Existence

My premise is that the model I'm suggesting will match relativity math.I understand why the skepticism is high. It should be given my math skills.That doesn't mean I'm incorrect. It means I'm suspect.According to my understanding of relativity's special theory, the model holds.My previous posts can explain what I'm suggesting, But let's be honest: I don't have the education to solve it. If I am right, only an intelligent educated man will be able to see that to the extent they could mathematically model it, and it match relativity's predictability. Same results, different path.The Question becomes: was I clear enough in explaining the model in a way a skilled physicist can understand the model as proposed?That remains to be seen. And I do not claim to have solved anything: Only that it remains potentially true: How well I understand the physics becomes scrutiny: So examination of my suggestions would be the best thing here.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I am giddy in anticipation of seeing your unified theory, there are very few times in life we can be a witness to a ground breaking discovery.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Hi NoNukes,Do you believe and accept anything you are told or read? The Gravity Probe B project began 49 years ago as a test of GR.It was funded by NASA.On April 20, 2004, a spacecraft carried four quartz spheres into a polar orbit.The probe collected data until August of 2005After examining the data until 2008 NASA pulled the plug on the project.The data showed:

quote:

---

The first analysis of this data revealed unexpected anomalies. The gyroscopes had behaved badlywandering around and pointing in strange orientations.

​

Irregular patches on the surfaces of the spheres were to blame. Everitt knew about these patches and expected interactions with the housing that would create small forces, or torques. But unanticipated patches on the housing itself amplified these electrostatic interactions.

​

The torques were 100 times larger than we were expecting, says Everitt. It was a horrible shock.

---

SourceGood reason for NASA to pull the plug.After 46 years Everitt could not abandon a dead horse so private funding was arranged..

quote:

---

After NASA pulled the plug in 2008, private funding arranged by an executive at Capital One Financial and the royal family of Saudi Arabia bought some extra time to clean up the data.

---

So the team spent 3 years cleaning up the data and low and behold it matched exactly what was predicted.Now if you believe that I have some nice high dry land in Florida I will sell you.So explain to me how cooked data that NASA would not fund acquiring can prove Hatch's prediction wrong. You may know a lot of things.But when the first GPS clock was sent up the clock was not tuned to match the earth bound clock. It had an oscillater on board that was used some 20 days after the launch to adjust the clock to match the earth bound clock. So SR was not used to set the clocks must less used today.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not really. How so? Simply on a superficial level?You're really stretching on this one....

See what I mean? ICANT knows that if the physics proves us right, it's one more step on the path to atheism. If we're not absolutely wrong about everything then we might be right about something, and he can't handle it.So now he's seized the tenuous idea that all physicists are engaged in a conspiracy to lie to him and cook the data. After all, if they all agree about something they must just be in on the conspiracy! (People who deny the existence of the conspiracy may themselves be part of the conspiracy.)

Hi ICANT, No I don't. Thanks for asking.Do you accept or reject things primarily on the basis of whether they line up with your beliefs? You certainly don't have the scientific background to determine whether Hatch or Einstein is correct. Yet for some reason you champion Hatch. What reason is that? Let's look at a little bit more of the article before we spread innuendo about a conspiracy to cook the data.

quote:

---

After NASA pulled the plug in 2008, private funding arranged by an executive at Capital One Financial and the royal family of Saudi Arabia bought some extra time to clean up the data. By comparing the overall wobble of each sphere to the tiny magnetic fluctuations on its surface, the team worked out how the patches were interacting. The researchers also discovered that the motion of the revolving spacecraft could occasionally kick the spinning spheres into new orientations.

​

What the Gravity Probe B team did to understand this problem, sort it out and get a credible answer was nothing short of heroic, says Clifford Will, a theoretical physicist at Washington University in St. Louis who serves on the mission’s science advisory board.

​

The results of this painstaking analysis, scheduled for publication in an upcoming Physical Review Letters, reconfirm the geodetic effect with an error of about 0.2 percent. Gravity Probe B puts the frame-dragging effect at 37 milliarcseconds with an error of about 19 percent, far from the original goal of 1 percent precision.

---

Doesn't sound like a conspiracy to me. Even more damaging to your position though...

quote:

---

This project has been a victim of time, says Kenneth Nordtvedt, a professor emeritus at Montana State University in Bozeman, who points out that other experiments have already measured these effects.

​

Ignazio Ciufolini, a physicist at the University of Salento in Lecce, Italy, and Erricos Parlis of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County confirmed frame dragging by analyzing the orbits of the two laser-ranged LAGEOS satellites (SN: 11/27/04, p. 348).

​

Publishing in Nature in 2004, the pair reported a error of 10 percent. Two other groups of scientists in Germany and the United States have since checked his analysis, and a third satellite scheduled to be launched this year could help Ciufolini and Parlis improve their precision.

---

You might easily have missed the above information because it was on page 2 of the link. But none of your complaints address the fact that experiments performed since Hatch published his article confirm that Hatch is wrong.Finally if you read the article, you'll note that there is genuine interest in looking for anomalies in General Relativity in order to produce a super theory that includes quantum mechanics and relativity.Now as for your "oscillater" story. We've already discussed this particular issue in detail, so you should have known that this story wouldn't help you prove anything. See, for example Message 193. For convenience, I'll rehash things here. I'll start by quoting a bit more of the story. For some reason, your shorter summaries miss important information.From chapter five of Relativity in the Global Positioning System by Neil AshbyRelativity in the Global Positioning System

quote:

---

There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10^12. The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.

---

In short, some relativity doubters didn't believe relativistic corrections were needed, so a switchable synthesizer was provided for making those corrections. After 20 days of running without the corrections, the clocks were found to be out-of-synch with the ground clocks by the amount predicted by GR.So the story actually confirms rather than refutes GR. Just to be clear, the "second-order Doppler" effect is the special relativity relative motion correction.Got anything else?ABE:The article goes on to describe how synching is currently done. But those changes don't dismiss the fact that relativistic effects are the primary cause of the need to re-synch at all.Further, none of these things address the need to make additional corrections special relativity corrections at the receiver to correct for the Sagnac Effect.

quote:

---

The Sagnac effect can be regarded as arising from the relativity of simultaneity in a Lorentz transformation to a sequence of local inertial frames co-moving with points on the rotating earth. It can also be regarded as the difference between proper times of a slowly moving portable clock and a Master reference clock fixed on earth’s surface.

---

For obvious reasons this correction cannot be made at the satellite.Edited by NoNukes, : Correct stupid contraction error and Address Sagnac Effect

Hi crash, Well no not all.After 2 years of studying the data and the first analysis of the data reveiled the following:

quote:

---

The first analysis of this data revealed unexpected anomalies. The gyroscopes had behaved badlywandering around and pointing in strange orientations.

---

NASA pulled the plug on the project when they looked at the results of the data which according to expectations had competely failed.The gyroscopes were not expected to produce the data that was received.But when the folks that had over 40 years of their life invested in the project got financing and worked on the numbers for 3 more years they matched what they had expected to find.Now if you want me to believe they didn't cook the numbers to produce the desired results you will have to do some tall explaning.And if you believe they did not cook the numbers I got some nice high dry land in Florida I will sell you at a good price.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Bullshit. You just put out an assertion that these scientists are liars with evidence that is specious at best, and then demand that we have "tall explaining" to prove to you that they didn't cook the numbers?How about you meet your own burden of proof first and convince us that the evidence tampering that only you allege actually happened. Find some corroborating evidence. Has their subsequent work been peer-reviewed and found to be faulty?

I want you to explain to me how Michaelson and Morley supposedly cooked the numbers, in 1887, to support a theory that didn't exist yet and which they would have vehemently opposed (Michaelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether, but the results of their experiment proved that no such thing existed.)

Hi ICANT, The fraud innuendo is misplaced.What we are reading and discussing are pre-publication announcements of the results. The numbers and the analysis aren't going to be stuffed in a drawer leaving us with only the results to critique. The data and analysis are going to be published in the journal Physics Review Letters if they have not been published already. Hatch, Gaasenbeek, ICANT, and anyone else who wants to will be able to reach their own conclusions provided that they are even equipped to do so.Here is a link to a more detailed description of some of the analysis that was performed. I'd recommend that anyone having an initial impression that the data is cooked, at least take a look.From Finally, results from Gravity Probe B
Physics - Finally, results from Gravity Probe BIt's important to put the Gravity Probe B (GP-B) results in perspective. The real news here is that the any thing at all was achieved given the problems with the gyros. But in some sense the project was something of a failure. The goal of the project was to measure the geodetic effect to 0.01% accuracy and the frame-dragging effect (Lense—Thirring effect) to 1% accuracy.What was achieved was much less. While Prof Everitt's reported results confirm general relativity, the geodetic effect was only measured to 0.28% accuracy and the frame-dragging effect to 19% accuracy. The results are somewhat disappointing because previous experiments had already confirmed agreement with GR with at least the accuracy reported by Everitt.For example, regarding the frame-dragging effect, I've already mentioned the Ciufolini-Pavlis experiment.http://www.lnf.infn.it/...%20list_files/NaturePaper_2004.pdf

quote:

---

Here we report a measurement of the Lense—Thirring effect on two Earth satellites: it is 99+/- 5 per cent of the value predicted by general relativity

---

Ciufolini and Pavlis reported a value for the frame-dragging effect of 47.9 milliseconds of arc/year, which agrees well with the 48.2 mas/year value predicted by GR. The estimated error for the measurement was 10%. I don't believe Hatch predicts a value significantly different from that predicted by general relativity.With regards to geodetic effect, General Relativity and Hatch predict different values, with Hatch predicting a geodetic effect 1/3 higher that that predicted by general relativity.http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf

quote:

---

the amount of geodetic precession measured on the Gravity Probe B experiment will be one-third greater than that predicted by the general theory

---

As has been discussed the GP-B team reports a value that confirms the general relativity prediction for geodetic precession for the GP-B satellite, and which does not confirm Hatch's prediction. The reported accuracy however was only 19%, which is sufficient to confirm that Hatch is in error.On the other hand, geodetic precession for the moon had already been measured with greater accuracy and with results that confirm general relativity. A link to one such experiment is shown below.http://www.sciencedirect.com/...article/pii/0273117789900100

quote:

---

The geodetic precession of the lunar perigee is predicted by general relativity as a consequence of the motion of the Earth-Moon system about the Sun; its theoretical magnitude is 19.2 mas/yr. Analysis presented here confirms this value and determines this quantity to a 2% level.

---

and from a 1987 experimenthttp://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i11/p1062_1

quote:

---

According to general relativity, the calculated rate of motion of lunar perigee should include a contribution of 19.2 msec/yr from geodetic precession. We show that existing analyses of lunar—laser-ranging data confirm the general-relativistic rate for geodetic precession with respect to the planetary dynamical frame. In addition, the comparison of Earth-rotation results from lunar laser ranging and from very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) shows that the relative drift of the planetary dynamical frame and the extragalactic VLBI reference frame is small. The estimated accuracy is about 10%

---

I don't think your accusations of data cooking have any merit, but I don't expect that you'll be convinced or that you are capable of making any sense of the data if you get your hands on it. But even without GP-B, we already have all the data we need to confirm that Hatch is out to lunch. GP-B is icing but not the cake.Peace out.

