Exploring planetary structures via Lense-Thirring and more

If general relativity is correct, one of its implications, Lense-Thirring / frame dragging, should be
able to be used to map planetary interiors. The Lense-Thirring effect is basically a twist in space
near massive bodies such as planets, stars, and black holes. If proven, it may also have
elementary particle implications..An approved NASA mission called Juno will be launched soon
and when it arrives to Jupiter, (one of the mission experiments) will map its gravitational field.

The reason Lense-Thirring works is because of spherical-asymmetry. A perfect sphere is

spherically symmetric. Earth (for example) is not. Earth's shape is basically an oblate spheroid
(flattened sphere). The 'opposite' of that is prolate spheroid (cigar shaped sphere) .. The theory of
Lense-Thirring predicts an asymmetric gravitational field determined by the differential twist -
further determined by mass-spin distribution. There is more mass spinning / distorting space
around the equator so the effect should be greatest there. Near the poles, there is very little mass
moving / distorting space - so twist is minimal there. Since space is continuous (like drawing a
line with a pencil without lifting it), any twist in one portion affects nearby portions. So even
though polar effects are smaller than equatorial effects (twisting forces (torque) on space is
uneven), since space is continuous, Lense-Thirring effects are smoothed out around a planetary
body..

Again, the fact Lense-Thirring effects are spherically asymmetric in very exact ways allows us to
confirm/deny the effect - and also - use it to map planetary interiors. Very exciting stuff. It's
almost like using radar (or some other wave) to penetrate deep into a planet's interior to 'see the
layers'. Essentially, every planet has some kind of internal structure - like an onion but with
different kinds of layers and thicknesses. Each layer has its own thickness and density. That
causes a different 'signature' (which can be detected statistically) using Lense-Thirring theory.
Lense-Thirring theory is the 'crystal ball' we use to peer into planetary interiors.

But it has nothing to do with magic - the theory makes very specific exact predictions about
gravitational fields .. Unspoken in most of the literature are two assumptions about space: it must
be somewhat elastic for L-T theory to work and somehow - mass is 'coupled' with space so that it
can exert torque. Very little attention is devoted to these two assumptions. More on that later..

Back to mapping planetary interiors.. Jupiter (for instance) may have around 5 to 10 layers
internally (an educated guess). Each layer/shell has its own thickness and density. Each layer
produces a unique 'L-T signature' detectable by Juno. Those signatures may, depending on the
true set of layers, interfere with each other (constructively or destructively). So we must
necessarily use statistics to determine the likeliest layer scenario that fits the data best once we
get it from Juno. This is an example of how Lense-Thirring may be used to determine internal
structure.

Okay, back to our assumptions and implications. If GR is correct, L-T is assumed correct. If we
detect the effect to a certain level of confidence, we assume it's a fact. But as stated above, we
have two associated assumptions that are not discussed much: elastic space and matter coupling
with space. The effect cannot manifest without both. Space cannot be twisted unless it's
somewhat elastic. Matter cannot twist space unless it's somehow 'connected' to it. These
unspoken assumptions associated with GR are actually applicable to elementary particles.
During the course of my discovery of TR (temporal relativity), i developed an intermediate
model of elementary particles that are dual structures: electromagnetic flux vortices and screw-
dislocations in space. The math describing both are have some intriguing parallels. Markus Lazar
has looked into this. If TR is incorrect, if GR is, elementary particles must have some
relationship to it .. Quantum gravity is the 'SM approach to gravity' but .. Rarely has a
conventional physicist tried the other way. (To go from GR to particle physics.) What we
measure as 'spin' may simply be our observations of screw-dislocations in space; elementary
particles may 'simply be' very small 'twists in space'. This is somewhat new.. Couple that
perspective with another: wavelet theory, and you've basically reconstituted the Standard Model
without all the mumbo-jumbo.

(Wavelet theory has 'built in' uncertainty. In that sense, we don't need any of the SM constructs
that produce uncertainty: quantum foam, complex time, non-locality,.. If indeed elementary
particles are electromagnetic wavelets-screw-dislocations, we don't need to add uncertainty to the
model structure.)

The model above also 'solves'/addresses one of the unspoken assumptions: coupling. If matter is
indeed little twists of space, we don't need to ask the question of how space and matter are
connected because they are one in the same (matter is distorted space-lets). Coined a word?
Okay, elementary particles are spacelets. We could even call this ST, spacelet theory. :)

During my path to Iam space i was Sure i was onto something fundamental .. TR seemed the
inevitable destination.. But if GR is correct (over TR), then we must back-pedal a bit. ST seems
the default theory if TR is incorrect .. Isn't this preferable to 10 dimensions (associated with
string theory)?