Dear
Author at IOP Publishing, [11] Pgh 2015 December 03
You
wrote:
“The
GPB space mission measured the curvature of space caused by the
Earth's gravitational field to high precision. This confirmed a
prediction of the theory of general relativity, presented by Albert
Einstein exactly 100 years ago this month.” [1]
Apparently
you were talking about a failed mission whose finding were off 30%
and declared inconclusive by the scientific community, for the
results were doctored for years to meet the “prediction”, while
the cost of the so called test amounted almost a billion dollars
trying to prove the “frame dragging” and failed proving the
curvature of space.
About
the Frame Dragging Test of Gravity Probe B
(GP-B).
Gravity
Probe B (GP-B) was a NASA physics mission to experimentally
investigate the so called general theory of relativity (GR) that by
the way falls back to Newton’s theory of gravity which is working
well in our Solar System and almost as well in the observable
Universe. At the same time the GR theory and our known physics –
including Newton’s gravity - breaks down at extreme circumstances
like singularities, infinities and the internal physical conditions
of black holes, neutron stars and possible quark stars.
“General
relativity has remained the least tested of Einstein’s theories.
The reason is, as Caltech physicist Kip Thorne once put it: so, any
measurements of the relativistic effects of gravity around Earth must
be carried out with utmost precision.” [Including the effort of
proving frame dragging] [1A]
The
scientific community had serious doubts about result of the frame
dragging experience performed by Probe B (GP-B) and declared it
inconclusive, regardless years of effort trying to correct the
raw data to meet the values of the “prediction”.
Any
results that requires years of corrections of the data that supplied
by the measuring device calls for questioning the reliability
(accuracy) of any measurement and the clear identification of
possible noises. In this case the re engineered results of Gravity
Probe B should be taken with a grain of salt.
The project was
on very shaky ground, because even after years of data massaging,
GP-B had weakly confirmed one of the effects, frame dragging, to only
the 25 to 33 percent range. But as Everitt and GP-B spokesman Bob
Kahn, of Stanford, told IEEE Spectrum via e-mail, a
recent breakthrough in the modeling of behavior of the satellite’s
instruments has increased the data's accuracy ”by a factor of 5 to
10%. The new results are to be presented early this month at an
International Space Science Institute workshop on the nature of
gravity.
[The]
relativistic “geodetic effect” causes an Earth-orbiting gyroscope
to drift 0.0000002 (10-7) degree per hour—a
factor of 20 000 above the expected sensitivity of the
GP-B gyroscopes. [2]
“By August
2008, the frame-dragging effect had been confirmed
to within 15% of the expected result,
and the December 2008 NASA
report indicated that the geodetic effect was confirmed to better
than 0.5%.
In an article
published in the journal Physical
Review Letters
in 2011 , the authors reported analysis of the data from all four
gyroscopes results in a geodetic
drift rate of −6601.8±18.3 mas/yr
and a frame-dragging drift rate of −37.2±7.2 mas/yr,
to be compared with the general relativity predictions of
−6606.1±0.28% mas/yr and −39.2±0.19% mas/yr,
respectively (discrepancies of 0.07% and 5%, respectively).”
(Milliarcsecond
0.001 arcsecond mas 4.8481368 nrad A milliarcseconds
is 1/1000th of one of an arc-second or
1/3,600,000th of a single degree (2.8*10-7).
The precision of the SQUID magnetic gyroscope readouts used in the
GP-B experiment is 1/10 of a milliarcsecond or 0.0001 arc-seconds!)
[1]
To
put the corrected results in realistic perspective, the probe
had to recognize the drag of 23 mm per revolution,
and the accumulated value of ~5000 rev/year. If the 0.0001
arc-seconds precision of the instruments is correct as they claimed,
it means the sensitivity of the instrument was – as it is
required - ten times higher than the predicted value - that is
2.3mm/revolution. This has to be compared to the R
of the probe’s orbit around the Earth’s center (R=
Earth radius + height of the satellite, so R is 7.02*106
m) and to the corresponding the circumference of the orbital
circle is (2Rπ= 1.04*107 m)
The
calculated ratio between the length of the R of the satellite
and the advance of 23mm/revolution caused by the possible frame
dragging (using an instrument with 2.3 mm/revolution sensitivity) is
0.0023/7.02*106= 3.3*10-10,
a figure about just a magnitude larger than the diameter of the Bohr
radius (5.29×10−11m)
In
other words, the probe had to be able to recognize the drag-induced
tilting of the orbital Radius that would amount only to ~3.3*10-10
per revolution relative to the length of R.
