Quote:
Originally Posted by publius
Well, if I read it right, geodetic precession has been confirmed to within 1% of GR's prediction, but the 2 order of mangnitude gravitomagnetic/frame dragging precession is still being worked on, and we'll have to wait until the end of the year when the complete analysis is done to get that.
|
The PR graphic on the geodetic released today looks very good:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stanford Press Release
Today, Everitt and his team are poised to share what they have found so far-namely that the data from the GP-B gyroscopes clearly confirm Einstein's predicted geodetic effect to a precision of better than 1 percent.
However, the frame-dragging effect is 170 times smaller than the geodetic effect, and Stanford scientists are still extracting its signature from the spacecraft data. The GP-B instrument has ample resolution to measure the frame-dragging effect precisely, but the team has discovered small torque and sensor effects that must be accurately modeled and removed from the result.
|
These are what I am most interested in: Do they provide subtle clues that something might be missing from the equation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
I sometimes wonder, Jerry, about comments like these from you ... sweeping, broad, with a hint of some kind of skullduggery ... yet when the relevant teams do^ release all the raw data, it seems you neither mention that fact, nor take the trouble to perform your own analyses on it. Would it be appropriate for you, someday, to start a thread in BAUT's Conspiracy Theories section (so we could require you to defend all your specific, concrete claims)?
|
There isn't any doubt in my mind researchers sometimes overstate the confidence levels, or miss-interprete their data because of their prior expectations. Last week's downward revision in the accuracy estimates of the Cosmic Infrared Background power function is a perfect example:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...704.1498v1.pdf
This does not mean the first round of estimates were bad science - but the willingness of the same team of researcher to
downgrade their original estimates made several years ago is definitely good science!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neried
^For avoidance of doubt, not every team always releases all the raw data, even after a proprietary period.
|
For this (and most) space-based experiments, we almost have to rely upon the competence of the investigative teams. There is so much merging of engineering and science in this experiment and every parameter is so critical, it is virtually impossible for a third party to approach the raw data in a completely independent way.
Fortunately, there are a lot of reasons to expect fair interpretations from the G-probe B team of researchers-they have been very candid about the performance of their satellite. What I like most, is this quote in the press release from principle investigator:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stanford Press Release
The experiment’s final result is expected on completion of the data analysis in December of this year. Asked for his final comment, Francis Everitt said: "Always be suspicious of the news you want to hear."
|
I could not have stated it better myself.