Discussion of Note 405(3).
Thanks for studying this note. Eg. (25) originates in Eq. (24), which is the now obsolete method of rotating the so called Schwarzschild metric, a method used by de Sitter in 1916, and then by Thomas for the Minkowski metric. One can see Eq. (26) in Eq. (24). Eq. (21) is the velocity v of the ECE2 covariant frame rotation (Thomas precession) needed to reproduce the claim by NASA / Stanford. Eq. (26) is the relation between the velocity obtained by rotating the Schwarzschild metric (v sub 1) and the velocity obtained by rotating the ECE2 metric (v). Eq. (26) is the premultiplier of the second term on the left hand side of Eq. (24) To obtain Eq. (17) I used the NASA / Stanford result (15) reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. (106, 2201101), and Eq. (15) to convert from milliarcseconds to radians. Finally I adjjusted from one earth year to 90 minutes, the time taken for one orbit of Gravity Probe B. One can check the result (17) with Maxima. It is the precession in radians per orbital interval of Gravity Probe B (90 minutes in a polar orbit). As you mentioned a few days ago, the use of the earth year by NASA / Stanford is irrelevant and misleading. I think that NASA / Stanford is very dippy, because it completely ignores gravitational precession (the main precession) and uses magic to separate the de Sitter precession from the Lense Thirring precession. It "forgets" to separate them from the gravitational precession. This wouldn’t get a freshman very far in an examination. Howlers such as this come from laundering the data to suit a preconception – the opposite of Baconian science. The claimed agreement with a deeply dippy EGR is also magical, and this is true for all the much vaunted claims of EGR having been tested to incredible (i..e. unbelievable) precision. Einstein collapses completely in almost a hundred diifferent ways in the UFT series alone, and Stephen Crothes has also taken it to the cleaners. I used the obsolete Schwarzschild metric rotation only to illustrate the obsolete theory. Also ij deep trouble is the obsolete "establishment" of physics, which has failed to censor ECE theory and a large number of refutations.
405(3) : Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
I do not quite understand eqs.(26) and (27). If (21) is the result that gives the experimental result (14), then it should be
v = v_1.
This follows from the fact that eqs. (10) and (25) are formally identical and should give the same result for Delta phi. Where did you obtain (26)? This gives a strongly different result. There seems to be a numerical error in (17), it should give
v^2 = 1.567*10^8
According to (26), v_1^2 is
v_1^2 = 2.701*10^8.
or
v_1 = sqrt(v_1^2) = 16435.
This is of course different from v=12520 of eq.(21).
Horst
Am 12.04.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:
Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession
This note gives an exact description of geodetic precession or de Sitter precession as claimed by Gravity Probe B using a velocity of frame rotation given by Eq. (21) from an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession in which both torsion and curvature are non-zero. The experimental claim is 5.48 ten power minus nine radians per orbit of Gravity Probe B (a ninety minute, almost circular, polar orbit). The standard model bases its theory on the Thomas rotation of the obsolete "Schwarzschild metric", and this is well accepted internationally by the ECE2 School to be a completely incorrect theory. An account of the standard model theory is given just for the sake of comparison. Finally the experimental claim from Gravity Probe B for the precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring or frame dragging effect) is 3.25 ten power minus eleven radians per GPB orbit, which compares with the ECE2 result at the equator (Note 405(1)) of 4.10 ten power minus eleven radians per GBP orbit at the equator. It is as clear as mud how NASA / Stanford makes these experimental claims. The LT effect is two orders of magnitude smaller than the de Sitter effect, and NASA / Stanford ignore both the orbital precession and the Thomas precession. Yet they claim that their results verify the obsolete and incorrect .Einstein theory.