Ron Badly Caught Out!

345(7): Exact Lense Thirring Precession from ECE2

May 3, 2016

This note shows that the experimental result of 40.9 milliarcseconds per year claimed by Stanford / NASA is given exactly by ECE2 theory at two latitudes of the polar orbit of Gravity Probe B defined by Eq. (30). The result of Note 345(5) is obtained when the polar orbit crosses the equator. It is by no means clear how Stanford / NASA differentiated experimentally between the Lense Thirring effect and the geodetic effect. Also it is not clear how they came up with one value for the Lense Thirring effect when the effect depends on the latitude being crossed by the polar orbit of Gravity Probe B.”

We usually try to steer clear of addressing Ron’s defective theorizing because we feel that our readers would not understand the refutations any better than they understand his nonsense mathematics. But here is something which anybody can understand: fiddling of figures. He muses, “it is not clear how they came up with one value for the Lense Thirring effect when the effect depends on the latitude being crossed by the polar orbit of Gravity Probe B“. Well, there is a simple answer to that: the figure of 40.9 (should be 39.2)marc-s/y which he keeps quoting is not the Lense-Thirring figure at all. It is, in fact, the ‘Schiff Drift’ figure. The Lense-Thirring figure is 156marc-s/y (4 times larger). You see, folks, what Ron did was to look at the Wikipedia article on the Gravity Probe B experiment, note the figure given there for the ‘frame-dragging’ effect, and blindly assume that this was equal to the Lense-Thirring figure itself. However, the frame-dragging effect reverses every time that the equator is crossed, and that is why the net (Schiff) figure is smaller. Now, this is embarrassing, to say the least! It means that Ron took the wrong figure from Wikipedia and then employed his usual trick of twisting his theory to get the result that he wants. That is, how did he know how to get the smaller figure when he admits that he does not know ‘how they came up with a single value’? So, far from being in the avant garde of physics, he is revealed to be a dishonest poseur who does not know the ‘first thing’ about the theories that he constantly denigrates. Our author-friend has already added this embarrassing episode to all of the others.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: