Thread: Aether is Measurable

If some angle (not 90 degrees) of light rayto the wave front (of a star) is detected in outer space, it will be an effectof observer's motion relative to aether.

On the moon's surface, there is a passengercar. To the roof, waves of sun-light (plane waves) are coming horizontally. Inthe roof, there is a small hole. When the passenger car moves to the right (orthe left), projection (spot-light on the floor) will move. And moon's motionwill have an effect (on the spot-light) also. The angle of light ray (in thepassengercar) will not be 90 degrees. http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Nakayama, please don't post this nonsense, especially in the hard science sections.

Originally Posted by nakayama

If some angle (not 90 degrees) of light rayto the wave front (of a star) is detected in outer space, it will be an effectof observer's motion relative to aether.

On the moon's surface, there is a passengercar. To the roof, waves of sun-light (plane waves) are coming horizontally. Inthe roof, there is a small hole. When the passenger car moves to the right (orthe left), projection (spot-light on the floor) will move. And moon's motionwill have an effect (on the spot-light) also. The angle of light ray (in thepassengercar) will not be 90 degrees. http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

What you describe is known as the aberration of light and is explained by standard relativity without recourse to aether.

To Administrator Harold 4370,

My threads seem to worry your forum. Verysorry. If it’s possible. please erase unfavorable threads.　Anyway, it’s my last post.

To KJW

By aberration, 0 point cannot be found (itseems so). By above picture, it can be found.

To Administrator Harold 4370,

i ask, erase my registrtion, please.

Originally Posted by nakayama

To Administrator Harold 4370,

My threads seem to worry your forum.

We worry for you. We wish you all the best ... of medications and care.

Lorentz theorized (1892) that objects undergo "length contraction" by a factor of in the direction of their motion through the aether. In this way, aberration (and all related optical phenomena) can be accounted for in the context of an immobile aether. Lorentz' theory became the basis for much research in the next decade, and beyond. Its predictions for aberration are identical to those of the relativistic theory.

Einstein said:
Lorentz’ basic assumption of a resting ether did not seem directly convincing to me, since it led to an [struck out: to me artificial appearing] interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which [struck out: did not convince me] seemed unnatural to me.

seems like the current state of physics is based on someones hunch.

Only if you don't understand it...

so I gotta have faith?

No, an education might help (as might making the effort to look into all the work done more recently than your quoted sources, physics did not stop with Einstein) no faith required. What you claim to be based only on a hunch does a very good job of explaining what is actually observed. Your ideas (which are based on faith, or a hunch, rooted in ignorance) don't.

In 1911 Vladimir Varićak asserted that length contraction is "real" according to Lorentz, while it is "apparent or subjective" according to Einstein.^[17] Einstein replied:

The author unjustifiably stated a difference of Lorentz's view and that of mine concerning the physical facts. The question as to whether length contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer.^[18]
—Albert Einstein, 1911

umm, seems like your the one following the guy who thinks things are imaginary or not depending if you are moving.

Why do cranks always dig up pre-war quotes to back up their ridiculous anti-relativity nonsense and ignore all post war experimental evidence? Is it nostalgia, delusion or dishonesty? At least you're in the pseudo forum

are you accusing me of being a crank? I accuse you back sir.

Originally Posted by nakayama

To Administrator Harold 4370,

i ask, erase my registrtion, please.

No, people like to keep records of past stupidity. We learn from mistakes. You are mistaken. We learn from you.

Originally Posted by 514void

are you accusing me of being a crank? I accuse you back sir.

Well I have the evidence of your posts on my side, if you can point out anywhere on this forum or in the publications on my homepage where I have acted like a crank (i.e. carried on with nonsense in the face of evidence, cherry picked data or quote mined old sources to prop up my fantasies or disagreed with a mainstream theory without understanding it) do so, otherwise STFU.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Why do cranks always dig up pre-war quotes to back up their ridiculous anti-relativity nonsense and ignore all post war experimental evidence? Is it nostalgia, delusion or dishonesty? At least you're in the pseudo forum

Anyone who does any research on the subject seems to find these quotes on wiki pages, there is an explanation.
I think that if there were better quotes, they would be on the relevant pages?

Looking up quotes on wiki (or anywhere) is not how research is done in science (maybe history or the arts but not in science), scientific research aims to come up with something new, you will not do that by rehashing old quotes. If you think this is how scientific research is done it might explain why you are not very good at it.

Wiki is good for a basic introduction to a subject, it is not a research tool. Do you think Einstein came up with relativity by cherry picking quotes from the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I was wondering how einstein came up with his theory on relativity, and while researching the interwebs, I found opinions on his theory by alot of other scientists, and they mostly disagreed with his theory, often coming up with evidence against it.
I realise that is not how science works, but it does lead to some speculation on why current theories have become entrenched in the mainstream and why some other competing theories have been scrapped.
I also have researched evidence for and against the theories by notable scientists.
Judging by this research, and also from evidence for and against the theories by notable scientists, I have come to the conclusion that Lorentz's ether theory is better at explaining the universe than Einsteins relativity theory.

I assume that you have not had a similar approach, I am not sure if your approach is better, but you seem to think you have some authority over the subject, sort of like the pope.

Originally Posted by 514void

so I gotta have faith?

Quite the reverse. Stop believing in things because you find them aesthetically appealing and look at the evidence. And stop making appeals to authority. It doesn't matter what Lorentz, Einstein or anyone else thought if they were wrong.

Originally Posted by 514void

I was wondering how einstein came up with his theory on relativity, and while researching the interwebs, I found opinions on his theory by alot of other scientists, and they mostly disagreed with his theory, often coming up with evidence against it.

Citation needed. I am not aware of any evidence that contradicts relativity.

I realise that is not how science works, but it does lead to some speculation on why current theories have become entrenched in the mainstream and why some other competing theories have been scrapped.

Because of the evidence. Full stop.

I also have researched evidence for and against the theories by notable scientists.
Judging by this research, and also from evidence for and against the theories by notable scientists, I have come to the conclusion that Lorentz's ether theory is better at explaining the universe than Einsteins relativity theory.

As you are unwilling (or unable?) to say what this "evidence" is it is hard to comment. But, as someone said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So I conclude you are wrong.

If you are serious you need to read the primary physics literature not the internet where any loon can post anti-mainstream rubbish that you seem to be taken in by.

I notice you give no names for these "notable" scientists (or links to the work where you claim they have evidence against the mainstream view), please provide the peer-reviewed papers where these "notable scientists" present their evidence and discuss why and how it disagrees with the mainstream. It is a common fallacy among cranks that every opinion is valid, if it isn't peer reviewed it has not undergone quality control and can therefore be considered suspect. Any tool can post rubbish on the internet (as you are proving with every post you make).

I assume that you have not had a similar approach, I am not sure if your approach is better, but you seem to think you have some authority over the subject, sort of like the pope

I approach science by doing experiments and looking at the results of the experiments of others and testing my hypotheses against reality, not by comparing fantasies to quotes found on the arse end of the interweb. If you are discussing my work, I have no more authority than any other competent scientist that presents his work for review, if you are suggesting I think I have authority over the whole of physics you just look more of a clown. It does not take authority to suggest you may want to follow the scientific method, that is after all what makes my research science and yours pseudoscience.

Speaking of which I am now in my lab (doing actual real science) and have no more time to spend debating with the clueless for now. If you post any more inane blether I may have a look at it this evening if I can be bothered, or need a laugh.

Originally Posted by 514void

I found opinions on his theory by alot of other scientists

For sure there are plenty of opinions to be found on the Internet by scientists and amateurs alike, but given that currently there exists no empirical data whatsoever that contradicts relativistic physics or supports violations of Lorentz invariance, someone's personal opinions really don't count for much.

but it does lead to some speculation on why current theories have become entrenched in the mainstream

For the same reason. All empirical data we currently have is in accord with relativistic physics, and no empirical data exists that supports violations of Lorentz invariance. The scientific method is not about personal opinions or philosophical considerations, only about hard, peer-reviewed, empirical data obtained by experiment and observation.

Originally Posted by nakayama

To Administrator Harold 4370,

i ask, erase my registrtion, please.

I don't think the moderators do that. So you are stuck with your embarrassing posts remaining public. I hope it makes you think twice before making such posts in future. Perhaps you will stop posting and use the time to learn a little basic physics instead.

I am not aware of any evidence that contradicts Lorentz ether theory.
The evidence that supports relativity theory also supports Lorentz ether theory.
Evidence that supports Lorentz ether theory and doesn't support relativity: Newtons bucket, sagnac effect, Higgs field (not proven).

I suppose I need convincing, so provide evidence for relativity and against Lorentz's ether.

Originally Posted by 514void

I am not aware of any evidence that contradicts Lorentz ether theory.
The evidence that supports relativity theory also supports Lorentz ether theory.
Evidence that supports Lorentz ether theory and doesn't support relativity: Newtons bucket, sagnac effect, Higgs field (not proven).

LET and SR are experimentally indistinguishable ( even though you appear to think otherwise ); the reason why SR has become mainstream whereas LET has not is twofold :

1. LET axiomatically assumes the existence of an ( undetectable ) ether without being able to provide any method to test for its existence
2. SR - unlike LET - can be generalised to GR, which is itself well supported and tested

Choosing SR over LET is thus a straightforward application of Occam's razor - the ether in LET is undetectable and plays no role whatsoever in any physical law, so it is quite simply not needed to explain available empirical data. It is for that very reason also not falsifiable, which is a problem so far as the scientific method is concerned.

I suppose I need convincing

I cannot help you with that, I can only answer any question you may have.

Originally Posted by 514void

Evidence that supports Lorentz ether theory and doesn't support relativity: Newtons bucket, sagnac effect, Higgs field (not proven).

I'm curious, what is the relevance of the Higgs field ?

It's like science and shit..

Yet another poster using word salad and buzz-words to "prove" a point...

I was joking about the Higgs field, its sort of like people taking the ether out and then putting it back in.

Originally Posted by 514void

I was joking about the Higgs field, its sort of like people taking the ether out and then putting it back in.

Not at all. Its just another quantum field. There are several, you know.

umm, so these quantum fields are different from ether in what way?

Originally Posted by 514void

umm, so these quantum fields are different from ether in what way?

The excitations of quantum fields ( = elementary particles ) are easily detectable, whereas no trace of ether has ever been found.

I thought that the ether was a field itself, and perturbations in it are easily detectable (light, e/m), do I have the wrong crackpot theory?

Originally Posted by 514void

I thought that the ether was a field itself, and perturbations in it are easily detectable (light, e/m), do I have the wrong crackpot theory?

That is the electromagnetic field. Not the aether. (Although, perhaps confusingly, a number of writers have used the word aether as a metaphor for these and other fields, for spacetime, dark energy, small green unicorns, zero point energy, quantum fluctuations, and god only knows what else.)

Perhaps you need to define what you intend by the word "aether"

So Lorentz was just talking about the EM field when he was talking about the aether?

if so,
does the EM field follow relativity: do magnetic fields bend in gravity?
and why do we need extra quantum fields to explain stuff?

Originally Posted by 514void

does the EM field follow relativity: do magnetic fields bend in gravity?

EM fields are affected by the curvature of space-time just like any other form of energy is. At the same time they also form a source of gravity, so the situation is pretty non-linear. In any case the answer is yes.

and why do we need extra quantum fields to explain stuff?

Because there are more elementary particles than just the photon.

Originally Posted by 514void

So Lorentz was just talking about the EM field when he was talking about the aether?

No, he was talking about the Olde Luminiferous Aether that provides an absolute frame of reference.

so does each frame of reference have its own EM field?wouldn't it make more sense if there was just one EM field?

Originally Posted by 514void

so does each frame of reference have its own EM field?wouldn't it make more sense if there was just one EM field?

There is only one underlying EM field, but what aspect of that field an observer sees ( electric, magnetic, or mix of both ) depends on his state of relative motion.

does each particle have its own completely seperate field?

Each particle type does.

So there is a Higgs field, an electron field, etc. What we see as particles are excitations of these fields.

(I think - I don't have a good understanding of quantum field theory )

One can argue about whether these fields "exist" (whatever that means) or are just mathematical models (whatever that means). But as the only thing we know of "existence" is the models our mind makes, it is a bit of a pointless question.

ok, but these fields must interact somehow,
otherwise we would only see one particle type and the other types would be completely undectectable?

Originally Posted by 514void

does each particle have its own completely seperate field?

Each elementary particle is understood to be an excitation of a corresponding quantum field, as Strange said. Here is a list of the currently known ones : Elementary particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by 514void

ok, but these fields must interact somehow,
otherwise we would only see one particle type and the other types would be completely undectectable?

They do interact via things like the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces. They are what create matter, light, and everything else...

are these fields stationary in regards to one another?

I don't know if you can measure the position of a field. But excitations of the field are not stationary.

it says that photons are the only EM particles, do these make magnets work?

Yes... But it isn't simple, they are "virtual" photons, not the same as photons that make up light.

I did a bit of reading and now my understanding is that a virtual particles are just a disturbances in their field, and a real particle is a stable wave.
And the stability of that wave is due to other fields having corresponding virtual particles that wibble in sync.

