Experiment could prove The Theory of General Relativity wrong...

page: 3
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
1. Old news, 2006.

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.

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.




posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I love how Heim Theory makes no outrageous claims in this sense, he just claculated the weight of elementary particles to a few decimal places of precision...no big deal huh. Seriously, Heim Theory explains all of this but its not mainstream yet because change in a world of ignorance takes DECADES, so... #in eh' right?

[edit on 26-2-2010 by Paradox.]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The experiment was conducted 4 years ago.
news.softpedia.com...

Tajmar's results have not been duplicated.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   


2. It's not valid enough, there are questions about the readings and ideas that supercooled helium atoms were affecting the results.


Where is this discrepancy mentioned? Not picking a fight, just feel like I missed something here.




3. Even if this one thing went against relativity, there is a ton of evidence showing relativity works very well.


I am well aware of that. As the article, and report stated this actually does more to link General Relativity to Quantum Physics, then to dispel Relativity entirely. Not truly a one time thing either... from the article.


"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,"



Also there is another thread on the board discussing the anomaly of spacecraft speeding up more than they should when in the gravitational field of a planet. Not stating this is proof of anything, but I feel the odds are good this is more than an isolated incident.




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.


Agreed and stated in the original story and report, as I mentioned responding the last point. I agree that the title of the story may be a bit off, perhaps something more akin to "Experiment may link Relativity and Quantum Physics".




1. Old news, 2006.


Well it may be a bit old, but judging by responses it's still news to many. I apologize if this has been discussed in the past.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
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?



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
First of all, this story is OLD news... about 4 years old to be exact. If you look up this information, it was discovered about a year or two ago. I'm sure you can find numerous articles archived that talk about "general relativity proven wrong". Just Google "ESA produces gravity in lab" and you'll find tons of articles.

Secondly, the Gravity B probe that is designed to sense any change in gravity has not detected anything at all since it was launched other than the Earth's magnetic field. (source) As such, it's funding has been basically cut for any future experiments and it will be used to carry out whatever usefulness it can serve on it's remaining lifespan.

Thirdly, if you want to do the research and take the time to understand the physics of this, this story originates from the ESA having already demonstrated a pretty concrete link between gravity and electro-magnetism in a lab experiment, decoupling the notion of a separate force from the other 3 fundamental forces and trashing the Gravity B probe's usage for anything tangible other than a space-based paper weight. This discovery alone has the possibility to change the entire scope of classic physics and opens up unified theory to a whole new world.

The ESA discovery was named the "gravitoelectric London moment", named closely after the London moment posited in the understanding of magnetism in superconductors. In the same vein as the OP, the ESA discovered that by rotating a superconducting ring of niobium (at 6500 rpm) and pumping a LOT of electricity through it at super-cooled temperatures, the laser used to bounce off of the rotating disk "moved" just a fraction out of phase. This demonstrated for the first time, in a lab, the ability to produce a small field of gravity that was able to distort the path of the light coming from the laser, which according to physics, should not have been possible unless there is a link between gravity and electromagnetism. This experiment also shows that the measurable amount of gravity that is expected by Einstein's General Relativity Theory is many orders of magnitude less than what was measured by the ESA, which means either Einstein is wrong, the relationship in classic physics between fundamental forces is wrong, or that we have an entirely new type of effect/science at work. Interestingly enough, without the moving current in the superconducting ring AND the ring itself moving, there was no effect observed. The super-cooling is needed to slow or reduce entropy and thus allow a buildup of electrical current to achieve super-conduction, thus without this as well, the effect would not be possible.

If you have a good understanding of classical physics and any idea of string theory, this will start to point to a way that the two can mesh. This is just a stone's throw from Faraday's electromagnetic induction experiments and the equations here are based on Maxwell's equations, so if you are down for doing the math, I think someone on these threads could shed new light on this subject for everyone involved.

I'm not sure why this was never mentioned before, or why this story is making it as "new news", but to anyone serious about understanding this, I suggest the following Paper. Please keep in mind it is a scientific publication, so it is not easy reading.

I realize how much of this sounds EXACTLY like the kinds of technology we've all heard about with regards to UFOs and government projects, but finding any shred of solid science for those types of things is extremely hard. This is the closest thing you'll find with hard data to support the claims that these other types of technologies, are in fact VERY possible and likely to be occurring as I type this.

Enjoy!

~Namaste



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Have to be faster at typing/replying around here. Sorry for the duped info!

And of course, since this is science, you have to keep an open mind to all possibilities as Phage and others have pointed out. The experiment has not been repeated, but we also have to understand that this is the ESA, the tools used to perform the experiment aren't exactly "cheap", and it would take any lab, private or otherwise, quite some time to interpret the data and results of the experiment long before even attempting to reproduce it.

So while I understand how the "community" works with these types of experiments, it still has to be taken seriously since the data is real. It only takes one person to disprove a theory, but so far, nobody has, and that might not necessarily mean it is because of a lack of trial, it could just mean nobody has been able to successfully prove otherwise. Food for thought Phage...


