Black holes

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Farsight]

I somehow think he's trying to bamboozle me with maths.

Yeah me too. Ah. I gather there's a don't missing. Could be a bit of a Freudian slip there Ed. LOL, just kidding, it's a typo, no sweat, we've all done it.

For one thing, the maths seems pretty clear to me. For another thing, I'm in agreement with him, so I'm an unlikely target for bamboozlement. For a third thing, I'm not the mathematician some here are, but y'know, I can hold my own, so I'm even less a likely target for that.

It's Emperor's New Clothes Ed. You've been bamboozled, and jokes apart, there is psychology at work here. Try giving a blow-by-blow explanation of Clinger's latest expression. In fact, try listing what the terms are. Guys like Clinger never give them. It's no accident. Nor is the evasion. Once you start noticing this kind of thing it doesn't go away. Here's a little curve ball for you: you know how Perpetual Student mentioned "the dark side" on his thread? Well, I'm on Einstein's side. Think about it.

For a fourth thing, I think the 'scientific evidence' (what little there is for things falling into black holes) is pretty much on the side of me and him.

No it isn't. There's no evidence that things fall past an event horizon. But there is evidence that the actual speed of light reduces with gravitational potential. Not just the coordinate speed of light, the actual speed of light. And if you're happy with "infinite gravitational time dilation" at the event horizon, you ought to be able to see what the evidence is telling you - that it isn't actually infinite gravitational time dilation, but instead a c=0. Here's a maxim that's served me well: there are no infinities in nature.

I might like to understand exactly how you want this set up for the situation where the lower clock is infalling (the upper clock can do what you want) and I want to know where you think I'm supposed to be watching the clocks from and what it tells me about infalling things before I query anyone else on it.

I thought we'd covered this. You rapidly lower the parallel-mirror light-clock down on a rope and leave it there for a week then pull it back up quickly. You repeat with different rope lengths to plot gravitational potential. The force of gravity at any location is the slope of the potential. From that you can work out how fast the clock is moving as it falls, and work out an adjustment. It doesn't make much odds though, because regardless of how the clock is falling, it doesn't make the speed of light at some elevation any faster.

You aren't watching the clocks. You're just using them as motion meters. You could use some old long-play tape recorder tied to a cable if you like.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I know about muon decay and why the lifetime is extended when the muon moves fast. I've said this somewhere, saying it's a rotational version of the parallel-mirror time dilation. You simplify the muon down to a circle of light and think in terms of stretching a coil spring. The circle is stretched into a helical segment with a longer light-path length, so a zillion rotations takes longer.

Ah yes, back to the Farsight world, full of mechanical devices, absolute time and space, and farlight.

So quaint, so Victorian!

Pity that such a neat and tidy world is inconsistent with hard, scientific, objective - and above all - quantitative evidence.

(bold added)

I was struck by the lack of anything quantitative in Farsight's "evidence", from just about the first day I stumbled upon this thread. And the more I read of his posts, the more I'm inclined to think that, to him, quantitative evidence doesn't matter. It seems that, to Farsight, once he has a nice, mental picture - involving mechanical devices (and analogs) - the hard work is over. To him, physics is all about coming up with comforting mental pictures, and things like his signature diagram.

Take this, for example (from a different thread):

It is. Despite the name, however, nothing is moving.

Yes it is. See the Einstein-De Haas effect which demonstrates "that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".

It's a property like charge, completely analogous to charge in fact. Are you trying to say, in some indirect way, that charge is also just a form of motion?

No. Charge is topological. Go do some research.

The muon has a magnetic moment.

It does. Where's the motion?

In the muon. You need to read up on magnetic moment, Dopa. Here, try this. Once the muon decays the motion is apparent. Note however that this is wrong: "There simply is no internal structure of the electron that will explain its properties!". It's one of those fables I'm afraid.

[...]

All: this guy is trying to waste my time and trash the thread. He isn't sincere, and cannot be trusted. He's a scornmonger not a sceptic, and his physics knowledge is scant.

There are some interesting parts to the source Farsight cited, concerning magnetic moment; for example:

It is possible, of course, to compute the circular current represented by a charged ball spinning around its axis if the distribution of charge in the sphere (or on the sphere), is known, and thus to obtain the magnetic moment of the spinning ball.
-> Maybe that even helps us to understand the internal structure of the electron, because we know its magnetic moment and now can try to find out what kind of size and internal charge distribution goes with that value. Many of the best physicists have tried to do exactly that.
-> However, as it turns out, whatever assumptions you make about the internal structure of the electron that will give the right magnetic moment will always get you into deep trouble with other properties of the electron. There simply is no internal structure of the electron that will explain its properties!
-> We thus are forced to simply accept as a fundamental property of an electron that it always carries a magnetic moment of

[...]

The factor 2 is a puzzle of sorts - not only because it appears at all, but because it is actually = 2.00231928. But pondering this peculiar fact leads straight to quantum electrodynamics (and several Nobel prizes), so we will not go into this here.

To Farsight, it's enough that "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics". The fact that no one can (has) come up with a classical mechanics style angular momentum for the electron (or muon) that is quantitatively consistent with the experimental evidence* bothers Farsight not the least.

Here's another couple of posts which illustrates this:

This is a skeptic's forum, where you need to back up assertions with evidence. Thus far, you've failed completely.

I'm the one who's skeptical here. I've offered evidence, you haven't. I've given the evidence of the Shapiro delay and optical clocks which demonstrate that the coordinate speed of light varies:

|----------------|
|----------------|

Note that hilighted word: the coordinate speed of light varies with gravitational potential in Schwarzchild coordinates. It does not vary in Kruskal coordinates. You are favoring one set of coordinates over every other set.

I'm not. I'm looking at hard physical evidence that says the speed of light varies with gravitational potential regardless of any coordinate system. There is no coordinate system you can use to make the light traversing the lower parallel mirror get to the end before the light traversing the upper.

|--------------|
|--------------|

It seems that Farsight genuinely believes that this - an unlabeled diagram - is "evidence"!

I think this blindness, this apparent desire to return physics to a time before Newton or Galileo, has led Farsight into some of his serious misunderstandings of the words of his fave author, Einstein.

Consider this:

What Einstein told me is that the speed of light varies:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates c_o, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = c_oo(1 + Φ/c²).

But my question was, and still is, what is it about vacuum impedance that "mentioned before now"? How is it relevant?

Impedance is an electrical property of say a cable, but it applies to space too, which electromagnetic waves propagate through. It applies to alternating current rather than direct current, these both being associated with conduction current, which is the motion of charged particles. You can create such charged particles via pair production, and get the electromagnetic waves back again via annihilation. Those electromagnetic waves are displacement current rather than conduction current, and they wave. They're alternating.

And what you write here doesn't help much. "It's described as a constant, but it isn't actually constant" - that's your claim, but you don't actually provide any evidence to support it, do you?

Yes I do. The speed of light c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) depends on the impedance of space. And it varies. We can see it varies in the Shapiro delay, and in those optical clocks which lose synchronisation, as would parallel-mirror light clocks:

|--------------|
|--------------|

In a gravitational field the speed of light demonstrably varies. So the impedance of space must be varying too. It isn't constant either.

If it helps at all, I imagine that with your electronics training you're aware of the lossless line where Z₀ = √(L/C). There is a relationship with Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀). And you might find this Taming Light at the nanoscale interesting, it concerns displacement-current circuitry. Displacement current is a "time varying electric field". If an electromagnetic wave passes you by, you will detect a time-varying electric field.

Regarding the main point I'm trying to convey, if I showed you two parallel cables with a different impedance, you'd expect to see some variation in the A/C signal propagation time, which we might depict like this:

|-----------------|
|-----------------|

If I replace the cables with light beams in say a smoke-filled chamber, and gave you a gedanken high-speed camera, you should be able to play back the film and see the light beams propagating in a similar fashion:

|-----------------|
|-----------------|

I would hope that you would attribute this difference to vacuum impedance rather than "time flowing slower", and conclude that c = √(1/ε₀μ₀) is not an absolute constant.

Einstein says "the velocity of light c" is relative, and depends upon something whose value is determined by an arbitrary choice of coordinates ("the gravitation potential Φ").

Farsight applies his 'absolute space and time' understanding of this, throws out the quantitative aspects, and concludes that "the impedance of space must be varying". Not in some relative way, but absolutely. As if a chunk of space were like a resistor from Radio Shack (or whatever they have in England); attach the leads to it and read out the value of the impedance on the dial/display.

* or, more broadly, any consistent classical mechanics-based model for all the electron's observed quantitative properties

 

[Farsight]

Yep. God forbid Farsight should sink his teeth into the ladder-barn paradox. The ladder is *really* inside the barn, and this is obvious if you read between the lines of Einstein's SR. Look: --|-------|--, it's that obvious. You don't even have an argument, no one is listening to you and your textbooks.

I have, but that's not what I'd say. Length contraction is actually very interesting. But if you'd like to talk about it, please start a separate thread. Another time, I have to go now.

 

[edd]

Farsight - well, first thanks for picking up the error there
Otherwise for now I will say again that we are in agreement about things suspended above the horizon - that's not in question. The falling observers are what we definitely disagree on.

Edit: weird hyperlink not mine. Those facing certain doom at a black hole don't need the added stress of forum moderation.

 

[ctamblyn]

It was Matt Visser who didn't proof-read properly! I copied that from the paper. Did I say it's on page 36? It's on page 37:

Well, I guess it was all three of us that didn't proof-read, then.

Sure. But my point is that permittivity is proportional to the reciprocal of permeability. I gave an analogy a week or two back that was carefully worded: permittivity is like how easy it is to bend the spring steel bar, permeability is like how hard it kicks back.

That's still wrong from the standpoint of classical physics, though (i.e. GR and classical electromagnetism): the vacuum permeability and permittivity are just constants, and artefacts of our system of units; furthermore standard GR does not require a force called "electromagnetism" to exist at all in order to work (nor any other fundamental force).

Just like my factory full of machines that have an average lifetime before they break down. But the point remains that we have atomic clocks, optical clocks, piezoelectric clocks, and so on. But we have no devices that go by the name of "muon clock".

You can't buy them in the shops. However, there's no problem with such a device for the purposes of thought experiments, so let's pretend we've got some.

I know about muon decay and why the lifetime is extended when the muon moves fast. I've said this somewhere, saying it's a rotational version of the parallel-mirror time dilation. You simplify the muon down to a circle of light and think in terms of stretching a coil spring. The circle is stretched into a helical segment with a longer light-path length, so a zillion rotations takes longer.

That is certainly not what GR says. In fact, GR is silent on the issue of how weak decays "work" - it just doesn't care. All good clocks, regardless of the forces responsible for the timekeeping, must be affected in the same way by gravity unless GR is wrong.

If you are relying on any specific model of the muon to explain why muon decays clocks stay in sync with optical clocks, then your model is very different to GR.

It wouldn't be wrong, it would just be that Lorentz invariance wouldn't be absolute. It's no big deal. The principle of equivalence isn't absolute, that doesn't make relativity wrong. We just do the experiment and see if nuclear clocks show any discrepancy with electromagentic clocks, and take it from there. I'm on record as saying a gravitational field is where there's a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force versus the strong force, so I'm interested. That GRB I was talking about might show features where the electrons went first and the protons last.

If GR is right, strong-interaction and weak-interaction clocks keep sync with optical ones. Applying the simplest logical reasoning, it follows that if strong-decay and weak-decay clocks lose sync with optical clocks, then GR is wrong.

As for a gravitational field being where "there's a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagentic force versus the strong force", I remember you saying something like that in a previous thread. You have not put forward any evidence (as in empirical evidence) to support that claim. In standard physics there is no such effect, and yet it does very well at modelling the real world. What evidence is there that the standard view is actually wrong?

Ah neutrinos. I think it's a shame Antonio Ereditato and Dario Autiero have resigned. IMHO they were victims of media sensationalism. I read the paper and it played a straight bat reporting experimental results, which I think was the right thing to do. And after all, the speed of light isn't constant, so light can go "faster than light". But they carry the can and fall on their sword like the good guys they are while the media, including the CERN press office, bear no responsibility whatsoever. Anyway, neutrinos should be classed with photons, let's have a thread on them sometime.

Again, this is beyond what standard physics says. If those neutrinos had got there as early as they initially seemed to, GR would have made the wrong prediction.

Good. I'm glad we've knocked that one on the head. Watch the Horizon programme again and marvel at how the waterfall garabage is presented as fact. All: read this too.

OK, so you agree that the model in that paper should not be taken as being anything other than a very useful analogy. Good, I'm glad we knocked that nonsense about gravity being equivalent to a variation in permeability and permittivity on the head.

It was sol who cited the paper in post #753 on page 19 after I'd said Visser had moved on to gravastars.

Indeed, sol linked to the paper first. Your reply here made is seem as though it supported your ideas, despite the fact that the part of the paper you quoted was referring to an analogue gravity model which is not actually completely equivalent to GR.

I know some posts have been split from here and in the process your answer to one of my earlier questions was lost. I would very much appreciate a proper reply to it when you're ready: please, please, please can you post once piece of experimental evidence that contradicts "MTW" GR (while not contradicting FGR), or link to where you have done so before?

 

[ben m]

If GR is right, strong-interaction and weak-interaction clocks keep sync with optical ones. Applying the simplest logical reasoning, it follows that if strong-decay and weak-decay clocks lose sync with optical clocks, then GR is wrong.

Indeed, if there were a reason for strong, weak, and E&M physics to respond differently to gravity, it would imply a violation of the weak equivalence principle. Experimentally speaking, the weak equivalence principle is by far the most-precisely-tested aspect of gravitational physics, and I'm personally acquainted with many of the people who have tested it.

 

[Farsight]

This is from Perpetual Student's thread, I thought I'd answer it here to avoid hijacking.

So, you agree with some parts of what's taught in university physics and not other parts,

Yes of course I do. And we don't find much reason to talk about the things we all agree upon.

...but when presenting your viewpoint you present it as though all of it were in agreement with what's taught in university physics. I'd say that's misleading.

No way. I've said repeatedly that some of what's taught is misleading, throwing in things like don't thump your textbook at me.

You'll note I say "as though": I'm not saying you explicitly make that claim, I'm saying that to a casual reader, that's what it sounds like.

I will make efforts to avoid giving any wrong impression. But note this: casual readers will also think that the waterfall is an integral part of relativity when it isn't. These threads are full of "relativity tells us" when it doesn't.

I'm saying that the way you choose to phrase your statements is misleading to casual readers in a specific way - they'll tend to think that you are claiming to be representing physics as it is understood by the scientific community, when some of the ideas you are presented are not in agreement with physics as it's understood by the scientific community.

Sol does this. And when I oppose him, I present Einstein's ideas.

 

[Brian-M]

And when I oppose him, I present Einstein's ideas.

[NITPICK]
That should be: "And when I oppose him, I present my interpretation of what Einstein thought using selected quotes to support my case". You can't be 100% certain that you're presenting Einstein's ideas accurately and in the correct context unless you quote an entire document verbatim or go back in time and ask him in person if your post accurately represents his opinions.
[/NITPICK]

 

[Farsight]

It's a greyscale Brian. Sure, I can't be certain about everything, but one thing I am certain of, is that when you read "Einstein told us that..." you should go and read what he actually did say.

 

[Farsight]

Well, I guess it was all three of us that didn't proof-read, then.

I spotted it immediately. That's why I put it up. I'm good at proofreading. It's to do with the way I'm now very ontological. In the past I'd do some proofreading, and miss something glaringly obvious, like a spelling error or a missing word. When somebody pointed it out to me, I'd say something like How did I miss that!? With training you get better at seeing what's there.

That's still wrong from the standpoint of classical physics, though (i.e. GR and classical electromagnetism): the vacuum permeability and permittivity are just constants, and artefacts of our system of units;

You can imagine what I'm going to say here: the constancy is an artefact of our system of units. I'm not kidding about that. The speed of light is the obvious one of course, but it isn't the only one.

...furthermore standard GR does not require a force called "electromagnetism" to exist at all in order to work (nor any other fundamental force).

I know. It's a unification thing.

You can't buy them in the shops. However, there's no problem with such a device for the purposes of thought experiments, so let's pretend we've got some.

OK. But I don't like the thought that it's some kind of mysterious black box.

That is certainly not what GR says. In fact, GR is silent on the issue of how weak decays "work" - it just doesn't care.

Agreed.

All good clocks, regardless of the forces responsible for the timekeeping, must be affected in the same way by gravity unless GR is wrong.

I'd rather say incomplete myself. Or restricted. It doesn't cover everything. And a principle is a principle rather than a hard and fast rule.

If you are relying on any specific model of the muon to explain why muon decays clocks stay in sync with optical clocks, then your model is very different to GR.

As ever it isn't my model, and look again at what I said - I'm just chucking in a bit of wave nature of matter and a bit of SR parallel-mirror-light-clock to say something that GR doesn't care about.

If GR is right, strong-interaction and weak-interaction clocks keep sync with optical ones. Applying the simplest logical reasoning, it follows that if strong-decay and weak-decay clocks lose sync with optical clocks, then GR is wrong.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.

As for a gravitational field being where "there's a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force versus the strong force", I remember you saying something like that in a previous thread. You have not put forward any evidence (as in empirical evidence) to support that claim.

I didn't want to make a big deal of it, just give you a hint as to why I'm interested in nuclear clocks v electromagnetic clocks. Again it's a unification thing, beyond GR.

In standard physics there is no such effect, and yet it does very well at modelling the real world. What evidence is there that the standard view is actually wrong?

Again, it comes back to you being able to see that the speed of light isn't constant. Then you get into the fine structure constant. It's the ratio of the strength of electromagnetic force as compared to the strong force. In addition it's the ratio of the energy required to push two electrons together from infinity to some given distance, as compared to the energy of a photon with a wavelength 2π times that distance. It's often given as α = e²/2ε0hc, where e is the charge of the electron, ε0 is the permittivity of space, h is Planck's constant, and c is the speed of light. And it's a "running" constant. But let's talk about that another time.

Again, this is beyond what standard physics says. If those neutrinos had got there as early as they initially seemed to, GR would have made the wrong prediction.

Agreed. I was never impressed with the hullabaloo around the OPERA thing.

OK, so you agree that the model in that paper should not be taken as being anything other than a very useful analogy. Good, I'm glad we knocked that nonsense about gravity being equivalent to a variation in permeability and permittivity on the head.

Don't kid yourself, ct.

Indeed, sol linked to the paper first. Your reply here made is seem as though it supported your ideas, despite the fact that the part of the paper you quoted was referring to an analogue gravity model which is not actually completely equivalent to GR.

No it didn't. My reply was pointing out something that demonstrated that somebody didn't know the first thing about electromagnetism and couldn't even spell permittivity. I didn't spell it out though, snigger. I had a laugh when nobody spotted it. Hur, I've got tears in my eyes now!

I know some posts have been split from here and in the process your answer to one of my earlier questions was lost. I would very much appreciate a proper reply to it when you're ready: please, please, please can you post once piece of experimental evidence that contradicts "MTW" GR (while not contradicting FGR), or link to where you have done so before?

You keep asking this wife-beater question, give it a rest. It's Einstein's GR, you've had the quotes where he was telling you again and again that the speed of light isn't constant. I've told you about the Shapiro delay and the optical clocks losing synchronisation when separated by a vertical foot. And you know that all clock will do this, including parallel-mirror light clocks, like below. The speed of light isn't constant, just like Einstien said, and you can see it. Now stop being cute and get on board 21st Century physics. And if you want to talk about electromagnetism, start a thread - I'm sure Vorpal will appreciate it.

 

[edd]

Then you get into the fine structure constant. It's the ratio of the strength of electromagnetic force as compared to the strong force.

*blink*

You were corrected on that almost exactly two years ago.

 

[ben m]

*blink*

You were corrected on that almost exactly two years ago.

Thanks for reminding me, edd. That thread has another example of Farsight's special pathology. When insisting that his crackpotty spiral-field-lines-torsion theory was obvious, and insisting that only a crackpot would reject it:

The evidence begs to differ. And Maxwell and Minkowski beg to differ. See post 2.

Sound familiar?

Sol does this. And when I oppose him, I present Einstein's ideas.

 

[Farsight]

*blink*

You were corrected on that almost exactly two years ago.

No I wasn't. RealityCheck's "correction" was a false assertion. See for example hyperphysics. You can find this elsewhere, such as here. Its coupling strength relative to the strong force is 1/137.

 

[Farsight]

Thanks for reminding me, edd. That thread has another example of Farsight's special pathology. When insisting that his crackpotty spiral-field-lines-torsion theory was obvious...

You might care to take a look at gravitomagnetism:

"Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity".

Of course, gravitomagnetism isn't exactly the same as electromagnetism. But shucks, it isn't called gravitomagnetism for nothing.

 

[edd]

No I wasn't. RealityCheck's "correction" was a false assertion. See for example hyperphysics. You can find this elsewhere, such as here. Its coupling strength relative to the strong force is 1/137.

It would be a bit too much of a derail to discuss that further, but I do not think you're right here. There was plenty of follow up in that thread anyway.

 

[Farsight]

I don't lie to you Ed. I might use the wrong phrase from time to time, but it's not in my interest to be dishonest or come out with things that are plumb wrong. It would be nice if at this juncture somebody like sol or Clinger or ct would pop up and say actually, Farsight is right about this. But they seem to prefer to stay quiet about this kind of thing. Not good.

 

[ben m]

No I wasn't. RealityCheck's "correction" was a false assertion. See for example hyperphysics. You can find this elsewhere, such as here. Its coupling strength relative to the strong force is 1/137.

No it's not. First of all, both alpha and alpha_s are mere *definitions*---when you write down a new field theory, you get to decide how to organize (and name) the constants of that theory. Alpha was introduced, defined, and measured by people who had never heard of the strong force. They defined and measured it purely with reference to E&M quantities---the electron charge, Planck's constant, and the Coulomb constant.

Secondly, you're utterly wrong to say alpha_s = 1.000 000 000 +/- 1, which is what it would need to be to make it "just happen" to fit into a ratio-definition of alpha. Alpha_s is often said to be "of order 1", which basically means only that it's large enough that you can't use it as a perturbation-theory "small parameter". It's been measured to about 1% precision at the Z-pole (alpha_s(MZ) = 0.1184 +/- 0.0007) or 3% at the tau (alpha_s(MT) = 0.330 +/- 0.014) and that extrapolates to "around 1-ish" at "nuclear-ish energies". http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1135

It's true that because alpha is "around 1", you can divide *anything* by it and get around the same thing. Let's try it!

"c is the ratio of the speed of light to the strength of the strong force."

"Newton's Constant is the ratio of the strength of gravity and the strong force"

"The euro-dollar exchange rate is the strength of European currency, in units of dollars, relative to the strength of the strong force."

Try it, it works for anything.

 

[sol invictus]

I don't lie to you Ed. I might use the wrong phrase from time to time, but it's not in my interest to be dishonest or come out with things that are plumb wrong. It would be nice if at this juncture somebody like sol or Clinger or ct would pop up and say actually, Farsight is right about this. But they seem to prefer to stay quiet about this kind of thing. Not good.

You're wrong, as has already been explained at length. alpha has nothing to do with the strong force, it's dimensionless, and it would be equal to the ratio of EM force to strong force only under very specific circumstances.

This isn't even a question of physics, it's just basic knowledge of the definition of these terms and quantities. But then, almost everything you post is just a mishmash of quote-mined technical terms you've read but not understood.

You can't understand physics without hard work and mathematics, Farsight, and you've got neither.

 

[ben m]

You might care to take a look at gravitomagnetism:

"Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity".

Of course, gravitomagnetism isn't exactly the same as electromagnetism. But shucks, it isn't called gravitomagnetism for nothing.

Gravitomagnetism is a standard prediction of GR as taught since 1916, the theory you think is theoretically and/or experimentally wrong. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (the textbook you think is wrong) manages to derive and explain gravitomagnetism on page 1117, including a citation to Francis Everitt whose experiment you just linked to. Similarly, if you read Gravity Probe B's own theory papers, you'll see them citing their experimental predictions to the "standard techniques" of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's textbook (the one you think is wrong).