ranging up to twice the size of your imaginary 20,000 lbs. limit.
Those fossils include Indricotherium from 25 million years ago and Songhua River Mammoth from as recently as 10,000 years ago.
So, there is no evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- supporting your fantasies about changing gravitation.
That would be the extreme mathematical limit for the world today, the actual limit for real creatures is the 14,000 - 15,000 lb size of the largest elephants.
A sauropod dinosaur would be crushed by his own weight in our present world, present gravity, that's why they no longer exist. Same thing for flying creatures, weight is proportional to volume and the ability to fly is limited by surface area of wings amongst other things, another squared figure while volume is a cubed figure. The largest creatures which can take off or land in our present world are bustards, berkuts and albatrosses at around 25 - 30 lbs, while there were 200 - 1000 lb flying creatures in past ages.
"...divided by just the athlete's weight to the 2/3 power on one side of the equation and x divided by 2/3 power of x (the guy just standing up) on the other, something like 1350/350^.67 = x/x^.67 and solve for x; x turns out to be around 20,000 lbs."
No honest person is lesser than you, pal, none.
You "explanations" are rubbish to the core, and I'm certain you know that.
That makes you lesser than every decent person.
You have done no studies -- zero, zip, nada -- on the strengths of bones, muscles & joints in very large four-legged land-creatures, you have merely extrapolated based on what you think you know about human anatomy.
Those scientists who actually studied the question (i.e., here and here) report suffering no such fantasies as your allegations about changing gravity.
Yes, it's true, there are not a large number of land-creature fossils estimated over 20,000 lbs.
But there are some, and they include examples from the age of dinosaurs (65+ mya), Oligocene (circa 25 mya) and even into the Holocene (10,000 years ago).
Nothing in these examples suggest changing gravity.
The explanation was perfectly good and required nothing more than high school math to grasp. Sorry you weren't able to grasp it...
In other words, they are sheer fantasy.
Indeed. Thank you so much for your insights, dear brother in Christ!
In this thread, the bigger mystery is why you, FRiend Kevmo, cannot participate in a collegial discussion of technical substance (as in my #75) without resorting to sphincter-based vituperation -- or invoking references to sea-fowl.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would think that discussion of the complexities of exploring the difficulty of obtaining valid measurements using hypersensitive instruments within an environment with the possibilities of creating out-of-scale electromagnetic (and possibly mechanical) interfering signals is sufficiently challenging. IOW, the subject is sufficiently complex and challenging in itself -- without introducing intellectual noise by resorting to the non sequitur of citing things such as "anti-gravity" patents.
OTOH, simply providing a link to actual publications of the research in question, for example, would have had the opposite, and beneficial, effect on this discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI, I spent the latter portion of my career researching, designing, fabricating, developing, packaging and testing micromechanical sensors of the type pictured. My choice of the specific microsensor illustration I used was quite deliberate.
In fact, I intend to use that illustration (with suitable, illustrative enhancments) here to enhance further discusions of possible sources of error in the cited measurements -- and to review some steps that I, as a researcher ,would take to identify, characterize, and eliminate or minimize those potential sources of measurement error.
Since I intend to include reasoning individuals in my further discussion, some of whom you obviously view with scatological disdain, I will not add to your discomfort by pinging you to my forthcoming discussions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the rest of us, back to the technicaldiscussion of the measurements cited and some anticipated difficulties thereof...
First of all, the accelerometer structure depicted in #75, is described in a patent abstract at
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6683358.html
Please bear with me while I do some explanatory graphics work on the above illustration -- as a tool for further dixcussion of potential measurement errors...
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.