More or less evidence for Lense-Thirring

If you perform an arXiv search on Lense-Thirring, you get about 200 papers directly related to
the subject. Lense-Thirring is the GR concept purporting a 'twist in space' near massive spinning
objects. Contrary to the claims of Gravity Probe B staff, due to noise in the data, a clear signal
confirming the phenomenon has yet to be found. Many related experiments are proposed and
some are being financially supported namely the Juno mission. Unfortunately for GR, that
particular mission has been delayed due to NASA budget restrictions. If the probe ever gets to
Jupiter, is not destroyed by mishap (knock on wood), and successfully performs an orbital
injection braking burn, we may obtain definitive data supporting/rejecting GR/TR. For those un-
initiates, TR stands for temporal relativity, a competing theoretical framework wrt GR that
exclusively depends on temporal curvature.

i've looked at six of the arXiv papers which range in topics. They indicate convention seriously
leans toward accepting GR over any other competing theory of gravitation. This is good - to take
a stand. i've always despised individuals who 'ride the fence' in any way.. Better to be wrong and
make progress than never to take a stand and eternally wallow in indecision.. So in this respect i
support conventions investigation into GR .. However, as implied above and covered in other
essays, i do not support GR directly: it sidesteps Occam's Razor.

As with the Standard Model and virtual exchange, GR is not the simplest theory which explains
reality. i firmly believe/state that science needs to take a good hard look at the current
assumptions of science and decide whether current investigations are actually worth the
resources allocated. In my meager estimation, both the assumption frames and several
experimental investigation themes are seriously questionable - only from the scientific standpoint
and Occam's Razor.

If we religiously adhere to Occam, we're forced to construct alternative theoretical frameworks

relative to the SM and GR both. The basic premise of the scientific method is observation and
hypothesis, a recursive relationship: we observe, we induce, we observe, we refine.. This is the
essence of the scientific method. But unfortunately for the SM, we started with a flawed original
premise: elementary particles are not probability waves. There is nothing virtual about reality.
GR makes an analogous erroneous assumption that space is elastic. This is not the simplest
explanation of gravitation as i've written in other essays. Particles may be viewed as
electromagnetic wavelets and so by their very nature (study wavelet theory) are uncertain. So if
wavelets are a good model of elementary particles, we don't need non-locality and complex time
and any other construct convention seems to prefer to embrace. Similarly, if GR is 'overkill' in
terms of modeling gravitation, we don't need elastic space as part of the model. Temporal
curvature is sufficient and minimal to explain gravitation - it also (by definition) rejects frame-
dragging / Lense-Thirring. So we have definitive tests between competing theories.
Unfortunately for particle physics, i have not devised a conclusive test between the SM and my
more simplistic models of reality. An intermediate model which impelled me toward TR is what
i call 'GR applied to elementary particles' (they're dual flux vortices and mini-screw dislocations
in this model). And via Occam, i've rejected that in favor of TR.
So in a sense, if Lense-Thirring is not found, that's also evidence for the TR model of elementary
particles (they're dual electromagnetic wavelets coupled with temporal distortions). The Lense-
Thirring effect seems to be the core/decisive test between competing theories.

If it exists and is real, we may have to take a step back in the modeling process. We may be
forced to embrace 'GR as applied to elementary particles' as briefly described above. This is
certainly preferable to the house of cards currently evinced by the SM.

We've covered a lot in this brief essay but identify Lense-Thirring / frame-dragging as a critical
definitive test between competing theories: SM vs TR-e.p. and GR vs TR. We've also identified
an intermediate alternative to the SM that, if frame-dragging is unequivocally detected, allows
convention to move toward a more realistic framework following the scientific method and
Occam.

Juno, the angular momentum of Jupiter and the Lense-Thirring effect, Lorenzo Iorio
The Shape of an Accretion Disc in a Misaligned Black Hole Binary, Rebecca G. Martin, J. E.
Pringle and Christopher A. Tout
Evidence for GR rotational frame-dragging in the light from the Sgr A* supermassive black hole,
B. Aschenbach
Recent Attempts to Measure the General Relativistic Lense-Thirring Effect with Natural and
Artificial Bodies in the Solar System, Lorenzo Iorio
ABOUT THE LENSE-THIRRING AND THIRRING EFFECTS,
ANGELO LOINGER AND TIZIANA MARSICO
Phenomenology of the Lense-Thirring effect in the Solar System, Lorenzo Iorio, Herbert I. M.
Lichtenegger, Matteo Luca Ruggiero, Christian Corda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/OR+au:Lense_Thirring+all:+EXACT+Lense_Thirring/0/1/0/all/0/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor