Arguing from Ignorance

345(8): General ECE2 Theory of Geodetic Precession

May 4, 2016

This theory uses a static earth in a rotating frame defined by the passive rotation of axes equivalent to the active rotation of Gravity Probe B in a polar orbit once every ninety minutes with respect to a static frame. This simple theory produces good agreement between theory and experiment, described in Eqs. (9) and (10). So the theory is on the right track. If it is assumed that the rotating frame is defined more generally by Eq. (11), then the magnitude (13) can be worked out with computer algebra and graphed. Exact agreement with experiment can be obtained by choice of components in Eq. (11). The standard model due to de Sitter uses the incorrect Einstein field equation, which is defined in a space without torsion. This means that the space also has no curvature, and there is no geometry and no physics, reductio ad absurdum. It is not clear how Gravity Probe B obtained the experimental result, and how it was filtered out from the Lense Thirring precession. It must have ben some kind of averaging.”

It is clear that Ron does not know the ‘first thing’ (pace Wikipedia) about the Gravity Probe B experiment … or indeed about general relativity. We have already shown that he fiddles his results. That is obvious anyway because he thinks that physicists blindly ‘plug’ their data into the Einstein-Schwarzschild  equation, and he apes that supposed behavior with regard to his own theory. He forgets that the looked-for effects are just very small corrections to Newtonian gravitation and mechanics. The GPB physicists first had to calculate, and eliminate, a host of other effects; most of which Ron will never have heard of … so how can he eliminate them from his own theory-matching? Ron somehow magically gets the correct result (or close to what he thinks is the correct result) without knowing any of the geophysical and astronomical data which the GPB scientists found to be essential. How does he manage that? Real scientists also have to question (in true Baconian fashion) whether other theories might better explain the results and, Ron, the relevance of torsion and the Einstein-Cartan theory was in fact considered. But, as usual, torsion was judged to be irrelevant.  The overall conclusion is that you are not fit to lick the boots of the tea-boys at the various GRB monitoring sites.


2 Responses to “Arguing from Ignorance”

  1. Heb Enw Says:

    Pwy yw Gareth Evans?

    • crackpotwatch Says:

      Mae’n gyn-fyfyriwr a chydweithiwr o Ron, sydd erbyn hyn yn unig addoli ef. Mae’n anodd credu bod Evans (y carthion) yn cael ei gyflogi ar gyfer y blynyddoedd fel swyddog llywodraeth leol!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: