409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.
Many thanks. Your calculations agree with Eq. (25) of note 409(2), providing a valuable cross check. The factor 3 in you Eq. (4) also appears in the standard model de Sitter precession, but by now all standard EGR calculations should be discarded as obsolete. This seems to be the view of leading thinkers around the world, judging by the feedback.
409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.
The note clearly states which velocity is an observable (v) and which is computed (v_N). This is important to know for an understanding.
To my knowledge the angular velocity is defined by
.
Therefore further simplifications can be made in eqs.(25-26). It follows:
and with the definiton of omega:
So with
and the ordinary velocity in spherical coordinates
the complete Thomas velocity would be
.
Horst
Am 11.06.2018 um 12:23 schrieb Myron Evans:
409(1): Orbital Precession and Light Deflection in Terms of the Thomas Precession.
This note gives a number of new results summarized on page three. The precession of any object is explained by the Thomas half and related to the vacuum fluctuation and spin connection in Eq. (21). The spin connection is expressed in terms of the Thomas half in Eq. (22). The Thomas half in orbital precession theory is therefore explained by the isotropically averaged vacuum fluctuation, spin connection and vacuum force. None of these concepts appear in Newtonian universal gravitation. Light deflection due to gravitation is explained precisely from the definition of the ECE2 covariant relativistic velocity under the upper bound (36) on the square of the Newtonian velocity (UFT406). It i shown that thi supper bound corresponds to the maximum attainable value of the Thomas half as in Eq. (42). Under this condition the relativistic velocity goes to c, and the deflection angle becomes (38), "twice Newton". This treatment of gravitation suffers from none of the fatal flaws of EGR, and is simple and elegant. The theory is for nearly circular orbits but can be made more precise as in many UFT papers. The EGR is by now a complete shambles, the only correct precessional theory is that of Thomas precession because it does not depend on solutions or metrics of the incorrect Einstein field equation. The Thomas velocity can be adjusted to reproduce the experimental data. For light deflection due to gravitation the Thomas precession theory is an exact theory. EGR is known now to be a complete shambles, some of the worst howlers have emerged in recent papers, but UFT88 is a famous classic and already a decade old. UFT88 has never been criticized and refutes EGR completely. There have been no criticisms of ECE and ECE2 for over a decade.