The Incorrect Orbit of EGR

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Sunday, May 06, 2012 11:02 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: The Incorrect Orbit of EGR

From eqs. (16) and (28) of note 218(5) it is dicovered for the first time that the EGR theory gives the orbit

r = alpha / ( 1 + epsilon cos (x(r) theta))

where x is a very complicated function of r. This is not a precessing ellipse as EGR claims because a precessing ellipse needs a constant x close to unity. This conclusion follows from the fact that the EGR force law is of the type

F(r) = A / r squared + B / r fourth

Equating this with eq. (16) will produce a very complicated x(r), and not a constant x. To find x(r) will need computer algebra, it is so complicated. The EGR claim is seen to be wildly incorrect without having to do any calculation, because a constant x is obtained if and only if the force is

F(r) = – mMG x squared / r squared + ( x squared – 1) L squared / (m r cubed)

As Quintilian would have said in the first century A. D., there is virtue in truth.

View article…

Paper 216, sections 3 and 5

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:02 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Paper 216, sections 3 and 5

This is also the mechanism by which a precessing ellipse (as well as a precessing hyperbola or any conic section) transforms into an inward spiral. When x is imaginary

cos (ix theta) = cosh (x theta)

as is well known. So it has been proven that the fractal conical sections can be transformed into the fractal hyperbolic spirals. Using lagrangian dynamics, I will now proceed to find the force law when x is a function of r, and not a constant.


View article…

218(3) : Self Consistent Transition from Conical Section to Hyperbolic Spiral

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, May 05, 2012 6:47 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 218(3) : Self Consistent Transition from Conical Section to Hyperbolic Spiral

This note shows that the transition is defined self consistently in the small x limit for the class of fractal conical sections defined by:

r = alpha / ( 1 + epsilon cos ( theta))


epsilon < 0

It will be very interesting to explore this new class of conical sections systematically. It will probably give all types of spiral orbits as found in whirlpool galaxies, and all kinds of new orbits hitherto unknown when x is allowed to range over all its values. This class is discarded as “undefined” by Marion and Thornton.


View article…

Explaining the Saturnian Rings

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, May 05, 2012 4:06 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Explaining the Saturnian Rings

Gareth Evans and others here may like to try to explain the Saturnian rings by using a graphics and animation package with:

r = alpha/ ( 1 + epsilon cos (x theta))

The world is your proverbial oyster. In general any orbital anomaly can be looked for and new explanations sought.

View article…

Fitting the Spiral Like Elliptical Orbit to the Binary Pulsars

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, May 05, 2012 3:49 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Fitting the Spiral Like Elliptical Orbit to the Binary Pulsars

Can this very interesting result be fitted to the binary neutron star PSR J0737-3039, in which x = 1.0469, or the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar where x = 1.0117? It would also be interesting to fit it directly on top of the trajectory in microgravity observed in the NASA experiment.

View article…

Spiral Like Elliptical Orbit

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, May 05, 2012 3:41 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Spiral Like Elliptical Orbit

This is a very interesting result, it could very well be a binary pulsar orbit as well as a droplet orbit. If the droplet orbit can be explained quantitatively Ray Delaforce and Rob Fell can joint Horst and myself as co authors on UFT218.

In a message dated 05/05/2012 09:03:37 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Prof. Evans,

A while back (2/23/12 to be exact) Rob Fell sent a link to the following NASA youtube video showing water droplets spiraling around an electrically charged knitting needle in microgravity.

[youtube” title=”]

Some water droplets orbited in an inward spiral until finally sticking to the needle. However, other droplets orbited first in an inward spiral and then spiraled OUTWARD again!

The logarithmic (ever decreasing r) orbit can explain the former, but one can get the inward/outward orbit with an ‘elliptical orbit’ having an x value < 1 such that x is a reduced fraction p/q, where p=1, q = some N where the number of inward (and outward) spiral loops appears to be N/2. (See attached example.)

Ray Delaforce

Subject: Agreement between Concepts and Methods

This is excellent agreement between concepts and methods, thanks again. I will proceed in the next notes to hyperbolic orbits, the circular orbit was first inferred in UFT193 ff and again confirmed numerically by Horst Eckardt, who noted that it could mean trapped light.

In a message dated 04/05/2012 19:43:07 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

This is what I found already numerically: an inward spiralling orbit appears if x goes to zero and becomes complex valued.


Am 04.05.2012 15:44, schrieb EMyrone

This note shows how a fractal conical section can be transformed into a logarithmic spiral orbit (7) in which r goes to zero with increasing theta. The condition is very small x but identically non-zero. If x is identically zero a circular orbit results. So if the claims for a decreasing r are true in binary pulsars, then it can be explained very easily with the new universal gravitational potential entirely without EGR, and without gravitational radiation which has never been observed. Such simple explanations are too inexpensive to be funded. So in the exigencies of the physics machine simple explanations are rejected for hugely elaborate hyperexpensive nonsense which, however, can be funded.

View article…

Plans for UFT217

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:44 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Plans for UFT217

I think that the main aim of this four author paper (Horst Eckardt, Ray Delaforce, Gareth Evans and myself) will be a vivid demonstration of the complete failure of Einstein’s general relativity (EGR) to describe the basics of observed orbits, I emphasize the adjective “observed”. It is not just an approximate failure, but what is known in science as a qualitative failure, in every day terms a total failure. In addition EGR cannot describe the newly discovered fractal properties of the conical sections, again a total failure. I discovered the way to show this total failure almost by accident. I wrote down the equation

r = alpha / ( 1 + epsilon cos (x theta))

and this equation describes the precessing elliptical orbits, a large class of orbits. Using lagrangian dynamics the new universal force law was discovered. It turns out that the above equation can describe ALL orbits using only x. It would be very difficult to find an orbit that it does not describe. In addition it gives the fractal conical sections, hitherto unknown in pure mathematics, the multi leaved petal orbits and so on. If one places oneself back in 1788, when Lagrange inferred his method, the reasonable enlightenment of his contemporaries such as Voltaire or Mozart would have smiled the smile of reason. EGR cannot produce this equation, it produces a scowl of dark matter and the junk rap of false authority in science.

View article…

Development of UFT218

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Friday, May 04, 2012 10:38 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Development of UFT218

It is possible to deduce that hyperbolic spiral orbits also evolve from the new universal law of gravitation, so I will develop UFT218 along these lines. The starting pont is always the fractal conical section equation, which with lagrangian dynamics gives the new universal force law. Given approximations of the force law produce the spiral orbits of stars in galaxies and in a well defined limit (x = 0) a circular orbit. The fractal orbital equation is based on ECE theory in a classical limit. Douglas Lindstrom has also made an important discovery recently, of a new invariant, and I will study that in detail before commenting.

View article…

Angle of Precession of the Perihelion

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:00 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Angle of Precession of the Perihelion

If theta increases by 360 degrees or 2pi, then x theta increases to x theta + 2 pi x. If x were 1 then the incresae would be 2pi. So the extra increase due to x is the angle of the precession of the perihelion:

delta theta = 2 pi (x – 1)

per revolution of 360 degrees in theta. Usually for Mercury this is claimed to be 43 arcseconds per century, but the Miles Mathis site for example criticises this claim severely. The above angle is however the precession of the perihelion for any type of fractal orbit:

r = alpha / ( 1 + epsilon cos (x theta))

One arcsecond = 4.848 microradians, so x – 1 for 43 seconds of arc is about ten power minus six per hundred orbits (a century), or ten power minus eight per orbit, so x is very close to unity. Mathis claims (quite convincingly but ignored by EGR dogmatists) that Einstein mixed up the Mercury year with the earth year and that in the traditional method some precessions are treated classically with Newton, while only the 43 arcseconds one is treated with EGR (again that is convincing but of course ignored by EGR dogmatists). In great contrast the above two equations are very simple and treat all precessions in the same way. As x increases, the precession angle increases and all kinds of amazing new orbits appear, all unknown to science.

View article…

Important Graphical Refutation

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 4:58 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Important Graphical Refutation

This is also an important graphical refutation of EGR which can go into UFT217. These new refutations are very simple to see and are based on direct observation, i.e. it is observed that the elliptical orbit is precessing, and that for x about unity the precession is given by:

r = alpha / (1 + epsilon cos (x theta))

So how is it possible for a theory as wildly wrong as EGR to give “precise” results? If people want to continue to be dogmatic they can, but not at the expense of the tax payer. The force law given by EGR is also completely wrong, it is a sum of inverse square plus inverse fourth power. How is it possible for EGR to come up with a “precise” value for light deflection when it basics are incorrect? One can forget about big bang and black hole theory if one wants to be a scientist. All this is a prime example of Langmuir’s pathological science – often repeated dogma. When the elegant and powerful eighteenth century methods are used, EGR disintegrates.


View article…