Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Probe Validates Einstein Within 1%

Posted by kdawson on from the kind-of-a-drag dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Gravity Probe B uses four ultra-precise gyroscopes to measure two effects of Einstein's general relativity theory — the geodetic effect and frame dragging. According to the mission's principal investigator, the data from Gravity Probe B's gyroscopes confirm the Einstein theory's value for the geodetic effect to better than 1%. In a common analogy, the geodetic effect is similar to the shape of the dip created when the ball is placed on to a rubber sheet. If the ball is then rotated, it will start to drag the rubber sheet around with it. In a similar way, the Earth drags local space and time around with it — ever so slightly — as it rotates. Over time, these effects cause the angle of spin of the satellite's gyroscopes to shift by tiny amounts." The investigators will be doing further data analysis over the coming months and expect to release final results late this year.

11 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I guess it's time to repeal the second amendment, huh?
    Anyone who doesn't support gun control shares responsibility for this tragedy. Libertarians, Republicans- you have blood on your hands today, every single one of you.

    We will win in 2008, and you will lose your guns. And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it :)

    1. Re:Virginia by heinousjay · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's brave talk. You realize, of course, you're coming after people with guns, right?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    2. Re:Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      um, 5th amendment gaurantees freedom, chump.

      see, back in the day when that was written, a rifle was the edge of technology. that amendment gaurantees that the government never has the power to absolutely control the people. that if the gov gets out of line, we can take the power back.

      since, the government has gained access to much more powerful weapons while restricting access to citizens. now we have no control. we are free because the government 'lets us' be free. thats not how it should be.

      MAYBE instead of blaming guns, you should blame the real problem. lack of parenting, lack of social skills, lack of proper psychological conditioning in the infuential years.

      dont blame the tool, blame the user. responsibility for said user falls into the hands of parenting and education. america has failed in both respects, indisputably. the safest cities in the countries are the ones were gun ownership is required.

      ALSO, if gun control becomes the platform, dont count on dems winning 2008. besides, its not like both parties arent retarded...

    3. Re:Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And yet, similar tragedies occurs in nations that crack down on guns. As long as we have a brain, there will be weapons. It is the main reason why America is having a nightmare time in Iraq.

      Now, as to having blood on my hand, well, let me point out that if only a few ppl who was around the gunman had had a gun, then it would never have been this magnitude. It is because students are not allowed to carry guns that this happened.

    4. Re:Virginia by heinousjay · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I don't own a gun, Captain Assumption.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    5. Re:Virginia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      If more people are armed then you get lower death counts in tragedies like these - since the shooter is more likely to be killed before the death count gets too high. However, you get more deaths in the smaller things - domestic disputes, drunken morons, etc.

      Since large scale shootings are reasonably rare, I would suspect on balance reducing the smaller ones results in fewer deaths overall - but I'm guessing I have no numbers...

  2. It's not like guns are that hard to acquire by melted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's not like guns are that hard to acquire in countries with gun control. They may be different kind of gun (a hunting rifle, fgzample), but you could kill people with it just as well even if you're not a criminal. And criminals will have any kind of gun they want.

    One thing you can't do in such a country is defend yourself against someone with a gun. That someone can kick in your front door, shoot your entire family before your eyes and you'll just sit there and watch and there won't be a damn thing you'll be able to do. In the US the guy with a gun always considers a possibility there's another guy with a gun in there. And that's good. Also, public figures have to consider a possibility that there's a guy with a sniper rifle sitting on the roof. So you don't want to piss off your constituents too much around here.

    Quite frankly, if dems oppose the second amendment, I'll vote against dems. I don't think republicans could put out anything worse than GWB even if they wanted to, so by definition they won't be much worse than Billary.

  3. Re:banning guns only guarantees you'll be helpless by Goaway · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Of course it wasn't effective, because it didn't limit anybody's ability to get a gun, it just said where you can and can't carry it.

    I don't know about you, but I'd prefer lowering the probability that I'd ever be in a shootout at all, rather than bringing my own gun to it. And whether you like it or not, less guns means less shootouts.

  4. Re:banning guns only guarantees you'll be helpless by Goaway · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Let's see, 90 people per year killed by lightning, 14.24 people per 100000 inhabitants killed by firearms times about 300 million inhabitants makes for about 42000 deaths per year.

    You know, "500 times higher" is a strange definition of "lower".

  5. Re:banning guns only guarantees you'll be helpless by Goaway · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wrong. Less guns means guns only in the hands of lawbreakers. If someone is hell-bent on murder and they're just going to kill themselves anyway after they've been backed into a corner by the cops, do you really think they give a rat's ass about violating some stupid gun law by illegally possessing a firearm?

    They might not, but if they do not know how to get a gun in the first place, that is all that is needed to stop them.

    And more likely, if they don't have a gun they can sit and fondle every day, the idea to go out and shoot a lot of people with that gun might not enter their head in the first place. Less exposure does mean less urge to action.

    Of course it will never be made impossible to get a gun, but just making it harder will help. This is not a binary, and these issues do not exist in a vaccuum.

    Do you seriously think that outlawing guns will be any more successful than outlawing drugs or outlawing booze?

    Of course. Drugs and booze provide immediate pleasure, and thus are highly sought after. Guns do not.

  6. Re:banning guns only guarantees you'll be helpless by Goaway · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yeah, those arguments might make sense, if the rest of the world outside the US wasn't one huge counter-example.

    The US has lots of guns, and it has lots of fun crime. Most other developed countries have less guns, and also less gun crime.

    Good thing you can just shout "correlation is not causation!" and keep playing with your guns, huh?