I combine all these fields into a field to rule them all, and this infernal field shall be name "The Wibble Field".

Ah, a thinly disguised version of crank gambit #4

"It doesn't make sense to me so it can't possibly be right."

so unoriginal

are you saying that quantum physics is wrong?

No I'm saying your parody of it in an attempt to show it is silly is crank behaviour. Are you actually going to present any evidence other than your personal opinions for your disagreement with the mainstream view or should I just stop reading your nonsense?

you are a bitter person.

Originally Posted by 514void

you are a bitter person.

Nope, you're wrong about that too. From your response I'm taking it that your answer to my question is "no I can't provide any evidence so I'll change the subject". Just as I thought, all mouth and no trousers just like all the other fantasy physicists who would rather make stuff up than study

ok, what evidence on what point or subject do you require?

You have said you disagree with the mainstream theories. I would like to see evidence that you actually understand the theory or theories you disagree with (which is sadly lacking so far) and a detailed logical discussion of why you disagree that is based on data, not opinion, data. Also if you want to overthrow current theory you must have a replacement that does at least as well at replicating experimental data as the current model you don't like, please provide it (with suitable maths and suggestions for how it can be falsified). If you can't fulfill these basic requirements you show you do not have the knowledge or ability to have a valid opinion on the theories you disagree with and can be safely ignored.

PS This is how science works in the real world, it isn't looking up quotes on the internet and making stuff up.

provide details on the point you want me to prove.

Nice try, you are the one who knows which theories you disagree with and why, not me. The ball's in your court. I've provided details of what would be required for you to be taken seriously provide it.

I did some evidence on post #24
I returned the ball with a slicing backhand, now you prove those points invalid.

You mean the post where you made a little word side-salad and a bad joke about the Higgs field

Changing sports metaphors, but that's an own goal. I'm one nil up what else have you got?

so you have no "word salad" in return?
you were offside.

Enjoyable as the banter is I have better things to do, if and when you post any science or make a credible response to post #55, I'll respond, until then (as you're in pseudo where you nonsense will do little damage) I'm switching metaphors to cricket and calling a rain delay due to a shower of shit, I'll leave you to wipe your backside in the changing room.

#24 was first, disprove those things or be labeled the worst anti-crankerist ever.

*Hands over the toilet paper*

going on holiday, bbiafd

I knew you where full of it but I didn't think it would take DAYS to clean yourself up...
Where are you going on holiday? Here?

Sorry Phdemon, but if entertaining an idea that is "experimentally indistinguishable" from GR is such an affront to your orthodoxy that he must be called a crank you might try recalibrating your crank-o-meter i believe its out of tune, and your diminishing the true value of the word! If its the metaphorically whimsy higgs field as aether it has been made many times by much smarter people, a scalar field with non zero ground state is mabey not apt but excusable.

To be honest the grade school debaters around here are tiresome, "its not true", "prove it", "word-salad", "crank", .. it was much better a couple of years ago from a lurkers perspective, i think we all appreciate markus and at least strange has a kneejerk "strawman" slightly less insulting.

coily = sock puppet? Or just someone butthurt enough to make an account just to post such a thing?

Probably both... Also they appear to be ignorant of the scientific method and Occams razor and need to re-read (and hopefully this time read past the first sentence) and understand post #15.

woo, back from holidays.
So the observations are straight line motion could be in relative or absolute space and rotations can only be accounted for by absolute space...
occams razor: absolute space is simpler
am I doing it wrong?????

Originally Posted by 514void

woo,

Pretty much sums up all your posts...

stay focused on the issues.

I will when you raise any worth considering (i.e. not based on your misunderstandings and crackpottery). Now if you have nothing worthwhile to say and noone takes threads in pseudo seriously I'm going to leave you to play make believe.

No stress, if you can't explain it then don't talk.

Not stressed at all, you've shown you are incapable of understanding explanations so I'm done with you, simple as that, *walks away shaking head at yet another pigeon chess grandmaster*.

seems like a grand trampling exit?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Now if you have nothing worthwhile to say and noone takes threads in pseudo seriously I'm going to leave you to play make believe.

...

So the author chose to put this in the pseudoscience section because he didn't want to be taken seriously?

anyhow, since we are in the pseudoscience section;
maybe relative spin could be explained by some sort of binding to all the matter in the universe,
or maybe it is the result of some abstract mathematics?

Originally Posted by 514void

anyhow, since we are in the pseudoscience section;
maybe relative spin could be explained by some sort of binding to all the matter in the universe,
or maybe it is the result of some abstract mathematics?

You might be interested in this: Mach's principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cool, I also found some stuff on frame dragging, the theory of that is that mass drags spacetime with it.
I suppose a test to confirm that would be some sagnac effect detector that points to the background stars, if it detects no rotation then there is no frame dragging.
either way, it seems like spin lines up to space somehow.

Originally Posted by 514void

cool, I also found some stuff on frame dragging, the theory of that is that mass drags spacetime with it.
I suppose a test to confirm that would be some sagnac effect detector that points to the background stars, if it detects no rotation then there is no frame dragging.
either way, it seems like spin lines up to space somehow.

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein’s Space-Time Theories

I read about gravity probe B and it seems like they had major problems and crazy data errors that they had to fudge to get the expected results

Originally Posted by 514void

I read about gravity probe B and it seems like they had major problems and crazy data errors that they had to fudge to get the expected results

Source please.

Edit: Let's say you are a traffic cop. You sit and measure cars all day and suddenly you measure a guy in a Prius as doing 500mph; do you stop him and shoot him in the face, or do you dismiss the measurement as an error?

exerpt from Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 9 February 2007, it was announced that a number of unexpected signals had been received and that these would need to be separated out before final results could be released. In April it was announced that the spin axes of the gyroscopes were affected by torque, in a manner that varied over time, requiring further analysis to allow the results to be corrected for this source of error. Consequently, the date for the final release of data was pushed back several times. In the data for the frame-dragging results presented at the April 2007 meeting of the American Physical Society, the random errors were much larger than the theoretical expected value and scattered on both the positive and negative sides of a null result, therefore causing skepticism as to whether any useful data could be extracted in the future to test this effect.
In June 2007, a detailed update was released explaining the cause of the problem, and the solution that was being worked on. Although electrostatic patches caused by non-uniform coating of the spheres were anticipated, and were thought to have been controlled for before the experiment, it was subsequently found that the final layer of the coating on the spheres defined two halves of slightly different contact potential, which gave the sphere an electrostatic axis. This created a classical dipole torque on each rotor, of a magnitude similar to the expected frame dragging effect. In addition, it dissipated energy from the polhode motion by inducing currents in the housing electrodes, causing the motion to change with time. This meant that a simple time-average polhode model was insufficient, and a detailed orbit by orbit model was needed to remove the effect. As it was anticipated that "anything could go wrong", the final part of the flight mission was calibration, where amongst other activities, data was gathered with the spacecraft axis deliberately mis-aligned for 24 hours, to exacerbate any potential problems. This data proved invaluable for identifying the effects. With the electrostatic torque modeled as a function of axis misalignment, and the polhode motion modeled at a sufficiently fine level, it was hoped to isolate the relativity torques to the originally expected resolution.
Stanford agreed to release the raw data to the public at an unspecified date in the future. It is likely that this data will be examined by independent scientists and independently reported to the public well after the final release by the project scientists. Because future interpretations of the data by scientists outside of GP-B may differ from the official results, it may take several more years for all of the data received by GP-B to be completely understood.
NASA review[edit]

A review by a panel of 15 experts commissioned by NASA recommended against extending the data analysis phase beyond 2008. They warned that the required reduction in noise level (due to classical torques and breaks in data collection due to solar flares) "is so large that any effect ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community".^[29]

I'm surprised (*) you missed off the section immediately following that:

NASA funding and sponsorship of the program ended on 30 September 2008, but GP-B secured alternative funding from King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia[5] that enabled the science team to continue working at least through December 2009. On 29 August 2008, the 18th meeting of the external GP-B Science Advisory Committee was held at Stanford to report progress. The ensuing SAC report to NASA states:

The progress reported at SAC-18 was truly extraordinary and we commend the GPB team for this achievement. This has been a heroic effort, and has brought the experiment from what seemed like a state of potential failure, to a position where the SAC now believes that they will obtain a credible test of relativity, even if the accuracy does not meet the original goal. In the opinion of the SAC Chair, this rescue warrants comparison with the mission to correct the flawed optics of the Hubble Space Telescope, only here at a minuscule fraction of the cost.
—SAC #18 Report to NASA

The Stanford-based analysis group and NASA announced on 4 May 2011 that the data from GP-B indeed confirms the two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.[30] The findings were published in the journal Physical Review Letters.;[7] the prospects for further experimental measurement of frame-dragging after GP-B were commented on in the journal Europhysics Letters.[31]

(emphasis added)
Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(*) Not. Cherry-picking and misrepresentation are not surprising from someone with an agenda.

it was after the nasa commisioned review said should be the cutoff date for data fudging

Originally Posted by 514void

it was after the nasa commisioned review said should be the cutoff date for data fudging

This analysis was not done by NASA

And "fudging" is a rather offensive term for a detailed error analysis. Perhaps you could shows your own analysis of the results in equal detail, published in a peer reviewed journal (before you start impugning the integrity of others)

well, if you do an experiment, and don't release the data, and take a few years to find a way to make the data match the predictions, would that cause a tiny little bit of scepticism?

