Agreed on this. The 3D theory can be made relativistic by using the metric with spherical polar coordinates, then deriving the Thomas precession in 3D. I will have a look at this next. It should also be possible to derive light deflection by 3D theory, following the methods used earlier this year in x theory.
To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/10/2014 09:28:13 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: 276(2): Simplest Explanation for Orbit PrecessionWe obtained the explicit form of x (dependent on parameters M, alpha, etc) from relativistic calculations earlier. Is there a way to bring both derivations together? For example that relativistic effects produce 3D orbits?
Horst
EMyrone@aol.com hat am 28. Oktober 2014 um 10:17 geschrieben:
This is Eq. (14), in which the experimentally observed orbit precession is explained by L / L sub Z in three dimensional orbit theory. Here L is the magnitude of the total angular momentum and L sub Z is its Z component. So all orbits are three dimensional QED. In the solar system and elsewhere they give the illusion of being two dimensional, but the precisely observed precession of the perihelion means that they cannot be explained by two dimensional theory. Equation (14) is derived in two ways, with a Maclaurin expansion method and with a Taylor expansion method due to Horst Eckardt. Both methods give the same result. This is another major breakthrough in orbit theory made by ECE theory and AIAS. It shows that the incorrect Einstein method is not needed at all. Precession can be described classically by use of the spherical polar coordinates in orbit theory instead of the four hundred year old method based on the plane polar coordinate s.