Does the Gravity B Probe Experiment Really Prove Relativity

[chosenbygrace]

Does the GBP experiment really prove Relativity in any way? I'm waiting for Michael Suede's rebuttal. So far all I have found that seems to refute it is an article that came out 6 years ago when the experiment was just beginning!: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no121/panorama.html

[chosenbygrace]

Could the gyroscopes have been affected by aether drag? Also what is the evidence that the drag amount that the gyroscopes registered was the related to the gravitational drag caused by the Earth? Was that very small number it registered a number predicted by their calculations, or are they just claiming it's evidence?

[michael.suede]

GPB does not in and of itself disprove ER.

It's findings, I would argue, are not legitimate proof that frame dragging actually exists due to the absolutely massive amounts of data manipulation that were required to produce them.

The 2008 NASA findings that gave GPB a failing grade agree with my position.

The lack of clear frame dragging by GPB is simply another hole in ER theory. Something that they predicted should be there that they could not find clear and convincing evidence of.

As these failures of predictions stack up one after the other, it becomes clear that ER itself is to blame.

[chosenbygrace]

Well, I never said it did disprove it. I saw, ironically, after watching your videos on Einstein's mistakes again some days ago, not long after posting this thread, that the first thing you commented on was the GPB, I also found out about the NASA failing grade article some days ago and mentioned my findings here: http://gravity.tk

Later I found a blog post that helped me to find out if the geodetic effect and frame dragging effects were different, which Wikipedia doesn't make clear for laypersons to physics like me, and then I found a page yesterday that seems to explain what Wikipedia seemed to falsely imply, which was that the geodetic effect mentioned by Lens and Thirring, or one of them, didn't necessarily need to be tied into GR: http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentri ... begging,44

But, I still have a question: Is Wikipedia falsely implying that Lens and Thirring came up with the geodetic effect in the "framework of general relativity"? Because there is apparent evidence that Lens and Thirring were geocentrists, and GR is not compatible with geocentrism, because, as this rude astronomer named Bouw said, GR makes it so that any point in the universe can be the center. He nonsensically claims that that makes it compatible with geocentrism, but my logic tells me "no", because in tychonic geocentrism, there is absolute center, not a relative center.

And Suede, shouldn't you make a physics or science category and place this thread in it? It's not as if you made a small effort in talking about physics matters, so why are you marginalizing it in your forum?

Also, do you have a bio? Are you self taught in physics? Any degrees in anything? Are you a genius in math or physics? Do you believe in aether?

[michael.suede]

Yeah I could push this to a new forum but the forums here don't get heavy action so it's not really a big deal.

They are easier to manage with less forums. You don't see the hundreds of spam posts I have to remove on a regular basis because I require people to make at least one post before their comments become active.

As for the geocentricism, I think he's right to claim that GR is compatible with that view. A GR "mathematical universe" that physicists employ when dealing with problems can be made to represent any physical construct and any physical universe. This is part of why I feel the entire theory is a joke. It is virtually impossible to falsify on the grounds that it incorrectly describes something, because it can be made to describe anything, as long as that "thing" takes a physical form.

Such a theory is obviously not falsifiable in the classic sense, thereby making it worthless as a real scientific theory.

I have a business degree in management information systems (similar to a comp sci degree, but with a business school lower division). I'm not a math whiz at all. However, I've found that understanding the math is not critical to understanding the physical theories espoused if one assumes that all the papers which are peer reviewed do use correct math. I'm looking at these theories from a logical perspective.

For example, it is extremely rare for me to argue that a particular paper's math is wrong - I almost always argue that the assumptions used to concoct the mathematical theory are wrong. Such a criticism doesn't rely on the mathematics at all. I can read a physics paper and understand what they are physically describing taking place. That is all that is necessary to understand the particular theory being espoused.

I've read lots and lots of scientific papers, so I suppose I am a self-taught cosmologist.

[RoseRed]

Thank you. I read about that earlier this year and appreciate your posting their findings. Opens up lots of possibilities beyond my pay grade and understanding. Seems to me this enforces the idea of travel from point A to B by bending space if I understand this at all.