~Namaste

[edit on 26-2-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne]

[edit on 26-2-2010 by SonOfTheLawOfOne]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Its funny, I wrote a "secret to gravity" topic that hints to the hidden properties of a spinning top.

All objects are made of electromagnetic particles and when they are in motion their electromagnetic force is strengthened by induction from external magnetic forces in the environment. This increases the magnetic attraction of the object to the Earth, even if the object has a very low permeability. That in turn will make the object appear heavier on scales.

With the same theory I can also say that a conductive wire with electricity running through it weighs more than the same conductive wire without electricity running through it. The weight is not from an increase in mass, but an increase in magnetic force, and attraction to Earth.... Well, it could be an increase in mass since it contains more electrons..


[edit on 26-2-2010 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


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.

www.earthtech.org...

www.earthtech.org...



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 

Gravity Probe B has demonstrated frame dragging.

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.

einstein.stanford.edu...



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


I tend to agree and disagree with you on this....

Entropy will not allow an increased mass just because the electrons are moving through the wire. The electrons are in fact still moving within the wire in their respective atomic orbit, but it isn't until force is applied that the electron jumps to the next atom.

Realistically, once you apply force, the same number of electrons are still present in the wire at any given time, they are just in different positions from the previous measurement. This also depends on what type of force you use.

You are correct however in that if you could increase the number of electrons in the wire, you would in fact increase it's mass because an electron is not a mass-less particle and does have atomic weight, albeit very small.

Not trying to knock your theory, just shedding a different light on it.

~Namaste



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


My apologies for my outdated references.

Thanks for providing more accurate info Phage. Checking it out now.


~Namaste



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


Sorry, I thought I made it clear, model the design of the ARV:



Rotate an aluminum flywheel (the blue circular disc underneath the chairs in the ARV sketch) so that the outer surface speed of the disc is about 200 meters/second (the larger the disc the lower the rpm can be since the surface speed at the edge will stay the same).

Rotate this flywheel as close as possible (the closer to the coil the stronger the magnetic field will be when it hits the flywheel) to the top of a high strength electromagnetic coil seen in red in the image. McCandlish claimed this coil had 450-800 turns.

Have these 2 components sitting above a flat parallel plate capacitor; seen in green in the image. McCandlish claimed the capacitor section was split into 48 slices like a pizza pie. This would allow the craft to direct the hill in spacetime it is creating and therefore steer.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


This is fantastic, I will have to spend some time reading the article and tracking the sources before I get super excited. But this might bring Podkletnov's experiments and observations back into the mainstream. It may also help explain various anomalous measurements that are typically brushed aside, such as possible anisotropy of G, and many others. Thanks for the link!!!!

-rrr



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I see they are awaiting further independent results from the good doctor before they are willing to finance this. Not so surprising there. However here in the article it states...




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 [12] 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 e ffect disappeared when the temperature of the rings was increased above the superconducting transition.
If this eff ect 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 eff ect is not simply a larger Lense-Thirring field. It is fundamentally diff erent because the magnitude of the e ffect 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.


Now they do indeed sound skeptical however I don't see anywhere in these link that dismisses the work of Tajmar and de Matos.

In your own post you point out frame dragging, which is also known as the Lense-Thirring field. Seems like the last bit here seperates this effect into something new, rather than classify this experiment as a Lense-Thirring. Am I completely off base here? I swear I am not trying to argue for fun's sake.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

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?


Almost no one else is publicly doing these experiments. I have read of groups who have tried to replicate the experiments but have either not spun the superconductor or spun it at much lower speeds.

Outer surface speed of the spinning superconductor is important. A 1 foot spinning superconductor spinning at 5000rpm would have a much higher outer surface speed (still not even close to 200 meters/sec) than a 2-3 inch superconductor spinning at 5000 rpm.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Thanks for the find I had not seen this. Guess I need to add this to the Electric Universe/Plasma theory reading I am doing.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 

The work has not been dismissed but the New Zealand group did not find evidence of the effects reported by Tajmar (within sensitivity limits).

Tajmar claims a frame dragging effect produced by a rotating superconductor which goes far beyond the effect produced by a rotating mass as predicted by Einstein.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I don't mean to be the jerk skeptic (which I usually never am), but where did the ORIGINAL news source come from? I don't know that I trust a blogspot account. I'd have to see the actual original documented report or see it in Scientific American before I start giving these "findings" any credence.


But it's a good find none the less, and if I can find the original article, I will link to it. If the OP can find it, all the better.

S&F for you for making me think and do some actual detective work tonight.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


The report you posted states that this effect is not frame dragging though, as it is not dependent on the subject's mass. This can get a bit confusing at times lol. I concede that there is always reason to doubt.

I honestly believe this to be true, it fills many holes and questions I have always had about physics. That however is again conjecture on my part.





new topics
top topics
 
72
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join