Archive for December, 2011

Calculating the Precession

Monday, December 26th, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Sunday, December 25, 2011 12:02 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Calculating the Precession

 To Dr. Horst Eckardt: This is again very interesting, in the previous papers the Newtonian theory was used with x = 1. For the astronomers the following method can be used to calculate the precession with their computers and supercomputers. We can write this paper up in due course in the new year. So everything in standard physics is Christmas crackers, which is slang for “completely mad”. This is why the phys lab at Pontardawe Grammar was locked away above the woodwork room, a cupboard on its own.

View article…

203(2): Geometrical Meaning of the Theory of Photon Mass

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:42 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 203(2): Geometrical Meaning of the Theory of Photon Mass

 This note defines the geometrical origin of Newton’s orbital theory in terms of the observations. It is shown that Newton’s theory is essentially geometrical, not in the sense of the obsolete Einstein theory but in the sense that Newton’s theory derives from a precessing ellipse in the limit x = 1, where x is the precession constant. The total energy E, kinetic energy T and potential energy V are geometrical quantities. The de Broglie equation is used to account for the fact that the photon is relativistic, it travels essentially at c. In this sense, special relativity is used to recognize that the Planck energy is the total relativistic translational kinetic energy of the particulate photon, i.e. the relativistic translational kinetic energy plus rest energy. For a photon with mass the latter is very small but not zero. The Einstein energy equation, from which gamma m c squared is derived, deals only with translational motion because it is a restatement of the relativistic translational linear momentum, p = gamma m v. With these careful definitions and estimates, the photon mass is derived from observation in a direct way, and is of the order of ten power minus fifty seven kilograms for one photon deflected by the sun. a203rdpapernotes2.pdf

View article…

Numerical solution for photon mass

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, December 22, 2011 10:54 PM
Author: metric345
Subject: Numerical solution for photon mass

 This is an excellent and important result! In a message dated 22/12/2011 21:55:58 GMT Standard Time I tried a Newton iteration method of Maxima tho solve the exact equation for m, but it did not converge. However a simple “trial by hand” works. Rewriting the equation to delta theta – 2*integral… = 0 and evaluating the left hand side for m must lead to a “residuum” of zero. The residuum is graphed in the figure. The mass has been re-scaled to units of 10 power -57 for numerical stability. The result is m = 1.859 * 10^-57 kg, about 10% larger than in the simplified calculation. I think you predicted this range of precision for the approximation. Horst

View article…

203(1): Checking the Assumptions of UFT202

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Thursday, December 22, 2011 7:34 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 203(1): Checking the Assumptions of UFT202

 This note checks the assumptions of UFT202, and they are found to be correct. The quantized energy E = h bar omega of one photon deflected by the sun is orders of magnitude greater than its maxmum orbital kinetic and potential energies in the Newtonian limit. Similarly the maximum quantized angular momentum h bar of one photon is orders of magnitude greater than its maximum orbital angular momentum. This is a calculation of key importance to physics, so its assumptions have to be checked carefully. In the visible range and higher the photon mass of ten power minus fifty seven kilograms does not depend on frequency, so it behaves as a particle. At lower frequencies the computer solution by co author of UFT203 Horst Eckardt will show that m starts to depend on frequency, so it is not entirely particulate in nature, more undulatory or wave like. This makes perfect sense. The assumption made in UFT155 was based on the Einstein theory, which has now been discarded completely as being incorrect in many ways. The calculation can be repeated for a Planck distribution of photons in a beam, and this can be done next. CERN visits our work at AIAS quite regularly (e.g. yesterday) so must know that its theory is entirely obsolete. I was told at UNCC that the first determination of photon mass would get an immediate Nobel Prize, so let’s wait and see. The photon mass has been determined directly from observation of the conical section orbit, in this case a hyperbola. The photon is deflected by a very tiny amount from a straight line, the famous 1.75 seconds of arc. There is a “velvet revolution” going on in physics as described by Michael Jackson, because the deflection of light is now known to have nothing to do with Einstein’s ideas. The calculation of the photon mass is very simple, so surely the time has come when the dogmatists accept very simple, but very profound, science. The photon mass is in line with other estimates, which give it as less than a certain amount. For the first time it is now known to be ten power minus fifty seven kilograms at visible frequencies or higher when the photon becomes particulate (Newton’s corpuscle of light). The entire U(1) sector symmetry of the standard model is refuted in yet another way, and photon mass means B(3) and vice versa as first pointed out by Prof. Jean-Pierre Vigier in a letter to me circa January 1993 in the historical source documents on this site. Vigier worked with Prof. Louis de Broglie for many years. Copenhagen is refuted in yet another way, the photon is both a particle and a wave, de Broglie’s own interpretation. As far as I know this was also Einstein’s own view. a203rdpapernotes1.pdf

View article…

Orbit of Photon is a Hyperbola

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:12 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Orbit of Photon is a Hyperbola

 The photon mass of ten power minus fifty seven kilograms means that it has a very large eccentricity, which I will give in UFT202, and so the orbit is a hyperbola, and not closed. This is exactly what the data indicate, the light from a distant star is deflected very slightly by the sun, 1.75 arc seconds. The precessing hyperbola is r = alpha / ( 1 + epsilon cos (x theta)), epsilon > 1 and the static hyperbola is given by x = 1, epsilon > 1. The existence of photon mass very clearly refutes the entire particle physics theory of the standard model as shown in UFT158 ff. It is well known that CERN ignores the numerous honest refutations of its work by many authors, so CERN should not be funded. It seems that the politicians know this, but are tied into CERN contractually.

View article…

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:17 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Comments on the Photon Mass

View article…

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:22 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Comments on the Photon Mass

 It is seen that the the photon mass just derived in an excellent well defined approximation does not depend on the frequency of the light, because of cancellation of terms, and this is an even more important result. The order of magnitude of ten power minus fifty seven kilograms has been defined for the first time, and without general relativity, using the older physics up to Planck in about 1900. The entire U(1) sector theory is refuted, and the B(3) theory corroborated. I am particularly delighted about this because I am not out to destroy Einstein’s work at all, I am out to improve it. My late colleague and co author, Jean-Piere Vigier, spent his entire working career on the search for photon mass, and his work is essentially corroborated. Both Vigier and Wheeler accepted B(3) immediately. Both were invited by Einstein to become his assistants at Princeton, and Vigier worked for many years with de Broglie. These are the greats of twentieth century physics. The discovery of the photon mass certainly deserves accolades for the whole AIAS group, which has stuck to its guns through all types of unethical assaults. I hesitate to say anything about the much devalued Nobel Prize except to say that there is a currency crisis. I assumed a Newtonian orbit, so x = 1, but if we vary x through its range, (2 pi), the order of magnitude of the photon mass remains the same order of magnitude. It is easy to remember because of all those varieties of soup. If the photon has mass m, it must follow a precessing elliptical orbit around the sun. Otherwise it has no mass m. It is observed to be deflected, so it has mass m.

View article…

202(10): Calculation of Change of Polar Angle in a Straight Line Propagation

Monday, December 19th, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Monday, December 19, 2011 4:55 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 202(10): Calculation of Change of Polar Angle in a Straight Line Propagation

 The change of polar angle in straight line propagation along the radial unit vector is shown to be zero. This is another refutation of EGR because it asserts that the change is pi. This can be seen in a standard textbook such as that by R. M. Wald, “General Relativity” (Chicago University Press, 1984, page 145, eq. (6.3.40)). Wald obtains the result pi from Einstein’s integral by asserting that M = 0 in reduced units. Here M is a constant, (the reduced mass of the sun). The mass of the sun is never zero, and cannot be varied. The correct method of obtaining the change of angle in a straight line is the obvious one (attached). Einstein proceeded to assert that the partial derivative of the angle of deflection, delta theta, with M can be defined. This is not true, because M is a constant. For example, in evaluating the integral of ax (I = ax squared / 2), where a is a constant, and x the integration variable, it cannot be asserted that a is a variable and that x is constant. This is obvious nonsense. Yet it was used by Einstein and repeated by dogmatists because Einstein used it. If the emperor says that red is blue, then it is blue, at least until you get clear of the emperor’s domain, then it becomes red again. a202ndpapernotes10.pdf

View article…

Final Version of Note 202(4), Checked by Computer Algebra

Sunday, December 18th, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:27 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Final Version of Note 202(4), Checked by Computer Algebra

 The experimental value for the deflection of light due to gravitation is eq. (8), checked by co author Horst Eckardt using computer algebra. This is also the Newtonian result when x = 1. It is clear that it depends on the mass m of the orbiting object. Both the Einstein value (17) and the commonly cited “Newtonian” value, eq. (18), are obviously incorrect because they do not depend on the mass m. So the textbook physics is falling apart. In my view the relativists now have no credibility, and should certainly not be funded or awarded big prizes. a202ndpapernotes4.pdf

View article…

FOR POSTING : Definitive Proof 7, Final Version

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 4:39 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: FOR POSTING : Definitive Proof 7, Final Version

 This version corrects a small typo in the last line, and means that in general relativity there is a basic self contradiction in that if a particle is assumed to be at rest, it has a velocity v = c / 2. This result is so obviously self contradictory that all can see that the theory is incorrect. An incorrect theory must not consume lavish public funding, and an incorrect theory must not be trumpeted by the media – that does a lot of harm to science. These are some of the many major consequences of UFT194. Even deeply entrenched dogma falls by the wayside. It is unethical to apply for funding for a theory that is known to be incorrect, and it is unethical to publish an incorrect theory. Note carefully that UFT194 uses the equations of general relativity themselves, and finds them by incisive but simple analysis to be self contradicatory and absurd. The ethical thing to do is to note that the theory is obsolete and to seek a new theory that must be tested against experimental data. Only then can work in general relativity be funded. adefinitiveproof7.pdf

View article…