What's new
What's new

0t----the roundest round-------bending Einstein

JHOLLAND1

Titanium
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Location
western washington state
authorization to confirm components of einsteinian general relativity
via zero gravity probing was given green light in 1959

45 years and 750 million usd later witnessed the physical experiment
initiation with launch of Delta II rocket--2004-- containing the most perfect spherical
objects ever dimensioned--niobium coated quartz

and yes---Einstein theory was again confirmed using physical/mechanical metrology---
but, radiowave timing analysis proved to be 150 times more accurate



YouTube
 

Attachments

  • 09jhoi.JPG
    09jhoi.JPG
    66 KB · Views: 108
  • 54sdtfg.jpg
    54sdtfg.jpg
    99.1 KB · Views: 105
  • 89yhukj.jpg
    89yhukj.jpg
    94.9 KB · Views: 107
  • 76rtfgh.jpg
    76rtfgh.jpg
    97.1 KB · Views: 102
  • 78tuyg.JPG
    78tuyg.JPG
    78.2 KB · Views: 93
I thought the new kilogram standard silicon spheres being ground to shape in Australia were more spherical: 8 feet out of round if scaled to Earth's size versus the 12 feet of the gravity probe B gyro spheres.
 
When you say, "...being ground to shape in Australia", weren't those done a dozen or so years ago? Is there a new, current effort underway?

-Marty-

As far as I know, no. And those kilogram reference spheres were what came to my mind too when the gyroscope balls were labeled as "roundest", but perhaps from an actual size, not scaled standpoint, they would have a lower nanometer deviation than the silicon balls.
 
What's the point?
:stirthepot:
Einstein was wrong.
The earth is flat.
Aliens are in Area 51.
No one was ever on the moon.
The gov't killed JFK.
The WTC collapsed by design........


:D
 
As far as I know, no. And those kilogram reference spheres were what came to my mind too when the gyroscope balls were labeled as "roundest", but perhaps from an actual size, not scaled standpoint, they would have a lower nanometer deviation than the silicon balls.


The articles in the original post scaled the object to Earth's diameter for direct comparison so I stuck with that. We are talking about "roundest" so I think scaling both objects to the same relative size is valid.

When you say, "...being ground to shape in Australia", weren't those done a dozen or so years ago? Is there a new, current effort underway?

-Marty-


Their work to define the SI unit for Molar weight was ready by 2016 and was voted on as a standard in late 2018. Gravity Probe B finished in 2011, 5 years earlier so that would make the Avogadro Project younger.
 
The articles in the original post scaled the object to Earth's diameter for direct comparison so I stuck with that. We are talking about "roundest" so I think scaling both objects to the same relative size is valid.




Their work to define the SI unit for Molar weight was ready by 2016 and was voted on as a standard in late 2018. Gravity Probe B finished in 2011, 5 years earlier so that would make the Avogadro Project younger.
I would much rather those resources be spent on finding a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, and Epstein barr.
 
I would much rather those resources be spent on finding a cure for cancer, Alzheimer's, and Epstein barr.

Understanding general relativity is rather important to our everyday lives. No general relativity, no GPS. If you don't do basic research, you don't get any of the good things that come from it later.
 








 
Back
Top