Fully agreed, the overall theory is precisely self consistent. Also agreed about Eqs. (31) and (32). This note produces the possibility of merging counter gravity with orbital theory.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 26/05/2017 17:42:24 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 378(5): Orbital Theory and Conditions for Counter Gravitation

I see that my idea of combining the tetrad vector with kappa is even exactly possible 🙂
Shouldn’t eqs.(31,32) have the dots on the aether coordinates at the rhs?
Then the general solution for a constant omega_0 is:

where a depends on omega_0.

Horst

Am 25.05.2017 um 14:55 schrieb EMyrone:

In this note the ECE2 gravitational field potential relations of UFT318 and UFT319 are used to derive the equations of the planar orbit, Eqs. (27) and (28) in the presence of an aether momentum (5) defined by the gravitational vector potential Q bold. This appears in the ECE2 gravitational field equations but not in Newtonian gravitation. This aether momentum can result in zero gravitation according to Eq. (33) and also in counter gravitation, as first discussed in UFT318 and UFT319. Eqs. (27), (28), (31) and (32) are four simultaneous differential equations in four unknowns, and can be solved with Maxima. Counter gravitation can be induced with an electric field as discussed in UFT318. The presence of the aether momentum implies the existence of a gravitomagnetic field, so the full scope of the ECE2 gravitational field equations is being implemented. I will write up UFT378 now and in UFT379 apply the theory to a gyroscope inside a Faraday cage.

Agreed with this, the overall aim being to reproduce the astronomical data for any orbit as precisely as possible, for example the solar system orbits, binary pulsar orbits and S2 orbit. By now the astronomers may have discovered more retrograde orbits. agreed also about the typo in Eq. (25). The observed precession for any given planar orbit must be reproduced theoretically, as you know, with the right initial conditions. I am gradually working more of the field and potential equations into the orbital force equation.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 26/05/2017 16:33:49 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 378(3): Initial Condition Method

Actually the orbit is determined by initial conditions of X, Xdot, Y, Ydot. The initial quantities Xdotdot and Ydotdot do not enter the time integration. However eq.(2) opens a possibility of choosing the accelerations in a defined way, insofar this is an extensions of the usual mechanism.
In eq. (25) the denominator c^2 has to be removed.

Horst

Am 22.05.2017 um 14:20 schrieb EMyrone:

This is the initial condition method for aether engineering an orbit, using the general result (3) for any orbit from the field equations. The orbit will depend on the values chosen for the initial kappa vector components.The ratio of kappa sub X(0) and kappa sub Y(0) is a constant input parameter. Then the force component equations are solved simultaneously for this initial condition.

The definitions of orbits with kappa’s is very interesting, precisely what I had in mind, in your phrase “Aether engineering”. In 378(5) I began working with the field potential relations and derived the kappa vectors, tetrads and spin connections. The remarks about the tangent space and base manifold are also very interesting.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 26/05/2017 16:15:58 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 378(2): Field and Force Equations for Any Orbit: Aether Engineering

The kappa’s can be introduced in eqs.(27,28) and (29,30), but they are constrained by (22,23). Therefore there is no free choice of these. One can however use these equations to define initial conditions. Besides the position of the orbit, the total energy is affected, so it is possible to define a closed or open orbit by suitable kappa’s. The precession is impacted indirectly. If the orbit is smaller, the relativistic effects are larger.

Eqs. (34,35) are interesting from a geometrical standpoint. The geometry is underdetermined by the kappa’s, but assuming the omega’s being zero, we could assume a diagonal tetrad matrix:

q_XX = r(0)/2 * kappa_X
q_YY = r(0)/2 * kappa_Y.

This means that the tangent space is defined completely by the orbit when the base manifold is given (for example cartesian). A nice example that Cartan geometry is nothing else than defining coordinate transformations.

Horst

Am 20.05.2017 um 14:57 schrieb EMyrone:

This note shows that the relevant field equations of ECE2 gravitation, Eqs. (13) and (14), reduce to the simple equation (12), which implies Eqs. (22), (23) and (24). Any Newtonian orbit can be aether engineered using Eqs. (27) and (28), with the kappa vector components as input parameters. Any ECE2 retrograde precession can be aether engineered from Eqs. (29) and (30), and any ECE2 forward precession can be aether engineered using Eqs. (31) and (32). The structiure of the kappa vector was given in UFT318, and is defined in Eqs. (33) to (34) in terms of the tetrad vector q bold, spin connection vector omega bold and the length parameter r(0). These are the engineering variables. It ought to be possible to reproduce any observable orbit, and any obsrevable precession. For example a two or three variable least means squares fit to any orbit can be used. I used this type of method in the far infra red in the early Omnia Opera papers, using a NAG least mean squares routine on an Elliott 4130 mainframe with 48 kilobytes of total memory and packs of cards. The Algol code is on www.aias.us So now it should be possible to implement such a method on any desktop using Maxima. The latter can also check the hand algebra as usual, and integrate the equations.

This looks very interesting, and could go in to section 3.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 26/05/2017 16:05:25 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 378(1): Spin Connections for Forward Precession

The result for div g are computed for eq.(1), see eqs. o6 and o9 of the protocol.

Horst

Am 19.05.2017 um 14:48 schrieb EMyrone:

The forward precession is defined by Eq. (1), and the two relevant ECE2 gravitational field equations (2) and (3), the gravitostatic Coulomb law and Faraday law of induction. It is straightforward to show that the kappa vector is defined by Eq. (8), and that the acceleration due to gravity is defined by Eq. (9). It is checked that the same results as in UFT377 are obtained in the non relativistic limit, Eqs. (14) and (15). The aim is to fit the kappa components to the observed precession, for example solar system precession. This theory has been described as “aether engineering” by co author Horst Eckardt in Section 3 of UFT377. There are no singularities in this fairly simple theory. In reality, all the fuss about big bang and black holes is based on an unphysical singularity in the obsolete EGR, refuted in at least eighty three ways on www.aias.us by the UFT papers, and independently refuted by many others, notably Stephen Crothers.

378(1).pdf

Collected ECE2 1404, Top ten 1017, Collected Evans Morris 825(est), Collected scientometrics 427, F3(Sp) 243, Principles of ECE 170, Autobiography volumes one and two 115, MJE 107, PECE 106, UFT88 103, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 93, CEFE 84, Collected Proofs 64, Evans Equations 57(est), 83Ref 44, CV 40, SCI 36, PLENR 36, Engineering Model 36, Llais 31, UFT311 30, ECE2 20, UFT321 14, UFT313 21, UFT314 35, UFT315 25, UFT316 13, UFT317 21, UFT318 18, UFT319 21, UFT320 9, UFT322 27, UFT323 18, UFT324 15, UFT325 28, UFT326 10, UFT327 7, UFT328 30, UFT329 12, UFT330 11, UFT331 20, UFT332 9, UFT333 11, UFT334 15, UFT335 24, UFT336 27, UFT337 9, UFT338 18, UFT339 8, UFT340 15, UFT341 22, UFT342 10, UFT343 19, UFT344 26, UFT345 26, UFT346 20, UFT347 44, UFT348 22, UFT349 23, UFT351 27, UFT352 41, UFT353 29, UFT354 29, UFT355 29, UFT356 33, UFT357 40, UFT358 36, UFT359 35, UFT360 22, UFT361 13, UFT362 35, UFT363 22, UFT364 46, UFT365 14, UFT366 20, UFT367 24, UFT368 23, UFT369 18, UFT370 22, UFT371 15, UFT372 19, UFT373 13, UFT374 41, UFT375 25, UFT376 22, UFT377 13 to date in May 2017. Campo Limpo Paulista Brazil general; University of Waterloo Engineering Model; Winicker-Norimed Medical Solutions extensive download; Czech Technical University Prague general; Valencian Autonomous Community Special Relativity; INFN Milan Bicocca Italy (National Institute for Nuclear Research) UFT354; Serbian National Research and Education Networking Association University of Belgrade UFT142; Middle East Technical University Turkey levitron; University of Kiev UFT109; National Web Portal Government of Uganda general; University of York UFT88. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for May 2017.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

The latest notes give more details of what I have in mind. For example, for the Newtonian orbit and for retrograde precession we have

X(0) / Y(0) = kappa sub X (0) / kappa sub Y (0) = X double dot (0) / Y double dot (0)

so the orbit is completely changed by choice of kappa sub X (0) and kappa sub Y (0). Initial conditions do not lead to new types of orbit, but they change the orbit. I am looking for the most flexible and powerful way of fitting the orbit to the experimental data, for example, if the initial conditions are changed, how is the precession affected? The main idea is that the initial conditions are fixed by the aether, or vacuum. In the latest note I started using the field potential relations, bringing in counter gravitation.

