These define astronomy and cosmology in terms of the convective derivative, thus defining a moving coordinate system in general. It is shown that this coordinate system reduces to the plane polar coordinate system in well defined limits. The convective derivative is shown to be a special case of the covariant Cartan derivative the spin connection matrix being the Jacobian matrix as first defined in UFT351. It is possible using the moving frame to define any orbit.
Agreed, and many thanks. A distinguishing title would also be appropriate, I will think about the title along with the co authors.
Sent: 31/10/2016 16:44:15 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: FOR POSTING AS UFT361: “Principles of ECE2” Chapter One, Final Version
I suggest adding these new chapters to the publication section where they can be updated as appropriate. It would also be worthwhile to call it something more meaningful as there is already a PECE. Perhaps something along the line of your original description IE. Major advances in ECE2 theory 2016 (or similar).
On 10/30/2016 6:05 AM, EMyrone wrote:
This final version cleans up some minor typo’s.
Many thanks. ESR and NMR are magnetic phenomena as you know, and as can be seen from the new chapter one distributed yesterday there has been much progress in the past year in these areas. The Dirac approximation for example has been shown to lead to a classical hamiltonian that is always zero, which is nonsense. So the aproximation has been avoided, leading to new spectral structures graphed by Horst. Dirac was clever enough to see the answer before solving the problem, so carefully chose an approximation that he knew would work. This is not satisfactory because it is subjective, so a new theory is needed. I think that your ideas are good, and involve the quantization of fluid electrodynamics. This is the next step. One could set up the hamiltonian of fluid dynamics and apply the Schroedinger rules. Another method is to use the usual hamiltonian with the Coulomb potential. It is known now that the Coulomb potential of the H atom will induce intricate spacetime structure on the atomic level. Another approach is to realize that the Lagrange derivative is a covariant derivative, so quantization can take place through the ECE wave equation. At present this is just thinking out loud. Over the next few months I intend to write my part of the new book and also produce new papers. The ECE2 papers are being read over forty thousand times every year without a single objection. So we have forged a new school of physics and new methods of publication and education.
Sent: 31/10/2016 00:26:55 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Spacetime fluid analysis and atomic electron orbitals
In my initial thought on electron “orbits,” I was considering mainly Coulombic forces, but given that there are magnetic moments for electrons and nucleons, could magnetic forces be responsible for, or contribute to, an orbit precession in more than one plane giving rise to the “spherical shell” shape for the hydrogen ground state orbital, for example?
Thanks again, much appreciated.
In a message dated 31/10/2016 05:20:27 GMT Standard Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
On 10/27/2016 6:31 AM, EMyrone wrote:
This is UFT360 Sections 1 and 2 on the generally covariant inverse square law for all orbits, two dimensional and three dimensional: the acceleration due to gravity is the Lagrange derivative of the orbital velocity. The Lagrange or convective derivative is that in a moving frame of reference defined by astronomical observations of the orbits. Example moving frames of reference are given which can be graphed and numerically analyzed.
In a message dated 31/10/2016 05:19:41 GMT Standard Time, email@example.com writes:
On 10/28/2016 1:23 AM, EMyrone wrote:
The graphics in this section are as usual very helpful incisive, and show how the new law of fluid gravitation works. In addition to the previously distributed gnuplot graphics, of great interest in themselves, there are excellent new graphics of X and Y which define the moving frame of reference (moving coordinate system if you like) of the Lagrange or convective deivative:
F = mg = m (v dot del)v
where v is the orbital velocity. It is seen that the frame is dynamic, because X and Y depend on time, and is the moving frame of reference for the static elliptical orbit first analysed by Kepler using data by Brahe. These were Imperial Mathematici to the court in Prague, (Civil List Pensioners if you like). Hooke was the first to infer the inverse square law for the ellipse, and not Newton. Aubrey makes this perfectly clear in “Brief Lives”. Newton was the first to prove that the inverse square law gives the elliptical orbit. In UFT359 and UFT360 a completely new inverse square law is inferred, valid for all orbits, not just the ellipse. This is a law of ECE2 generally covariant unified field theory. All of this analysis is immediately applicable to electrostatics and the Coulombic inverse square law.
Sent: 27/10/2016 22:40:08 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Section 3 of paper 359
I wrote a text describing the figures and have added two figures for the
elliptical orbits. This section should be finished now.
The equivalent of 90,942 printed pages was downloaded during the day (331.573 megabytes) from 2,363 memory files downloaded and 371 distinct visits each averaging 6.5 memory pages and 12 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio for the day of 38.49, main spiders cnsat(China), google, MSN and yahoo. Collected ECE2 2079, Top ten 1616, Evans / Morris 957 (est), F3(Sp) 647, Collected scientometrics 603, Principles of ECE 366, Barddoniaeth / Collected Poetry 275, Eckardt / Lindstrom papers 250 (est), Collected Proofs 205, Evans Equations 177, UFT88 145, Engineering Model 115, CEFE 106, PECE 104, Self charging inverter 60, Llais 38, Lindstrom Idaho lecture 32, List of Prolfiic authors 27, Three world records by MWE 15, Pulsed LENR 13, UFT313 43, UFT314 35, UFT316 48, UFT317 41, UFT318 45, UFT319 61, UFT320 40, UFT322 47, UFT323 40, UFT324 56, UFT325 45, UFT326 41, UFT327 39, UFT328 47, UFT329 37, UFT330 41, UFT331 59, UFT332 39, UFT333 35, UFT334 40, UFT335 37, UFT336 41, UFT337 35, UFT338 37, UFT339 36, UFT340 30, UFT341 40, UFT342 31, UFT343 35, UFT344 41, UFT345 49, UFT346 54, UFT347 50, UFT348 57, UFT349 49, UFT351 50, UFT352 74, UFT353 57, UFT354 62, UFT355 84, UFT356 68, UFT357 44, UFT358 49, UFT359 41 to date in October 2016. Iparadigms ECE Article; Bowdoin College, Brunswick Maine UFT177; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M. I. T. ) UFT347; Tallinn University of Technology Estonia general; Chiayi County Educational Web Taiwan My Page. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for October 2016.
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 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
It should be “completely antisymmetric in all three indices” and not “asymmetric”. This is a completely new discovery in geometry reported in UFT354, a heavily studied paper, and was made by Douglas Lindstrom with help from Horst Eckardt and myself. I will fix this type in future postings, it is OK to post UFT361 for the present. All errata announcements go on to the blog and Wayback Machine.
Agreed, in one of our previous papers it was shown that the Lagrange derivative is an example of the covariant derivative of Cartan. You showed that the spin connection of the Lagrange derivative is the Jacobian. So this shows that:
g = Dv / Dt
where D denotes the Cartan covariant derivative. The reduction to the static frame in which
g =dv / dt
occurs when the spin connection vanishes. I will think about the direct transformation you suggest below, it is directly related to the spin connection.
Sent: 30/10/2016 09:53:25 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of Note 360(5)
OK, in the moving frame, r is perpendicular to v, we have to two cartesian coordinate systems, one for the fixed frame and one for the moving frame. It could be interesting to describe the direct transformation between both, maybe this will become quite complicated.
Am 29.10.2016 um 08:41 schrieb EMyrone:
Many thanks, this point is answered in UFT359 by using moving frames of reference. You provided very helpful graphics for these moving frames in UFT359, Section 3, by expressing X and Y in terms of r and theta. For a circular orbit, the frame of reference is X = r cos theta, Y = r sin theta, but for the ellipse and any other orbit it is different. The Lagrange or convective derivative is the derivative in the moving frame, and the latter is defined by observation for each orbit. Therefore v of Eq. (2) is equated with the observed v, and this defines X and Y. In the moving frame so defined, v is perpendicular to r. In the static frame X = r cos theta, and Y = r sin theta, r is not perpendicular to v for the conic sections. However, in the moving frame, r is perpendicular to v because v is proportional to – X i + Y j and r is proportional to X i + Y j. The definitions of X and Y are however different in the moving frame. The use of the convective derivative in this radically new way is a direct consequence of UFT349 ff., already very popular papers.
Sent: 28/10/2016 20:15:32 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: note 360(5)
As far as I understand the notes, the convective derivative leads to the
bold g = – v^4 / (MG) bold e_r.
I am not totally sure about this becaus eq.(2) in note 360(5) describes
directions of v which are perpendicular to
bold r = (X, Y).
Such a velocity direction is only valid for circular orbits. In elliptic
orbits bold r is not perpendicular to bold v.
This is discussed in UFT339, it is a dynamic equilibrium between elementary and ECE2 vacuum particles with no beginning and no end. “Beginning” and “end” are merely anthropomorphic assertions. I have no intention of reverting to creationism, a six thousand year old doctrine of many ancient peoples. I have no intention either of reverting to Big Bang in view of the huge worldwide popularity of my work. I do not wish to offend genuinely pious people (of which there are few, but those who are genuinely pious must be regarded with respect). I am a Baconian scientist. Every new idea of ECE2 is designed to be tested experimentally. The obsolete physics is no longer Baconian science at all to many people.
These are very good ideas, I will think about them carefully. The hamiltonian can be derived from fluid dynamics, the Mazur group in Belgium did this kind of work for molecular dynamics computer simulation. Then use the Schoedinger rules in the hamiltonian to get a new quantum fluid mechanics. The Coulomb law of the H atom can be generalized as in UFT360. UFT357 gives an explanation of the radiative corrections using fluid electrodynamics. This is important because it tests the theory experimentally to high precision and shows that the theory can be quantized to state of art preciison. Probably what is needed is to construct the hamiltonian and lagrangian of fluid gravitation and fluid electrodynamics, and proceed from there. One must always be careful to balance theory and experiment and this has always been my method. We don’t want the theory to go Rococo as in the standard model, but stick to the elegant Baroque with its counterpoint and fugue, in the manner of J. S. Bach. Otherwise we land up with contemporary string theory set to music, that would be scraping a blackboard with the chalk as in “Pink Panther”, when Clouseau pulls the wrong tooth.
Sent: 29/10/2016 18:34:19 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Spacetime fluid analysis and atomic electron orbitals
Hi Dr. Evans,
With regard to spacetime (or aether) fluid analysis and atomic features, could it be that electron shell orbitals are actually “classical” 3-dimensional orbits of the electrons about the central nucleus, and that orbitals are confined to “stable orbits” which might be influenced by “Lagrange point”-like features, and, or some other entity which might affect the local fluid flow “stability?”
For celestial orbits, the gravity forces are all attractive, but for atoms both attractive and repulsive forces are involved (such as for mutli-electron atoms, or molecules), which would introduce additional complication for analysis.
My intuition is often wrong, but my thought was that in a ordinary 2-dimensional highly eccentric elliptic orbit, it is more likely for the orbiting object to be found at a large radius since the orbital velocity is smaller there, and hence the object spends more time in regions farthest out in its orbital distance.
In the simplest case, might it be possible to seek a 3-dimensional “classical” orbit solution that correlates to the electron radial probability solution of the hydrogen atom, for example?
Hydrogen 1s Radial Probability –