Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

After some discussions with Horst I refined the calculation to give Eq,(15), which is positive on both sides. The expression for the frequency of gravitational fluctuations, Eq. (11), remains the same. It can be concluded that vacuum fluctuations are the origin of the spin connection and of relativity itself, which has also been Horst’s view for some years. The vacuum is developed in exactly the same way as in Lamb shift theory, noting that this theory is classical and that Lamb shift theory is quantum mechanical.

a401stpapernotes5.pdf

This note can be viewed as the gravitational equivalent of the Lamb shift calculation, based on the same fundamental assumption, Eqs. (1) and (2). The angular frequency of the gravitational vacuum fluctuations is given in Eq. (19) and the isotropically averaged mean square fluctuation is given in terms of the magnitude of the vector spin connection in Eq. (22). The vacuum correction of the magnitude of the Newtonian force is given in Eq. (25). For forward and retrograde precession the spin connection can be found as in Note 401(3) and previous UFT papers. Using the magnitude of the force and the magnitude of the gravitational acceleration has the great advantage of reducing the complexity of the theory from fourth to second order in the Taylor series, so the calculation exactly parallels the well known Lamb shift calculation. The important difference is that this calculation is classical, and the Lamb shift calculation is one of quantum mechanics. So great progress has been made recently in the understanding of how the vacuum affects physics as we now it today.

a401stpapernotes4.pdf

This note assembles concepts of the major progress made in recent work (see UFT400) and gives a method of computing gravitational vacuum fluctuations from Eqs. (22) and (23), thus showing that they are the origin of orbital precession and of the concept of relativity itself. The Einstein theory is not used at all of course, because it is completely wrong. The aim of the computation should be to obtain precise agreement with experimental data assuming that the experimental methods are correct, a big assumption these days (see the criticisms by Crothers in PECE and PECE2, Miles Mathis and other leading scholars). However we accept the data for the sake of argument.

a401stpapernotes3.pdf

The aim is produce a precessing orbit from the Newtonian orbit through the use of Eq. (30) and the tensorial Taylor series to as many terms as feasible. In the first instance the isotropic averages to order integral n can be used as input parameters but in a more developed theory it is suggested that there exist a vacuum gravitational field (36) along the lines of Lamb shift theory.

a401stpapernotes2.pdf

OK thanks, the rigorously correct method is to make everything relativistic and part of a generally covariant unified field theory. Then the Lagrangian method and field equations are self consistent. So the note was written with this in mind. Eq. (19) shows that the same lagrangian is written in three different ways. I am particularly fond of UFT377, which gives retrograde precession. I included Eq. (25) from Ryder’s "Quantum Field Theory" to illustrate the use of a vector lagrangian. The relativistic Newton equation (34) gives retrograde precession. To me this is an amazing result. In another UFT paper reviewed in UFT400 I emphasized the point that EGR fails by an order of magnitude in S star systems, in the weak field regime. There is no way out of that one. It makes the claims of magical precision for EGR look like powder puff physics, all cosmetic, no intellectual substance, even naive and deceptive. When it comes to the all important computations, any convenient method can be used. You have already made impressive advances with computation, so I advise using the experience gained to find the best method of computation for each problem. I intend to extend this note with vacuum fluctuation theory but now I will go back to review paper 400 and finish that. The vacuum fluctuation theory is intended to include the extra vacuum potential in the relativistic lagrangian in order to obtain exact agreement with experimental data of all kinds.

Date: Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

What about the following thoughts:
I think the problem of different conservations of angular momentum comes from the definitions. If the momentum is explicitly defined by

L_rel = gamma m v

this makes a difference to the case where all motions are derived formally from the relativistic Lagrangian. Then the volocity v is automatically relativistic, there is no room for defining a non-relativistic v. The situation is different when an otherwise non-relativistic calculation is made relativistic afterwards. Then v has to be replaced by gamma v. To my opinion this does not depend on the choice of coordinates.

Horst

Am 04.02.2018 um 15:08 schrieb Myron Evans:

There is one fundamental question arising from UFT377, for the well known relativistic Newton equation and Minkowski force equation, which give retrograde precession, the relativistic angular momentum appears not to be conserved. The classical angular momentum is conserved. The proper Lagrange variable in this case is vector r. In the theory that gives forward precession, the relativistic angular momentum is conserved. The proper Lagrange variables in this case are X and Y. Since these are all standard equations of special relativity, something deep is going on,something that has not been realized in special relativity. ECE2 relativity is special relativity written in a space with finite torsion and curvature. Probably the best way forward is to write out the equations in plane polar coordinates and proceed from there.

I decided to develop this note while waiting for the site to come online. There is some new science, Eqs. (38) to (42) which can be integrated numerically. Both types of precession rigorously conserve relativistic angular momentum. The the Euler Lagrange equations can be used for vectors, I give an example from quantum field theory.

a401stpapernotes1.pdf