After 40 years and $1 b/usd NASA is bailing out of the mission over a paltry $3.8 m/ usd B***S###t! The mission is a failure because the data does not support GR and they can not find enough fudge factor to compensate so bail out saves face! Steinism may still live but the truth will out.

bob s

Before the data collection mission of GP-B was completed, I attempted to get two letters published in Nature Physics, predicting the results would not agree with GR and why. Both were rejected.

I then heard that there were indeed initial indications of anomaly. It was around the same time that I heard about the "anomalous" Tajmar results, and I submitted a new paper, which re-presents my theory and an explanation for the Tajmar results. This paper has now been rejected by 2 journals, with a third currently in review. Previous versions of my paper have been rejected no less than a dozen times by various journals over the years. I even had one venue state: "Your theory does not reduce to General Relativity, and is therefore not worthy of publication."

Lets face it, either gravity distorts space-time OR.. gravity is a gradient of quantized , sub-EM radiation (as my theory proposes). Either will produce the same results. My theory differs from most aether/LeSage shadowing theories in that while gravitation is the result of particles, it is not a shadowing theory, nor is the problem of directionality of the aether invoked. In my theory, the source of the particles responsible for gravitation is matter itself.

For those interested, a version of my theory is presented at:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf

and an experimental proof is proposed here:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe2.pdf

BTW, where did you hear that NASA is backing away from GP-B? I have not heard that, though I've also heard very little past the preliminary reports of anomalies.

-Dave

Dave, here is the link, I just read the article today; http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
I'll read your paper and get back to you. Thanks

bob s

Thanks for the link.

It seems they are still seeing roughly the same magnitude of "error" as I read about before, resulting in a frame dragging effect that is "..~170 times smaller" than predicted.

It seems to me that the SAC board does not want this analysis completed and the results published. Either way this would be a black mark on someone. Either the multi-billion-dollar price tag was wasted on a faulty experiment, or GR is in serious trouble. Neither scenario is desirable to the interested parties. I do not see how they are going to explain away a result that is 170 times smaller than predicted. Meanwhile, the Tajmar results report an effect that is orders of magnitude larger, but in the opposite direction. Lets not forget the fact that the effect, for the same mass, also scales directly with the applied angular acceleration.

The measurement of the "geodesic" to within 1.5% is a nonstarter, as it could just as easily be a measure of the gravity gradient. There will be a small angular momentum imparted on objects in near-Earth orbit, even with a gradient field of radially vectored particles, and I would expect it to be very small.. nowhere near the magnitude predicted by GR, since there really is no space-time coupling of gravity. The results so far from GP-B seem to support my prediction.

Best regards,
-Dave

Dave, I haven't had a chance to read your material yet, but I will. I have been trying to keep abreast of GPB since it launched but I never expected that NASA would bail out this close to the end, my first bet now is that Stanford will get private funding to finish and Dr. Elliot et al will then try and privatize the data and all we will ever get is what they want us to have.

GPB was not initiated to test GR but to prove GR. Many Einsteinians have already admitted that if the data does not support GR then they will call GPB a failure, no big supprise there.

My other guess, for now, is that when they correct for "frame drag" they loose "geodesic" and vice versa. Because of the sophistication of the equipment there is just not enough error to get both even close.

Not much is ever said about the military involvement but what they want is either to take target practice at distant stars or improve GPS for landing aircraft on carriers at sea, most likely the latter and I think they have all they need, hell! the Air Force has already taken over the mission.

bob s

Re: Dave Roscoe, Gravity Probe B May 29 2008, 2:37 PM

For those interested, a version of my theory is presented at: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf>

Dave, I have read your paper and I have no disagreement with the prediction. However, I fail to see how a massless graviton is able to impart a force on a particle and if it could it would have to be able to impart a force on another graviton thereby nullifying your figure #2. Help me out with that.

bob s

[..]I fail to see how a massless graviton is able to impart a force on a particle...[..]

It is a radiation recoil. Photons also impart a radiation recoil upon their emission source, and photons are aggregations of gravitons, due to the acceleration of the emission source. Mossbauer did much of the earlier study on this phenomenon, which is why I reference his work in my paper. There is a reason for the recoil, which has its roots in the nature of the vacuum. In short, there is a certain amount of force needed to push through the vacuum and initiate a propagation, and at discretized intervals, the vacuum will reflex in response to that propagation. This is the source of the equal and opposite law of nature. I do not go into that in my paper, as the scope would become too broad. Suffice it to say, for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction...even with massless particles. These same particles also impart momentum on any matter it hits, just as photons do.

[..] and if it could it would have to be able to impart a force on another graviton thereby nullifying your figure #2. Help me out with that.[..]

If you notice, I subtly do no show he graviton paths as being coincident with each other, but you do raise a point that has come up many times before.

Gravitons cannot collide with each other because they are not "real" particles. They are virtual particles, which share properties of matter particles, but are not. In the simplest definition, they are simply force packets with a vector. Though the likelihood of graviton-graviton impact is infinitesimal, just as graviton-matter impacts are if it did occur, the two would pass through each other and continue on their way, just as photons do. Again, there is a reason for this, which has its roots in the nature of the vacuum. For simplicity's sake imagine the graviton as a 'bubble' moving through the fluidic vacuum. It is not exactly analogous, but its close.

Gravitons have no charge and have no intrinsic spin, so there is nothing that needs to be reconciled with their interaction either with themselves or matter. I qualify spin as "intrinsic" because the propagation of gravitons through the vacuum does impart spin on the graviton, however, the spin does not belong to the graviton itself, as would be the case for matter particles, but rather is an intrinsic attribute of the vacuum in which it is propagating.

I hope this explanation helps!

-Dave

Re: Dave, Gravity Probe B June 2 2008, 12:51 PM

I hope this explanation helps!
-Dave

Yes Dave, it does help but I still have issues which I will address in a different string. I think this dialog is drifting from the GP-B experiment so I will (or you can) start a new string.

GP-B is an engineering wonder and I give it an A+A+ grade but I think the experiment side was doomed from the beginning. Actually there were two experiments One scientific and the other military. The military side will be a success and will improve their GPS system to the capabilities of being able to locate a bottle cap on Earth from the Moon; OK, maybe that is a bit exaggerated but not by much.

First off, the experiment was designed to prove GR not to test it. 90% of experiments designed to prove something will succeed 99% of the time, my estimate. Any null results were pre-dismissed before lift off.

The scientific experiment was two phase;
1. The geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides.
2. The frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it.
Conducting two experiments with one device is foolhardy at best. Assume one proof is validated while the other is not; which one should be redone. Proponents and opponents of GR could each claim success and the debate would be endless. Would NASA fund another flight? And if they did, for which phase? Answer; more endless debate!

The geodetic effect; if local spacetime is effected by gravity should the test be inside or outside Earth’s gravitational field? Or both? What is the true spacetime used for comparison? Should time dilation be factored in, or factored out? If in, or out, by what true time for comparison? If Earth’s gravitation can effect local spacetime should it not also bend light?

The frame-dragging effect; Why only two points of reference (Earth and guide star)? Does not a proper coordinate test require three points of reference (XYZ)? The Earth, Polaris and the guide star should have been used. Would not a geodetic drag and frame drag share the same cause? Will the lesser geodetic effect extrapolate to the greater frame dragging effect using the same multiplier (divisor)? Was the probe always exposed to an equal gravitational effect of the Earth, Moon and Sun? Would not the Sun obscure the guide star when the probe was on the back side of the Earth’s orbit?

Would I be willing to donate to the needed $3.8 m to insure that the data is made public? Yes! my fair share! Cutting off funding at this stage of the experiment and for that amount, has a real stench of dishonesty about it...well!...except for the military application of course.

bob s

Yes, at this point, they are in for a penny, or in for a pound. Finish the results, publish, and let the community at large decide its validity.

-Dave

[QUOTE]The scientific experiment was two phase;
1. The geodetic effect—the amount by which the Earth warps the local spacetime in which it resides.
2. The frame-dragging effect—the amount by which the rotating Earth drags its local spacetime around with it.
Conducting two experiments with one device is foolhardy at best. Assume one proof is validated while the other is not; which one should be redone. Proponents and opponents of GR could each claim success and the debate would be endless. Would NASA fund another flight? And if they did, for which phase? Answer; more endless debate![/QUOTE]

The reason why there are two tests for the price of one is because frame dragging occurs BECAUSE of the geodesic, and the spinning Earth. If there is no frame dragging, there can't be a geodesic, so the "geodesic" must actually be a gradient. Since the experiment was meant to prove GR, not disprove it, a failure of either part is a failure of the whole, and it must be a failure on the part of the experiment. If it is ever redone, it would likely be just the frame dragging portion, since that is the result that is in contention, and (now) attributed to unmodelled influences and/or insufficient data. The problem with frame dragging is that it cannot be explained any other way, unlike the "geodesic". It is either there or it is not there.

[QUOTE]The geodetic effect; if local spacetime is effected by gravity should the test be inside or outside Earth’s gravitational field? Or both? What is the true spacetime used for comparison? Should time dilation be factored in, or factored out? If in, or out, by what true time for comparison? If Earth’s gravitation can effect local spacetime should it not also bend light?[QUOTE]

To properly measure the geodesic, you need to have two reference points, in my opinion. The first at the surface of the Earth, and the second at a remote location above it. However, this does not prove the presence of a geodesic because you would need to rule out the possibility that there is a gradient. To acknowledge there might be a gradient at work implies that you are looking at possibilities outside of GR, which as you said, was beyond the scope of GP-B.

The bending of light is another attribute that can be also attributed to a gradient. The problem is, at light's speed, the gradient or "geodesic" would need to be very large in order to produce a measurable deflection of light's path. While the Earth technically could produce such effects, it may be beyond our ability to measure it.

So, because the result of GP-B do not confirm GR, which is already presumed to be correct, the experiment must be a failure, and would not merit any additional funds. It would be throwing good money at bad science.

In my opinion....

Bottom line, the experiment should be seen to its conclusion. Unless they can come up with specific reasons why the results are wrong, then it should be published. Simply saying the analysis is "sloppy" and there is not enough "good" data to be beyond doubt is not a good enough reason. If there is contention, let them perform other experiments to refute these results. If it cannot be refuted, then it must stand, whatever the consequences.

Science doesn't work that way though. Future generations won't have as much invested in GR, and will be more open to new ideas. Eventually all the old zealots will die, and a transition will occur.

-Dave

I think I understand the basic rationale behind this somewhat 'stingy' decision by NASA:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html


Those so-called 'Gravity-Probe-B data analysts'
appear to enjoy their task so much and don't like the idea of ending it as soon as possible.

They have been also encouraged by the 'managerially foolish' Will's Report;
so much so that they actually want to prolong this very simple task by two years, which is ridiculous.

Even in the low-tech age of Einstein and Eddington, the two-year request to analyze the data would have been
ludicrous. And it's certainly ludicrous and ridiculous in this age of high tech and supercomputers.

The NASA Rejection, therefore, is justified.

AAF,

I've seen your posts here, and I respect your opinion. Do you honestly think that the fact that the data does not appear to support GR has no bearing on the decision?

The bulk of the experiment has been completed, and the costs spent. Why would NASA walk away from the project, due to a relatively paltry sum of money? Forty years in planning, and they cant wait two more years?

I suppose the real question here, is whether the analysis will be expedited to meet the projected end of funding. We are presuming that the results will never see the light of day, but that may be just so much supposition.

Regards,
-Dave

Re: Dave, Gravity Probe B June 3 2008, 2:01 PM

So far Dave, we seem to be in agreement on point. So without beating a dead probe to death I have one more opinion re;
The bending of light is another attribute that can be also attributed to a gradient. The problem is, at light's speed, the gradient or "geodesic" would need to be very large in order to produce a measurable deflection of light's path. While the Earth technically could produce such effects, it may be beyond our ability to measure it.
According to Newton et al gravity is uniform to the inverse square (if I said that right) and if gravity is able to bend gravity to a detectable amount then the bend would be greater at the surface of the Earth than above the surface therefor, an object falling to the Earth would fall at a tangent but, a tangent at what angle and in which direction?

I would suggest that the geodesic effect on light would be greater than gravity’s effect on itself. Gravity bending gravity? I do not agree that a gravitational field can collapse into itself so gravity bending itself is beyond the pale.

Iff the geodesic effect is detectable at 240 mi above the Earth and the instrumentation is as good as they say it is then frame dragging should be detectable at the distance of the Moon from the surface of the Earth.

bob s

Dave;


Honestly, honestly, honestly, I don't think that any data of this sort analyzed by people of this kind could ever disagree with GTR or Einstein.

There are hundreds and hundreds of ways to make the analyzed data agree with Einstein's theory or any other theory for that matter.

In any case, the raw data is far more important than the analyzed data.

The raw data of Gravity Probe B is safely stored and backed up and will be always there available for analysis and reanalysis so many times in the future.

Re: AAF, Gravity Probe B June 3 2008, 5:25 PM

The NASA Rejection, therefore, is justified.

How do you rationalize that statement AAF. I would totally agree had the funding stopped pre-launch. If that data goes private then Stanford stands to profit at the expense of full disclosure. Stanford should be forced to justify the time overrun (and I do not think they can) or be held financially responsible. And, if the overrun can not be justified the data should be confiscated or court ordered injunction stopping Stanford from publishing.

That data was being assimilated as the data was downloaded so all that should have been required was, verify and publish, 6 mo to 1 yr max. That data was promised to independent researchers and should be forthcoming regardless of how NASA handles Stanford. NASA should pony up the $3.8 m and hold Stanford’s feet to a very hot fire. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is one thing but throwing out the baby before the bath is another!

bob s

AAF, I posted before I read you response to Dave. I understand your rational but I can't agree. Stanford must be the one to publish so that they are the one accountable for the findings. It is their credibility that should be at stake.

bob s

Dave;

[QUOTE]
Honestly, honestly, honestly, I don't think that any data of this sort analyzed by people of this kind could ever disagree with GTR or Einstein.

There are hundreds and hundreds of ways to make the analyzed data agree with Einstein's theory or any other theory for that matter.

In any case, the raw data is far more important than the analyzed data.

The raw data of Gravity Probe B is safely stored and backed up and will be always there available for analysis and reanalysis so many times in the future.
[/QUOTE]

Ah.. OK, now I see where you are coming from, and I agree. I agree with Bob also, that it should ideally be Stanford that publishes, and they appear to be willing to do so. Between stepping up their schedule and perhaps some private funding, it may still be possible.

Regards,
-Dave

[QUOTE]
According to Newton et al gravity is uniform to the inverse square (if I said that right) and if gravity is able to bend gravity to a detectable amount then the bend would be greater at the surface of the Earth than above the surface therefor, an object falling to the Earth would fall at a tangent but, a tangent at what angle and in which direction?

I would suggest that the geodesic effect on light would be greater than gravity’s effect on itself. Gravity bending gravity? I do not agree that a gravitational field can collapse into itself so gravity bending itself is beyond the pale.
[/QUOTE]

Hypothetically, yes. The deflection off path would be greater, the closer you were to the surface. In my view, this is because the graviton gradient is much denser at the surface. The atmosphere would pose too great an influence to discern anything of importance, however. With a much larger gradient, the field density would be higher, even farther out, than a much smaller mass, and light deflection would be observable.

Gravity bending gravity? Can't happen.

Regards,
-Dave

So, Bob, what is your opinion now that time has passed on Gravity Probe B? Pretty much confirmed, Aye?

Re: JOSE,Gravity Probe B August 6 2009, 2:52 AM

Jose:
"So, Bob, what is your opinion now that time has passed on Gravity Probe B? Pretty much confirmed, Aye?"

The latest mission statement I have is from Feb. 2009 but I see nothing that would change my original opinion. The raw data was promised to independent researchers, my question is, did they get it? I still think the project was more for military use than any testing of Relativity, the military got their data and now GP B will quietly fade into history!

I wonder now, who holds the patents for the technology developments?

Yep, another transfer of wealth to the chosen at the expense of the "public."

The article I read suggested that the prob was a great success because it produced nothing new!

Gravity Probe B: Good Money after Bad?http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/05/gravity_probe_b.html