Frame dragging, a test of GR and TR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

If general relativity is correct, frame dragging will be detected by LARES. It was not detected by
Gravity Probe B because there was too much noise in the data; in that case, noise overwhelmed
any 'frame dragging signal'. Frame dragging is predicted by GR because it says gravity is curved
space and also - direction of spin, of massive spinning bodies, is important. GR says massive
spinning bodies will cause a measurable 'twist' in space near the body.

Some time ago, i had no problem with this because an intermediate model of particles i had
developed was: dual flux-vortices screw-dislocations (in space). Screw dislocations are
essentially 'twists in space' which are a possible model of particles - indeed if twisting space is
possible.

But the model above was only an intermediate step in Iam space.. The modeling process did not
end there. Familiar readers know a concept called temporal curvature was developed/discovered
which unified special relativity, mass, gravitation, strong nuclear force, and both kinds of time
dilation. Yes, relativistic time dilation is part of SR but special mention is needed here to
emphasize the explanatory power of temporal curvature. Conceptually, TC is 'near field gluons'
or the 'stuff' which holds nuclei together. TC is 'far field residual' which equates with gravity. TC
is mass because, if the model's correct, energy in mass is energy in 'the fabric of time'. TC
explains SR because a particle's kinetic energy is its relativistic energy which is amplified TC.
And of course, if above is true, TC explains time dilation because that essentially is what it is.

How did i arrive at TC? By considering the 'expansion of space' (again an intermediate model of
elementary particles) which is caused by energy in the particle. i had proposed space is very
inelastic - very slightly elastic, that it takes tremendous pressure to distort it, but that distortion is
calculable/measurable. The logic is clear but totally depends on the 'fact' space is an elastic
medium. The final result, TC, may be correct, but the intermediate model may not be.

The intermediate model is a particle version of GR and supposes elementary particles are
miniscule twists in space - a very interesting proposal .. but possibly incorrect.

The reason i 'take back' the intermediate step now is because: if temporal curvature is truly
fundamental, if it's the true cause of gravitation, strong force, mass, and SR effects, it operates in
'flat space' and the rest is not required anymore (curved space is not required anymore to explain
gravity or anything). That would be 'overkill' and denies the centrality of temporal curvature. One
of the final versions of Iam space includes Euclidean space which is totally flat and is most
certainly not elastic. Euclidean space is flat and has no curvature. Euclidean space corresponds to
R3 in mathematics.

Drum roll please. So, temporal relativity (TR), which is the name of the 'new branch of physics' i
gave it, makes a very specific prediction: no frame dragging. Here we have a definitive test
between GR and TR. GR predicts frame-dragging; TR does not. If LARES unequivocally detects
frame-dragging, i must 'shut up' about TC and walk away, 'tail between legs' as a humiliated dog
might. On the other hand, if LARES unequivocally does NOT detect frame-dragging, that will be
a 'feather in the cap' for me and TR.

Anyone wanna take any bets?