Past differences aside, this experiment holds promise. Confirmation is required. This is important.
Posted on 03/25/2006 11:13:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Not according to Einstein's theory of relatively. Light- electromagnetism always moves at a constant speed. No object can "catch up" to a photon and hold it.
That's where things get weird. Our conceptions of 3 dimensional space are a reliable construct in a slow moving world. When velocities increase space and time change, e.g. time dilation and the Lorentz contraction.
At high speed we live in a sci fi universe.
Darn, that whole physics thing keeps getting the way.
How about a bed where I can set the 'gravity' to .6 Earth norm? (a la Larry Niven's Ringworld)
Things get to be quite different in the realm of near absolute zero. Light can be stopped.
There isn't sufficient energy to get you up to 'sci fi' speed. See http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm and http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf for the truly awesome.
Science does not bet. It does formulate and fly hypotheses for others to shoot down by observation and experiment.
I don't see how. This effect -- if it's real -- happens with a rotating superconductor. Are there any such objects that astronomers could observe? If so, then you've got a point.
If this is indeed a quantum gravity effect (as the researchers hope), it might very well require making measurements in very close proximity to the source - there are variants of quantum gravity theory that predict standard general relativity theory breaks down at 'short' distances (in the rough order of magnitude of 1 mm or so).
I'm also (somewhat wildly) guessing that superconductors are used because one can truly reduce mechanical friction effects to zero (in all practicality). If my understanding of the article is correct (no guarantees there), the effect isn't otherwise related to the electrical nature of the object at all.
That was kind of my point. Perhaps time is a field (meaning it can have different magnitudes, though likely constrained orientation). The thought is that gravity is actually the result of mass interacting with time fields. If that thought is anywhere near correct, then one could test that by measuring time flow (via accurate clock) in deep space versus one at sea level. I would expect that two perfect clocks, one at sea level, one at 175,000 ft orbit would read one second different after about 86 years (the clock at sea level lagging the one in space). Has this difference ever been measured?
A bed with adjustable gravity…sounds like a good night’s sleep.
If your bed spun at 6500 rpms – nah. Guess we have to wait a few more years.
It might be time to quit drinking ;-)
Ah! The bad Ole Daze!
Past differences aside, this experiment holds promise. Confirmation is required. This is important.
I was thinking about this issue recently from an economic point of view. Many companies, when up for sale, gut their R&D departments in order to give the appearance of better margins and a better P/E ratio in order to entice buyers. Downside is that the buyer gets stuck with a company which is less competitive because the R&D pipeline has noting in it and competitors jump ahead in the innovation/value added department. Could something analogous be happening to the U.S.? Then again, there are many on FR who believe that taxes should not be spent on R&D and your observation is what they desire.
I believe that the question was if a charge circulation in a rotating superconductor could be made stationary if the superconductor was rotated with a matching counter angular velocity with respect to the moving charge in the superconductor. This is about the charge in the superconductor, not the E field.
Clocks do slow down due to gravity, as they also do when accelerated. Yes, this has been measured, and the effect is exactly as predicted by special relativity. I think synchronized clocks (atomic clocks, not your everyday alarm clocks) will diverge enough to be detected when one is at ground level and the other is taken to the top of a tall building.
Yes. The gravitational field affects the flow of time.
No, this is happening in the U.S.
Gravity Probe B is likewise testing General Relativity (and the internal results so far have got Standford scients throwing out data from "spacecraft anomalies"). GP-B
Which is to say, the results announced next April (2007) should likewise deal another blow to General Relativity along the lines of the experiment for this thread showing a larger GravitoMagnetic field than predicted by GR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.