Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, November 24, 2012 7:27 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: 232(6): Refutation of EGR with curves of theta against r
| 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.
|
