1. To quote Wiki:
Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1][2][3] Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. The predicted effect is incredibly small — about one part in a few trillion. In order to detect it, it is necessary to look at a very massive object, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism.
Different forms of:
Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense-Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment.

Linear frame dragging is the similarly inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to linear momentum. Although it arguably has equal theoretical legitimacy to the "rotational" effect, the difficulty of obtaining an experimental verification of the effect means that it receives much less discussion and is often omitted from articles on frame-dragging (but see Einstein, 1921).[4]

Static mass increase is a third effect noted by Einstein in the same paper.[5] The effect is an increase in inertia of a body when other masses are placed nearby. While not strictly a frame dragging effect (the term frame dragging is not used by Einstein), it is demonstrated by Einstein to derive from the same equation of general relativity. Again, a tiny effect difficult to confirm experimentally.
Ok, so my question is whether this effect occurs on a planetary surface as well? What about underground? There is a Gravity Probe experiment underway which involves the launching of satellites into orbit in order to measure the tiny effect with the use of gyroscopes, but this will only measure the effect in near space and not on the surface or underground. A satisfactory answer to my question will lead to a controversial follow-up question :wink:

2.

3. Ok, moving back to reality and away from Will's post...So much wrong there I'm just gonna ignore it! =p

The problem, Kalster, is earth does not really spin all that fast, so measuring frame dragging beneath the surface does not give us enough distance from the point at which space is being twisted.

I personally think the place this effect will be proven will be around a fast-spinning neutron star. The effect will be much more noticeable. I think the only other way to do it will be as described in the experiment underway, since that will get the satellites far enough away from the point where space is being dragged by earth's rotation.

It is a lot easier to send a satellite into orbit than to drill a sensor into the earth deep enough to notice frame-dragging.

4. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
Ok, moving back to reality and away from Will's post...So much wrong there I'm just gonna ignore it! =p

The problem, Kalster, is earth does not really spin all that fast, so measuring frame dragging beneath the surface does not give us enough distance from the point at which space is being twisted.

I personally think the place this effect will be proven will be around a fast-spinning neutron star. The effect will be much more noticeable. I think the only other way to do it will be as described in the experiment underway, since that will get the satellites far enough away from the point where space is being dragged by earth's rotation.

It is a lot easier to send a satellite into orbit than to drill a sensor into the earth deep enough to notice frame-dragging.

What you do have at the point where the light atmosphere of earth meets space, is a friction. Or better put movement that creates electricity.

I believe it is this movement that powers a compass. Because you can note that the compass turns as if there is a current passing east to west over the compass.

http://www.rockwelder.com/Flash/magnets/magnets.html

In order for ambient radiation to power a compass, it must divert slightly, this diversion is probably what all the fuss and crazy measurements of a slight diversion of ambient radiation are about.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

Supernatendo, I was wondering how the effect changes in strength as you move through the atmospheer and onto the surface? You see, I always thought that the measured effect would lessen as you come closer to the surface, because you would be entering the frame of the earth. But then if that were the case, that would mean that the frame of the earth is isolated from the surrounding space to some degree, no?

6. I like to think of it more like a whirlpool in the ocean, while not separated from the rest of the ocean, the effect of the swirling water is reduced exponentially as you move from it's center until the effect no longer has enough power to effect the ocean after a certain distance.

I think space is affected similarly, after a certain point, the earth's rotation cannot affect the rest of space-time as it can the space-time close to it.

I just think it would be extremely difficult to measure any differences in frame-dragging so close, your measuring equipment would be in the "whirlpool" of space time, so the perspective would be too similar to that of the perspective on the surface.

Maybe if we could put something on the surface near the equator, then place something in the upper-atmosphere of the north pole, we could find the differences in strength that way?

(really wishing i was good at maths at this point :| )

7. Ok, cool. The reason I was asking is that I was wondering what effect frame dragging might have on the Michelson-Morley experiment when different forms of ether is considered? :wink:

8. They have redone this experiment many times and have not gotten any large differences. My example of space as an ocean was only used to describe the twisting of space-time, not to give an example of ether. Space time is a dimension, and a dimension is not a particle. Just because mass and rotation effect the dimension of space-time does not mean space-time is a physical substance.

9. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Ok, cool. The reason I was asking is that I was wondering what effect frame dragging might have on the Michelson-Morley experiment when different forms of ether is considered? :wink:
The problem with the Morley experiment is that they were limited in scope, merely trying to disprove, ambient radiation/ether.

They never allowed the real Universal Scientists to explain what they knew about ether/ambient radiation to them. Ambient radiation is moving so fast, that light is a big slow down for it.

Also you can note that every time you move up a notch in the Universal animal world. You enter into another density of particles.

For instance you stand on earth. You are in a heavy gaseous atmosphere that pretty much matches the surface speed at the equator of 1500 plus feet a second. So you are shielded against external happenings. Much like an airplane glass or auto windshield shields you from wind.

Einstein was probably to afraid to make this analogy and drove with no windshield, and that explains his hair. Ha-ha.

As ambient radiation is introduced to the atmosphere it is probably slowed a bit. From the speed it was traveling, just outside, the light atmosphere of earth.
But now within the atmosphere probably maintains an even constant velocity in most or all directions. Baring other effects, like sunlight, explosions. Except from the direction, from the earth. The earth is another more dense, animal.

The earth is also a solid not a gas. Gases tend to be insulators, and tend to slow ambient radiation. Especially when excited. Liquids and solids tend to accelerate ambient radiation. If not extremely excited.

So the ambient radiation that is coming from the far side of the planet, is accelerated during its trip through the planet. As it leaves the surface of the earth, it does not put as much repulsive pressure upon you. Because the electrons do not have time to leave their repulsive energy. There may be some angular rules much like a lens or prism. However I feel good about the velocity alone, as an amateur scientist.

So as you are standing on the earth. The ambient radiation presses you to the earth. More then the ambient radiation presses you from the planet.

But my point is that the atoms of each animal you are in, keep things constant. That was what relativity was about. Relative to the velocity of things close and or far.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

10. Yes, I know as much. I was just wondering, supposing an ether in some form did exist, if the frame-dragging effect might influence Michelson–Morley type experiments in such a way as to give results that would appear to confirm the absence of it. Some modern ether theories do not think of the hypothetical ether as being comprised of some type of conventional particle anyway. Does the presence of an ether in all its proposed varieties necessarily contradict relativity?

Edit: This is a response to SuperNatendo.

11. I suppose if you considered ether to be the name of the space-time dimension, but a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

At this point ether and space-time dimension would be used interchangeably.

It was said at some point near the end of the acceptance of aether theories, that aether is simply a verb which means "undulate". Ether was not to be a noun since it did not exist as a medium. If it doesn't exist as a medium, then what use is it to call space-time ether?

I have not heard of a theory in which either was not considered a medium of some sort, could you give me a link?

12. Here is a wiki page with a quick overview of some aether theories over the years (including a disproved one where I think William is getting his nonsense from). Some of them are even pretty much in accordance with experimental evidence and does not counter relativity or QM.

I personally like the quantum foam idea. I guess I also agree that the space-time fabric can be seen as some form of aether.

13. I think you're reference to blacks as niggers is veiled racism William and i don't like it!

It was unnecessary and therefore is unacceptable.

Initially i took you for a harmless old fellow with some wacky ideas, but you are going too far.

We don't tolerate racism on this forum in any shape or form.

I am going to ignore you as a forum member from now on which means none of your posts will show up on the threads and i would urge fellow members to do the same.

14. I agree with Selene.

Ignoring User William McCormick as of today. Just because you lost your job to college educated blacks gives you no right to use terminology like that. Besides, it doesn't even make sense in this thread at all.

Moderators, I recommend something be done to William at this point. Possible ban?

15. I've accidentally removed the wrong post of William McCormick, so I'll paste the one I removed here. William, sorry about this.

Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by KALSTER
To quote Wiki:
Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.[1][2][3] Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. The predicted effect is incredibly small â€” about one part in a few trillion. In order to detect it, it is necessary to look at a very massive object, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism.
Different forms of:
Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense-Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense-Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is rotating around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move around the object faster than light moving against the rotation as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best-known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment.

Linear frame dragging is the similarly inevitable result of the general principle of relativity, applied to linear momentum. Although it arguably has equal theoretical legitimacy to the "rotational" effect, the difficulty of obtaining an experimental verification of the effect means that it receives much less discussion and is often omitted from articles on frame-dragging (but see Einstein, 1921).[4]

Static mass increase is a third effect noted by Einstein in the same paper.[5] The effect is an increase in inertia of a body when other masses are placed nearby. While not strictly a frame dragging effect (the term frame dragging is not used by Einstein), it is demonstrated by Einstein to derive from the same equation of general relativity. Again, a tiny effect difficult to confirm experimentally.
Ok, so my question is whether this effect occurs on a planetary surface as well? What about underground? There is a Gravity Probe experiment underway which involves the launching of satellites into orbit in order to measure the tiny effect with the use of gyroscopes, but this will only measure the effect in near space and not on the surface or underground. A satisfactory answer to my question will lead to a controversial follow-up question :wink:
I dispute this gravity probe B.

