**145 Geodetic Precession and Frame Dragging**

Date: 04/20/04

"Over the course of the XX century, various investigations in different countries, representing a variety of professional interests, repeatedly reported the discovery of unusual phenomena that could not be explained in the framework of existing theories. Since these authors could not understand the physics of the observed phenomena, they were forced to give their own names to the fields, emanations and energies responsible for the creation of these phenomena. For instance, N.A.Kozyrev's "time emanation" [1-4], W.Reich's"O-emanation" or "orgone" [5], M.R.Blondlot's "N-emanation" [6],I.M.Shakhparonov's "Mon-emanation", A.G.Gurvich's "mitogenetic emanation"[7], A.L.Chizhevsky's "Z-emanation", A.I.Veinik's "chronal field" [8,9],"M-field" [10], A.A.Deev's "D-field", Yu.V.Tszyan Kanchzhen's "biofield", H.Moriyama's "X-agent" [11], V.V.Lensky's "multipolar energy" [12], "radiesthesietic emanation" [13], "shape power", "empty waves" [19], "pseudomagnetism" [20], H.A.Nieper's "gravity field energy" [21],T.T.Brown's "electrogravitation" [22], "fifth force" [23], "antigravitation" [24], "free energy". This list can be easily continued."

"Inertia, however, has been a riddle ever since Foucault showed that his pendulum responded, not to any local frame of reference, but apparently to the frame of the "fixed stars." This became the basis of Mach's principle, which states that the "fixed stars," or (since they aren't fixed) the "sum total of mass in the universe," somehow reaches out to affect pendulums and gyroscopes. (And somehow knocks you down when the subway starts suddenly). Though this "action at a distance" appears to violate causality, and its apparently fixed frame of reference violates relativity's ban of any such fixed frame, Einstein set out to incorporate Mach's principle into relativity. In the end, though, he had to admit he was not successful. Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff (1994) made a very plausible case that inertia is a residual effect of the ZPE. They were not, however, able to quantify the effect. As this study presents a rather different picture of the ZPE, the question is worth another look. To go along with the "kinetic theory of mass-energy," we present what might be called the "kinetic theory of inertia." (Or possibly the "gyroscopic theory of inertia.")"

"A gyroscope establishes a vectoral plane of angular momentum. Any change in the angle of that vectoral plane is strongly resisted. As shown by Dirac's equation, an electron has a circular vibration in two "real" directions, giving it a "real" energy of mc^ 2. However, it also retains its (negative energy) vibration at ± c in an "imaginary" direction. Thus its oscillation is circular but complex, having both a "real" and an "imaginary" component, and giving it the anomalously large angular momentum of 1/2 in any "real" direction. This makes the electron a little gyroscope. However, since this vibration is complex, part "real" and part "imaginary," this angular momentum plane can not point in any "real" direction, as is also the case with the orbital electron's angular momentum vector, as mentioned above.

"This means that acceleration in any "real" direction must act to change the angle of the electron's (complex) angular momentum vectoral plane and thus will be resisted with a force equal to and in a direction opposite to the acceleration, and proportional to the electron's "real" mass-energy. Dirac's "Operator Theory" or "Transformational" version of QM represented the wave function as a vector rotating in phase space. This "kinetic theory of inertia" represents a vectoral plane rotating in a complex space. How this results in inertia can be seen by looking at the wave function Y that rep resents a particle with definite momentum. The length (value) of the complex number Y is the same at all positions, but its phase angle increases steadily in the direction of the particle's motion, the x direction, making it a complex helix in shape."

"The rate of this complex rotation in its axial (x) direction is the measure of the momentum. As x increases by a distance of h/p, this phase angle makes one complete rotation (Taylor, 2001). Increasing the momentum (an acceleration in the "real" x direction, increasing p), acts to decrease the distance h/p, on the exact analogy of a coiled spring being compressed. (QM represents momentum as a spatial sine wave or helix.) However, since Y is a complex number, acceleration in the (real) x direction increases the pitch of this complex phase angle and so is resisted by the electron-gyroscope. This compression acts to store the energy added by the acceleration according to the Lorentz relationship. Compressing the distance h/p to zero would require (and store) infinite energy. (One might picture this complex helical oscillation as the particle's flywheel, storing energy as it is accelerated.)"

"Since the complex gyroscope-electron must resist an acceleration in any "real" direction, what can this resistance be but inertia? And since this resistance must be proportional to its "real" mass-energy (that rotating in "real" directions) it would seem to meet all of the criteria. It is also simpler and more intuitive than any other, depending solely on the undeniable fact that the electron's rotation is complex. We suggest that any time a QM relationship includes i (and most of them do) the resulting function will only be explained by reference to these extra dimensions."

"We have shown that all stable matter, and arguably all matter, is compounded of electron-positron pairs with large "imaginary" components, so that all matter would exhibit this "gyroscopic inertia" in proportion to its "real" mass-energy. Note that this is a local model of inertia, depending on the fact that the spins of all "real" particles are complex, extending into extra dimensions. Thus it eliminates the magic action-at-a-distance of Mach's principle, in which the "fixed stars" somehow reach out across lightyears to knock you down when the subway starts suddenly. It further explains why only "real energy" particles, with complex spins, have inertia, hence mass. Negative-energy epo (epo = electron-positron pair), and also the positive-energy epo (epo = electron-positron pair) that make up the electromagnetic field, have one-dimensional vibrations, hence no vectoral plane, hence no mass or inertia. This is why the negative energy "sea" and its effects, which collectively may be termed "the Aether," is virtually undetectable, and offers no resistance to the motion of "real" objects." Hotson.

While researching torsion fields, I found an article connecting them to the GP-B and more, as follows: Torsion Field Detectors: torsion = kinemassic field (Wallace) = gravitomagnetic = spin field = axion field = subtle magnetism = human energy spin field... and adding a definition "The torsion field is created by the rotation of some sort of matter (when it) is concentrated in two opposite beams propagating along the rotation axis." Now we understand what the GP-B WILL detect.....it's the B-torsion-field of matter....and....NOT of space.

and one early radiation blast, acknowledged.

No more details about the unexpected behaviors?

It could, easily, have been included but it wasn't.

Sun Flares and still not a word about it.

The stated objective of the Gravity Probe B experiment is to eliminate all waves and fields that can affect the gyroscopes, yet Fitzpatrick states that the gyroscopes hold to the waves generated from the fixed star(s)....**trillions of stars**....which waves the experimenters say, the gyroscopes can avoid. What kind of explanation will the Gravity Probe B experimenters offer to explain this rediculously unavoidable problem?

"Gravity slows time"....."earth drags space"...."earth warps space"...."there's no real point of going through with Gravity Probe B"...."other measurements have defined the nature of gravity well enough"...."Once in space and set spinning, the orientation of the balls should change". |

If our earth time is cause then effect and star/sun time is cause = effect or NOW, then looking at stars or suns is looking from our lagging past to the Present Presence. We are not looking back in time, for to look back in time we have to ascribe past to universe and it has none. Here is what all of rigorous Science uses as a definition of time:
"We shall
Levity and gravity: behind the story of Gravity Probe-B
"They (Science) break down the gravitational radiation into 5 types." "The first type is direct radiation (the type Einstein analyzed), generated by the source when it accelerates through space. The second type is "whump" radiation, generated when the source is gravitationally stressed. The third type is transition radiation, generated by time varying delays in the propagation of the source's ordinary nonradiative gravitational field. The forth type is focusing radiation, which arises when one part of the source focuses the nonradiative field of another part of the source. The last type is tail radiation, emitted when the nonradiative field is scattered backward in the region of focusing". Scientific American
Are there one, two, three, four or five kinds of gravity? Which kind is being tested here? No one knows, yet, you will be absolutely sure that Einstein was correct when the first announcement is, "We have our results that confirm Einstein, but we still don't know what kind of gravity we measured nor do we care".
It's strange to me that there are so many that absolutely know that starlight is bent by gravity but no one quite knows what gravity actually is, how many types there are of it, where it resides, what it associates with and what is the source of it. One must know these things before stating gravity bends starlight. Even the Gravity Probe B scientists have already shown me that they are not too familiar with these answers. Even Al was quite sure that common, dead-matter pulled all-superior light, space and gravity around, or did he know better and just didn't say?
To Test Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Probe To Aid Understanding of Space-time.
A NASA spacecraft designed to test two important predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is set to launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California on Monday April 19th 2004 at 10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time. NASA's Gravity Probe B mission, also known as GP-B, will use four ultra-precise gyroscopes, orbiting the Earth in a unique satellite, to experimentally test two extraordinary predictions of Einstein's 1916 theory that space and time are distorted by the presence of massive objects. The two effects being tested are: The geodetic effect, the amount by which the Earth warps local spacetime in which it resides, and the frame-dragging effect, the amount by which the Earth drags local spacetime around with it as it rotates. |

The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that frame dragging and geodetic precession is caused by the intrinsic spiraling of space itself first, not matter. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that spiraling space causes the earth and all other planets and moons to spin and precess within the even larger spiraling field of the sun. The reality of space, mass and falling elevators is that Einstein is precise and has his relativity precisely backwards or his followers do, yet, Gravity Probe B will confirm that the perfectly backward, earth-referenced results are in perfect accord with the perfectly backward, earth-referenced Relativity.

But none of Relativity's earth-referenced spin and twist or Gravity Probe B's results are reality. It is space that is the source of first-spin and IS both "charge" and "gravity".

© Copyright. Robert Grace. 2004