As
far as the possible noise sources are concerned, it has to be
recognized that the center of gravity is not in the geometrical
center of the Earth and its position is moving. The effect of
changing the Moon’s gravity may influence the data due to its
elliptical orbit and the gradual change of the semi-major axis (The
Moon is spiraling away from Earth at a rate of 3.8 cm per year
or~1.5”/y). Other factors that may create “noise” are the
fluctuation of Earths’ magnetic field due to the Sun’s
unpredictable activity, the changing of the Earth distance
from the Sun and the aberration of the target star.
“When the Earth
is farther from the Sun, the energy density is dropping by 11%
relative to the perigee position, a substantial change that the
interferometry measurements of c did not
register. If a slightest variation would be detected in the future
then our understanding of the twentieth century physics should be
reconsidered”
In
the case of our Sun the difference between apogee and perigee is ~5
million km. The energy emission E of the Sun
dilutes at the apogee position of the Earth 11% relative to the
perigee position. It could be of interest measuring the effect of the
dilution, on μ0 and
ε0 , or at least
calculate if the differences in their product c
could be detected by present day instruments. [ 2A]
With
the general theory of relativity, acclaimed as one of the most
brilliant creations of the human mind, Einstein forever changed our
Newtonian view of gravity. However, even though it has become one of
the cornerstones of modern physics, general relativity has remained
the least tested of Einstein’s theories. [1]
Besides
the questionable result of the frame dragging test, it is claimed
that the general theory of relativity (GR, a Genesis-like view of
cosmology) has passed four important tests since its inception in
1916 as it listed below:
- The perihelion shift of Mercury’s orbit.
It was solved in
1898 - 18 years prior to GR theory - by Gerber, providing the
formulae whose result gave the correct value (1.75 arcsecond/year).
Einstein had published Gerber’s calculation word by word (unchanged
except t for tau, etc.), as the result of his own
theory, and told “the originality depends on hiding ones
source” [3]
- Gravitational deflection of light by a massive body can be calculated by simple physical rules without using the space-twisting GR theory.
Bending of a Beam
of Light Passing a Massive Object according Albrecht Giese’s
calculation is 1.75 arcsecond. The proof was presented at the Spring
Conference of the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische
Gesellschaft) on 24 March 2000 in Dresden. [4]
- The analogous radar time delay (Shapiro effect)
The Shapiro delay is
merely a very good fit to the data dealing with the transit times of
the microwave signals as function of the selected microwave
frequencies of the transmitted link and as affected by the space
properties of the solar wind that govern the propagation of
microwaves signals in space. The Shapiro delay is the determination
of the transit-time delay (usually expressed in microseconds) due to
the influence of the expanding solar atmosphere (solar wind) of a
measurable electron profile. The Shapiro delay has nothing at all
to do with space-time or the gravitational solar light bending
effect of General Relativity (usually expressed in radians).
The electron
density profile of solar wind is found to behave very nearly as an
inverse square of r, namely as r-2, with
electron density profile models ranging from r-2.05
to r-2.08, and with effects that engulf the
outermost planets of the solar system. The bulk of all the Shapiro
delay measurements were done using microwave frequencies from 500 MHz
to 8.8GHz (with wavelengths from 80cm to 3.5cm). Significant findings
of this research reveal that, for all microwave signals propagating
in the solar wind atmosphere of the solar system, the waves are
subjected to a frequency dependent plasma index of refraction n(r)
that exceeds unity, i.e., n > 1.0000000000. For optical, IR and UV
wavelengths, the plasma index of refraction is practically n =
1.0000000000 and these wavelengths are virtually unaffected by the
widespread atmosphere of the expanding solar wind described by the
electron density profile. As a consequence, the Shapiro delay is only
a very good measurement of a frequency dependent transit-time effect
and cannot be or have anything to do with a space-time effect of
General Relativity which is independent of frequency or
seconds of arc). Shapiro delay [5]
- The change in orbital frequency of the Taylor-Hulse binary pulsar based on the emission of gravitational radiation.
