That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously awesome "experiment" in eight years,
This statement may not be correct...Recent work on anti gravity. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf Review of Poher experiment on fields produced by electric discharges in a superconductor R.A. Lewis* Eugene Podkletnov on Antigravity http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-on-antigravity.html On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's an arrogant reply I received regarding this article: > > Experiment that is almost certainly wrong, or large galaxies would be > sucking their local small cluster galaxies in at rates that astronomers > would have seen a long time ago. > > First: the article is wrong. The magnetic analogue of the gravitational > field is not a prediction of general relativity. It is a consequence of the > Lorentz invariance of physics, and was predicted by Heaviside in 1892, 14 > years before the special theory of relativity, and 24 years before the > general theory of relativity, using an analogy with Maxwell's equations > (which were already Lorentz invariant) but no one [then] knew why. > Second: If the effect was genuinely a manifestation of a magnetic analogue > of gravity (which does indeed exist) if it existed at the strength quoted, > an enormous laboratory [called "the universe" -- you may have heard of it] > would be able to duplicate the results in stars, galaxies, and clusters. It > doesn't. That's why there has been no follow up to this blunderously > awesome "experiment" in eight years, > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:51 PM, John Berry <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml >> >> According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, a moving mass >> should create another field, called gravitomagnetic field, besides its >> static gravitational field. This field has now been measured for the first >> time and to the scientists' astonishment, it proved to be no less than one >> hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity >> predicts. >> > >
