What would be the frame dragging effect on earth today after 4.5 billion years? Could it be observable?
Ni Ge,
No, frame dragging depends on only the present rotation - it is not cumulative.
Have a look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
You can see that omega (the rotational speed of the 'entrained' frame) varies with alpha (which is proportional to the angular momentum), not the *integral* of alpha.
Lense-Thirring is a consequence of frame-dragging. The back-reaction is utterly neglectible, and anyway local in time. The fundamental laws of nature are differential equations; the next step only depends on the present state -- not on the history of how nature got into that state.
That is different from the fact that the integration of differential equations is cumulative. Posts of yours on other threads indicate that you have some grave misconceptions about these things.
You may of course try to change the way nature works. But don't be disappointed if that fails; physics is different from politics.
It can be, depending on what you want to study. The fact that the earth has been rotating for 4.5 billion years does not influence the effect of frame dragging today. But, for a hypothetical satellite launched into a polar orbit just after the birth of the earth, it would of course determine the accumulated rotation of its orbital plane.
The accumulated time difference between clocks at different heights does depend on how long ago they were synchronized. That does not influence how they observe the same events, only which timestamps they register with these events. Just like registration of simultaneous events are registered different in Chinese and Gregorian calendars.
There are some curious attempts to prove the existence of faster-than-light effects in Maxwell electrodynamics by rewriting the equations, from a form where this is obviously impossible to a form where the impossibility is more hidden. That does not change the physical facts: Rewriting equations, if done correctly, cannot change the physics they describe. It is surprising how many seem to think so.
I am not sure where your cumulated precession is supposed to have occured. But whatever kind of accumulated property a photon may have acquired through (say) 12 billion years of travel through the universe, this property will be observed in essentially the same way from all local frames in the vicinity of the earth.
It may be that these frames are rotating relative to each other due to frame dragging, and if this is not corrected by resynchronization, the registration of arrival directions with respect to the local coordinate systems may lead to different numbers. This does not mean that the physical arrival directions are observed much differently. And, if there is a difference it can be attributed to light-bending near the observation (in space and time).
When I travel from Hong Kong to Frankfurt I may register that the price of beer suddenly drops numerically by a factor of about 10. But most of this is due to a change of valuta one expresses the price in.
>Studing the arrival of light beams from space on earth, shouldn't it arrive also with the
>same orientation as the cumulated precession shows?
No.
Two cheeses are sent to myself and a neighbour from the far side of the world, by sea.
They take 2 months to arrive. My cheese is always delayed at customs for an hour, my neighbour's is not.
Both cheeses are essentially the same when I and my neighbour unwrap them.
The frame dragging, as Dr Olaussen said, is entirely a local affair. Just because I always get cheeses that are older by one hour than my neighbour, does not mean that that delay somehow accumulates as the years go by.
"This does not mean that the physical arrival directions are observed much differently." (Kåre)
"Both cheeses are essentially the same when I and my neighbour unwrap them."(James)
If these views were true, this should also happen localy.
Local and global/general can't be separated. It is a myth (mathematically questionable).
Ni Ge,
>If these views were true, this should also happen locally.
I am unsure as to what you mean. Care to give an example?
I don't know much about Gravity Probe B, but that is possible to find out. For the meaning(s) of your encrypted remark one can only guess in various directions.
Yes, the direction of incoming light should be observed in essentially the same way from Gravity Probe B and the earth; that could be one way to keep the orientation of local reference frames in synch. With respect to such synchronized frames it becomes possible (and meaningful) to measure various cumulative effects which may develop differently in Gravity Probe B and on the Earth, during the lifetime of Gravity Probe B.
Ni> Local and global/general can't be separated. It is a myth (mathematically questionable).
Do you mean to say that it is a mathematically questionable myth that local and global in general cannot be separated?
I am not aware that such a myth exists. Standard description of Riemannian geometry is based on atlases (collections of overlapping coordinate systems, each of which may cover only a local patch of the full space, with overlap functions gluing everything together), and with various types of local spaces attached to each point of the manifold (tangent space, cotangent space, ...). Of course, one need a (Levi-Civita) connection to parallel transport local objects from one point to another (for comparison). This is all described precisely by century-old mathematics.
To resume what you say:
Or Gravity Probe B should detect a frame-dragging, then space-time should be cumulative curved and light following null-geodesic should be seen with another cumulative orientation. (Not observed, then something is wrong)
Or Gravity Probe B shouldn't detect a frame dragging, then Kerr theory (and any metric with -,+,+,+ signature) should be wrong.
In both cases Einstein's theory is wrong to describe reality. Do you agree?
Once you agree with that, you can try to think by yourself and see that a galilean relativity with c constant is possible when adding light aberration and field retardation. All measurement done since 1905 on time dilation are due to another factor than time dilation.
Where am I wrong?
Ni Ge> Where am I wrong?
In your understanding of the english language, it seems.
Ni Ge> It is not a matter of English language, but logic.
That can very well be, because your way of reasoning is incomprehensible to me. Partly, it seems, because you make great efforts in encrypting you messages to make certain that nobody can understand them.
I thought it might be the language, because I have never noted the tiniest indication that you pay the slightest attention to (or more precisely, give a shit about) anything I carefully try to explain. I could as well skrive på norsk, eller samisk, eller kråkemål, eller med runeskrift. Det er fullstendig ubegripelig for meg hvorfor du egentlig deltar på disse trådene, for du virker jo overhodet ikke interessert i andres meninger. Og de ideene du selv ønsker å fremme (muligens) er så vagt formulert at de kan bety hva som helst. Så hvor er logikken???
The logic is the willingness to understand each other. I see a very hudge lack in logic about GR, so I need to share it.
GR Theory => local shift (0 to 1s) => global shift (0 to 1000 billion years) => cumulated curved space-time => orientation of light (null geodesic) =/= no observation of orientation ON EARTH => wrong theory.
Wrong theory => What is wrong? => Lorentz transformations study leading to a lack of explanation (here below: try to draw both tests, MM and mine, together) => no effective time dilation (Equivalence principle) => new theory of Galilean Relativity
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278037597_New_Lorentz_Transformations_Test
Data Falsification of Lorentz Transformations
"Is the frame-dragging effect of Kerr metric cumulative?"
In the first place, Kerr metric is a pure fabrication, nothing directly to do with GR, but a construct in order to cope with rotating black holes and to appear GR-compatible, with a lot of good will... The metric shows barely more than a horizon for spinning black holes, though.
As written in Wikipedia on Frame Dragging: "More generally, the subject of effects caused by mass–energy currents is known as gravitomagnetism, in analogy with classical electromagnetism." That has been confirmed by the Gravity Probe-B.
So, let's take gravitomagnetism which moreover is coherent and fully causal.
The time effect is the difference between the time of clocks that rotate on Earth and the time of clocks in the sky at another rotation velocity, and that is ruled by the comparison of the inertial frames, similar to SR. That effect is dependent from the type of clocks, as it has been demonstrated by Oleg Jefimenko, with numerous examples.
So, if you would have had a clock running since 4.5 billion years in the sky, that clock would have been retarded significantly. But the mechanism of the clock is defining which retardation you would measure, depending on the impact of the physics on it.
If you see a contradiction in GR, that is important enough for you to take the time to write it down carefully and explain it slowly. The scribble you have in your figure does not qualify. Similarly the claim ``
GR Theory => local shift (0 to 1s) => global shift (0 to 1000 billion years) => cumulated curved space-time => orientation of light (null geodesic) =/= no observation of orientation ON EARTH => wrong theory.'' seems to be at the core of what you argue, but it is much too quick for anybody to be able to tell you reliably whether it is correct. So take some time, write a PDF, maybe two-three pages explaining in detail what is wrong. Do you think of the stars as some kind of clock? What images are you comparing, etc...
The question involves detail, and precision. Your explanations are, by far, not clear enough for anyone to follow them, so that, if they are correct, ythety do not convince, and if they are wrong, no one can tell you clearly where you go astray. I am not suggetsing you publish a paper. I am suggesting you write a document, a bit like the pictures you show, but much longer, in which you reason out clearly why you believe that Generall (or special) relativity are worong.
The problem is there is as much interpretation of GR as minds. I try to propose thought experiment (see abstract of each pictures) keeping it the more simple possible in order that people think by themselves where it could be wrong.
I can't write something where I have to find the mistake of others. (I can't catch the red Herring.)
Here the reason is not to prove something, but to falsify.
Ni Ge> I am not able
Some self-insight at last ;-D
Actually, I think you have qualities to become able to understand physics. But then you must learn it from its basis; you cannot simple jump to some advanced field (even if it is 100 years old) without knowing the concepts or language.
Dear Kåre,
Following our discussion, you still didn't say me where the lack of logic is:
1. GR Theory => local shift (0 to 1s) ?
2. local shift (0 to 1s) => global shift (0 to 1000 billion years) ?
3. global shift (0 to 1000 billion years) => cumulated curved space-time ?
4. cumulated curved space-time => orientation of light (null geodesic) ?
5. orientation of light (null geodesic) =/= no observation of orientation ON EARTH ?
6. no observation of orientation ON EARTH => wrong theory ?
I asked the question to two physicists (those who wanted to answer me by mail): an astrophysicist gave me the answer and concluded with "a duration is different of a time measurement", the other "earth rotates at different measured times". So how do you want to solve the dilemma?
where is the lack of logic
In the fact that all your statements are meaningless. I guess because you lack a language to formulate what you try to think, even for yourself.
> how do you want to solve the dilemma?
I don't want to solve your dilemmas! That is for yourself to do. Based on your behavior on RG, a major problem is that you convert everything explained to you into something completely different. Based on that it is impossible to have any opinion of what you say other people have told you.
Have you ever passed a regular course in physics?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics