General Relativity gets it wrong - Redux pt n-million

[Solar]

Most of the confusion may result from a misinterpretation that occurs often. Overlooking those very smoll yet potent little words like 'could', 'may', 'might', 'possibly' etc. They are always a most important factor. The original article from 2006 uses the word "could" in its title in terms of 'potential', 'maybe' because the jury is still out:

"Gravitomagnetic Field in Spinning Superconductor ("Gravitomagnetic London Moment") could challenge General Relativity and Point Toward Quantum Theory of Gravity"

However, the subsequent blog overlooks this potential and makes a quantum leap with it's title by saying:

"The first test that Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong"

Obviously there is a significant difference. Reading a few of the papers cited by FS3 it appears that Tajmar is trying to whittle away at factors that may have caused an initial Cooper Pair anomaly via Tate et al. Even going so far as to cite possible problems with the accelerometers and the positioning of same. He also references Podkletnov and others:

"... the claims of Podkletnov could not be reproduced (Li et al, 1997, Woods, Conke, Helme and Caldwell et al, 2001, Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, 2003,Tajmar et al, 2005) so far. Nevertheless, new claims were arising (Podkletnov et al, 2003) and other theoretical venues (Modanese, 2003) were pursued to further investigate the topic. - Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate’s Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly

So yes, the blog's "interpretation" of the anomaly is in error. But, i'll still keep Tholden's comments in mind.

[neilwilkes]

Most of the confusion may result from a misinterpretation that occurs often. Overlooking those very smoll yet potent little words like 'could', 'may', 'might', 'possibly' etc. They are always a most important factor. The original article from 2006 uses the word "could" in its title in terms of 'potential', 'maybe' because the jury is still out:

"Gravitomagnetic Field in Spinning Superconductor ("Gravitomagnetic London Moment") could challenge General Relativity and Point Toward Quantum Theory of Gravity"

However, the subsequent blog overlooks this potential and makes a quantum leap with it's title by saying:

"The first test that Proves General Theory of Relativity Wrong"

Obviously there is a significant difference. Reading a few of the papers cited by FS3 it appears that Tajmar is trying to whittle away at factors that may have caused an initial Cooper Pair anomaly via Tate et al. Even going so far as to cite possible problems with the accelerometers and the positioning of same. He also references Podkletnov and others:

"... the claims of Podkletnov could not be reproduced (Li et al, 1997, Woods, Conke, Helme and Caldwell et al, 2001, Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, 2003,Tajmar et al, 2005) so far. Nevertheless, new claims were arising (Podkletnov et al, 2003) and other theoretical venues (Modanese, 2003) were pursued to further investigate the topic. - Gravitomagnetic Fields in Rotating Superconductors to Solve Tate’s Cooper Pair Mass Anomaly

So yes, the blog's "interpretation" of the anomaly is in error. But, i'll still keep Tholden's comments in mind.

A very valuable lesson has been learned by myself here - those little words "could" and "might" do make a huge difference indeed. The other lesson is to cross-reference these blogs with other reports.....

[MrAmsterdam]

The original article is dated 06. This appears to follow a sort of a pattern which I've noticed over th eyears: some little bit of reality somehow or other rears its ugly head somewhere, and the lid gets slammed shut again as everybody in the picture starts to worry about paradigms and careers and what not.

The first version of an experiment like this I've read about came about in the 90s and involved a Russian physicist by the name of Podkletnov who was at a Finnish university at the time. Podkletnov has gotten much harder to get interviews with since that time and some figure Russian government involvement.

You are right Mr Tholden. They dont believe their own eyes. Thats a great example of psychological processes in physics.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/s ... ioncode=26

Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results. "We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.

Podkletnov ? He was first. These guys replicated the results of the experiments of Podkletnov.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia ... avity_work

I am so sorry, but Ill place this experiment under the category of empiricism. It is replicated.

Tim Ventura seems to have noticed the same controversy on the American Antigravity website.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/arti ... eline.html


And look at what I found! A empiricist bravely conducting his own experiments!

Planned Replication of Podkletnov's Impulse Gravity Generator
http://starflight1.freeyellow.com/
Hurray for Mr D. Schroeder !

[jjohnson]

Your empricist, whom I heartily applaud, lost me in his theory page, right at the end, when he started discussing branes, describing ours as a 3-1 brane (3 length dimensions, 1 time) and an adjacent brane as a 3-1 brane (3 electric, 1 magnetic dimensions).

A brane with no time? where is causality in that sub-universe without time? If its matter waves (whatever those are) are linked to our photons as he hypothesizes, how can matter waves change in response to a change in our corresponding photons if, say those photons are absorbed, or are reddened by some process, or anything else. Time permits causality and thus change. Nothing else does, as long as the change requires a finite length of time in a real universe.

[MrAmsterdam]

Your empricist, whom I heartily applaud, lost me in his theory page, right at the end, when he started discussing branes, describing ours as a 3-1 brane (3 length dimensions, 1 time) and an adjacent brane as a 3-1 brane (3 electric, 1 magnetic dimensions).

JJohnson, thats the beauty of empiricism. It does not matter that he is working with theories with wrong descriptions.
He is trying to replicate this experiment. The interpretation of the observer could be right or wrong. The results of his experiments will be observable by anyone watching or replicating the test...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning,....)