addendum: If you want additional info on how we've tested General Relativity and what Frame Dragging is, my previous video below talks about those tests. th-cam.com/video/Lq4m6uu1Ur8/w-d-xo.html Tausend Jahre sind ein Tag
Excellent video! Relativistic cosmic rays traveling at ~99.9999%c should also cause frame-dragging per an interview Fraser Cain conducted awhile back. However, testing this effect is problematic.
@barkingmad7407 It's to show how smooth the sphere is. If we could increase the diameter of the sphere from its normal 3.8 cm to the diameter of the earth(12756 km), the difference between the heights and lowest point on this enlarged sphere would only be 2.4 meter. I didn't say this very clear in the video. I forgot to say the word "difference"
Great deep dive for laymen. The history of this mission is just as amazing. It took ~50 years to design and fly this mission. Only one of the original scientists lived long enough to see its launch.
Glad you're highlighting these devices. Taking extremely sensitive instruments and putting them in the harsh environment of outer space is under appreciated
Very nice video. To add a little, if I may: Gravity Probe B was intended to measure two consequences of Einstein's General Relativity. Both cause the precession of a gyroscope in free fall (i.e. in orbit) around the Earth. The 1st, larger of the two, is the Geodetic effect, which causes de Sitter precession, is due to the mass of the Earth that causes Space-Time curvature. The 2nd, is Frame Dragging, which causes Lense-Thirring precession, is due to the rotation of the Earth.
I heard the geodetic effect is because there are less than 360 degrees in a “circle” going around a static mass, so when you orbit once, your velocity vector makes a less than 360 deg rotation, so is not realigned with the gyroscope. From the s/c point of view, it looks like the gyroscope precessed. Framedragging is weird, because it means to be “not spinning”…that is, you feel no centrifugal forces within the s/c, when near a spinning mass, you have to spin with respect to the distant stars. S/c is spacecraft. Which is standard in the biz.
Very informative and thorough. One fact I had learned about the quartz spheres, is that they were manufactured in hemispheres. When the halves were brought together, the matching faces had been machined so perfectly that they immediately bonded atomically.
I gotta say, I agree with the assessment that error modeling alone isn’t enough to call the results conclusive. It absolutely strengthens the results enough to conclude with a probably. It adds a cherry on top of all the rest of the insane ingenuity demonstrated at every level throughout this project. That was a fascinating video. Instant subscribe.
Nah, it does not prove anything. Relativity is wrong for the start. First the use Star Deflection from the Sun (Eddington 1919) but totally ignored refraction (ie Sun has a plasma sphere causing refraction). You can see from the original 1919 plates of glowing plasma right below the star observed be deflected (from refraction). Second are Einstein rings also cause by refraction since lensing galaxies are full of gas & plasma. Also Galaxy lensing is always limited to just one or two EM bands for any given lensing galaxy which clearly indicates refraction. If ti was gravitation lensing we would observe the lensing effect across all EM bands for any given galaxy. Finally no lensing effect observe for stars orbiting very close to the Sgr-A. We can see the stars whipping around the blackhole, but no lensing effects. Mass does not curve space since light is not observed being deflected by mass or gravity. Its been over 100 years & still the majority of physicist sill believe in relativity.
@@guytech7310 You wanna convince ppl Einstein was wrong? More maths, less TH-cam comments. Also, you might wanna spend a few years learning what it is you’re trying to disprove. Don’t be like Terrance Howard.
I am telling you, with this level of content quality then this channel will blow up soon. Sadly, the algorithm is beating you but I am sure algo lords will soon realize the potential. Awesome video❤
I was absolutely shocked by the amount of liquid helium, especially with the spheres being only few centimeters in diameter and while the telescope was quite a bit bigger it still seemed small
Hey bro, I think TH-cam hates you because I'm just finally finding out about you now, even though this is the kind of content I want. I would like a steady diet of videos like yours, but the algorithm keeps sending me videos and channels I hate. Want you to know that what you do isn't in vain, like other people keep saying. I've only watched one of your videos ("the nuts and bolts that unfold a spacecraft"), but that made me subscribe. Keep it up!
It'd be better just to use many sub-perfect gyroscopes, and test if their deviations statistically support frame dragging. This design's complexity introduces multiple points of potential failure. For example, eddy currents induced within the coating could undermine confidence in the results. A statistical test would be more robust and provide measurable confidence. Anyway, excellent video!
Man, the levels of cleverness piled upon cleverness here is just amazing. So many different things have to be tuned to the absolute n’th degree doe the system to work - hats off to the people who actually fabbed the thing and made it work!
Holy crap this is such quality stuff. The editing, animations, music, and narration....rarely does someone knock it out of the park on all 4, especially on independent science channels. You achieved the near-impossible my dude!!! Thanks for the effort, I and my 7th grade daughter LOVE your stuff!!!
I literally had no idea what this was about before I clicked on it (although I do frequently watch engineering, science and space content). I'm glad I did, as I found it fascinating. Thanks!
I remember well when this mission went up and followed it closely due to its incredibly exquisite (and exotic) engineering extremes. I was disappointed to learn that it was unable to complete its primary mission objective due to the podhole motion issues. Small errata: niobium isn't a high temperature superconductor, just the highest of the pure elemental superconductors, but still only 9K, and so still needs liquid helium.
that's insane how well and precise everything needs to work for a year for this experiment to succeed makes me wonder how desperate those scientists are to engage in such risky endeavors )
Gravity Probe B did in fact faced funding issues in part due to the difficulty of obtaining the precision required to detect frame-dragging. NASA ended funding in 2008, 3 years before the final report was released. From August 2008 till December 2009 the project was funded by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. The probe was decommissioned a year later.
@@ReflectiveLayerFilm that is interesting. I expect to hear about Saudi Arabia when people talk about human rights violations or insane money spending ) Nice to hear that sometimes there are involved in something better
I’m new to this channel but love everything here so far, love that it goes a bit deeper in how everything actually work. Are there any videos about reentry shields, ablative and non-ablative and how they actually work?
Thanks for subscribing. The closest I have on reentry shields are the two videos below. The are not exclusively about how the heatshield works but still informative. 1)Why spacecraft are not fully covered with heatshield th-cam.com/video/5lLegWDlL_s/w-d-xo.html 2)How we land spacecraft on celestial bodies (talk about heatshield starts at 13:19) th-cam.com/video/PMg7Js5Ndjc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K386WBjAsJDQKwk-&t=799
19:10. I appreciate your truthful forwarding of the inconclusive findings. Of course positive findings would be sensational. But in the interest of science, we can be guided in the right direction by negative findings. The experimenters had challenges and I applaud them for that. They pushed the lower bound for the existence of frame dragging, one of the assumed side effects of GR. Thanks
Wow! This is by far the most exemplary coverage of any sensor that I've seen, and I once was an engineer at Systron Donner Inertial and tried to stay abreast of many sensor approaches. The gyros Systron made consisted of a double ended crystalline quartz tuning fork. The forks quantified the fork's motion going out of plane due to the Coriolis effect. It's sensitivity was many orders of magnitude inferior to that described here. But was pretty 'trick' in the ~1990 time frame. It was also tough enough to be shot out of a cannon (i.e. smart munitions) and was the first 'gyro' used by General Motors for enhanced anti-skid braking (yaw sensing) Maybe your sensor could be miniaturized using 'Buckeyballs' (C60).
I am one of the designers of the HRG (hemispheric resonating gyro), which was developed by GM. The HRG was actually used on this mission, as a crude (but dynamically accurate) guidance system for the entire satellite-bus itself. It was also used in Hubble, and other spy satellites, for the Near and Cassini missions. The HRG "dynamically" is the next best gyro to the Gravity-Probes themselves. Because it is a mass-inertial device (see details on WIKI) it will drift due to any sort of mechanical or thermal stress, and had an early internal problem with stray sodium ions drifting through the fused-quartz glass resonator. This was later fixed by SAFRAN who now has the design rights with an AC powered resonator. One advantage is that if the electrical power fails, or the guidance computer get wiped out by cosmic rays, it will continue to run accurately for a very long time. That allows recovery after SEUs or MEUs, which happens all the time in space. Mr-Sun actually hates us for being up there in his domain.
@@brunonikodemski2420 Thanks for the reply. The 'HRG' is an approach that is news to me. Conceptually, it sounds very elegant. I could see Honeywell, Rockwell and other companies creating such a sensor. But how did GM 'get into' this? On a related note, let me pose a hypothetical miniaturization of an HRG I previously mentioned 'Buckeyballs'. These are atomically small, natural, hollow spheres composed of 60 atoms of carbon. (C60). Another natural form of carbon is nanotubes. At one point, IBM was able to get atoms of other materials INSIDE nanotubes, so they could emit light, turning them into LEDs. The application was photonic, 3D 'wiring'. In addition, studies of the chirality (twist) of nanotubes reveal that they can become an insulator, a conductor, or even a semiconductor. Putting all these together, in your imagination, might one be able to put a material inside a Buckeyball, give it some polarity, and turn it into an HRG ? It may be total science fiction, but the natural, organic, spherical perfection of C60 intrigued me about its potential in sensors back when I worked at Systron.
The precision that can be applied to these types of sensors is astonishing, to say the least. The only problem I have is when the scientists feel the need to introduce 'modeling' into the answer to correct for variability. Modeling is a specious approximation, in my opinion, and the freedom used to apply the math is questionable.
Nice video, but very few views. I looked at your videos and I think the titles are one of the causes. They are good but on youtube, you need less vague, a lot more direct ones.
You started out by mentioning how important it is that we have well-designed instruments. When you described the perfection of the sphere and how it's important for the sphere not to come into contact with anything(right?), this raised a huge question in my mind. How do we actually manufacture the sphere and then somehow keep it perfectly safe until it was(somehow) integrated into the gyroscope? How did they assemble the gyroscope without touching this delicate little ball? How did the gyroscope actually survive being launched into space on a rocket? **Criticism: Creators of educational Scientific media always seem to fail to anticipate questions like these. I have to assume all these things were solved by unnamed nerds in the backrooms of NASA. Too bad we'll never know who those nerds are because I'd love to ask them how they got their jobs, and what other genius-level issues they've dealt with that we'll also never know about. Do they think these things are just too technical to explain? Or maybe no one is allowed to talk to these people because they're such a high-value human resource, they can't be identified publicly as a matter of National Security?
Good questions. While I can't answer all the questions I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge based on info that's publicly available. As far as the sphere not coming into contact with anything, that's only true after a certain point in the time. The following are my assumptions as to the way it could have been done(couldn't find any info online). After the Niobium coating was applied, the sphere is measured one last time and carefully placed in the housing inside a clean room. When I say carefully I mean keeping the contact force to the absolute minimum required to move the sphere. Once inside the housing and the housing is placed inside the liquid helium tank, the sphere is cooled and the electrostatic suspension is activated. The spacecraft is now ready to be transported from the lab to vehicle assembly building and then to the launch pad and then to space. Once in space and on the proper trajectory it will be spun to the required RPM. The issue is not necessarily the sphere coming in contact with something but coming in contact with something at 4000 rpm. All questions are good questions and we are learning together as a community. If I don't go into detail about certain aspects of a mechanism it's most likely due to time constraints on the Video(
I remember seeing the video on the menu who put this project together. This was a long project that took place over outlasted the lifetimes of its original project creators. I think one of the original creators sons got someone to finance the final stage of the project that started when he was a child to honor his dad's death.
There’s one question I’ve always had about gyroscopes. We know a stationary gyro with no spin has no gyroscopic effect, and a spinning one does, maintaining its orientation against outside influence. But there is no critical RPM required to have the effect, it just comes on gradually, and there’s no maximum RPM for maximum gyroscopic effect either, it just gets stronger and stronger. And therefore we must conclude that regardless of how fast you spin, you will still drift a tiny bit under the influence of an exterior torque, this effect can’t ever be eliminated?
Great Video! Gravity Probe B appears to represent a Crap Ton of Innovation and Work in order to get a Probable Maybe as a Result… Don’t get me wrong, I find it Amazing and very Fascinating! So now it appears we need to design, build and fly a more accurate instrument or three. Liked & Subbed!
How you keep the magnetic field of the gyroscope from interferring with Earths magnetic field? Put everything inside a Farraday cage? Edit: I am too impatient, answer is given at 17:13.
Gravity probe B, the experiment that contradicts the Einstein's version of General Relativity, as well as GPS clock experiments. The probe data does support the Newton version of the general theory, as well as Gauss's Law for Gravity.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 While it is true that Gravity Probe A and show a speed up in clock speed at higher altitudes and Gravity Probe B showed a "frame drag," there were other theories that also predicted that. But gravity probe B and A also proved that a clock at a higher altitude emits a redder frequency, conveniently not mentioned in the reports. Experiments also show that light does not blue shift into a gravity well, I.E. there is no gravitational blueshift nor redshift. So, the source is NASA insiders that did the experiments but failed to mention it. GPS additional experiments also show that the frequency and energy of light into a gravity well is unaffected by "gravity" but is a function of the magnetic flux density gradient of the Earth. Clock speed is also a function of magnetic flux density. So, neither Gravity Probe B nor A rule out the ether density gradient of Newton, but further GPS tests support Lorentz relativity and Newton's general theory, not Einstein. GPS clock experiment also show that Einstein is contradicted but supports Newton's version of the General Theory and Gauss's Law for Gravity instead of Einstein's. Even Einstein got parts of it right by chance, but the results are actual due to the magnetic flux or ether gradient around the Earth, per Newton and Gauss.
@@harriehausenman8623 The flat earthers do use that claim and Einstein's version of the ether to promote their geocentric model. However, they do ignore their own ring gyroscope experiment that shows that the Earth must be a spinning sphere.
I wonder if we could measure G, the gravitational constant, with a high degree of precision, using that perfect sphere in a setting where a laser would graze the sphere and we would measure the displacement of the laser beam caused by gravitational micro lensing using interferometry in the arms and apparatus of the LIGO gravitational observatory.
LIGO kinda achieved this with interferometry iirc. But it required hundreds of meters of distance to achieve and detected gravity waves. There are space based interferometers planned that are much larger and benefit from near vacuum
I keep hearing horses rather than forces… it would really be something if we discovered gravitational horses… lol maybe they measure acceleration due to gravity… gravitational horse power… also why does that room look so darn attractive in the reflection of the sphere? lol🤦
That's a good question. I also thought about that myself. Unfortunately I could find any info of that aspect of the mission. I assume the that electrostatic suspension was activated prior the gyros being shipped from the lab to the vehicle assembly building at the launch site. There it was assembled with the launch vehicle.
@@4DCResinSmoker Here is a more detailed answer from ChatGPT: 1. Vibration Isolation: The spacecraft was mounted on vibration isolation systems to reduce the impact of launch vibrations on the delicate instruments. 2. Suspension of Gyroscopes: The gyroscopes inside Gravity Probe B were suspended using electrostatic suspension within the spacecraft, which minimized friction and external forces. 3. Thermal Protection: The spacecraft also had extensive thermal protection to ensure that temperature variations during launch and in space would not affect the measurements.
@@human.earthling Yeah I know what all this is as I've used it (frequently) during my time in the service. However, just on a much smaller scale for avionics materials. That being said, the accuracy with which the instrument was made to function, i still doubt that the instrument came thru 100% intact. Thus needing some for of in-orbit calibration to be performed to discover what the issues were. With the calibration constants knowledge, it would then be possible to filter out irregularities for the actual measurements. Side note: Jet-Engine test stands need periotic servicing, where the calibration service-man (me) would teach the system what a particular measurement or reading. Thus canceling out the "local" irregularities of the cables, equipment and environment. after which changing out or losing any of the calibrated hardware would invalidate the system, requiring new calibration constants being developed. (typical periodicity of 3 - 6 months depending on system)
I wonder why they didnt make the sphere out of silicon… like how they just changed the kilogram standard to a perfect sohere of silicon. And i think it’s practically atomically perfect.
I don't know man.... We don't even know if particle is a wave or if the wave is a particle. This seems like shooting bullets into the ocean to find out 😂 In all seriousness though. Great presentation. I'm curious how they supported the gyro rotor during the launch of the probe. No way electrostatic forces could overcome such intense linear acceleration. Or am I wrong?
Good question. Maybe electrostatic can be strong enough. One thing I forgot to say in the video is the sphere shouldn't touch anything when it's spinning. So it could be safe if it's well supported during launch, then the electrostatic kicks when in orbit and finally the helium jet spins it.
I think it is spelled aether. What does it have to do with frame dragging anyway since it is a general relativity phenomenal and GR does not have aether.
Good catch. I didn't notice. I think I already had the gyro animation pointing to the left and the earth images was cut off on the left. So I had to move it to right and then flip it so no not show where it is cut off.
Isn't the magnetic field from the rotating sphere going to alter its rotation? Measuring it should also alter it, though if they don't track the rotation all the time it should not have much time to impact it.
You lost Magnetic interaction with the earths magnetic field when it it was made a superconducter. Should have just use the electrostatic charge on the sphere for measuring drift. I don't believe this experiment is valid because of the magnetic interaction. Also could have use optical interference (inferometer Sagnac effect). "The Sagnac effect, also called Sagnac interference, named after French physicist Georges Sagnac, is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation. The Sagnac effect manifests itself in a setup called a ring interferometer or Sagnac interferometer"
Page 1:42 that frame dragging is a fancy term for Aether drag. Aether is an incompressible fluid that filled all void space in vacuum of universe. Aether has no mechanical but electrical property, by which vacuum permittivity and permeability are its attributes. As it attached to all matter it “drag” and move in equal velocity with matter in the near field, also drift with another velocity in the far field or deep space a velocity in average to all matter in the universe, hence the term “fluid”. A rough analogy is the harbor current versus ocean current or deep sea current. Also if you don’t mind, gravity, inertia and centrifugal forces are also attributes of Aether. Unfortunately it has been foolishly dismissed from the science community.
If you work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity. And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the plane, we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements cannot be carried out on a satellite in zero-gravity conditions.
On jan15,2005 the Earth crossed the orbit of Saturn and on April 1,2005 Earth crossed the orbit of Jupiter. Assuming that the liquid dark matter sphere around the sun overflows in streams towards the planets these streams may have explained the ensuing data anomalies. Jupiter should pull about 10 times the amount of the other planets and may even be detectable by the amount of dust in that area after the passage of the dark matter stream which would sweep up a lot of that dust.
You desperately need to get yourself a pop filter. Nothing personal, I wanted to watch, with misophonia it just makes mouth noises (for me, personally, other people have others) a weird kind of torture.
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
addendum: If you want additional info on how we've tested General Relativity and what Frame Dragging is, my previous video below talks about those tests.
th-cam.com/video/Lq4m6uu1Ur8/w-d-xo.html
Tausend Jahre sind ein Tag
Excellent video! Relativistic cosmic rays traveling at ~99.9999%c should also cause frame-dragging per an interview Fraser Cain conducted awhile back. However, testing this effect is problematic.
Gonna have to binge your whole channel sir. Sry.
🤭
Why volunteer for MORE GUESSING at what you're trying to say?
The tallest mountain and the deepest trench are 2.4 M? What is that supposed to mean????
@barkingmad7407 It's to show how smooth the sphere is. If we could increase the diameter of the sphere from its normal 3.8 cm to the diameter of the earth(12756 km), the difference between the heights and lowest point on this enlarged sphere would only be 2.4 meter.
I didn't say this very clear in the video. I forgot to say the word "difference"
Great deep dive for laymen. The history of this mission is just as amazing. It took ~50 years to design and fly this mission. Only one of the original scientists lived long enough to see its launch.
Glad you're highlighting these devices. Taking extremely sensitive instruments and putting them in the harsh environment of outer space is under appreciated
That is a prime example of a well done documentation. Clear, precise, no fuzz. Well written and even better visualized. Thank you.
Yep, loved this.
Very nice video. To add a little, if I may: Gravity Probe B was intended to measure two consequences of Einstein's General Relativity. Both cause the precession of a gyroscope in free fall (i.e. in orbit) around the Earth.
The 1st, larger of the two, is the Geodetic effect, which causes de Sitter precession, is due to the mass of the Earth that causes Space-Time curvature.
The 2nd, is Frame Dragging, which causes Lense-Thirring precession, is due to the rotation of the Earth.
I heard the geodetic effect is because there are less than 360 degrees in a “circle” going around a static mass, so when you orbit once, your velocity vector makes a less than 360 deg rotation, so is not realigned with the gyroscope. From the s/c point of view, it looks like the gyroscope precessed.
Framedragging is weird, because it means to be “not spinning”…that is, you feel no centrifugal forces within the s/c, when near a spinning mass, you have to spin with respect to the distant stars.
S/c is spacecraft. Which is standard in the biz.
@@DrDeuteron "the biz" 😆 I like. 🤗
Very informative and thorough. One fact I had learned about the quartz spheres, is that they were manufactured in hemispheres. When the halves were brought together, the matching faces had been machined so perfectly that they immediately bonded atomically.
I gotta say, I agree with the assessment that error modeling alone isn’t enough to call the results conclusive. It absolutely strengthens the results enough to conclude with a probably. It adds a cherry on top of all the rest of the insane ingenuity demonstrated at every level throughout this project.
That was a fascinating video. Instant subscribe.
Awesome. Thanks for subscribing.
@@ReflectiveLayerFilmi don't know why I can't comment my own thread but came here to say NICE graphics. Great vid. New sub.
@Jaggerbush Awesome and thanks for subscribing.
Nah, it does not prove anything. Relativity is wrong for the start. First the use Star Deflection from the Sun (Eddington 1919) but totally ignored refraction (ie Sun has a plasma sphere causing refraction). You can see from the original 1919 plates of glowing plasma right below the star observed be deflected (from refraction). Second are Einstein rings also cause by refraction since lensing galaxies are full of gas & plasma. Also Galaxy lensing is always limited to just one or two EM bands for any given lensing galaxy which clearly indicates refraction. If ti was gravitation lensing we would observe the lensing effect across all EM bands for any given galaxy. Finally no lensing effect observe for stars orbiting very close to the Sgr-A. We can see the stars whipping around the blackhole, but no lensing effects.
Mass does not curve space since light is not observed being deflected by mass or gravity. Its been over 100 years & still the majority of physicist sill believe in relativity.
@@guytech7310 You wanna convince ppl Einstein was wrong? More maths, less TH-cam comments. Also, you might wanna spend a few years learning what it is you’re trying to disprove. Don’t be like Terrance Howard.
What an amazing video from a criminally under-subbed channel!!
That was really well presented. I'm off to binge watch your videos. Thanks for the upload.
Awesome and thanks for watching.
Same. Just discovered this 💎 of a channel. Immediately subbed, of course 🤗
Well presented? Why so horribly mis-pronounced?? You must have been raised with the same patois too.
That was an excellent documentary I really enjoyed it
the subtle helium gas sound was amazing... I actually had to turn the volume off to make sure it was coming from the video
I am telling you, with this level of content quality then this channel will blow up soon. Sadly, the algorithm is beating you but I am sure algo lords will soon realize the potential. Awesome video❤
Thank you! Yes, hoping the Algo lords will put this channel in its stream.
I just subbed. Great stuff
@@cabanford So did I. Totally agree
Those spheres and the Avagadro spheres for the kilogram reference are, I think, the peak of human accomplishment.
Do tell. wtf.
I was absolutely shocked by the amount of liquid helium, especially with the spheres being only few centimeters in diameter and while the telescope was quite a bit bigger it still seemed small
🥶
Hey bro, I think TH-cam hates you because I'm just finally finding out about you now, even though this is the kind of content I want. I would like a steady diet of videos like yours, but the algorithm keeps sending me videos and channels I hate. Want you to know that what you do isn't in vain, like other people keep saying. I've only watched one of your videos ("the nuts and bolts that unfold a spacecraft"), but that made me subscribe. Keep it up!
Thanks. Hope you'll like to other videos on this channel.
Let's do some crazy engagement and push this channel where it belongs! 🥳
It'd be better just to use many sub-perfect gyroscopes, and test if their deviations statistically support frame dragging. This design's complexity introduces multiple points of potential failure. For example, eddy currents induced within the coating could undermine confidence in the results. A statistical test would be more robust and provide measurable confidence. Anyway, excellent video!
What a great channel. You are reflecting so much knowledge and every viewer is absorbing it like sponge. 😊🙏🏻
Man, the levels of cleverness piled upon cleverness here is just amazing. So many different things have to be tuned to the absolute n’th degree doe the system to work - hats off to the people who actually fabbed the thing and made it work!
Holy crap this is such quality stuff. The editing, animations, music, and narration....rarely does someone knock it out of the park on all 4, especially on independent science channels. You achieved the near-impossible my dude!!! Thanks for the effort, I and my 7th grade daughter LOVE your stuff!!!
Thanks, much Appreciated.
NARRATION???
It's HORRIBLE diction.
Why call it "quality"?
Were you raised in the same slum neighborhood - with the same patois as the narrator?
Very interesting. I like the "how stuff works" explanation of the experiment.
I literally had no idea what this was about before I clicked on it (although I do frequently watch engineering, science and space content). I'm glad I did, as I found it fascinating. Thanks!
Excellent video and superb explanation. Thank you.
Such a great video! I hope the algorithm pushes you a lot
Thank you so much!!
Let's help with the pushing and comment like crazy!! 🤪
Super well presented! Thank you!
Indeed!
Whar U frum?
I remember well when this mission went up and followed it closely due to its incredibly exquisite (and exotic) engineering extremes. I was disappointed to learn that it was unable to complete its primary mission objective due to the podhole motion issues.
Small errata: niobium isn't a high temperature superconductor, just the highest of the pure elemental superconductors, but still only 9K, and so still needs liquid helium.
Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling something was off when I realized that the helium had to be at -271 C.
Thanks for the share! 🤗
that's insane how well and precise everything needs to work for a year for this experiment to succeed
makes me wonder how desperate those scientists are to engage in such risky endeavors )
Gravity Probe B did in fact faced funding issues in part due to the difficulty of obtaining the precision required to detect frame-dragging. NASA ended funding in 2008, 3 years before the final report was released. From August 2008 till December 2009 the project was funded by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. The probe was decommissioned a year later.
@@ReflectiveLayerFilm that is interesting. I expect to hear about Saudi Arabia when people talk about human rights violations or insane money spending )
Nice to hear that sometimes there are involved in something better
@@ReflectiveLayerFilm Wait… What?!
@@qwertyuuytrewq825Why do your messages include a close parenthesis but no open parenthesis?
Wow! Such a great flow to your presentation. Can’t wait to check out your other videos.
As always, amazing stuff. Thank you!
Phenomenal presentation 😁
Except for the narration.
The pronunciation was horrible.
This channel is amazing!!
It is!1!
This is enchanting
Wow, this video is brilliant! Subscribed!
real quality stuff.
What a task
A delightful exegesis of a complex scientific near-miracle.
It even has it's own tiny little "cosmic ladder" 😊
I have to say guide star detector is clever AF . Can even be used for analog solar tracking 😅
fascinating program thank you
I like the very soft lisp - I know I'm not listening to an AI narrator. Very well done video, I subbed up.
Commenting for the algorithm. Amazing video! :)
I’m new to this channel but love everything here so far, love that it goes a bit deeper in how everything actually work. Are there any videos about reentry shields, ablative and non-ablative and how they actually work?
Thanks for subscribing.
The closest I have on reentry shields are the two videos below.
The are not exclusively about how the heatshield works but still informative.
1)Why spacecraft are not fully covered with heatshield
th-cam.com/video/5lLegWDlL_s/w-d-xo.html
2)How we land spacecraft on celestial bodies (talk about heatshield starts at 13:19)
th-cam.com/video/PMg7Js5Ndjc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=K386WBjAsJDQKwk-&t=799
Thanks for the swift response!
samesame. Just here to leave a little of that sweet, sweet engagement 🥳
So well done, thank you
Thank you. Great video!
19:10. I appreciate your truthful forwarding of the inconclusive findings. Of course positive findings would be sensational. But in the interest of science, we can be guided in the right direction by negative findings.
The experimenters had challenges and I applaud them for that. They pushed the lower bound for the existence of frame dragging, one of the assumed side effects of GR.
Thanks
100% agree.
AWESOME VIDEO AND EXPLANATION!!!
thats a lovely image of the sphere falling round the world with the spaceship keep perfect staion around the sphere
I really liked the moment in the video when the perspective changes.
7:32 what about oscilation?
Interesting video. I'd heard about this thing but never had an in-depth overview of how it worked/was made.
Wow! This is by far the most exemplary coverage of any sensor that I've seen, and I once was an engineer at Systron Donner Inertial and tried to stay abreast of many sensor approaches.
The gyros Systron made consisted of a double ended crystalline quartz tuning fork. The forks quantified the fork's motion going out of plane due to the Coriolis effect.
It's sensitivity was many orders of magnitude inferior to that described here. But was pretty 'trick' in the ~1990 time frame. It was also tough enough to be shot out of a cannon (i.e. smart munitions) and was the first 'gyro' used by General Motors for enhanced anti-skid braking (yaw sensing) Maybe your sensor could be miniaturized using 'Buckeyballs' (C60).
I am one of the designers of the HRG (hemispheric resonating gyro), which was developed by GM. The HRG was actually used on this mission, as a crude (but dynamically accurate) guidance system for the entire satellite-bus itself. It was also used in Hubble, and other spy satellites, for the Near and Cassini missions. The HRG "dynamically" is the next best gyro to the Gravity-Probes themselves. Because it is a mass-inertial device (see details on WIKI) it will drift due to any sort of mechanical or thermal stress, and had an early internal problem with stray sodium ions drifting through the fused-quartz glass resonator. This was later fixed by SAFRAN who now has the design rights with an AC powered resonator. One advantage is that if the electrical power fails, or the guidance computer get wiped out by cosmic rays, it will continue to run accurately for a very long time. That allows recovery after SEUs or MEUs, which happens all the time in space. Mr-Sun actually hates us for being up there in his domain.
@@brunonikodemski2420 Thanks for the reply. The 'HRG' is an approach that is news to me. Conceptually, it sounds very elegant. I could see Honeywell, Rockwell and other companies creating such a sensor. But how did GM 'get into' this?
On a related note, let me pose a hypothetical miniaturization of an HRG I previously mentioned 'Buckeyballs'. These are atomically small, natural, hollow spheres composed of 60 atoms of carbon. (C60). Another natural form of carbon is nanotubes. At one point, IBM was able to get atoms of other materials INSIDE nanotubes, so they could emit light, turning them into LEDs. The application was photonic, 3D 'wiring'. In addition, studies of the chirality (twist) of nanotubes reveal that they can become an insulator, a conductor, or even a semiconductor. Putting all these together, in your imagination, might one be able to put a material inside a Buckeyball, give it some polarity, and turn it into an HRG ? It may be total science fiction, but the natural, organic, spherical perfection of C60 intrigued me about its potential in sensors back when I worked at Systron.
The precision that can be applied to these types of sensors is astonishing, to say the least. The only problem I have is when the scientists feel the need to introduce 'modeling' into the answer to correct for variability. Modeling is a specious approximation, in my opinion, and the freedom used to apply the math is questionable.
Nice video, but very few views. I looked at your videos and I think the titles are one of the causes. They are good but on youtube, you need less vague, a lot more direct ones.
YT's a *beach* nowadays. Let's just engage likle crazy and hope the algo picks up on it. 💪
Great video. Earned my sub!! :)
OMG what a perfect video! 🤗 I tried to understand this thing and failed, but now I know why 😄
It even has it's own little "cosmic ladder" 😃
You have a very accommodating definition of "perfect".
Almost any 5th grader would have pronounced the words properly.
Intensely interesting.
You started out by mentioning how important it is that we have well-designed instruments. When you described the perfection of the sphere and how it's important for the sphere not to come into contact with anything(right?), this raised a huge question in my mind. How do we actually manufacture the sphere and then somehow keep it perfectly safe until it was(somehow) integrated into the gyroscope? How did they assemble the gyroscope without touching this delicate little ball? How did the gyroscope actually survive being launched into space on a rocket?
**Criticism: Creators of educational Scientific media always seem to fail to anticipate questions like these.
I have to assume all these things were solved by unnamed nerds in the backrooms of NASA. Too bad we'll never know who those nerds are because I'd love to ask them how they got their jobs, and what other genius-level issues they've dealt with that we'll also never know about. Do they think these things are just too technical to explain? Or maybe no one is allowed to talk to these people because they're such a high-value human resource, they can't be identified publicly as a matter of National Security?
Good questions. While I can't answer all the questions I will try to answer them to the best of my knowledge based on info that's publicly available.
As far as the sphere not coming into contact with anything, that's only true after a certain point in the time. The following are my assumptions as to the way it could have been done(couldn't find any info online). After the Niobium coating was applied, the sphere is measured one last time and carefully placed in the housing inside a clean room.
When I say carefully I mean keeping the contact force to the absolute minimum required to move the sphere. Once inside the housing and the housing is placed inside the liquid helium tank, the sphere is cooled and the electrostatic suspension is activated. The spacecraft is now ready to be transported from the lab to vehicle assembly building and then to the launch pad and then to space. Once in space and on the proper trajectory it will be spun to the required RPM. The issue is not necessarily the sphere coming in contact with something but coming in contact with something at 4000 rpm.
All questions are good questions and we are learning together as a community. If I don't go into detail about certain aspects of a mechanism it's most likely due to time constraints on the Video(
I remember seeing the video on the menu who put this project together. This was a long project that took place over outlasted the lifetimes of its original project creators. I think one of the original creators sons got someone to finance the final stage of the project that started when he was a child to honor his dad's death.
Sorry for the autocorrect I meant to say men not menu.
Yes, I think it was like 50 years in the making. The final stage of the project was financed by an organization in Saudi Arabia.
There’s one question I’ve always had about gyroscopes. We know a stationary gyro with no spin has no gyroscopic effect, and a spinning one does, maintaining its orientation against outside influence. But there is no critical RPM required to have the effect, it just comes on gradually, and there’s no maximum RPM for maximum gyroscopic effect either, it just gets stronger and stronger.
And therefore we must conclude that regardless of how fast you spin, you will still drift a tiny bit under the influence of an exterior torque, this effect can’t ever be eliminated?
Good question. I'm not sure what the final effect on the gyro may be, but it does seems that some effect will be realized in the gyro.
There is surely an upper limit on gyroscopic effects as rotational velocity approaches c.
@@jimmcintosh3718 except rotation velocity is not measured in meters per second….
Great Video!
Gravity Probe B appears to represent a Crap Ton of Innovation and Work in order to get a Probable Maybe as a Result… Don’t get me wrong, I find it Amazing and very Fascinating!
So now it appears we need to design, build and fly a more accurate instrument or three.
Liked & Subbed!
How you keep the magnetic field of the gyroscope from interferring with Earths magnetic field? Put everything inside a Farraday cage? Edit: I am too impatient, answer is given at 17:13.
Outstanding.
Gravity probe B, the experiment that contradicts the Einstein's version of General Relativity, as well as GPS clock experiments.
The probe data does support the Newton version of the general theory, as well as Gauss's Law for Gravity.
What sources did you use?
@@douglaswilkinson5700 While it is true that Gravity Probe A and show a speed up in clock speed at higher altitudes and Gravity Probe B showed a "frame drag," there were other theories that also predicted that.
But gravity probe B and A also proved that a clock at a higher altitude emits a redder frequency, conveniently not mentioned in the reports. Experiments also show that light does not blue shift into a gravity well, I.E. there is no gravitational blueshift nor redshift. So, the source is NASA insiders that did the experiments but failed to mention it.
GPS additional experiments also show that the frequency and energy of light into a gravity well is unaffected by "gravity" but is a function of the magnetic flux density gradient of the Earth. Clock speed is also a function of magnetic flux density.
So, neither Gravity Probe B nor A rule out the ether density gradient of Newton, but further GPS tests support Lorentz relativity and Newton's general theory, not Einstein.
GPS clock experiment also show that Einstein is contradicted but supports Newton's version of the General Theory and Gauss's Law for Gravity instead of Einstein's. Even Einstein got parts of it right by chance, but the results are actual due to the magnetic flux or ether gradient around the Earth, per Newton and Gauss.
Since the earth is flat, nothing is really spinning anyhow! Don't argue with me.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 *the one*
@@harriehausenman8623 The flat earthers do use that claim and Einstein's version of the ether to promote their geocentric model.
However, they do ignore their own ring gyroscope experiment that shows that the Earth must be a spinning sphere.
I wonder if we could measure G, the gravitational constant, with a high degree of precision, using that perfect sphere in a setting where a laser would graze the sphere and we would measure the displacement of the laser beam caused by gravitational micro lensing using interferometry in the arms and apparatus of the LIGO gravitational observatory.
#freeschrodingerscat
LIGO kinda achieved this with interferometry iirc. But it required hundreds of meters of distance to achieve and detected gravity waves. There are space based interferometers planned that are much larger and benefit from near vacuum
Thanks
Im curious why they didn't use the refractive properties of quartz to measure its spin optically?
I keep hearing horses rather than forces… it would really be something if we discovered gravitational horses… lol maybe they measure acceleration due to gravity… gravitational horse power… also why does that room look so darn attractive in the reflection of the sphere? lol🤦
So how was it launched without the forces of acceleration damaging everything ?
That's a good question. I also thought about that myself. Unfortunately I could find any info of that aspect of the mission. I assume the that electrostatic suspension was activated prior the gyros being shipped from the lab to the vehicle assembly building at the launch site. There it was assembled with the launch vehicle.
To protect these instruments, the spacecraft was mounted on a vibration-isolated platform within the rocket.
@@human.earthling an ISO large enough to contain the instruments would be massive and a huge feat of engineering in and of it-self.
@@4DCResinSmoker Here is a more detailed answer from ChatGPT:
1. Vibration Isolation: The spacecraft was mounted on vibration isolation systems to reduce the impact of launch vibrations on the delicate instruments.
2. Suspension of Gyroscopes: The gyroscopes inside Gravity Probe B were suspended using electrostatic suspension within the spacecraft, which minimized friction and external forces.
3. Thermal Protection: The spacecraft also had extensive thermal protection to ensure that temperature variations during launch and in space would not affect the measurements.
@@human.earthling Yeah I know what all this is as I've used it (frequently) during my time in the service. However, just on a much smaller scale for avionics materials. That being said, the accuracy with which the instrument was made to function, i still doubt that the instrument came thru 100% intact. Thus needing some for of in-orbit calibration to be performed to discover what the issues were. With the calibration constants knowledge, it would then be possible to filter out irregularities for the actual measurements.
Side note: Jet-Engine test stands need periotic servicing, where the calibration service-man (me) would teach the system what a particular measurement or reading. Thus canceling out the "local" irregularities of the cables, equipment and environment. after which changing out or losing any of the calibrated hardware would invalidate the system, requiring new calibration constants being developed. (typical periodicity of 3 - 6 months depending on system)
Thought this video was about the teardrop weapon in Three Body Problem.
The polarity of "at worst:at best" cannot be questionable: proven ... Logical impossibility
I wonder why they didnt make the sphere out of silicon… like how they just changed the kilogram standard to a perfect sohere of silicon. And i think it’s practically atomically perfect.
Instant sub, commenting for the algo
Subbed!
Awesome! Thank you.
Great!
It feels like this could have been done far easier with multiple quartz tuning forks. Not only easier but likely more accurate.
I don't know man.... We don't even know if particle is a wave or if the wave is a particle. This seems like shooting bullets into the ocean to find out 😂
In all seriousness though. Great presentation. I'm curious how they supported the gyro rotor during the launch of the probe. No way electrostatic forces could overcome such intense linear acceleration. Or am I wrong?
Good question. Maybe electrostatic can be strong enough. One thing I forgot to say in the video is the sphere shouldn't touch anything when it's spinning. So it could be safe if it's well supported during launch, then the electrostatic kicks when in orbit and finally the helium jet spins it.
Did the idea for this come from a short paper by Einstein where he has a list of experiments, any of which would prove his theory false?
WOWZA! WOWZA! WOWZA!
I watched the launch of Gravity Probe B. Leave a like or comment if you were there too.
I tried, but failed, to understand all this. I thought frame dragging only involv3d the so called either.
I think it is spelled aether. What does it have to do with frame dragging anyway since it is a general relativity phenomenal and GR does not have aether.
2:35 Why's Earth mirrored
Good catch. I didn't notice. I think I already had the gyro animation pointing to the left and the earth images was cut off on the left. So I had to move it to right and then flip it so no not show where it is cut off.
Isn't the magnetic field from the rotating sphere going to alter its rotation? Measuring it should also alter it, though if they don't track the rotation all the time it should not have much time to impact it.
Using the quasar seems more stable.
#OldManBuilds #Nathan @3:50 & @10:15 A crystal incased in a sphere....
"Twisting of space time itself". Why not call it: "Unicorn dust gobbledygook newspeak". That would make more sense.
Sad
🤯
You lost Magnetic interaction with the earths magnetic field when it it was made a superconducter. Should have just use the electrostatic charge on the sphere for measuring drift. I don't believe this experiment is valid because of the magnetic interaction. Also could have use optical interference (inferometer Sagnac effect).
"The Sagnac effect, also called Sagnac interference, named after French physicist Georges Sagnac, is a phenomenon encountered in interferometry that is elicited by rotation. The Sagnac effect manifests itself in a setup called a ring interferometer or Sagnac interferometer"
Page 1:42 that frame dragging is a fancy term for Aether drag.
Aether is an incompressible fluid that filled all void space in vacuum of universe. Aether has no mechanical but electrical property, by which vacuum permittivity and permeability are its attributes. As it attached to all matter it “drag” and move in equal velocity with matter in the near field, also drift with another velocity in the far field or deep space a velocity in average to all matter in the universe, hence the term “fluid”. A rough analogy is the harbor current versus ocean current or deep sea current.
Also if you don’t mind, gravity, inertia and centrifugal forces are also attributes of Aether. Unfortunately it has been foolishly dismissed from the science community.
20:22
Why not use your natural voice?
If you work with the postulates of Einstein's theory of relativity. And if we apply new technologies for this, using the experience of Michelson Morley on the plane, we will see how quantum gravity works. Such measurements cannot be carried out on a satellite in zero-gravity conditions.
who’s voice is this?
On jan15,2005 the Earth crossed the orbit of Saturn and on April 1,2005 Earth crossed the orbit of Jupiter. Assuming that the liquid dark matter sphere around the sun overflows in streams towards the planets these streams may have explained the ensuing data anomalies. Jupiter should pull about 10 times the amount of the other planets and may even be detectable by the amount of dust in that area after the passage of the dark matter stream which would sweep up a lot of that dust.
sounds like overengineering
Gravity is theoretical.
So am I.
You desperately need to get yourself a pop filter. Nothing personal, I wanted to watch, with misophonia it just makes mouth noises (for me, personally, other people have others) a weird kind of torture.
Hmmmmmm?
This channel seems interesting.
Breaking down the operation of space probe sensors ! ? ! ?
i'm in ! !
SUBSCRIBING now.
Now you. SUBSCRIBE !
The first mission delay was the failed choice of a binary system as reference.
🤔 🤨 🤭 😁 😅 🤣🤣🤣