FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

brian a m stuckless wrote:
Quote:
The [DiFFERENCE] between SPEED and VELOCiTY:
$$ o o o o
$$ o o o vector
$$ o o o PROjECTiON
$$ A--------VELOCiTY vector v-->B - - - - - -> C
$$ o o o
$$ o o o
$$ o o ..ANY actual PATH o
$$ GUESS *SPEED* is CLEARLY, (..ANY actual PATH) / DURATiON.
$$ VELOCiTY v is ANY measured or imagined VECTOR / DURATiON.
$$ [CLEARLY, POSiTiON B is an ARBiTRARY point, ON the PATH].
$$ Any OTHER 2 points on the *SAME path* a DiFFERENT VECTOR.
$$
$$ "Heisenberg was NOT WRONG ..just because he got caught, too often
$$ ..trying to (focus) on BOTH ENDs of a velocity vector ..at ONCE".

Sue... > > "Vectors". [Re: Speed vs velocity.] End of POST.

xxein: Do I have to think about Heisenberg if I already understand
more than he could explain? That was a yesterday to me.

My access is acting funny. I don't know if I posted or not. Please
excuse any duplicates.
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Sue... wrote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Sue... wrote:


Sue...

xxein: We have to talk. Look for an email in a few days.
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:02 am    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

Joe Jakarta wrote:
Quote:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0104009
(Another J. Biemond paper, "Are electromagnetic phenomena derivable
from extended Einstein equations?")

Quotha, "isotropic velocity of light".

Er ..... like ..... SPEED of light??!

The differentiation between speed and velocity:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html

....is like the recruit in boot camp.

Once a Marine understands a Marine is not a Marine
without a rifle, then it isn't necessary to take it to bed.

The paper uses vector calculus to derive what you may,
in appropriate context, interpret as a scalar. Formalising
where that distinction is made is one of the reasons for
deriving field equations.

So... A p ece of work should no be d scred ed jus because
all he 's are no do ed and all he 's are no crossed.
Surprised)

That doesn't appear to be the case however. The narratvie is
more rigourous than many I have seen in explicitly stating
a basis for the way that it treats any specific quantitity.

Sue...

"Vectors"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node6.html
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:36 am    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Sue... wrote:




Quote:
xxein: You know, just as our notion of the physic has changed over the
years, we can never say that it is the ultimate knowledge or that "this
is the only way to think about it".

I can "predict" everything that SR-GR can without having to have a
knowledge based upon SR-GR.

Where does (1-(v/c)) * (1+(v/c))}^.5 come from? G*Mass (kg) /r^2?

Would you say that one or the other is a subjective or objective view?
Do you know the difference between the subjective and the objective?

No one can be a physicist without recognising this difference. Choose
your platform.

Even though it is quite subjective due to the lack of independent
conformation of G, only the second expression includes a term
that will bind it to a physical process. So the student that
appreciates the certainty of the first expression, should probably
become a mathematician.

Sue...

xxein: I think you get my point, although I am not sure.

Yes we seem in agreement but your examples were ambiguous.

I answered as though:

c = 300Mm/sec

Assuming a functional definition for c:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
....would justify the opposite response.


Quote:
Math can describe anything. Real or unreal.

....or somewhere in between.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number

Quote:

The physic is real and no math can make (twist) it otherwise.

If we can't see what is in a space, we have few options to
analyse it. Relating a change in boundaries to physical
effect is a perfecty valid technique.

But phrases that invert this cause-effect relationship are not
only misleading, they are unethical in physics.

A lay audience misinterpretes the phrarse "curvature
of space-time" as a causal mechanism... and that
is exactly what many (not all) proponents of GR intend
because they lack any way to describe an underlying
mechanism.

Continual appeals to rewrite the principles of scientific
investigation and redefine its terms stand as testimony
that something isn't quite right with the 'cargo cult'.
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

Quote:

G? I beg your pardon. G does provide the correct association on the
objective scale of physics. Although the 'measured value' of G may not
be subscribed by our local measurements, it is certainly proscribed on
the higher level.

<... physicists acknowledge that the Newtonian gravitational constant
is the least known of all of the fundamental constants of nature.
But a new measurement of the gravitational constant, also known
as "Big G," could change that. >>
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/update/upd000508.htm

Quote:

It contains the Schwartschild horizon and the limit for orbit radius
for BH's.

It is hard to confirm with so much abstraction and so many
degrees of freedom. The adherents that can't unlink it from the
absurdity of the twins paradox are certainly not those you
should put any confidnece in. They are demonstrating their
incompetetance with complex number systems without
realising it.

Quote:

It is an objective constant that should not be put into subjectively
measured terms.

We don't know that without an operational mechanism and can't
even confirm that it is constant. A millon measurements may
support an assumption. The 1,000,001th measurement can dash
them all if it reveals the wrong mechanism was assumed.

Quote:

What we measure and how things operate are not quite the same you know.

You mean, what we 'think' we are measuring? We don't measure things
that aren't operating. You are repeating, perhaps inadvertantly,
someone's lame excuse about the design and interpretation of
an experiment. There is little difference in the Pound-Rebka and
the Pound-Snider experiments. But one has an absurd interpretation.

"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a Static Gravitational Field"
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/9907017

Quote:

Can you make math control this universe?


Yes I can... but I have no interest in politics and election rigging
so I wouldn't be very good at it. At least that universe isn't
nearly as large as its misguided technicians believe.

Sue...
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:10 am    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Sue... wrote:


xxein: You know, just as our notion of the physic has changed over the
years, we can never say that it is the ultimate knowledge or that "this
is the only way to think about it".

I can "predict" everything that SR-GR can without having to have a
knowledge based upon SR-GR.

Where does (1-(v/c)) * (1+(v/c))}^.5 come from? G*Mass (kg) /r^2?

Would you say that one or the other is a subjective or objective view?
Do you know the difference between the subjective and the objective?

No one can be a physicist without recognising this difference. Choose
your platform.

Even though it is quite subjective due to the lack of independent
conformation of G, only the second expression includes a term
that will bind it to a physical process. So the student that
appreciates the certainty of the first expression, should probably
become a mathematician.

Sue...

xxein: I think you get my point, although I am not sure.

Math can describe anything. Real or unreal.

The physic is real and no math can make (twist) it otherwise.

G? I beg your pardon. G does provide the correct association on the
objective scale of physics. Although the 'measured value' of G may not
be subscribed by our local measurements, it is certainly proscribed on
the higher level.

It contains the Schwartschild horizon and the limit for orbit radius
for BH's.

It is an objective constant that should not be put into subjectively
measured terms.

What we measure and how things operate are not quite the same you know.

Can you make math control this universe?
Back to top
Too Many Kooks Spoil the1
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:44 am    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0104009
(Another J. Biemond paper, "Are electromagnetic phenomena derivable
from extended Einstein equations?")

Quotha, "isotropic velocity of light".

Er ..... like ..... SPEED of light??!
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:29 am    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

xxein@bellsouth.net wrote:
Quote:
Sue... wrote:


xxein: You know, just as our notion of the physic has changed over the
years, we can never say that it is the ultimate knowledge or that "this
is the only way to think about it".

I can "predict" everything that SR-GR can without having to have a
knowledge based upon SR-GR.

Where does (1-(v/c)) * (1+(v/c))}^.5 come from? G*Mass (kg) /r^2?

Would you say that one or the other is a subjective or objective view?
Do you know the difference between the subjective and the objective?

No one can be a physicist without recognising this difference. Choose
your platform.

Even though it is quite subjective due to the lack of independent
conformation of G, only the second expression includes a term
that will bind it to a physical process. So the student that
appreciates the certainty of the first expression, should probably
become a mathematician.

Sue...
Back to top
xxein@bellsouth.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 12 Sep 2005
Posts: 272

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

Sue... wrote:
Quote:
Abstract:
General relativity predicts a "hyperfine" precession rate
for a gyroscope moving in the gravitomagnetic field of a
rotating massive body. The recently launched Gravity
Probe B (GP-B) will test the predicted precession rate
of 40.9 milliarc-seconds per year for a set of four gyroscopes
in a Polar Earth Orbit (PEO).

It may be possible, however, that the gravitomagnetic
field from a rotating mass behaves in the same way as
the magnetic field generated by a moving charge. In that
case the predicted precession rate of a gyroscope will be
zero, since the gyroscopes of GP-B have been shielded
against external magnetic fields.

Another possible manifestation of the equivalence of
gravitomagnetic and magnetic field may already have
been found. It is the so-called Wilson Blackett law,
approximately describing the magnetic field of many
rotating celestial bodies.

In this work a review of the gravitomagnetic approach
is given starting from the Einstein equations. Four
gravitomagnetic equations, analogous to the Maxwell
equations, are deduced. The Wilson Blackett relation
follows from these equations, if the gravitomagnetic field
is identified as a common magnetic field.

In addition, the precession rate for a gyroscope in terms
of the gravito-magnetic field has been derived, starting from
the principle of general covariance. The gravitomagnetic
field may again be identified as a common magnetic field,
or can be evaluated in the standard way. The future
observations from GP-B may discriminate between the
alternative choices.
--Jacob Biemond

http://www.gewis.nl/~pieterb/gravi/gravitomagnetism/200409.html
http://www.gewis.nl/~pieterb/gravi/gravitomagnetism/gravitomagnetism-precession.pdf


-----
Sue...

xxein: You know, just as our notion of the physic has changed over the
years, we can never say that it is the ultimate knowledge or that "this
is the only way to think about it".

I can "predict" everything that SR-GR can without having to have a
knowledge based upon SR-GR.

Where does (1-(v/c)) * (1+(v/c))}^.5 come from? G*Mass (kg) /r^2?

Would you say that one or the other is a subjective or objective view?
Do you know the difference between the subjective and the objective?

No one can be a physicist without recognising this difference. Choose
your platform.
Back to top
Sue...
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Which gravitomagnetic precession will be measured by Gravity Probe B? Reply with quote

Abstract:
General relativity predicts a "hyperfine" precession rate
for a gyroscope moving in the gravitomagnetic field of a
rotating massive body. The recently launched Gravity
Probe B (GP-B) will test the predicted precession rate
of 40.9 milliarc-seconds per year for a set of four gyroscopes
in a Polar Earth Orbit (PEO).

It may be possible, however, that the gravitomagnetic
field from a rotating mass behaves in the same way as
the magnetic field generated by a moving charge. In that
case the predicted precession rate of a gyroscope will be
zero, since the gyroscopes of GP-B have been shielded
against external magnetic fields.

Another possible manifestation of the equivalence of
gravitomagnetic and magnetic field may already have
been found. It is the so-called Wilson Blackett law,
approximately describing the magnetic field of many
rotating celestial bodies.

In this work a review of the gravitomagnetic approach
is given starting from the Einstein equations. Four
gravitomagnetic equations, analogous to the Maxwell
equations, are deduced. The Wilson Blackett relation
follows from these equations, if the gravitomagnetic field
is identified as a common magnetic field.

In addition, the precession rate for a gyroscope in terms
of the gravito-magnetic field has been derived, starting from
the principle of general covariance. The gravitomagnetic
field may again be identified as a common magnetic field,
or can be evaluated in the standard way. The future
observations from GP-B may discriminate between the
alternative choices.
--Jacob Biemond

http://www.gewis.nl/~pieterb/gravi/gravitomagnetism/200409.html
http://www.gewis.nl/~pieterb/gravi/gravitomagnetism/gravitomagnetism-precession.pdf


-----
Sue...
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [9 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri May 25, 2018 12:44 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Study of gravity, dark energy and black holes gb7648 New Theories 1 Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:48 pm
No new posts Anomalous Acceleration Proves Gravity Anisotropy. Max Keon Relativity 17 Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:40 am
No new posts Supersolid Emergent Gravity Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:13 pm
No new posts Emergent Gravity Theory Jack Sarfatti Math 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 8:04 pm
No new posts activated carbon column: upflow or gravity feed? bunja Chem 1 Wed Jul 05, 2006 1:55 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0195s ][ Queries: 20 (0.0027s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]