Skip to comments.
Towards a new test of general relativity?
European Space Agency ^
| 23 March 2006
| Staff
Posted on 03/25/2006 11:13:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
I donno, but this looks like it might be big. Very big.
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
SciencePing |
An elite subset of the Evolution list. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped. |
|
|
|
2
posted on
03/25/2006 11:14:27 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: PatrickHenry
Will this help get me 100 mpg in my old car by making it weigh less?
3
posted on
03/25/2006 11:18:27 AM PST
by
ASOC
(Choose between the lesser of two evils, and in the end, you still have - evil.)
To: PatrickHenry
Big stuff indead. Looks like the existence of the elusive "graviton" has been confirmed.
4
posted on
03/25/2006 11:22:00 AM PST
by
Maynerd
To: PatrickHenry
one hundred million trillion times larger and that is how many 0's to the ? power - mind boggling
5
posted on
03/25/2006 11:24:59 AM PST
by
maine-iac7
("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
To: PatrickHenry
I conclude from the above that E=MC10
6
posted on
03/25/2006 11:27:33 AM PST
by
bert
(K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
To: PatrickHenry
It's one more example of extraterrestrial technology slowly leaked into our scientific world, just as lasers, microchips and superconducting solids have been leaked over the decades. This is the gravity-amplifying technology that drives extraterrestrial spaceships, or "UFO's" as we've been calling them over the years. This is the technology that will make space travel easy and affordable in the future.
(Hey, you don't think I make this stuff up, do you?)
7
posted on
03/25/2006 11:33:40 AM PST
by
Publius
To: PatrickHenry
Great article. This looks like it could be a Nobel Prize in the making, if the results turn out to be valid. (Note the very big 'if'. Just a hunch that they'll have trouble convincing a lot of reviewers that the effect isn't attributable to a systematic error without a lot more testing.)
8
posted on
03/25/2006 11:38:11 AM PST
by
Quark2005
(Confidence follows from consilience.)
To: PatrickHenry
Whoo-Yah. I normally don't say things like this in a post, but read my novel. Sure it's only sci-fi, but the protagonist produces gravitational fields almost exactly as described here. It is the basis of the whole book.
Just one more cognitive leap to make: They aren't measuring gravity fields, they are measuring time fields.
flame suit on...
9
posted on
03/25/2006 11:39:08 AM PST
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: PatrickHenry; All
"This experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday's electromagnetic induction experiment in 1831. This I understand.
By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modeled
This I don't. Could someone explain. I get the part about photons gaining mass....but I'm stuck on gravitons. I thought they were theoretical.
10
posted on
03/25/2006 11:46:22 AM PST
by
Focault's Pendulum
(I'm not a curmudgeon!!!! I've just been in a bad mood since '73)
To: PatrickHenry
a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute The magnets mounted on a bicycle wheel in my laboratory were headed toward this. Just a matter of rotating a hundred times faster and dropping the temperature four hundred degrees, and a few other minor details. There is a time for Michael Faraday, and this could be be that time.
11
posted on
03/25/2006 11:51:44 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: Focault's Pendulum
Perhaps this proves that they aren't theoretical.
12
posted on
03/25/2006 11:51:51 AM PST
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: Focault's Pendulum
It's not clear. The article says they used "Small acceleration sensors" to detect whatever it is they detected. I assume those are something like Robert Forward's mass detectors, but I'm guessing. Then they attribute their unexpectedly high readings to gravitomagnetism. It's a bit conjectural at this point. But if they've really detected something, it certainly requires an explanation.
13
posted on
03/25/2006 11:53:12 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Yo momma's so fat she's got a Schwarzschild radius.)
To: RightWhale
Stupid question department:
If I have a charge being conducted through a rotating superconductor, is there a rotational speed at which that charge is actually static?
14
posted on
03/25/2006 11:54:29 AM PST
by
lafroste
(gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
To: PatrickHenry
big. Very big. This should have happened in America, but we're simply losing our edge. Perhaps we can petition Congress to cut loose of some of the money they have stashed in the basement and kindle some interest in science.
15
posted on
03/25/2006 11:54:33 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: lafroste
They aren't measuring gravity fields, they are measuring time fields Sure, but time is not a field. What it is, is hard to say, but field isn't it. It's more of a function of being on the surface of a hyperdimensional sphere.
16
posted on
03/25/2006 11:57:26 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: lafroste
Try it. Faraday would set it up and see what happened. Sometimes there are surprises.
17
posted on
03/25/2006 11:58:57 AM PST
by
RightWhale
(pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
To: ASOC
Even if your car weighed less, I think it would still have the same mass so the same mpg.
18
posted on
03/25/2006 11:58:59 AM PST
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: Focault's Pendulum
I get the part about photons gaining mass....but I'm stuck on gravitons. I thought they were theoretical.Not anymore!
19
posted on
03/25/2006 11:59:37 AM PST
by
Maynerd
To: lafroste
Perhaps this proves that they aren't theoretical. Thank you for that in depth explanation. Only kidding.
I'm looking forward to reading your book.
I'm really stuck on this. I just got finished figuring out string theory...and now this comes along.
20
posted on
03/25/2006 11:59:46 AM PST
by
Focault's Pendulum
(I'm not a curmudgeon!!!! I've just been in a bad mood since '73)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson