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