Light if it gets somewhere as light, is light velocity. That does not mean that the rays that carry it. Are light speed rays. This was proven by the Apollo missions when their cameras would not pick up the stars. Without more atmosphere in front of the camera to slow the rays to visible speeds.

Rays faster then light take light to a point further from the light. What you see at any point, are rays that have slowed to light speed.

That is why it does not matter how fast you are going when you shine a light. The light you see from the object, are just the rays that are traveling at light speed when you see them. Others much faster will take the light much further.

You can shine a light behind a space craft going faster then light and it will shine. The reason is it will slow ambient radiation to a speed that will send light. Near and far away from a ship.

It would be like saying that you know our whole universe is not revolving around something else, at five times the speed of light. We don't know and we do not need to know.

The speed of light rays are relative to the point it is viewed from. It has almost nothing to do with how fast something is going.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

16. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
Moderators, I recommend something be done to William at this point. Possible ban?
First of all, we don't discuss such matters in a public forum. I've opened a discussion in the moderator section about William's post, which may indeed by racist. William is invited to defend himself by pm to the moderators.

17. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Here is a wiki page with a quick overview of some aether theories over the years (including a disproved one where I think William is getting his nonsense from). Some of them are even pretty much in accordance with experimental evidence and does not counter relativity or QM.

I personally like the quantum foam idea. I guess I also agree that the space-time fabric can be seen as some form of aether.
OK, so newton did not think the ether needed to be particle-based and if it were particles it would be extremely small.

But again, if it is not a particle, isn't it just another description of the Time-Space dimensions?

The quantum-foam thing makes sense, and it doesn't clash with relativity, So it does look promising. This quantum stuff is always quite weird isn't it? While it would help explain how a physical particle of matter or energy can affect what we perceive as a dimension, it would also mean space and time were non-dimensional. That seems like it would mess up something, if time-space was a physical entity and not a dimension.

18. I have always in my mind sort of linked the geometric nature of the space-time fabric to some form of aether. I mean what exactly is bent in the presence of matter to have the phenomenon of gravity as a result? And when carrying the 2D idea of bent space (you know, the stretched cloth with a marble in the centre) over to a 3D scenario has in my mind led to an analogy of stretched rubber with the varying degrees of local tension (and maybe even a form of density) corresponding to the strength and direction of the local force of gravity.

19. I just don't see how time and space could be considered a physical substance and not simply a measurement of other substances and how they interact. That would mean time-space would be a measurable substance that is in it's own space-time, and if that space-time is also a substance we get ourselves caught in a paradox.

20. Originally Posted by SuperNatendo
I just don't see how time and space could be considered a physical substance and not simply a measurement of other substances and how they interact. That would mean time-space would be a measurable substance that is in its own space-time, and if that space-time is also a substance we get ourselves caught in a paradox.
Well, think at what exactly space-time is. When you start from a point, you can go in three main directions (3D) with any direction possible as a combination of these three. Time is nothing other than a way to measure relative movement. So if I am not mistaken, the 4D space-time geometric equation () incorporates time to be able to provide a convenient and accurate mathematical basis from which to work when describing movement in space-time. So from this utilitarian perspective on space-time as more of an accurate mathematical model, at least in my mind, no paradox need result from some kind of aether theory. So while it might make predictions, I think of relativity theory more in terms of a mathematical model that describes phenomena, observed and experimentally verified, but that it does not neccesarily describe the precise nature of the space-time fabric. The same goes for QM in my mind. It does (maybe by accident) quantifiably describe the sub-atomic world, but that it does not neccesarily mean that it exactly describes the exact nature space-time. Am I way off-base here?

21. Originally Posted by Selene
I think you're reference to blacks as niggers is veiled racism William and i don't like it!

It was unnecessary and therefore is unacceptable.

Initially i took you for a harmless old fellow with some wacky ideas, but you are going too far.

We don't tolerate racism on this forum in any shape or form.

I am going to ignore you as a forum member from now on which means none of your posts will show up on the threads and i would urge fellow members to do the same.
Racism or class-ism is when you have fools telling smarter individuals that they are not created equal, and that the high class, has a special gift or knowledge that their class or color prohibits them from obtaining.
The multi particle people, said that only college trained people should have high paying jobs. When honest colleges were condemned and closed for saying that colleges in fact made people stupider.

That was what I was attempting to say. I was saying that the multi-particle people in fancy houses with fancy titles. Over stepped those that could do anything already. The fancy multi particle people promised to do with future research, what was already done. We knew they were out of this world. Gone. Mental retards.

We knew they were dead wrong. The multi particle people suspected it. But they had their paycheck to worry about. Not science or the future of humanity. And they just wasted their whole life doing nothing.

I am saying the multipartite people hated blacks more then anyone. Because as soon as a black guy had a solid bit of information. He would take it right to the particle scientists who would have to make up lies to hide their nonscientific particle inconstancies.
Particle scientists were on the same team that condoned counterintelligence operations in American public schools. Against blacks and minorities.

The multi particle people were weak easily controllable fools. That the government used in both directions at the same time on occasion.

Look at particle science it is no where. It has nothing. We did more sixty years ago.
First wireless was going to save the day by getting, to so many with the truth. About what was happening in our capital. A few late night radio shows did get some interesting information out and then the war.

Then television was going to save us by showing us. Not like radio, with just sound.
The television was going to show us the science that would unite the masses. Then when Soupy Sales was about as scientific as it got. The computer would save the day. Now many will not even use a computer that is less reliable then tin cans on a string. And a lot harder to maintain.

I have black friends and they understand my use of Nigger. I also know that multi particle people do not want to know that they were on the same side as those, that did behind closed doors call blacks niggers.

The multi particle people wanted higher salaries. Because nobody would hire their lame butts. They even went so far as to say that they wanted more blacks from college placed as engineers with set salaries. These salaries were often higher then a real engineers salary, one that was never messed up by school. The placement of an engineer has nothing to do with color or anything else. It has to do with his love of the project.

So the proof is overwhelming against multi particle scientists. But you have to want to see you should not be allowed to make a cake, having believed in multi particle science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

22. So the proof is overwhelming against multi particle scientists.
Proof? What proof! For goodness sake, could this thread for once actually be about the topic? Open your own bloody thread! If you have nothing to offer, stay the hell out of it!

23. Originally Posted by KALSTER
So the proof is overwhelming against multi particle scientists.
Proof? What proof! For goodness sake, could this thread for once actually be about the topic? Open your own bloody thread! If you have nothing to offer, stay the hell out of it!
Multi particle science is dead wrong. I do not know what point of view or bit of information will get you to that understanding. I am just offering some things that might ring a bell. Things that obviously contradict one another.

This is totally relevant to what took place to allow multi particle people to take over the world of science, like psychotic ants.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

24. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by KALSTER
So the proof is overwhelming against multi particle scientists.
Proof? What proof! For goodness sake, could this thread for once actually be about the topic? Open your own bloody thread! If you have nothing to offer, stay the hell out of it!
Multi particle science is dead wrong. I do not know what point of view or bit of information will get you to that understanding. I am just offering some things that might ring a bell. Things that obviously contradict one another.

This is totally relevant to what took place to allow multi particle people to take over the world of science, like psychotic ants.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

25. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by KALSTER
So the proof is overwhelming against multi particle scientists.
Proof? What proof! For goodness sake, could this thread for once actually be about the topic? Open your own bloody thread! If you have nothing to offer, stay the hell out of it!
Multi particle science is dead wrong. I do not know what point of view or bit of information will get you to that understanding. I am just offering some things that might ring a bell. Things that obviously contradict one another.

This is totally relevant to what took place to allow multi particle people to take over the world of science, like psychotic ants.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
Frame dragging assumes that there are multiple particles at work and not velocity driven ambient radiation. Multiple particle people also use a very new idea for the atom. That was not taught to the greats that built everything we still hail as amazing.

This is the atom as it was taught to radio engineers. It had just recently been changed, to this version of the atom. They changed it to say orbiting electrons. Rather then ambient radiation racing through the atom. Around the nucleus. And they added the two electrons in the nucleus. And they talk about the neutron but do not draw it.

They also do not explain how a neutron could have the same mass as a proton and not cause the atom to weigh more.

Ambient radiation almost looks like orbiting electrons. But it is not the same thing.

The younger multi particle people messed up every term, every understanding of the atom they could. With the strangest most off track experiments God ever saw. All to disprove reality.

And you are adding to it, by hailing experiments that do not show or prove anything. Especially if what I am saying can hold a drop of water.

