Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:20 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: Refutation with different exponents in the EGR equation
| Many thanks again. This is another very important result, it means that the Einstein theory is only one out of an infinite number of possibilities, each giving the illusion of a precessing ellipse. As Einstein himself wrote, nature is very subtle, or words to that effect. This result means that the miscalled Schwarzschild metric is a fluke, as well as a contrivance. It always comes back to the fact that there is only one true precessing ellipse or conical section:
u = 1 / r = (1 + epsilon cos (x theta)) / alpha
Common sense means that no other function will give this function.
In a message dated 24/11/2012 16:11:34 GMT Standard Time, writes:
I tried out terms from first to fourth order, with positive and negative delta constant, and additionally exponents -1, -2. In all cases the ellipse is distorted in a way that pressession-like orbits appear. This seems to be a general behaviour of a perturbation of the equation as expected.
Horst
Am 24.11.2012 15:26, schrieb EMyrone
These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.
|
View article…
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 24th, 2012 at 9:44 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.