The fallacy of frame dragging.

Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
in Fizeau's ether drag experiment. But that was most certainly not
the case at all.

Run this animation
https://youtu.be/N4J--dMXOMc

This is the truth equation for the universe: m2/m1 = r2^2/r1^2

For the sun-earth system. r1 = 150000000000
r2 = (r1^2*(m2/m1))^.5
r2 = 259807621.1353316 meters

5.899244444444444D-03 G*m1/r1^2
5.899244444444444D-03 G*m2/r2^2

Matter at this radius from the earth is drawn to the earth at the
same rate as the earth is drawn to the sun.

r1-r2 = r3 = 149740192378.8647 meters is the distance from the sun
to that point in space along the line from the sun to the earth.
5.919733242732051D-03 G*m1/r3^2 doesn't compare exactly with
5.899244444444444D-03 G*m2/r2^2

This is near enough to the compare point.
r2 = 259358399.2
r1-r2 = r3 = 149740641600.8
5.919697724866515D-03 G*m2/r2^2
5.919697724385039D-03 G*m1/r3^2

The earth is traveling at 30 km/sec relative to the SCI frame. At
this compare point in space, the light propagation base will be set
equally by the sun and the earth. It will be moving at 15 km/sec in
the direction of earth's orbit trajectory. And that has nothing
whatever to do with frame dragging.

That point in space is only a little more than half way to the moon.
The center of mass of the sun will always be the focal point of
earth's orbit. The sun will always be exactly where it appears to be
(almost).

-----

Max Keon

On 01-Apr-22 8:23 pm, maxke...@gmail.com wrote:
> The fallacy of frame dragging.
>
> Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
> in Fizeau's ether drag experiment.

But later still this explanation was abandoned and forms no part of
modern physics [*], so what's the point of your post?

Sylvia.

[*] Frame dragging in general relativity is something completely different.

Den 01.04.2022 11:23, skrev maxke...@gmail.com:
> The fallacy of frame dragging.
>
> Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
> in Fizeau's ether drag experiment. But that was most certainly not
> the case at all.

Ether dragging, not frame dragging.

https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf

Frame dragging:
https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:09:10 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.04.2022 11:23, skrev maxke...@gmail.com:
> > The fallacy of frame dragging.
> >
> > Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
> > in Fizeau's ether drag experiment. But that was most certainly not
> > the case at all.
> Ether dragging, not frame dragging.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf
>
> Frame dragging:
> https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Weight can be dragged not space...

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 05:09:10 UTC+11, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 01.04.2022 11:23, skrev maxke...@gmail.com:
> > The fallacy of frame dragging.
> >
> > Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
> > in Fizeau's ether drag experiment. But that was most certainly not
> > the case at all.
> Ether dragging, not frame dragging.
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf
> https://paulba.no/div/FizeauByMM.pdf
>
> Frame dragging:
> https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf

> [*] Frame dragging in general relativity is something completely
> different.

When GR collapses, all the problems it leaves behind won't go away.
They will need to be addressed by whatever replaces it.

Freznel was attempting to describe some kind of astronomical event
which he considered to be caused by frame dragging. GR may see this
problem in a different way, but so what? The universe doesn't end
with GR.

The results from Fizeau's interferometer were not remotely relevant
to Freznel's frame dragging proposal though. That would seem to be
important to me, regardless of my beliefs.
---

According to my theory, the "unexpected adjustments" that were made
after Gravity Probe B was launched involved the fine tuning of the
gyro speeds to achieve the desired outcome. That most certainly would
not have been expected. And one of the vertically oriented spin
direction gyros may have been switched off altogether as well. I
can't see any other way it would work.

And according to my theory, the reason why these adjustments were
necessary is because the effect they were measuring was not as they
had assumed. They were in fact measuring an anisotropy in the gravity
force. Which varies according to speed to and from a gravitating mass.

I don't think this link will work any more. I have no access to
these pages.
http://members.optusnet.com.au/mskeon/gravity.html . April 2006.

The alternative:
Download from google drive.
gravity.htm is the first link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a7BisUOnLN1xnPdMkwKCTcxe9gIE3NiB/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j6EKCHxEJhjrVQkxbC6tIMLdiIvQhFa_/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VWBI1z2xKHUgZ1fhnaR_dDEW51BDt6fx/view?usp=sharing

There's no need to download the rest. They are not greatly significant.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12OW7SWa5q7XVq8erolYXcCn5raWw9W2w/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z5H6Okqk-znSlQ9-idlHdSaG_XvxDsvg/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kot4GiR_fWt7u82aze3h73I5-tZoPhRa/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nK5EF6ntC3GnAkn20u7r2zsSpjALHs5j/view?usp=sharing

Double click the gravity.htm file in downloads
---

The description of the GPB setup is very vague. I don't exactly know
how it compares with the setup shown in the above link. So I'll
replace the GPB setup with mine.

--------------

44246292 orbit circumference

The target is .000032011344 radians per year
Which is 1.834110680928348D-03 degrees
6.602798451342053 arcsec
6602.798451342052 mili-arcsec per year

v = 94 * .707 = 66 m/sec. The average up-down motion is v * .707
Disc cycle rate is 99.73686385841151 Hz

8.02986277571315 m/sec^2 normal gforce
8.029859218055989 ((c - v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * gforce : gf2
8.0298663333711 ((c + v) ^ 2 / c ^ 2) * gforce : gf3
This is the same as 1-v^2/c^2 and 1+v^2/c^2 times gforce

7.115315110439724D-06 gforce difference

1 seconds elapsed
7.115315110439724D-06 gf3-gf2 : drift rate per second
7.115315110439724D-06 drift in 1.157407407407407D-05 days
7.115315110439724D-06 / 44246292 * 360 =
5.789216053987757D-11 degrees ( 44246292 is orbit circumference)

* 31536000 seconds =
1.825687174785579D-03 after 1 year
Target is 1.834e-3 degrees

---------

I didn't stand a chance here on earth. A spaceship or space station
would have been so handy.

-----

Max Keon

On 2022-04-01 09:23:55 +0000, maxke...@gmail.com said:

> The fallacy of frame dragging.
>
> Freznel's proposal for frame dragging was apparently later confirmed
> in Fizeau's ether drag experiment. But that was most certainly not
> the case at all.

If you want to taken seriously as someone who knows what they are
talking about you might begin by spelling Fresnel's name the way he
spelled it.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.