The fact you do not blast holes in what I say, is because you open up a hole in your ideas the size of the universe. All you can do is offer more silly experiments that do not show anything. And tell me to be quite and stay away. Get mean with hard facts. Your friends will tear you apart, like piranha.

I love to highlight reality and history in the face of your experiments. Why do you hate my reality and history? It is yours too.

I would like to get atoms back to spheres of electrons, that are bombarded by electrons. From there we can do all the experiments you like.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

26. William, I would like to thank you for distroying yet another thread with your bullshit. You are not only flying in the face of modern physics, but physics that is much older than you are. You have not ONCE provided anything worth our time. No references whatsoever, only your unsubstantiated drivel. And your contentions are frequenty flat wrong. For one, the neutrons in an atom DO contribute to the mass of the atom. There is the atomic number, which indicates the amount of protons and the mass number, which indicates the total amount of protons and neutrons. I feal that I cannot just leave you to run around rampant, or I would have added you to my ignore list a long time ago. You are a menace and a troll and you are either delighting in fooling us into believing your serious or you are flat out suffering from some serious delusions. I hope it is the former, but I think it is the latter. I am sure that no amount of convincing will make you see the extent of your error and so I am feeling powerless to defend this forum against you, since you have been running rampant for a while now without repercussions.

I reallly hope that my thread does not die! I am finding this hole frame dragging thing very interesting. Can I please ask you to not continue posting here?

27. Originally Posted by KALSTER
William, I would like to thank you for distroying yet another thread with your bullshit. You are not only flying in the face of modern physics, but physics that is much older than you are. You have not ONCE provided anything worth our time. No references whatsoever, only your unsubstantiated drivel. And your contentions are frequenty flat wrong. For one, the neutrons in an atom DO contribute to the mass of the atom. There is the atomic number, which indicates the amount of protons and the mass number, which indicates the total amount of protons and neutrons. I feal that I cannot just leave you to run around rampant, or I would have added you to my ignore list a long time ago. You are a menace and a troll and you are either delighting in fooling us into believing your serious or you are flat out suffering from some serious delusions. I hope it is the former, but I think it is the latter. I am sure that no amount of convincing will make you see the extent of your error and so I am feeling powerless to defend this forum against you, since you have been running rampant for a while now without repercussions.

I reallly hope that my thread does not die! I am finding this hole frame dragging thing very interesting. Can I please ask you to not continue posting here?
You ought to go back and check history. There were no such things as neutrons when they made the periodic table, and the mass of each element.

When they screwed up what a German scientist, I believe either meant or was misquoted, when he said, "That the air around an event, offers neutral power". He meant that neutral or ground could supply or receive an abundance of electrons. It was that simple.
They turned that into a book, and on going confusion, that Chadwick somehow by misunderstanding or by just wanting to prove the Universal Scientists wrong, went with neutrons must be in the atom.

And of course because everything was working, how could you give them a charge. At that time you could not get away with something that retarded. Today anything might fly.

It was too late to change the atomic weight of atoms. They were just rather bizarre standards. I was told not to worry about or use those weights with expectations of their exactness.

I was told that the periodic tables numbers representing protons were totally accurate up to element 86 probably 89. And I could rely on those with my life. And I do.

You have to understand that pure hydrogen in natural form is H2, pure helium in natural form is He2.

Yet hydrogen is H and bonds as H, so you can study hydrogen as H with other elements. Helium though you cannot. It will not form chemical bonds. It will form mixtures, but not chemical substances. So helium could only be studied as He2. Or He in a powerful arc, or explosion. It releases much heat when you do this.

As you go down the table it is hard to say what they meant by the weights of atoms. Or whether or not they meant the weight of hydrogen as a single or Siamese bond. I cannot say for sure. My triple beam does not do that. Ha-ha.

I have a very legitimate point of view about "frame dragging", it sounds ridiculous.

And it is probably better explained by the meeting of the two diverse density, areas around earth. That of the earths upper atmosphere, and that of the lighter high orbit gases. There is a constant mixing and friction at that point.

That is where you will find your mirage or dessert effect. Ambient radiation passing through different densities of the same material.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

28. I am deleting all my posts that are not concerned with frame dragging in this thread and putting William on my ignore list and I am urging everyone else to do the same.

I welcome any comment regarding this topic. I would dearly like to know if I am completely misunderstanding frame dragging and the possibility of it affecting Mickelson-Morley type experiments.

Thanks

Edit: Oh, it seems I can't delete my previous posts. Could I ask a Mod to please delete all the posts in this thread that do not have anything to do with frame dragging, including mine?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement