Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

To: alex.hill, avanderm, burleigh.personal, corbis, dwlindstrom, Franklin Amador <fdamador>, Gareth Evans <garethjohnevans>, Raymond Delaforce <raydela>, "Robert P. Cheshire" <rpmc_6>, sean, simon, steve.bannister, Horst Eckardt <mail>, "K. L. Rajpal" <rajpalkl>, Kerry Pendergast <pendergastkerry>, Lorenzo Santini <lorenzo.santini>, Michael Jackson <cr1460solarinc>, Russell Davies <russdavis1234>, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis>

Fwd: Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

There is a very rapid development in the latest notes. The correct theory of precession using the de Sitter rotation (18) should be used, not the Wikipedia source I used for UFT110 . By now no one can have any confidence in Wikipedia. Our own method in the UFT papers is to go over an idea and derivation many times, sometimes for years. The correct result of de Sitter rotation (18) applied to the infinitesimal line element (1) gives Eq. (24) of Note 409(6), and the new law of all precessions, Eq. (25). In these equations the de Sitter rotation (18) refers to m orbiting M (e.g. a planet or in a binary pulsar). It would be interesting to find v sub theta for the planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Allobervablke precessions are described precisely by v sub theta. This is a simple result, easy to apply in astronomy. The correct derivation is given in Eq. (21). We have both derived this result independently. For ease of reference I give the incorrect derivation of Wikipedia in Eqs. (26) and (27). I used this uncritically in UFT110 but from now on the correct expression (25) should obviously be used in astronomy. The extra de Sitter rotation (18) refers to the object m orbiting M. Note carefully that when v sub theta goes to zero in Eq. (24) there is still a precession present. This appears to be a completely new discovery. The line element (1) itself gives a precession, without any de Sitter rotation. This is a fundamental precession due to the Lorentz transformation itself (the Lorentz boost). In the latest note 410(2) I related this new precession to time dilatation and length contraction. So the new precession is defined by experimental measurements of time dilatation and length contraction, which are very accurate.

I am a bit behind with going through the notes. It is not fully clear to me what the different kinds of rotation mean. In metric (1-3) the rotation of a coordinate value phi (connected with an orbiting mass) leads to the well known gamma factor. In (18) a frame rotation dphi’/dt is introduced that is an additonal rotation. It seems to me that this rotation has nothing to do with the rotation of the orbiting mass which is described by the angular velocity

omega = dphi/dt.

If this is an additional rotation, it leads to an additional angular velocity

omega’ = dphi’/dt.

This would mean that we cannot equate omega with omega’. The latter would have to be used in eq.(18) instead of omega and could be determined experimentally from the precession angle (23), but omega*r of the Newtonian part cannot be unified with omega’*r from frame rotation. Do I see something wrong here? Alternatively, the meaning of (18) could be that omega itself evokes an additional frame rotation. Then all is fine as described in the note.

Horst

Am 22.06.2018 um 17:09 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Good to hear from you! These experiments would be most interesting, in for example a pendulum. It is possible to work fluid dynamics into the ECE2 formalism through the expression for acceleration. From 2003 to 2018 a million page equivalents of material has been produced on all aspects of ECE and ECE2 physics,and every one of these million pages is read around the world continuously. So AIAS / UPITEC is the intellectual compass for all these people. Ideas are developing very rapidly. Th ECE2 precession of the pendulum can be explained with a e sitter rotation in exactly the same was as the precession of planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar.

Hi Prof. Evans,

I’ve been investigating ways to experimentally confirm aspects of the ECE2 fluid spacetime representation. This, for me, has become a somewhat difficult material science problem (owing to the limited resources here at my home). Dr. Horst Eckardt has provided additional guidance to aid in my efforts, which are ongoing.

However, I became aware of a recent publication, Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin ,Wojciech Florkowski, Bengt Friman, Amaresh Jaiswal, and Enrico Speranza Phys. Rev. C 97, 041901(R) – Published 10 April 2018 https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevC.97.041901 , to which I do not have access.

A general audience level article description (available here: When fluid flows almost as fast as light with quantum rotation, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-06/thni-wff062118.php ) prompted me to wonder how your recent work describing Thomas precession may be related to the companion fluid spacetime representation, and how the Thomas precession finds expression at the quantum level. My initial thought was that there might be some pertinent experimental facts revealed in this Physical Review C source article, notwithstanding any of the extraneous Standard Model gibberish contained therein, which may offer additional ECE2 corroboration.

cheers,

Russ Davis

Miami, FL