It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
2. It's not valid enough, there are questions about the readings and ideas that supercooled helium atoms were affecting the results.
3. Even if this one thing went against relativity, there is a ton of evidence showing relativity works very well.
"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,"
4. Einstein knew it, and we still know it now that there are holes in the theory as it still doesn't jive well with quantum theory. So even the case of finding something GR isn't explaining well isn't a case for it's complete inaccuracy. But inconsistencies are telling of where the problem needs to be worked on.
1. Old news, 2006.
Within the uncertainty of the experiment there is no indication of any inertial frame dragging due to the rotation of the nearby lead superconductor. The error of the experiment is 3% of the effect predicted [5, 6] from the theory of Tajmar and de Matos for a gravitomagnetic field anagalous to the London dipole field. We can thus place a lower limit on any frame dragging effect. If the effect exists it is at least 21 times smaller than indicated by the theory.
The combined four-gyro result in the figure gives a statistical uncertainty of 14% (~5 marcsec/yr) for the frame-dragging (EW). The gyroscope-to-gyroscope variation gives a measure of the current systematic uncertainty. The standard deviation of this variation for all four gyroscopes is 10% (~4 marcsec/yr) of the frame-dragging effect, suggesting that the systematic uncertainty is similar in size (or smaller) than the statistical uncertainty.
This field, while still small enough that gross macroscopic frame-dragging effects are not immediately obvious, is enormously larger (by a factor of order 10^30) than the classical field. This opens the possibility for detection in a laboratory experiment. Recent experimental work to this end performed by Tajmar and de Matos  appears to support this. When superconducting lead and niobium rings were rotated, nearby linear accelerometers detected a transient during acceleration and again during deceleration. The effect disappeared when the temperature of the rings was increased above the superconducting transition.
If this effect is as large as claimed and can be shown to survive independent verification then the impact on gravitational physics would be tremendous.
It is interesting to note from equation 2 that this effect is not simply a larger Lense-Thirring field. It is fundamentally different because the magnitude of the effect does not depend on the mass of the superconductor. However from a practical point of view the inverse cube decay of a dipole field means that the observed field will be larger for superconductors with larger volume.
Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
reply to post by Phage
I wonder how actively the subject is being pursued...perhaps they are unwilling to reveal more until more research has been pursued further. Not sure at all here just speculating.
Are you sure the results have not been duplicated? Or has the scientific community merely been silent on the subject?