Hi NoNukes, Maybe, maybe not.Lets examine what I am looking at that is not written in the stories. Sometimes the things that are not written gives more information than those that are written in the stories.NASA began development of this project starting in the fall of 1963 and ceased funding the project in 2008.On April 20, 2004, a spacecraft carried four quartz spheres into a polar orbit.The probe collected data until August of 2005.After examining the data for 2 years the first reports were:

quote:

---

The first analysis of this data revealed unexpected anomalies. The gyroscopes had behaved badlywandering around and pointing in strange orientations.

​

Irregular patches on the surfaces of the spheres were to blame. Everitt knew about these patches and expected interactions with the housing that would create small forces, or torques. But unanticipated patches on the housing itself amplified these electrostatic interactions.

​

"The torques were 100 times larger than we were expecting," says Everitt. "It was a horrible shock."

---

Then by all means explain the following.NASA after seeing this evidence pulled the plug on the project.Why would NASA pull the plug on the project if it was such a success as you present it to be and as Everitt presented it after three more years of examining the evidence.What could have change the unexpected anomalies that was found in the data?Well it seems there was irregular patches on the surfaces of the spheres and were to blameJeff Kolodziejczak, NASA's Project Scientist for GP-B at the Marshall Space Flight Center said "If experimental science is an art, then I would look at GP-B as a Renaissance masterpiece," talking about the gyroscopes.

quote:

---

To measure the minuscule angles predicted by Einstein’s theory, the GP-B team needed to build a near-perfect gyroscopeone whose spin axis would not drift away from its starting point by more than one hundred-billionth of a degree each hour that it was spinning. By comparison, the spin-axis drift in the most sophisticated Earth-based gyroscopes, found in high-tech aircraft and nuclear submarines, is seven orders of magnitude (more than ten million times) greater than GP-B could allow.

---

SourceWhat changed the perfect gyroscopes into such a mess they could not produce as intended?What changed the original data the gyroscopes produced that was examined for 2 years that produced the initial report during the following 3 years?The same data was available for the first 2 years as for the last 3 years.What could have changed the gyroscopes behaving badly?What could have changed the gyroscopes wandering around and pointing in strange orientations?What could have changed the torque's being 100 times larger than were expected?All these things were not supposed to happen.But amazingly after 3 more years of going over the data all these problems disappear.Explain to me how that could happen.Also explain why NASA would stop funding a program that they had put over 750 million dollars in if they thought there was a remote possibility that the reports presented by Everitt could be produced from the data.The data was peer reviewed by NASA's top scientist and found wanting thus they pulled the plug.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi NoNukes, I am always for the underdog.Hatch has been involved in the GPS system since before it was called the GPS system. He has written many software programs and holds 12 patents in the GPS industry. He co-founded a company that was later sold to John Deer which now uses the technology to operate machines (motor graders and bulldozers) by adjusting the blades to be able to cut a grade within .25". I have operated the machines with and without the system and with the system anybody can cut a almost perfect grade. Back when I did it for a living in the 50's and 60's it was much harder and took a lot of time, and very few people could do the job. So I guess that makes me a little biased. You did skip a little very important information from the same report.

quote:

---

But on April 20, 2004, a spacecraft carried four quartz spheres into a polar orbit. The size of Ping-Pong balls and coated with the superconductor niobium, the spheres were the roundest objects ever created by human beings. A puff of gas started the gyros spinning, an onboard telescope lined them up neatly with the star IM Pegasi and the probe collected data until August of 2005.

​

The first analysis of this data revealed unexpected anomalies. The gyroscopes had behaved badlywandering around and pointing in strange orientations.

​

Irregular patches on the surfaces of the spheres were to blame. Everitt knew about these patches and expected interactions with the housing that would create small forces, or torques. But unanticipated patches on the housing itself amplified these electrostatic interactions.

​

The torques were 100 times larger than we were expecting, says Everitt. It was a horrible shock.

---

It was such a horrible shock that in 2008 NASA pulled the plug shutting off the funds for the project. The experiment was a failure.But the folks that had over 40 years of their life dedicated to this project could not accept the facts so they received private financing and continued to clean up the data and lo and behold in 3 years they come up with the experiment going just as planned and producing the exact results predicted.Well the only way the data that produced the first results after the initial 2 years of study being able to produce a perfect result is if the data was changed.Call that what ever you want to call it. No I did not miss it. I even looked up Ignazio Ciufolini's papers and read them. Since the actual results and the predicted results did not match how long would it have taken before the GPS system would not have worked? Yes it must be made at the moving receiver which require a non=isotropic light speed which is in direct conflict with SR as the postulate of SR says the speed of light can only be isotropic .Here is the quote from RELATIVITY AND GPS by Ronald R. Hatch

quote:

---

Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame.

​

And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special
theory.

​

The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer.

​

And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error.

---

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi ICANT, Why don't you follow some of the links I provided and find out what actually happened? A good number of your questions are answered.Here's an article that talks a little bit about the funding decisions by NASA. Note that the date of the article is October 2008. I was surprised to find that the article completely undermines your speculation on how the geodetic precession value was obtained.The Gravity Probe B Bailout - IEEE Spectrum

quote:

---

GP-B is an orbiting set of precision gyroscopes measuring 6.4 meters long that was launched into low Earth orbit in April 2004. For nearly a year it studied the mild warping effect that Earth’s gravitational field has on the fabric of space. It has already confirmed one prediction of Einsteinian gravity to a 1 percent confidence levelthat the fabric of space compresses inside a gravitational field such that circles actually measure slightly less than 360 degrees.

​

However, a more subtle effect, involving the tug of Earth’s rotation on space itself, has not yet been seen unequivocally. Because of an error in the gyroscopes’ manufacture, GP-B’s measurements have been riddled with wobbles that have made the ongoing data analysis for this frame dragging effect tremendously challenging. GP-B’s final results were expected this year, but the GP-B team, based at Stanford University, appealed to NASA to continue funding through March 2010 to extract the precision measurements that team managers say still lie buried beneath a layer of noise.

​

With confidence in the project failing, NASA’s funding slowed to a trickle this year, dropping to $500 000not quite enough to keep the data analysis moving forward. So with some careful negotiations, the GP-B team secured matching $500 000 donations from Stanford and Richard Fairbank, CEO of Capital One Financial Corp. and son of the late physicist William Fairbank, an early proponent of this often controversial experiment. Nevertheless, the clock on the $1.5 million stopgap ran out on 30 September.

---

Surprise!!!By the time NASA was ready to pull the plug, the GP-B project had already obtained the geodetic precession result to within 1%. As you might recall, geodetic precession is the parameter that Hatch is wrong about. The more difficult measurement, the frame-dragging effect, required more analysis to obtain improved accuracy.All of that before the supposed data cooking began.To any sensible person, this story shows how laughable your conspiracy theory is. NASA (along just about everyone else) does not care one wit about Hatch and his theory. Those three years were spent obtaining improved accuracy for experimental results that agree with Hatch and General Relativity.We care of course because you've made Hatch the centerpiece of your attack on special relativity.

Hi ICANT, Just as I thought. No good reason at all. Do any of the inventions in Hatch's 12 patents deal with special relativity? Turns out that this is not the least bit helpful to you. A sufficiently accurate value for the geodetic effect had already been obtained. See Message 583. At least according to the disproven hypothesis of Hatch the underdog.

Approximatley 100 times longer than if the synthesizer were not used. GPS is nearly useless after a day or so without time correction.Seriously ICANT, are you arguing that the results described in the synthesizer quote (within 1% of the measured value) were not sufficient to confirm at least that the clock corrections predicted by GR and SR were correct. We know that there are other sources of error such as clock drift and the satellite not being precisely in the orbit assumed for the calculation. What point can you be possibly be making here?