## Discussion of 319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

I think that there are several other ways in which this phenomenon can be explained in future work by ECE2 combined with the 2014 x theory. The very precise experimental data for deflection of electromagnetic radiation by gravitation are used as the starting point for an explanation in terms of correct geometry. It is accpeted now that Einstein did not know about torsion and used an incorrect theory based on curvature only. In fact Einstein is not precise at all because the theory is completely unable to describe the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. This has been known since the early sixties, but the dogmatists have gone on claiming that Einstein is precise for nearly half a century. With science like this, who needs idols? They are so embedded in concrete that they cannot move. There have been thousands of studies of the key papers: UFT88, UFT99, UFT112, UFT255 and UFT313 – UFT318, and thousunds of studies of the proofs that no torsion means no gravitaion at all. The general covariance of ECE2 can be expressed through its field equations as an effective Lorentz covariance in the presence of curvature and torsion, because the structure of the field equations is the same as that of Maxwell Heaviside, but in a sapce with torsion and curvature. This means that an analysis based on an effective Minkowski metric can be used, as in UFT216 and UFT261 of x theory. There are so many papers and books of ECE now that multiple cross correlation of concepts can be used.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 30/06/2015 07:35:56 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

“Twice Newton” explained correctly 400 years after the great man!!

Sent from Samsung Mobile

## Discussion Part Two of 319(2)

In order to derive Eq. (35) use Eq. (34) to find that:

g = (8 c omega sub 0 / m) p

This note is the first step towards a new theory of gravitation, sketched out in 319(3).

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 29/06/2015 13:53:54 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 319(2)

Many thanks, the only open question for me is how you derived (35) from (28,29). How did you replace g to obtain p? We have

g bold = partial p bold / partial t
and
del * g bold = partial (del * p bold) / partial t

but this is not the LHS of (35).

Am 28.06.2015 um 07:37 schrieb EMyrone:

Agreed that Eq. (1) is based on antisymmetry. This note introduces the minimal prescription (4) – (6) so U symbolizes energy in general. There are new concepts in the note which will be used later in the development of ECE2 theory to give all the results currently attributed to Einsteinian general relativity. The three cases are just examples or limits of the general theory, Eq. (7). It can be seen that eq. (7) is more general than the Newtonian

g = – del phi

so Eq. (7) can describe non Newtonian effects such as light bending, anomalous precession, and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. Eq. (8) is the condition under which Eq. (7) can be reduced to the format of the Newtonian theory, the equation above. This results in Eq. (11). The Newtonian limit is equivalent to. (12) and (13). The quantum theory is introduced and it leads to the anticommutator equation (27). The familiar Newtonian equation F = mg is developed in to Eq. (34) and the spin connection and tetrad in the Newtonian limit defined by Eqs. (38) and (39). The equations (16) and (17) are derived as you describe and agreed that there should be a factor 2 on the right hand side of Eqs. (14) and (15), To derive Eq. (25) use Eq. (8) and (24). Eq. (25) is an operator equation and takes the format of Eq. (26). In Ryder’s “Quantum Field Theory” the method is sketched of deriving the Pauli exclusion principle from the anticommutator in quantum field theory. The whole of the development of this note can be used for electrodynamics. Agreed about eq. (31). It is more general than an Euler Bernoullli equation and del p occurs in fluid dynamics and aerodynamics. In Eqs. (35) and (36) p is changed into omega using eq. (23), and 2i h bar cancels out either side. This leads to the derivation of the tetrad and spin connection in the Newtonian limit, Eqs. (38) and (39). Agreed about Eq (43). This entire set of equations can also be used in electrodynamics and for the nuclear weak and strong fields. So counter gravitation in this theory is given by:

U omega bold > – c omega sub 0 p bold

This is a very simple condition.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 27/06/2015 17:29:31 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 319(2): New Gravitational Results from ECE2 Theory

I have a lot of questions concerning this note:
The beginning of this note is a bit confusing for me. You consider 3 cases of g, potentials and spin connections:
– ECE2
– ECE2 with antisymmetry conditions
– Newtonian case

It would be easier to understand if you used different symbols for each case, for example U, U_ant, U_Newton etc. You did this partially with the phi potential.

Is the second equality sign in eq. 1 correct? I assume you mean g with antisymm. conditions, then it is. To change p in to omega use eq. (23) and 2i h bar cancels either side. Agreed about Eq. (43).

The approaches (14,15) seem to require an additional factor of 2, a typo.

Where do eqs. 16-17 come from? Obviously you insert (14,15) into (12,13). Then (16,17) hold for the Newtonian limit.

How exactly did you derive eq.(25)?
The connection to quantum physics is interesting.

Eq.(31) reminds to fluid dynamics. Q seems to be interpretable as a velocity potential and has indeed physical dimensions of m/s.

Eqs.(35,36): How did you change g into p and omega?

– U omega > c omega_0 p ?

Am 27.06.2015 um 15:14 schrieb EMyrone:

This note uses the antisymmetry eq. (1) of ECE2 to find several new equations of ECE2 gravitation. The Newtonian limit of ECE2 is well defined by Eqs. (8), (12) and (13). These equations lead to a new anticommutator equation of quantum gravity, Eq. (27) in the Newtonian limit. This equation becomes non Newtonian if its right hand side is non zero. This is interesting because in quantum field theory the anticommutator is the origin of the Pauli exclusion principle. The famous force is mass times acceleration of the Newtonian limit is extended in ECE2 to Eq. (34). The spin conenction vector and the tetrad vector of the Newtonian limit of ECE2 are given by Eqs. (38) and (39). Non Newtonian effects of ECE2 are described by Eqs. (40) and (41), zero ECE2 gravitation by Eq. (42) and repulsive ECE2 counter gravitation by Eq. (43). These results are much simpler and more powerful than UFT318, which should be regarded as a transitional paper to UFT319. We now have a clear idea of how to engineer counter gravitation. Great progress has been made from the early attempts of ten or eleven years ago.

## Daily Reports Weekend of 27 and 28 June 2015

There were respectively 1,880 and 2,103 files downloaded from 357 and 390 reading sessions, main spiders, baidu, google, MSN, yandex and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 489, Scientometrics 375, F3(Sp) 282, Auto1 273, Auto2 81, Proofs that no torsion means gravitation 223, UFT88 184, Principles of ECE 180, Evans Equations 165 (numerous Spanish), Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 163, Engineering Model 151, Barddonieth / Collected Poetry 146, CEFE 102, UFT311 63, UFT316 62, UFT315 55, UFT314 54, UFT313 49, UFT317 35 to date in June 2015. University of Chicago My page, Second Book of Poetry, and frequently asked questions; Kitsuregawa Toyoda Laboratory, Advanced Data Engineering, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo UFT123; Birmingham City University Family History. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2015.

# Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

## 319(3): Light Deflection from Gravitation using ECE2

This note combines ECE2 theory with UFT216 and UFT261 to show that the equivalence principle of ECE2 is the powerful antisymmetry law (3), which generalizes other equivalence principles and which reduces to the quasi Newtonian equivalence principle (4) under the condition (15) on the spin connection. The Newtonian equivalence principle is a limit of ECE2 and shows that the usual Newtonian equivalence principle is part of a generally covariant unified field theory, ECE2. Zero g force is defined by the condition (19) on the spin connection. The ECE2 gravitational field equations (16) to (19) are quasi Lorentz covariant although the theory is a generally covariant unified field theory. The Minkowski like metric (20) of the Lorentz like theory, when used with the precessing conical section planar orbit (21), gives the deflection due to gravity (33) which to an excellent approximation gives the observed result (4), the famous “twice Newton” result which is due therefore to Cartan geometry with torsion. The incorrect and torsionless Einstein field equation is nowhere used. So the reason for the famous deflection due to gravitation has been found. It is due to a geometry with torsion and curvature. It cannot be explained at all with the Einstein geometry, which has just curvature. The precision of ECE2 is determined by the experimental precision of light deflection due to gravity, which is now very high, and ECE2 is of course preferred because it is mathematically correct , whreas Einstein is mathematically incorrect and not a unified field theory.

a319thpapernotes3.pdf

## Daily Reports 24 – 26 June 2015

There were respectively 2556, 2534 and 7656 files downloaded from 429, 440 and 388 reading sessions, mains spiders baidu, goole, MSN, seznam and yahoo. Evans / Morris papers 445, Scientometrics 321, F3(Sp) 277, Auto1 260, Auto2 77, Proofs that no torsion means no gravitation 239, Evans Equations 180 (numerous Spanish); Principles of ECE Theory 174, UFT88 168, Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 151, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 128, Engineering Model 127, CEFE 99, UFT11 63, UFT316 61, Llais 59, UFT315 54, UFT314 53, UFT313 48, UFT317 42 to date in June 2015. University of Queensland UFT175; University of the Andes Colombia UFT169(Sp); The Army University Ecuador F10(Sp); German National Synchrotron Facility UFT57; Bochum University of Applied Sciences 2D paper; Tectum Group Germany Spacetime Devices; Physics University of Erlangen-Nuremberg UFT175(Sp); Bryn Mawr College, Lower Merion Pennsylvania UFT2; Graduate Center City University of New York UFT43; Lincoln Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) UFT41; University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Family History; Juan Carlos III University Madrid UFT166(Sp); University of Granada UFT169(Sp); University of Poitiers Essay 32 “Science and Pseudoscience” (also read a few days ago at the U. S. Department of State); “Libero” newspaper published in Milan UFT317; knology private site complete site download; U. S. Archives San Francisco general; PLGT Multi Resources Corporation Poland general; Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for June 2015.

# Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

## Light Bending by Gravitation in ECE2

The background papers to this subject are UFT216 and UFT261, In the Newtonian view the angle of deflection is

2 psi = 2 MG / (Rsub 0 c squared) = – Phi (r = R0) / c squared.

If Phi is doubled the correct experimental result is obtained. This is precisely what happens in ECE2 (Eqs. (7) and (8) of note 319(2)). This would immediately explain light deflection due to gravitation. Note carefully that ECE2 is generally covariant, while Newton is classical and non relativistic (Newton is not a theory of general relativity while ECE2 is part of a generally covariant unified field theory). So the velocity v can approach c in ECE2 without any conceptual contradiction. Classically, v cannot approach c because in a classical theory the Lorentz factor is missing.

## Discussion of 319(2)

The meticulous checking and inductive work Horst Eckardt and Douglas Lindstrom means that it is unlikely that there are any technical errors in the UFT papers, so that leaves people free to deal with concepts. This kind of work (ECE2) started with UFT313, which works torsion in to the second Bianchi identity, then UFT314 to UFT318 develop the new theory in vector format. This means that there are many new ideas and developments possible. The entire edifice of ECE and ECE2 is built directly on very solid rock – Cartan geometry, taught at all good universities such as Harvard, UCSB, Chicago and Caltech. Sean Carroll taught it at these universities to graduates. Imagination is the most important part of science. So ECE and ECE2 are a bit like “Ulysses” and “Finnegan’s Wake”, which are books that are densely packed with multiple meanings and metaphors, word inventions and so on, they are also long chains of ideas. “Dubliners” and “Portrait of the Artist as Young Man” are less densely packed, but are powerful stuff. All four books were banned in some countries for years, being dangerously truthful. The old physicists would also like to ban ECE and ECE2 completely, because they challenge them fundamentally and are uninhibited by dogma and peer pressure. When it comes to ECE and ECE2, Wikipedia has been thrown into the Liffey. Joyce’s protege the Nobel Laureate Samuel Becket developed the Joyceian method a lot further.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/06/2015 09:46:09 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 319(2)

Incisive questions as always by Horst. You seem to have broken into a sprint Myron leaving the rest of the field trailing. ECE is a great new advance – yet more clarity.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

## The Newtonian Equivalence Principle

Many thanks, this was first derived in UFT141, but ECE2 provides a rigorous method of eliminating the tangent space indices, and bringing both torsion and curvature in to the theory. ECE and ECE2 make up a long chain of ideas and reasoning over more than thirteen years of development. My ancestral cousin John Aubrey attributed the discovery of the inverse square law to Robert Hooke as described in this blog (John Aubrey “Brief Lives”, a classic of literature consisting of short biographies, or brief lives). Hooke was Aubrey’s colleague at Oxford. According to Aubrey, Hooke gave the basic idea to Newton, but the latter used his powers of reasoning to develop the universal law of gravitation from 1665 to 1687. However it was Leibniz who first develop the correct orbital equation, in which Newtonian attraction is counter balanced by centrifugal repulsion. It is usually written in the textbooks that Newton inferred the inverse square law at his ancestral home of Woolsthorpe Manor in 1665, and spent the next twenty years developing the calculus needed to explain why the inverse square law gives an elliptical orbit. A recently discovered autograph manuscript by Robert Hooke has been evaluated at a million pounds. It is handwritten minutes of Royal Society meetings. First and second editions of the Principia by Newton are also very valuable. My Ph .D. supervisor Mansel Davies had a second edition which he showed me. It is written in Latin and does not use modern calculus at all. For non specialists it is exceedingly difficult to find where the Newton laws occur or how they are inferred. Similarly, Kepler is written in Latin and it is almost impossible to find where his three orbital laws occur. The best account is Koestler, “The Sleepwalkers” (online). The Hooke / Newton inverse square law explains the three orbital laws of Kepler but as is well known does nto explain light bending by gravitation and so on. This has been explained in the x sub theory of ECE (2014) without using Einstein’s ideas at all. The aim now is to explain it using ECE2.

Fundamentally important of course. Now students of all ages can understand Newton properly for the first time – with no assumptions.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

## Nominations for the Royal Society Copley, Royal and Davy Medals

I wish to kindly thank the nominator and supporter for these nominations. The Royal Society has acknowledged receipt of the attached and the assessment is carried forward over three years. At this level there are many excellent candidates but none would have produced the totality of work over forty four years continuously recorded in the attached. This work is making a phenomenal impact (M. W. Evans, “Collected Scientometrics” (New Generation, London, 2015 at £8.99 and UFT307 on www.aias.us)). It is the equivalent of James Joyce in science – modernist, avant garde, sending shock waves of the new all over the world. James Joyce was banned in Ireland for many years, but now his autograph manuscripts at the National Library of Ireland are probably worth twenty to thirty million euro’s or more. This is why my work is valued at about five million pounds currently and is being offered on ebay. It has been described by Christie’s of London and New York as valuable and important work in both science and literature. My “Collected Poetry” is to be published shortly and “Autobiography Volume Two” has just been published as a softback by New Generation of London at £8.99. At this level, a nomination is as good as the award, (like an Oscar nomination). This is work produced from Wales by a native Welsh speaker of Mawr, with of course key input from the international colleagues, notably the leading small institute in the world, AIAS. This shows what we can do in Gw^yr (Gower), and in Wales, given the chance. Some regions of Wales are among the poorest in all Europe, and I think it needs to be fully independent and look after itself.

Arglwydd Glyn Tawe a Gw^yr.

LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS FOR NOMINATORS AND SUPPORTERS.docx

## The Definition of U in Note 319(2)

In the Newtonian limit:

U = m phi
g = – del phi
phi = – MG / r

so
g = – MG / r squared

and Newton defined:

F = mg = -mMG / r squared

Newton simply assumed this equivalence principle without proof, but it has been derived in ECE and now in ECE2. Newton assumed that the mass m in F = mg is the same as the mass m in F = – mMG / r squared. The reason for this is now known to be geometry from ECE and ECE2 theories. So this verifies teh antisymmetry laws of ECE and ECE2 to many orders of magnitude, because the equivalence principle has been verified experimentally to many orders of magnitude, starting with Galileo (two different masses reach the ground at the same time). The reason for this is that the acceleration g of the earth is defined by the mass M of the earth and is independent of the masses of the test particles (or two stones of diffferent mass dropped to the ground). Apparently Galileo used inclined planes and did not drop stones from the leaning tower of Pisa. Teh antusymmetry laws of ECE and ECE2 completely change dynamics and electrodynamics and were introduced in UFT132 ff. by Eckardt, Lindstrom and myself.

So U is the potential energy of gravitational attraction in joules. The total energy is the hamiltonian:

H = E + U

In ECE theory there is a new minimal prescription:

p = mQ

which is the equivalent of the electrodynamical

p = eA

ECE2 is a theory of general relativity in which both torsion and curvature are correctly non zero. The Newtonain acceleration due to gravity g is augmented to:

g = – (2/m) (del U + partial p / partial t)

and equated to spin connection terms by antisymmetry. This gives rise to non Newtonian effects which can no longer be attributed to the incorrect Einsteinian theory. ECE2 gives the conditions for counter gravitation and counter gravitational devices have already been designed by AIAS / UPITEC in cooperation with Alex Hill (www.et3m.net, www.upitec.org, www.aias.us). Note 319(2) is the simplest theory to date of counter gravitation. The antisymmetry laws of ECE were introduced in UFT131 ff. and completely change electrodynamics and dynamics. They can be used to derive the Newtonian equivalence principle:

F = mg = – mMG / r squared

from geometry. They explain why m is the same in the two left hand sides of the above equation, which has been verified experimentally to many orders of magnitude, starting with Galileo.