Physicist Says Testing Technique For Gravitomagnetic Field Is Ineffective

Science Daily - Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity has
fascinated physicists and generated debate about the origin of the universe
and the structure of objects like black holes and complex stars called
quasars. A major focus has been on confirming the existence of the
gravitomagnetic field, as well as gravitational waves.

A physicist at the University of Missouri-Columbia recently argued in a
paper that the interpretation of the results of Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR),
which is being used to detect the gravitomagnetic field, is incorrect
because LLR is not currently sensitive to gravitomagnetism and not effective
in measuring it.

The theory of general relativity includes two different fields: static and
non-static fields. The gravitomagnetic field is a non-static field that is
important for the understanding of general relativity and the universe.

"If the existence of the gravitomagnetic field is confirmed, then our
understanding of general relativity is correct and can be used to explain
things such as quasar jets and accretion disks in black holes," said Sergei
Kopeikin, associate professor of physics in MU's College of Arts and
Science. "General relativity explains the origin of the universe, and that's
important for all humankind, irrespective of religion or creed. We all live
in the same world, and we must understand this place in which we live."

Kopeikin said there are four techniques used to test for the gravitomagnetic
field. The first, called Gravity Probe B, used a gyroscope in orbit around
the earth to measure for the field. It is supported by NASA and took nearly
40 years to develop; scientists recently conducted the experiment and are
now analyzing the results. A second experiment involved satellites called
Lageos and detected a gravitomagnetic field with a precision not exceeding
15 percent. A third experiment was developed by Kopeikin and other
scientists in 2001 and used Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) to test
for the gravitomagnetic field of Jupiter; this experiment detected the field
with approximately 20 percent precision.

LLR is a recent testing technique. It involves shooting a laser beam at
mirrors called retroflectors, which are located on the moon, and then
measuring the roundtrip light travel time of the beam. In a response to a
paper about LLR, Kopeikin argued in a letter published in Physical Review
Letters that the interpretation of LLR results is flawed. He said analyses
of his own and other scientists' research reveal that this approach to the
LLR technique does not measure what it claims.

The LLR technique involves processing data with two sets of mathematical
equations, one related to the motion of the moon around the earth, and the
other related to the propagation of the beam from earth to the moon. These
equations can be written in different ways based on "gauge freedom," the
idea that arbitrary coordinates can be used to describe gravitational
physics. Kopeikin analyzed the gauge freedom of the LLR technique and showed
that the manipulation of the mathematical equations is causing scientists to
derive results that are not apparent in the data itself.

"According to Einstein's theory, only coordinate-independent quantities are
measurable," Kopeikin said. "The effect the LLR scientists claimed as
detectable doesn't exist, as it vanishes in the observer's frame. The
equations add up to zero, having nothing to do with the real data. The
results appear this way because of insufficient analytic control of the
coordinate effects in the sophisticated computer code used for numerical LLR
data processing. We need to focus on the real physical effects of gravity,
not the mathematical effects depending exclusively on the choice of
coordinates."

A reply from the scientists who support LLR also has published in Physical
Review Letters and argues that there are aspects of the technique that cause
them to believe it merits worth.

Source: University of Missouri-Columbia
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0601104855.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

On Jun 2, 7:32 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
Physicist Says Testing Technique For Gravitomagnetic Field Is Ineffective

Science Daily - Albert Einstein's theory
[...]

Source: University of Missouri-Columbiahttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070601104855.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

Murphy et al. Reply to the Comment by Kopeikin on "Gravitomagnetic
Influence on Gyroscopes and on the Lunar Orbit"
Authors: T. W. Murphy Jr., K. Nordtvedt, S. G. Turyshev
(Submitted on 3 May 2007)
Abstract: Lunar laser ranging analysis, as regularly performed
in the solar system barycentric frame, requires the presence of the
gravitomagnetic term in the equation of motion at the strength
predicted by general relativity. The same term is responsible
for the Lense Thirring effect. Any attempt to modify the
strength of the gravitomagnetic interaction would have to do
so in a way that does not destroy the fit to lunar ranging
data and other observations.
Comments: 1 page; accepted for publication in
Physcal Review Letters; refers to gr-qc/0702028
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as: arXiv:0705.0513v1 [gr-qc]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0513

------
Sue...

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 04:02:03 -0700, Sue... wrote:

Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Cite as: arXiv:0705.0513v1 [gr-qc]

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0513

------
Sue...

Ah god-forbid, Sue. This is sci.physics not a
meditation parlor. General relativity and quantum
cosmology? Ah Yaackck Grow up you fool. Why don't
you go where physics is thought and done instead of
imagined. Even Time magazine has less crap than the
crap you're spending your time in.

I could test you. Your knowledge of physics, I mean.
But I don't have to blow your cover to tell you your
ass is better than your words. Get the idea. Shake that
thing, that's where everything you got is, you fool.
Shake it before it loses its use. That's all you got.


--

"ba'd az haft korreh edde'Aye bekArat."

On Jun 2, 3:32 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:
Physicist Says Testing Technique For Gravitomagnetic Field Is Ineffective
....
"According to Einstein's theory, only coordinate-independent quantities are
measurable," Kopeikin said. "The effect the LLR scientists claimed as
detectable doesn't exist, as it vanishes in the observer's frame. The
equations add up to zero, having nothing to do with the real data. The
results appear this way because of insufficient analytic control of the
coordinate effects in the sophisticated computer code used for numerical LLR
data processing. We need to focus on the real physical effects of gravity,
not the mathematical effects depending exclusively on the choice of
coordinates."

A reply from the scientists who support LLR also has published in Physical
Review Letters and argues that there are aspects of the technique that cause
them to believe it merits worth.

Source: University of Missouri-Columbiahttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070601104855.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

Hello Dr. Stonjek,
Dr. Kopeikin's analysis supports our findings here,
http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
We worked the problem from the standpoint of the
1983 ISU redefinition of the meter, which is the new
era of Modern SpaceTime (MST) as it applies to the
Theory of Relativity.

Science is well founded on being skeptical, and
frame-dragging experiments are an excellent
experimental test of Modern SpaceTime. In fact we
may even learn if our appropriate relation between
space and time would be

Space == sqrt(-1) Time , (Classical GTR)
or
Space == Time , (ISU 1983).

deep stuff.
Ken S. Tucker

On Jun 3, 1:56 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jun 2, 3:32 am, "Robert Karl Stonjek"
wrote:



Physicist Says Testing Technique For Gravitomagnetic Field Is Ineffective
...
"According to Einstein's theory, only coordinate-independent quantities are
measurable," Kopeikin said. "The effect the LLR scientists claimed as
detectable doesn't exist, as it vanishes in the observer's frame. The
equations add up to zero, having nothing to do with the real data. The
results appear this way because of insufficient analytic control of the
coordinate effects in the sophisticated computer code used for numerical LLR
data processing. We need to focus on the real physical effects of gravity,
not the mathematical effects depending exclusively on the choice of
coordinates."

A reply from the scientists who support LLR also has published in Physical
Review Letters and argues that there are aspects of the technique that cause
them to believe it merits worth.

Source: University of Missouri-Columbiahttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070601104855.htm

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

Hello Dr. Stonjek,
Dr. Kopeikin's analysis supports our findings here,http://physics.trak4.com/MST_Kerr.pdf
We worked the problem from the standpoint of the
1983 ISU redefinition of the meter, which is the new
era of Modern SpaceTime (MST) as it applies to the
Theory of Relativity.

Your findings are junk.


Science is well founded on being skeptical, and
frame-dragging experiments are an excellent
experimental test of Modern SpaceTime. In fact we
may even learn if our appropriate relation between
space and time would be

Space == sqrt(-1) Time , (Classical GTR)

Congratulations on continuing the age-old mistake of treating
relativity as a subset of a complex manifold.

Hint: It isn't.

or
Space == Time , (ISU 1983).

Congratulations on making age-old mistake of treating space and time
on equal footing.

Hint: Euclidean geometry is not a valid model for the universe.


deep stuff.
Ken S. Tucker

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:17:22 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Sue (Dennis) doesn't shake his ass, you BioFreak.

What do you mean, "Dennis"? Where did you get that name
from.
--

"farizeye hajj dar majmu'eye khod yek vasileye
vAghe'an momtAz va mo'asser barAye ehyA' va
tezkAre sonnate hazrate ebrAhim dar jahate
khodAparasti va eslAhe gholub ast."

- Mehdi Bazargan