Originally Posted by 514void

well, if you do an experiment, and don't release the data, and take a few years to find a way to make the data match the predictions, would that cause a tiny little bit of scepticism?

It might do. But that is the purpose of peer review.

Perhaps you can show, in suitable mathematical detail, where their analysis of the data is incorrect. Or do you just prefer to throw around glib insults.

I don't think that they have released the data so I cannot do any analysis on it.

Originally Posted by 514void

I don't think that they have released the data so I cannot do any analysis on it.

So your implication that they are cheating and fudging the data is completely unjustified.

Anyway, the point was not to what extent the experiment confirmed GR (or not) but simply a helpful(?) response to the comment, "I suppose a test to confirm that would be ..." to show how this was actually tested.

i know, and I think that maybe a ground based experiment would work.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by 514void

cool, I also found some stuff on frame dragging, the theory of that is that mass drags spacetime with it.
I suppose a test to confirm that would be some sagnac effect detector that points to the background stars, if it detects no rotation then there is no frame dragging.
either way, it seems like spin lines up to space somehow.

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein’s Space-Time Theories

In what way does it prove that spacetime is dragged, and not just space ?
Stirring a spoon in your tea might do the same for you, if you considered
the water to be space and the spoon the planet, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Noa Drake

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by 514void

cool, I also found some stuff on frame dragging, the theory of that is that mass drags spacetime with it.
I suppose a test to confirm that would be some sagnac effect detector that points to the background stars, if it detects no rotation then there is no frame dragging.
either way, it seems like spin lines up to space somehow.

Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe

Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein’s Space-Time Theories

In what way does it prove that spacetime is dragged, and not just space ?
Stirring a spoon in your tea might do the same for you, if you considered
the water to be space and the spoon the planet, so to speak.

Did you bother to read the actual paper? Or did you only read the press blurbs? I'm guessing you only read the latter, because the paper goes into great detail about what GPB was designed to do, and how it did it.

No harm intended, i'll be on my way now. It's a wall...tiresome. I'm finishing up here.

spinning things are spinning against a certain frame, where you can measure the frame by working out when things are spinning in it.
frame dragging is when this certain frame gets dragged by some mass that is spinning.
GPB went around the earth in a polar orbit and had spinning balls that they could measure the direction of spin.

Here is the actual data : [1105.3456] Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity

I couldn't find the raw data, and the "raw" data they did show was compensated for somehow.
It did show that the gyros went the opposite way than predicted in some days.
They also stated that they did "some" techniques to make the data fit the predictions.

I can't copy paste from the pdf but they did state that they did some data processing involving putting the data for each gyro through a system:
the system involved putting the data through base functions where they kept putting in numbers until they matched the predictions.

Originally Posted by 514void

I couldn't find the raw data, and the "raw" data they did show was compensated for somehow.
It did show that the gyros went the opposite way than predicted in some days.
They also stated that they did "some" techniques to make the data fit the predictions.

I can't copy paste from the pdf but they did state that they did some data processing involving putting the data for each gyro through a system:
the system involved putting the data through base functions where they kept putting in numbers until they matched the predictions.

But what is it you are really claiming here? Why would they deliberately and clumsily adjust the data without very good scientific reasoning behind it and then share what they have done? Do you think they are trying to deceive people? If so, how do you know about it?

You appear to have a very skewed view of how science is conducted. If those "fudges" were really designed to adjust the data in their favour and not simply to account for genuine errors in measurement, then the experimental results would have been rejected by mainstream science. There is no value to data that has been adjusted to fit a preconceived result without there being a specific and understood reason and magnitude behind the errant data.

They did not simply willy nilly adjust it until they liked what they saw, they carefully analysed the data, identified and quantified possible mechanisms responsible for errant data and made corrections for them.

Your viewpoint makes no sense to me.

I thought that it was rejected by mainstream science.