Archive for April, 2013

Precision of Gravity Probe B

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:22 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Precision of Gravity Probe B

I will continue to think some more about these notes before finally writing up UFT240.

In a message dated 11/04/2013 10:00:38 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

OK, I did not know that the precision of the experiment was so high. We discussed Gravity Probe B in an earlier paper. Bernhard showed me an article some time ago where it was compared with a gravito-magnetic field calculation based on EGR, so the explanations may be not so different but we are using a well defined theory, opposed to EGR.

Horst

Betreff: Precision of Gravity Probe B

This is 0.1 milliarcseconds compared with the oblate value of 2,560 milliarcseconds (2.56 arcseconds) per orbit, and the EGR correction of 2.43 milliarcseconds per orbit. So Gravity Probe B should have picked up the EGR correction easily. I will proceed now to the moon sun EGR correction. I agree that the EGR correction is about a thousandth of the oblate precession, but even so, 2.43 milliarcseconds is 24.3 times larger than the precision advertized for Gravity Probe B. It is already clear that if EGR corrections are applied to any textbook problem, every calculation in cosmology will change, sometimes by orders of magnitude. No scientist should be asked to accept such absurdity, and they evidently do not judging by feedback. It is time for someone of integrity and influence to come out against EGR, perhaps someone who is retired and cannot be sacked or have his / her funding cut. Paul Marmet (Order of Canada) was one such example.

In a message dated 10/04/2013 14:36:31 GMT Daylight Time.

The EGR correction of gravity probe B is only one thousandth of the oblate spheroid value. I do not believe that this is within the experimental precision of the measured value. This seems not to be a suitable experimental disprovement of EGR.
Horst

Verschickt: Di, 9 Apr 2013 2:04 pm
Betreff: 240(9) : Non Observation of EGR by Gravity Probe B.

This note corrects problem 5.8 of Fitzpatrick for the effect of EGR if the latter existed self consistently throughout gravitational physics. It uses the precession of a satellite at 650 km above the earth’s surface, the height of Gravity Probe B. The results show very clearly that Gravity Probe B did not pick up the EGR effect of 2.43 milli arc seconds per orbit calculated in this note. This is a very large effect well within the precision of the Gravity Probe B instruments. It picked up the geodetic effect or Thomas precession of – 6.60 arc seconds per year (many orbits of Gravity probe B) and made a contested claim of picking up a Lenz Thirring effect deep out of the noise and at huge expense.

View article…

240(10): Collected Results of EGR Corrections

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:20 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 240(10): Collected Results of EGR Corrections

This note gives some corrected results of some Newtonian calculations each corrected for EGR. Unfortunately the different symmetric top formulae given by Fitzpatrick are wildly self inconsistent, but in order to bring some order into chaos I corrected eq. (1) for EGR using three systems: 1) sun earth; 2) earth moon; 3) earth gravity probe B. At the end of the note I calculated the relativistic correction to the calculation of the precession of Mercury due to the symmetric top shape of the sun. It becomes clear that the EGR correction should have been applied in the past to each Newtonian calculation, because the Newtonian potential is changed every time it is used. When this is done the perihelion precession test of EGR completely falls apart.

a240thpapernotes10.pdf

View article…