This far the gravity
waves were not yet detected. The Gravitational waves are expected to
have frequencies of a very
wild range :
and amplitudes of
4*106 m that is decaying by a ratio of 1/R. If it say
10-16 Hz then the wave length ~1024 m is larger
than the Diameter of the observable Universe [6]
“Further,
the “strong equivalence principle,” a key assumption underlying
GR’s theory, has also received strong experimental support through
NASA’s 1976 Gravity Probe A (GP-A) red-shift clock experiment and
NASA lunar laser ranging free-fall measurements”?
Nevertheless,
it is widely believed that our present theories of gravity will
eventually be seen as limiting cases of a unified theory in which
all four fundamental forces of nature (strong, weak, electromagnetic,
and gravity) become comparable in strength at very high energies. But
there is no consensus as to whether it is GR, particle physics, or
both that must be modified—let alone how. [7]
Price
of the Gravity Probe B $793 million
From
1963 - 2007, Gravity Probe B was funded and sponsored by NASA. The
total funding amount over this 44-year period was approximately $750
million.
From
January - September 2008, GP-B was funded in equal $500,000 shares
($1.5 million total) by a private donor, Stanford University and
NASA.
Beginning
in October 2008, a different funding agency committed? $2.7
million to support completion of the data analysis and conclusion of
the program now anticipated at the end of 2009.
One
can read an overview of the history and funding of GP-B on the
History
and Management page in the Mission Tab of this Web site.[8]
Some
additional facts about the real problems that the “post doctoring”
of the failures of the missions tried to hide:
“First,
because each rotor is not exactly spherical, its principal axis
rotates around its spin axis with a period of several hours, with a
fixed angle between the two axes. This is the familiar “polhode”
period of a spinning top and, in fact, the team used it as part of
their analysis to calibrate the SQUID output. But the polhode period
and angle of each rotor actually decreased monotonically with time,
implying
the presence of some damping mechanism, and
this significantly complicated the calibration analysis. In addition,
over the course of a day, each rotor was found to make occasional,
seemingly random “jumps” in its orientation—some
as large as 100
milliarcseconds.
Some rotors displayed more frequent jumps than others. Without being
able to continuously monitor the rotors’ orientation, Everitt and
his team couldn’t fully exploit the calibrating effect of the
stellar aberration in their analysis. Finally,
during a planned 40-day,
end-of-mission calibration phase, the team discovered that when the
spacecraft was deliberately pointed away from the guide star by a
large angle, the misalignment induced much larger torques on the
rotors than expected. From this, they inferred that even the very
small misalignments that occurred during the science phase of the
mission induced torques that were probably several hundred times
larger than the designers had estimated.”[9]
Notes
about the bent “empty” space and “weak gravity”:
By
making a most common engineering calculation, if one would use a
hypothetical steel cable for keeping Earth in orbit, and that cable -
for example - would have the braking strength of about 108
Pascal (σ=1000kg/cm2), it would turn out that the
required diameter of the regular steel cable should be considerably
larger than the diameter of Earth and would be - due to its length
of 1.5*1011 m -approximately 10 times
heavier than the planet it “anchors” to the Sun; and not
counting the incredibly high G force on the cable itself. The
result of the recalculation of larger and larger cables needed to
take the G force acting on it would result in an infinite mass. [10]
The
copy of the simple calculation is attached on the next page.
In
short, if the area required for the cable to perform is ~3.5*1014
m2 the force between two protons would be 7.692 *
10 -23 N; smaller than the theoretically available
2.3*10-18 N. [10]
Regards
Dr.
Karoly Kehrer
karolykehrer@yahoo.com
The
size of a hypothetical cable that could keep Earth in orbit
around the Sun against the centrifugal force (F=mv2/R) =
~3.522*1022 at 29.8 km/s orbital speed.
A
steel cable is considered with a tensile strength of 1000kg/cm2
(108 N/m2)
References:
[1A]
Caltech physicist Kip Thorne
[2]
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/the-gravity-probe-b-bailout
[5]
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings06B.htms Shapiro
delay
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
[8]
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html price of the
probe
[10]
kk @ http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/competition.html
(cable size)
[11]
IOP Publishing Limited Registered in England under
Registration No 467514. Registered Office: Temple Circus, Temple Way,
Bristol BS1 6HG England VAT No GB 461 6000 84. Please consider the
environment before printing this e-mail.
