Science Blog

Science news straight from the source

Navigation

  • Topics
    • Aerospace
    • Animals
    • Anthro and Archaeology
    • Bio and Medicine
    • Brain and Behavior
    • Business and Economy
    • Computers and Electronics
    • Education and Outreach
    • Energy and Environment
    • Geoscience
    • Internet and Communication
    • Media and Entertainment
    • Nanotech, Chem and Materials
    • Physics and Numbers
    • Security and Defense
    • Software
    • Space
    • Transportation
  • Reader Blogs
  • Commerce
  • Register/Login
  • RSS
Home Topics Space
  • Contact
  • Home

Popular Today

  • Old men chasing young women: A good thing
  • This just in: National guidelines released for earwax removal
  • Memory Trick Shows Brain Organization
  • Caltech scientists discover why flies are so hard to swat
  • Study says eyes evolved for X-Ray vision
more
Google

Similar entries

  • Absolute Space
  • Dark Matter - Who Needs it?
  • The "Laws of Nature"
  • Einstein's Thought Experiment.

Recent Comments

  • This is funny. So you're
  • Earwax
  • Dimensions
  • Killing Flies...
  • Great to have you ... bring your friends
more

Reader Blogs

  • New Arrival: Emigre from the Scientific American Blogging Community Ruins
  • Solar energy storage system
  • Clostridia in Anti-tumor Therapy
  • Unique Fresco Restoration Technique Developed
more

"Gravity Probe B" was not a failure.

donzzz's picture
  • Space
 

It was expensive lesson but "Gravity Probe B" was not a failure - NASA and science simply learned there is no "frame-dragging" or "space-time fabric" and Einstein's General Theory has another weakspot (his "Principle of Equivalence" is the big one). They blamed their failure to find it on the noisy sun and asked for more funding but NASA said, "no way".

Science still holds on to the concept that matter moves "relative to space" - which it does not. Matter's motion, relative to space, is zero. Michelson and Morley proved this over a hundred years ago but they nor any of the other scientists accepted the results of their experiments (they thought their experiment was a failure too, but it was not) and made up all sorts of ad hoc excuses to justify their decisions. Einstein said "it was irrelevant but it is not - far from it.

I predict that the Higg's particle will be another expensive test failure - when they cannot find it.
Actually, a body's inertial mass increases when a force is exerted on it and it rises to a higher energy level, relative to space,(its "space energy level" rises). A body's inertial mass is simply its - energy level relative to space. It does not need a Higg's particle.

Don Hamilton
http://novan.com/mind.htm


Submitted by donzzz on Tue, 2008-06-17 14:45.
  • donzzz's blog
  • Printer-friendly version
  • 564 reads


Thanks, but no thanks.

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2008-06-17 23:43.

Since the results are in the process of analysis, all we can do about predictions on frame-dragging is wait for the results and THEN make opinions if General Relativity is correct or not.
Thank you for your opinion, but not thanks.
I'll wait to see the data.

  • reply

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Copyright, Science Blog.
Think. It's not illegal yet. Read our Privacy Policy.
RoopleTheme