May 19, 2008
Gravity Probe B: Good Money after Bad?
Gravity Probe B scores 'F' in NASA review, New Scientist
"A NASA review appears to spell the end for Gravity Probe B, the project conceived in the 1960s to measure how the Earth warps the fabric of nearby space-time. A panel of about 15 experts commissioned by NASA analysed the performance of 10 NASA astrophysics missions that are currently operating in Earth orbit. A copy of the "senior review" obtained by New Scientist concludes that extending the lifetimes of the top nine missions "would be certain to deliver unique data of high scientific value". But Gravity Probe B didn't make the cut because the panel doubted further analysis of its results would yield significant new information."
Posted by kcowing at May 19, 2008 8:43 PM
It's a shame that Gravity Probe B has come to such a bitter and disappointing end.
Hopefully the final report will dissect the root causes of the failure in detail. Reading through some of the papers on the GP-B website, it appears that solar storm radiation was considered in the design. This then begs the question "What did they miss?"
Posted by: Gonzo at May 21, 2008 2:18 AMHave they considered that dark matter could be involved:
blog entry: Can dark matter explain the flyby anomalies?
http://arxivblog.com/?p=428
Arxiv preprint: Can the flyby anomaly be attributed to earth-bound dark matter?
Authors: Stephen L. Adler
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2895
JPL peer reviewed paper: Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth
John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, John E. Ekelund, Jordan Ellis, and James F. Jordan
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000100000009091102000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
It's a shame that GPB ever got built and launched. It consistently lost out in peer reviews to much better projects. But they lobbied congress and got an earmark. There are many better missions that could have flown.
Posted by: Dave at May 23, 2008 4:36 PMNovel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect ...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0406121 ...
The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite experiment will measure the precession of on-board gyroscopes to extraordinary accuracy. Such precessions are predicted by General Relativity (GR), and one component of this precession is the `frame-dragging' or Lense-Thirring effect, which is caused by the rotation of the earth. A new theory of gravity, which passes the same extant tests of GR, predicts, however, a second and much larger `frame-dragging' precession. The magnitude and signature of this larger effect is given for comparison with the GP-B data.
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 - author "The MIND of Mankind"
http://novan.com/mind.htm