In a message dated 25/05/2017 14:37:38 GMT Daylight Time, writes:

Without having read the latest notes in detail: What do you expect from defining the initial conditions X(0), X dot(0) etc. by the kappa values? This does not lead to new types of orbits, only a shift/rotation in the coordinate system as I already mentioned.

Horst

Am 25.05.2017 um 14:55 schrieb EMyrone:

In this note the ECE2 gravitational field potential relations of UFT318 and UFT319 are used to derive the equations of the planar orbit, Eqs. (27) and (28) in the presence of an aether momentum (5) defined by the gravitational vector potential Q bold. This appears in the ECE2 gravitational field equations but not in Newtonian gravitation. This aether momentum can result in zero gravitation according to Eq. (33) and also in counter gravitation, as first discussed in UFT318 and UFT319. Eqs. (27), (28), (31) and (32) are four simultaneous differential equations in four unknowns, and can be solved with Maxima. Counter gravitation can be induced with an electric field as discussed in UFT318. The presence of the aether momentum implies the existence of a gravitomagnetic field, so the full scope of the ECE2 gravitational field equations is being implemented. I will write up UFT378 now and in UFT379 apply the theory to a gyroscope inside a Faraday cage.

EPF Lausanne is currently ranked 14 in the world by QS, 30 by Times, 73 by webometrics and 92 by Shanghai. It was founded in 1853 and has 10,536 students. Its twin institute is ETH Zuerich. Both EPF and ETH have been regular followers of ECE theory since inception in 2003. We know this by scientometrics of unprecedented accuracy and detail recorded daily for over thirteen years. EPF is generally regarded as one of the best universities in the world. One recent achievement from EPF is Solar Impulse 2, an aicraft that is powered completely by solar, and which has flown around the world. So EPF Lauanne could work on counter gravitation and energy from spacetime. KwaZulu Natal was founded at Pietermarizburg in 1910, and extended to Durban in 1931. It is ranked 611 by webometrics, 501-600 by Times, 651 by QS and 401-500 by QS. UFT88 is a famous paper written with Dr. Horst Eckardt in 2007. It refutes Einsteinian General Relativity (EGR) by refuting its geometrical basis, the 1902 second Bianchi identity, by incorporating torsion. UFT88 has been read over the last decade an estimated thirty to forty thousand times at three or four hundred of the best universities in the world, such as EPF and ETH, the two best universities on continental Europe. It is also read extensively from private URL’s. UFT88 should be read with the document “Eighty Three Refutations of EGR” on www.aias.us, UFT99, Proofs from UFT99, UFT109, UFT255, UFT313, UFT354 and UFT376. So EGR is obsolete and has been replaced by ECE2 to the satisfaction of the leading intellectuals worldwide. It must always be bourne in mind that half of scientific papers published in the obsolete journal system are not read by anyone at all. This fact is easily googled up, and puts the impact of ECE theory in context, twenty two million hits and millions of readings using our open access system of distance teaching at all the world’s best universities, indeed all universities of any note in up to 182 countries. The sector I describe as universities, institutes and similar in The Book of Scientometrics Volumes One and Two is only 2% of the vast total interest. It is known that this vast readership is permanent and will last as long as humankind lasts.

The equivalent of 82,114 printed pages was downloaded (299.388 megabytes) from 1,973 downloaded memory files (hits) and 412 distinct visits each averaging 3.2 memory pages and 5 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 41.62, top referrals total 2,236,390, main spiders Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 1308, Top ten 981, Collected Evans Morris 792(est), Collected scientometrics 410, F3(Sp) 222, Principles of ECE 161, Autobiography volumes one and two 116, PECE 106, MJE 105, UFT88 100, Collected Eckardt Lindstrom 88, Barddoniaeth 83, Collected Proofs 64, Evans Equations 56, 83Ref 41, CV 39, PLENR 36, Engineering Model 33, SCI 33, Llais 31, UFT311 29, ECE2 16, UFT321 14, UFT313 17, UFT314 34, UFT315 23, UFT316 12, UFT317 20, UFT318 18, UFT319 20, UFT320 9, UFT322 25, UFT323 17, UFT324 14, UFT325 26, UFT326 10, UFT327 6, UFT328 29, UFT329 12, UFT330 10, UFT331 20, UFT332 9, UFT333 11, UFT334 15, UFT335 23, UFT336 27, UFT337 9, UFT338 18, UFT339 8, UFT340 13, UFT341 21, UFT342 8, UFT343 18, UFT344 25, UFT345 25, UFT346 20, UFT347 42, UFT348 21, UFT349 22, UFT351 27, UFT352 41, UFT353 27, UFT354 27, UFT355 28, UFT356 30, UFT357 46, UFT358 36, UFT359 34, UFT360 21, UFT361 11, UFT362 34, UFT363 19, UFT364 40, UFT365 10, UFT366 17, UFT367 19, UFT368 18, UFT369 13, UFT370 17, UFT371 13, UFT372 17, UFT373 12, UTF374 39, UFT375 24, UFT376 20, UFT377 11 to date in May 2017. Campo Limpo Paulista Brazil general; Institute of Physics University of Sao Paulo Brazil UFT43; City of Winnipeg UFT Section; Swiss Federal Instiute of Technology (EPF) Lausanne UFT88; Deusu search engine Omnia Opera; Washington State University UFT135; Centre for Molecular Biology Autonomous University of Madrid UFT150(Sp); Semilab Semiconductor Physics Laboratory Hungary ECE Devices, publications, CV; Philippines National Electrification Administration general; Pakistan Education and Research Network general; University of KwaZulu- Natal South Africa UFT88. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for May 2017.

Unauthorized

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Yes. Let’s go for the monthly payment option.

gj

On May 23, 2017, at 11:57 PM, Sean MacLachlan <sean> wrote:

Regarding building an API. I did some research. It looks like there is a standard way and toolset for creating an API that tech companies are forming around.

Using the SwaggerHub toolset around the Open AI specification.They have a free account which I’ve created but I think we’ll want to upgrade to a paid premium account for a month or two.
https://app.swaggerhub.com/prices

Reasons for a paid account:

1. Privacy, the free account leaves your API visible to the general public.
2. Collaboration, if Riafox or Pete gets involved for the website then multiple users are allowed.
3. Premium account will setup and integrate automatically with Amazon so we can get up and running faster.
4. Premium account syncs with our GitHub account so our code is automatically backed up.

I think the paid account is only necessary while we’re actively developing the API.
Once the creation work is done we won’t need the paid account anymore.
The API will incur new monthly expenses.
Using AWS Lambda which syncs with the premium account we only pay per use of the API, there are no fixed monthly expenses.
The pricing for AWS Lambda looks really cheap. It would likely be free for us until we had many hotel users.
https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/pricing/

Are we ok with getting a SwaggerHub paid account and using AWS Lambda?

Sean

In this note the ECE2 gravitational field potential relations of UFT318 and UFT319 are used to derive the equations of the planar orbit, Eqs. (27) and (28) in the presence of an aether momentum (5) defined by the gravitational vector potential Q bold. This appears in the ECE2 gravitational field equations but not in Newtonian gravitation. This aether momentum can result in zero gravitation according to Eq. (33) and also in counter gravitation, as first discussed in UFT318 and UFT319. Eqs. (27), (28), (31) and (32) are four simultaneous differential equations in four unknowns, and can be solved with Maxima. Counter gravitation can be induced with an electric field as discussed in UFT318. The presence of the aether momentum implies the existence of a gravitomagnetic field, so the full scope of the ECE2 gravitational field equations is being implemented. I will write up UFT378 now and in UFT379 apply the theory to a gyroscope inside a Faraday cage.

a378thpapernotes5.pdf