Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

There were 2101 hits from 368 distinct visits, main spiders from google, MSN and yahoo. F3(Sp) 501, Autobiography Volume One (Auto1) 417, Autobiography Volume Two (Auto2) 107, Book of Scientometrics 218, UFT88 77, Llais 63, Engineering Model 48, Evans Equations 65 numerous Spanish, Englynion 50, CEFE 28, Autobiography Sonnets 14, Principles of ECE 9 (draft format) to date in August 2014. AWStats top ten unchanged, no wiki referrals. Monash University Australia UFT88; Technological University of Chile UFT140(Sp); Theoretical Physics Kiel University UFT177; Denver University Colorado Auto1; Astronomy Helsinki University Finland UFT58; University of Paris Diderot general, University of Poitiers general; Institute for Plasma Research India UFT16; Neath Port Talbot Group of Colleges: Neath, Pontardawe and so on: general. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for August 2014.

Usage Statistics for aias.us aias.us

Summary Period: August 2014 – URL
Generated 28-Aug-2014 12:00 EDT

The abstract expressionists could have done no better. I am delighted and amazed at these results by Horst, all coming out of the every day spherical polar coordinates. The Eckardt ellipses indeed have a special meaning. So I will proceed to writing up UFT269 now. The code can be made available on www.aias.us so that the readers can study the results with their own input parameters.

Many thanks again! These are full of interest and can be used in the final UFT269. This is what a three dimensional orbit would look like. They are works of art as well as of science so I am letting the general group here have a look at them. The Eckardt orbits must have a definite significance. So these orbits may exist and the astronomers can have a look for them. It would be interesting to study the transition to a planar orbit as theta get closer and closer to pi / 2 and L sub theta closer and closer to zero. Then the familiar planar orbit will emerge, an ellipse as first realized by Kepler.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/08/2014 15:24:53 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Discussion of 269(9) – graphics

These are 3D graphs of the r surfaces of the theta and phi ellipses. The theta elliptic surfuce is rotational symmetric in phi because it does not depend on phi, looks like a hat or UFO.
The phi elliptic surface looks like a snail shell and is shown from two oposite directions.
The graphics are for L=3 L_theta = 3 L_phi, ie. it is an Eckardt orbit.

Horst

The main result is the non planar orbit (28), which can be graphed in a 3-D spherical polar plot and animated. Under well defined conditions (25) and (26) it reduces to an Eckardt orbit. The usual theory of orbits is the Kepler Hooke Newton theory which gives the planar ellipse (27). In three dimensions it becomes the precessing ellipse (28).The new subsidiary equations of the lagrangian analysis are Eqs. (16) (17) and (18). So now I will proceed to writing up UFT269. Since this is a fundamental discovery in orbital theory there is a lot of mileage in it. No one can argue with spherical polar coordinates. This is a part of x theory, a subsidiary theory of ECE unified field theory. It is also applicable in all detail to the classical orbit of an electron around a proton. The usual hamiltonian is being used, expressed in spherical polar coordinates. This alone is sufficient to produce a vast amount of new information for astronomers to test out. An orbit need not be planar, and as GJE points out, the reason for planar orbits must be found. It must be due to a force additional to the inverse square. The planar constraint is theta = pi / 2, L sub theta = 0, L = L sub phi. This is highly artificial. So planar orbits are a small class of orbits which happen to occur in our solar system due to evolution.

OK thanks, this could be a useful subsidiary condition but the analysis leading to the precessing ellipse is the important one.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/08/2014 14:58:52 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Note 269(9) Corrigendum

Eq.(17) can be resolved for theta dot, and this can be inserted into (9), removing the variable theta dot. But this does not give any simpler expression.

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 28. August 2014 um 14:22 geschrieben:

Combine Eqs. (9) and (17), not (9) and (16). this leads back to Eq. (10), which is a subsidiary constraint. However, Eq. (10) is overcomplicated and the simplest constraint should be used, Eq. (16). This all comes out of the lagrangian analysis with lagrangian variables in a basically straighforward way, giving though a very useful result (28).

269(9).pdf

There have been many wolves howling away for a century, the loudest are the following.

1) The old theory does not work, it completely fails in whirlpool galaxies.
2) It was developed without torsion. The commutator method of the definitive proofs of www.aias.us show that neglect of torsion results in the curvature becoming zero, and no gravitation.
3) The Binet equation shows that planetary precession cannot be described by the old theory without it developing an infinity (UFT264).
4) It has been replaced completely by ECE and x theory.

In other areas of the old theory UFT225 shows that electroweak theory is crass rubbish, it is completely meaningless. So the old theory is obsolete. There are many other refutations on www.aias.us. So I think that funding for obsolete physics should be transferred to something useful. The behaviour of the old dogmatists means that they should not be publicly funded. In no other area of culture would people behave so badly.

Combine Eqs. (9) and (17), not (9) and (16). this leads back to Eq. (10), which is a subsidiary constraint. However, Eq. (10) is overcomplicated and the simplest constraint should be used, Eq. (16). This all comes out of the lagrangian analysis with lagrangian variables in a basically straighforward way, giving though a very useful result (28).

You are right, the phi I used should have been phi dot. We should just run it through the computer to make sure all is right and I will post a corrigendum shortly. The main result Eq. (28) is not affected, and that is the result of interest for astronomy. The subsidiary constraints will provide additional infomration that will also be useful for astronomers.

In a message dated 28/08/2014 12:37:11 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

How exactly did you derive eq.(18)? When I combine eqs. (9) and (16) I obtain additional terms.
Will plot the surfaces r(theta,phi) with constraints and then try an animation of an orbit.

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 28. August 2014 um 11:43 geschrieben:

The main result is the non planar orbit (28), which can be graphed in a 3-D spherical polar plot and animated. Under well defined conditions (25) and (26) it reduces to an Eckardt orbit. The usual theory of orbits is the Kepler Hooke Newton theory which gives the planar ellipse (27). In three dimensions it becomes the precessing ellipse (28).The new subsidiary equations of the lagrangian analysis are Eqs. (16) (17) and (18). So now I will proceed to writing up UFT269. Since this is a fundamental discovery in orbital theory there is a lot of mileage in it. No one can argue with spherical polar coordinates. This is a part of x theory, a subsidiary theory of ECE unified field theory. It is also applicable in all detail to the classical orbit of an electron around a proton. The usual hamiltonian is being used, expressed in spherical polar coordinates. This alone is sufficient to produce a vast amount of new information for astronomers to test out. An orbit need not be planar, and as GJE points out, the reason for planar orbits must be found. It must be due to a force additional to the inverse square. The planar constraint is theta = pi / 2, L sub theta = 0, L = L sub phi. This is highly artificial. So planar orbits are a small class of orbits which happen to occur in our solar system due to evolution.

This is a new section which records the main achievements of a biography. The following are what I consider in retrospect to be my main achievements. Top first class degree of my class of 1971, I was told that this was among the best undergraduate degrees of the University College of Wales Aberystwyth, the premier College. Among the best Ph. D. degrees of UW in 1974, I was told this by Mansel Davies and others. Youngest recipient under modern rules of the Scientiae Doctor (D. Sc. degree), submitted in 1977 when I was 26, awarded early in 1978 when I was 27, a degree founded by the University of London and intended by it to be a distinction higher than full professor. I have held this distinction for thirty six productive years. Holder of the largest number of internationally competitive Fellowships in the world for any subject area. Numerous early discoveries in the far infra red and molecular dynamics, notably the use of the memory function. Co pioneer of molecular dynamics computer simulation, now a vast subject area. The highly competitive Harrison Memorial Prize and Meldola Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry of London. Founder of the European Molecular Liquids Group in 1980 at the National Physical Laboratory from Aberystwyth. Numerous discoveries with computer simulation and my own method of field applied computer simulation, University of Wales, University of London, IBM Kingston, Zurich and Cornell. Disovery of the B(3) field, published 1992. This led to several Nobel Prize, Wolf Prize and Milner Prize nominations. Inference of the ECE unified field theory from 2003 onwards. Pioneering of a new system of physics education, overturning the obsolete standard model. Civil List Pension 2005 at the personal discretion of the British Head of State, Queen Elizabeth, for distinguished service to science. Raised to the Gentry in 2008 and awarded a coat of arms. Included in “Burke’s Peerage and Gentry, Royal Section 2012” because of achievement and descent from the Princes. Several original discoveries in genealogy, poetry in Welsh and English. Thirty editions of the world’s leading reference vehicle, “Marquis Who’s Who”, World, America, Science and Engineering. over a thousand scientific papers and books. Last but not least, establishment of the AIAS and its world famous group of pioneering scientists.

I should think that the world of Baconian sceince agree with GJE. UFT225 demolishes the old unified field theory and it was again covered up at CERN. This is why the gravy train must stop. After a Nobel Prize was carefully fixed up in smoke filled rooms for a “Higgs boson”, it has been admitted that none of its support particles exist! The B(3) field refuted the Higgs boson in 1992, so that is the reason for the campaign of animosity. It seems that Vigier and others nominated me for a Nobel Prize, so the other side put the boot in. With science like that who needs a street fight? UFT225 reduces electroweak theory to complete rubbish, this is well known internationally. The old publication system of physics also had to be outflanked to get new science out in to thee open for honest colleagues to judge. The result is a Bob Dylan fan club.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/08/2014 09:37:16 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: The Irrelevance of Standard Physics

They have spent their lives trying to fix the unfixable. You have developed a new physics that is correct from first principles. Their broken physics churns out nonsense. The new physics addresses long standing issues in a consistent way – like wave particle duality. It raises new questions (as any good theory should) taking us in directions that are sensible, real and useful.

Sent from Surface

From: Myron Evans
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎28‎ ‎August‎ ‎2014 ‎08‎:‎15
To: bo.lehnert, dblake, pennbonvivant, raydela, corbis, normanpage, fritzius, ‘Stephen Crothers’, <a title="mailto:garethjohnevans, rpmc_6, burleigh.personal, avanderm, mpurcell, Alex Hill, <a title="mailto:ccefalas, simon.cliffy, fdamador, rajpalkl, steve.bannister, graham.hall, mksegumeto333, henryk.ratajczak, croca, dwlindstrom, Mike J, <a title="mailto:azjadczyk, sean, norpag, kp.phys, mail, simon, rob, russdavis1234, thenarmis, dewi.lewis1, wsd, arthur.turnerthomas, fsnape, sianifan, rpotter1, vivienne.swaby, samymor271236, meirion66, save.the.eagles2

Fully agreed, as a Civil List Pensioner I am gravely concerned about its overt dishonesty, the way in which it tries to ignore refutations. So if I were Permanent Under Secretary Sir Goronwy Daniel I would advise whether this is entirely wise, Minister.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/08/2014 07:52:33 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Unites States Airforce Reads Gareth Evans

His work has become irrelevant and he has become insignificant as you and Horst have pressed on with the new physics. Says a lot about the Nobel Prize!!

Sent from Samsung Mobile

This will be full of interest as usual. For a first theory impressive progress has been made and it is possible to experiment with more realistic potentials. That will almost certainly have to be numerical.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 28/08/2014 08:25:46 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Proton to Electron Mass Ratio

The parton distribution function found from Beltrami theory looks similar (with exception of the limit behaviour which will be discussed in paper 260). Unfortunately the energy parameter cancels out so that there is no statement about mass energies possible and the parton structure comes out the same for all particles (with a variable radius scaling). The theory we used is probably too simple, we should resume the subject at any time.
The part of paper 260 is nearly finished, I need about half a workday to bring it into final form.

Horst

EMyrone@aol.com hat am 28. August 2014 um 08:02 geschrieben:

Many thanks, I skimmed through this paper. It is speculative, but does contain a diagram with a torus structure. It all depends on whether the internal structure of a proton is governed by a Schroedinger equation with a particular potential. Horst is working on this now and this will be a much more rigorous theory than in this paper. There was an intense spike of interest yesterday on the blog because of the demonstration that the beta ellipse can be expressed as precisely equivalent precessing ellipses in theta and phi. Upon quantization this classical theory gives the orbitals of the H atom because we are working with the usual hamiltonian. This classical theory is completely original and opens up a lot of possibilities in orbital theory because it is fundamental to the inverse square law in spherical polar coordinates. For example it shows that general relativity is not needed for precession. The latter is not due to Einstein at all, it has been shown recently to be due to the ubiquitous Thomas precession, and fresh off the press, yesterday’s note which attracted immediate interest internationally. The Einstein theory is hopelessly wrong which is why friend ‘t Hooft gets up tight.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
CC: mail@horst-eckardt.de
Sent: 28/08/2014 01:45:21 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Proton structure

See Fig3 http://orbit.dtu.dk/fedora/objects/orbit:120960/datastreams/file_b168733e-b69a-40bf-b0e9-48a68cc3ffbd/content
Can similar mass ratios be derived from your current work? Regards Norman Page

Sent from Windows Mail