- #71
- 3,401
- 3
Good to hear.Garth said:They were not - indeed GPB is ideal for testing such alternatives - SCC and Moffat's non-symmetric gravitational theory (NGT) [see "Modified Gravitational Theory and the Gravity Probe-B Gyroscope Experiment" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405091] .
Indeed! It should be an exciting time, should it not?The question how would a non-GR outcome of the experiment be interpreted should it occur?
I'd be interested to hear whether you think the proposals in Cosmic Visions (or the NASA equivalent) will cover this.1. The space-borne interferometer to test whether photons and particles fall 'at the same rate': "Self Creation Cosmology An Alternative Gravitational Theory" http://arXiv:gr-qc/0405094 Section 7.1 pg 17.
AFAIK, there are no deep space experiments planned, by anyone, for any purpose (unless you count the Pluto-Kuiper Express, which is all but dead, no?)2. The deep-space Casimir force experiment to test whether there is a cut off of the Casimir force at great distances from the Sun. (ibid)
To what extent would LISA be able to serve as an alternative? What about the resonant mass gravity wave detectors?The truncated LIGO type interferometer, to test the same question as 1 above.
That's what I'm trying to understand! If none of the missions preclude tests of any alternatives, and if there are but a small number of dedicated missions that the iconclasts would dream of, where's the beef (other than pocket money for tea and biccies)?I can partly understand Nereid's puzzlement over the statement. However I would like to point out that, apart from a motley collection of such as myself who might be called 'crackpots' by some, there are a number of respected figures who have signed the statement such as Bondi, Gold and Narlikar. But why have they?
Last edited by a moderator: