Examplesor collapsing orbit

Collapsing and Precessing Orbits from the ECE2 Orbit Equations

These are obviously major advances that go way beyond the standard model’s Einsteinian general relativity. We are clealry witnessing history being made, and not for the first time in the UFT series. If the physics prize system were working properly, and not bogged down in petty and obsolete dogma, these advances are obvious candidates for a Nobel Prize or two in physics, and a Peace Prize for new sources of energy. My Ph. D. supervisor Mansel Davies taught that we graduate students should not be boastful but also not over modest, just state the facts and state the truth. These advances are fully worthy of a Milner Prize, and a Millennium Prize for showing that B(3) implies photon mass. It is now possible to experiment with m(r) functions and spin connections to explain any orbit, including the Hulse Taylor and S star orbits.

I used the m functions of UFT 190, eqs. (64,65), and modifications. With
suited initial conditions and parameters, the collapsing orbits of Fig.
5 and Fig. 9 come out. The Einstein-like m function gives reverse
precession while the relativistic theory with m(r)=1 gives forward
precession of the elliptic orbits. I will write up section 3 of UFT415
now and then section 3 of UFT 414.

Horst

Plans for UFT416

This is another fundamental mathematical discovery by Horst and works its way through the whole of mathematics. This means that r = r(t) and phi = phi(t) must be worked in to any orbital calculation. It is by no means obvious that mk space requries this. Indeed, Sean Carroll describes the obsolete Schwarzschild metric as a steady state metric, but in dynamics, the old Schwarzschild metric is m(r(t)) = 1 – r0 / r(t). In the hamiltonian and lagrangian, r dot appears, so that means that r is a function of t and must always be a function of t whenever it appears. Similarly phi = phi(t), X = X(t) , Y = Y(t) in planar cartesians. So the two equations of motion of an orbit are dH / dt = 0 and dL / dt = 0. This is a brilliant numerical analysis by Horst Eckardt and the way is now open to describing any orbit in the universe without using Einsteinain general relativity at all. It also checks that the code is right. So any Nobel nominations under new rules, if they come about, must include Horst Eckardt. They may even allow nominations for the entire AIAS / UPITEC. A Peace Prize nomination for work on new sources of energy can already be made for the entire group.

Subject: Re: Fwd: Plans for UFT416
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I did a test calculation with the two expressions for E and L as you sent over. When m(r) is taken not time-dependent, the quantities are not conserved. However when the r coordinate in m(r) is handled as trajectory coordinate, i.e.

d m(r)/dt = dm(r)/dr * dr/dt,

then both quantities are conserved perfectly! This confirms my opinion that trajectories are different from physical fields in general. The solutions of the field equations as well as the spherical symmetric m(r) are fields, i.e. defined in the whole space and have no time dependence in the static case. However when solving equations of motion, we have to apply the mathematical apparatus completely and are not allowed to make exceptions. With the same justification one could say that the gravitational potential is a field and derivatives like d Phi/dt have to be omitted. However there is no such exception in the Lagrange mechanism for example, therefore these terms have to be included, otherwise the equations are not consistent in a mathematical sense.
In the example the gamma factor (with m(r) Schwarzschild-like) is

1 45 ⁢ r − 0.001 r 2 + 1 30/sqrt(-(r_d^2+phi_d^2*r^2-900*(-1/(45*r)-0.001/r^2+1)^2)/(-1/(45*r)-0.001/r^2+1))
See images for orbit, gamma, E and L.

Horst

Am 29.09.2018 um 14:40 schrieb Myron Evans:

Plans for UFT416

After some literature searching of UFT papers and other online sources I can confirm that the two constants of motion of the m theory are E = m(r) gamma m c squared

and
L = gamma m r squared phi dot
These can be derived using Lagrangian, Hamiltonian and Hamilton Jacobi methods, all giving the same result. So the two equations of motion are given by :

dH / dt = 0

Should all Nobel Prizes be canceled for a year?

Fwd: Should all Nobel Prizes be canceled for a year?

Many thanks again, I would strongly encourage all AIAS / UPITEC members to participate in this forum with suggestions for new ways of measuring impact and productivity, and fair assessment of radically new theories which have been accepted and which have matured. I should guess that there are bout half a dozen nominations already for B(3), and there is a huge amount of interest in ECE. We have run up about fifty nominations in all for honours and awards.

Should all Nobel Prizes be canceled for a year?
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

The Losing The Nobel Prize forum is open to scientists and nonscientists alike to submit proposals to reform and improve the Nobel Prizes.

Should all Nobel Prizes be canceled for a year?

Should all Nobel Prizes be canceled for a year?

By Brian Keating
This year’s Nobel Prize for literature was nixed because of a sex scandal. Other Nobels have neglected key c…

What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity

What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity

Many thanks to Kemal Rajpal, they should start by considering theories of physics that are not dominated by standard modellers, and should allow candidates to apply, taking account of modern methods of impact measurement. I would encourage further nominations for B(3) and for ECE theory.

What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity

What the Nobels are — and aren’t — doing to encourage diversity

The prize-awarding academies are making changes to their secretive nomination processes to tackle bias, but some…

Plans for UFT416

Plans for UFT416

After some literature searching of UFT papers and other online sources I can confirm that the two constants of motion of the m theory are E = m(r) gamma m c squared

and
L = gamma m r squared phi dot
These can be derived using Lagrangian, Hamiltonian and Hamilton Jacobi methods, all giving the same result. So the two equations of motion are given by :

dH / dt = 0

Conservation of CPT

Conservation of CPT

Recent experiments at CERN and Sao Paolo have confirmed conservation of CPT. I mention this because B(3) conserves C, P, T, CP, PT, CT and CPT. I can confirm that no one has ever used the mythical "Complete experiment symmetry" used by Barron in his notorious attack on B(3). I cannot use the word criticism, it was an ad hominem attack that failed. In my reply to Barron, after consulting some particle physicists, I showed effectively that the "complete experiment symmetry" of Barron and Buckingham does not exist. I will continue tomorrow with volume three of my autobiography which will analyse those sordid attacks on new thought. The people who suffered the most from UNCC were completely innocent family members.

PS: Fwd: Double Cross Check of the m Theory

Very interesting as usual. In UFT415 the Lagrangian is defined in Eq. (57) to give the relativistic momentum p as in Eq. (55). So the lagrangian is defined to give the correct relativistic linear momentum. The angular momentum is then L = r x p. The position vector r is calculated from first principles in Eqs. (1) to (11). The kinematics are very fundamental and in UFT414 the total energy and angular momentum were conserved. Numerical experimentation for Section 3 would be most interesting and very important. For a stationary metric m(r) must be time independent as in Carroll’s lecture notes. If so, the conservation of angular momentum means that d (gamma m r squared phi dot / (m(r)) = 0 , i.e. d (gamma m r squared phi dot) = 0. This is Eq. (67). It follows that conservation of angular momentum constrains the choice of m(r). It is already known that m(r) = 1 conserves angular momentum. Some more information is available from dH / dt = 0, where H = gamma m c squared – mMG / r. H is the hamiltonian and is of course conserved. Using a time dependent m(r) means a non stationary metric, and it may be that a non stationary metric is needed for conservation of H and L in m space. That would be a highly interesting result. Since no one has done this type of work before, the numerical work is very important. I also recommend having a look at Carroll’s lecture notes to find out exactly what he means by m(r). Finally, Steve Crothers’ metric is more general than that of m theory. Another clue is that if m = 1 – 2MG / r c squared, the obsolete Schwarzschild metric is obtained and presumably that conserves angular momentum and total energy.
: Fwd: Double Cross Check of the m Theory
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Meanwhile I did some tests. With the m(r)-dependent gamma and the Lagrangian (in my earlier email a minus sign was missing)

L = – m*c^2/gamma – m*M*G/r

(without explicit m(r)) the angular momentum

L1 = gamma / m(r) * m r^2 phi dot

is conserverd, but oly if the time dependence of m(r) is respected. I guess this is similar to the potential which, considered as a field in space, is time-independent. However, the Lagrange mechanism computes time curves (trajectories) in space, therefore the coordinates in the equations of motion relates to a mass point in motion. This then holds for all occurences of r in the equations. The equations do not become significantly more complicated. There is a summand

in the equation for d^2r/dt^2 which requires that m(r) has to compensate c^2 in the transition to the non-relativistic case. This is fulfilled for m(r)=1, but may require that m(r) does not drop too steeply for r–>0.

I just saw that you sent over UFT 415. I can add these discussions to section 3 but it may mean that the cross checks are not complete if we agree that the time dependence of m(r) has to be added.

Horst

Am 28.09.2018 um 12:10 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

Obviously you arrived at a different expressions for gamma and the Lagrangian as before. Do I see it right that now is

L = sqrt(m(r))*m*c^2/gamma – m*M*G/r,

gamma =

With these definitions, the Lagrange formalism now gives the constant of motion

where the factor 1/m(r)^1/2 is contained the first time.

With the definitions I used before, none of angular momentum or total energy was conserved. I will check this with the new definitions.

Horst

Am 26.09.2018 um 15:21 schrieb Myron Evans:

Double Cross Check of the m Theory

This note shows that with the lagrangian (25) the kinematic and lagrangian methods give exactly the same result, Eq. (29), so the orbit is found by integrating Eqs. (30) and (31). This is a precise double cross check. From the kinematic method the conserved angular momentum is Eq. (32). Eq. (31) shows that dL / dt = 0 as required. Also, this note gives a detailed explanation of the meaning of Eq. (8), the vector Euler Lagrange equation with Lagrange variable r bold. In quantum field theory four vectors are used as Lagrange variables. There is freedom of choice of the Lagrangian, the kinematic results are obtained by choosing the lagrangian (25). So everything is precisely self consistent. The kinematic method is very fundamental, more so than the lagrangian method, which in turn is more powerful than the Newtonian method. Horst’s powerful integrator routine can now be used with Eqs. (30) and (31). So now I will proceed to writing up Sections 1 and 2 of UFT415.

Millennium Prize Rules

As far as I can see the Clay Mathematics Institute does not allow direct applications, so it keeps out the competition, like amateur Wimbledon days before Laver and Rosewall arrived on the scene, followed by John Patrick (you got to be kidding man, the ball was absolutely in) McEnroe. The solution must have been published, the B(3) solution has been published many times and has already been nominated for a Nobel Prize. How did Atiyah announce his solution? I could announce the B(3) solution in the same place as Atiyah announced it. Money corrupts and a large amount of money sends people nuts. We must redress the balance or very soon, Prizes will be given for how tall you are or throwing a racket at the Umpire. In the case of Jocelyn Bell a Milner Prize was given for a Nobel Prize that she did not want. Any technician could have discovered the pulsar by just going through the results that were coming in from the apparatus built not by Bell but by Hewish at al. So Hewish et al. should have got a share of the prize. In other words with judgment like this who needs a stochastic process or Hogarth style politics? It just makes fools out of all dedicated scholars who are so much more deserving than a politician like Bell. I may as well have claimed a Nobel Prize for my first paper on cyanogen, a deadly poison under pressure. I could have poisoned Mansel Davies so that I got all the Prize. I could have opened a lecture bottle of cyanogen in his office, hidden in his jar of ascorbic acid. Inspired by Pauling, he ate the stuff. It is known as Vitamin C. Mix it with cyanogen and you get a Milner Prize.

Millennium Prize Rules

As far as I can see the Clay Mathematics Institute does not allow direct applications, so it keeps out the competition, like amateur Wimbledon days before Laver and Rosewall arrived on the scene, followed by John Patrick (you got to be kidding man, the ball was absolutely in) McEnroe. The solution must have been published, the B(3) solution has been published many times and has already been nominated for a Nobel Prize. How did Atiyah announce his solution? I could announce the B(3) solution in the same place as Atiyah announced it. Money corrupts and a large amount of money sends people nuts. We must redress the balance or very soon, Prizes will be given for how tall you are or throwing a racket at the Umpire. In the case of Jocelyn Bell a Milner Prize was given for a Nobel Prize that she did not want. Any technician could have discovered the pulsar by just going through the results that were coming in from the apparatus built not by Bell but by Hewish at al. So Hewish et al. should have got a share of the prize. In other words with judgment like this who needs a stochastic process or Hogarth style politics? It just makes fools out of all dedicated scholars who are so much more deserving than a politician like Bell. I may as well have claimed a Nobel Prize for my first paper on cyanogen, a deadly poison under pressure. I could have poisoned Mansel Davies so that I got all the Prize. I could have opened a lecture bottle of cyanogen in his office, hidden in his jar of ascorbic acid. Inspired by Pauling, he ate the stuff. It is known as Vitamin C. Mix it with cyanogen and you get a Milner Prize.

A British mathematician thinks he’s cracked a secret worth a million bucks

I see that this has to do with the Millennium Prize. The ECE2 theory has already shown that particles such as the photon cannot be arbitrarily light. This was pointed out by Vigier in 1993 when I submitted a paper on B(3) to Physics Letters. So glueballs in SU(3) cannot be arbitrarily light and we qualify for a Millennium Prize of a million dollars. O(3) electrodynamics has already applied Yang Mills gauge theory to electrodynamics, producing O(3) electrodynamics, and then ECE unified field theory. The B(3) field has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize as we know. So are we allowed to apply for a Millennium Prize? I will look it up. Sir Michael Atiyah O. M. used to work in gauge theory. The irrational establishment opposition to B(3) has long since evaporated.

A British mathematician thinks he’s cracked a secret worth a million bucks
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

A British mathematician thinks he’s cracked a secret worth a million bucks

A British mathematician thinks he’s cracked a secret worth a million bucks

Many mathematicians are wary of Atiyah’s proof for the infamous Riemann hypothesis—for multiple reasons.