Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

a411thpapernotes1.pdf

Interpretation of law of precession

Interpretation of law of precession

This is the procedure I used, to find omega’ in your notation, omega sub + or omega sub – in the notation of the notes. This might well be different from any omega that is listed by NASA, whose data are sometimes internally inconsistent as shown in this morning’s discussion. The eccentricity of the S2 star system is about 0.88 as used in UFT375. I looked up the eccentricity of the HT binary pulsar, it is 0.6171334 according to wiki, whose data are different from Stanford / NASA as discussed in UFT375. It is simply a matter of using best judgement to make up for the numerous errors of other people and crunching out the equations of the new law of precession using a Maxima program.

Basing on note 410(7), we have the equation (4)

Delta phi = 2 pi/c^2 * v^2 (*)

with

v^2 = vN^2 + 3 * v_theta^2
or
v^2 = vN^2 – v_theta^2.

It is defined

v_theta = omega * r

with an average orbital radius r. So both sides of eq. (*) are defined experimentally. To be consistent, these sides have to be compared and should be equal.
If there are major discrepancies, I recommend to define

v_theta = omega’ * r

where omega’ is an angular velocity of frame rotation which is different from the regular orbital angular velocity. This would describe the true spacetime torsion in a star system.

Horst

Graphs of 410(8): Results from the Universal Law of Precessions applied to the Planets

Graphs of 410(8): Results from the Universal Law of Precessions applied to the Planets

Many thanks, the graphs are interesting and well prepared as usual. I can type up the Tables now that the results have been checked and will begin to write up UFT410.

This is a picture with double-log scale, perhaps even better.

Horst

Am 09.07.2018 um 13:58 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

Her are the graphs: a linear plot omega(r) and a logarithmic plot. In the linear plot, omega- has been taken negative but the values are so small that all points come to lie on the zero line. In the log plot omega- has been handled positive as required for log plots. It is seen that the magnitude of omega decreases continuously with the planet distance from the sun, but there is a change in sign. There seems to be a change in torsion direction between Mars and Jupiter.

Horst

Am 09.07.2018 um 07:55 schrieb Myron Evans:

410(8): Results from the Universal Law of Precessions applied to the Planets

In this final note for UFT410 results are given from the universal law of precessions of ECE theory. Precessions are described in terms of the angular velocity of frame of rotation of the ECE2 infinitesimal line element. The precessions are matched exactly in every case by a given angular velocity that originates in spacetime torsion. Results are also given for the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and for the S2 star. Tables of results such as this can be drawn up for every precession in the universe, and the Einstein field equation discarded as obsolete in many ways.

410(8): Details of calculation

410(8): Details of calculation

The computer check would be very important as usual.The formulae I used are given in Eqs. (1) to (9) of Note 410(8). Eqs. (8) and (9) define v sub T squared and v sub R squared respectively, using the total observed precession delta phi sub T and the reduced precession delta phi sub R of the first table. I used the now obsolete Einstein precession of Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) for Mars to Pluto, because delta phi sub R (experimental) cannot be found in a google search. So I took the dogmatists at their word and equated delta phi sub R and delta phi sub E, although I do not believe a word of EGR any more. The omega sub + is defined in Eq. (4), and the omega sub – in Eq. (6).

Reference

1) D. R. Williams "Planetary Fct Sheet", NASA Godard Space Flight Center, (online).

How did you get the squared velocities V_T and v_R in Table 1? As I understand you took the values <v_N> and <r> from NASA tables. I would expect that v_T and v_R are of the same order of magnitude but there aren’t. Could you write up all formulas you used? Then I could check this by computer.
Also the NASA source should be referenced in the final paper.

Horst

Am 09.07.2018 um 07:55 schrieb Myron Evans:

410(8): Results from the Universal Law of Precessions applied to the Planets

In this final note for UFT410 results are given from the universal law of precessions of ECE theory. Precessions are described in terms of the angular velocity of frame of rotation of the ECE2 infinitesimal line element. The precessions are matched exactly in every case by a given angular velocity that originates in spacetime torsion. Results are also given for the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and for the S2 star. Tables of results such as this can be drawn up for every precession in the universe, and the Einstein field equation discarded as obsolete in many ways.

Calculation of the Angular Velocities of the Universal ECE Law of Precession for the Planets

If it is accepted that a very small residual non-Newtonian precession can be measured experimentally (a big if) it is explained exactly by frame angular velocities of the new universal law of precession. The frame angular velocities decrease monotonically from Mercury to Pluto. For the inner planets Mercury to Mars the direction of frame rotation is positive, (pi’ = phi + omega t) decreases monotonically. For the outer planets Jupiter to Pluto the direction of frame rotation is negative, (phi’ = phi – omega t) and omega decreases monotonically. In the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar the frame angular velocity is positive and orders of magnitude larger than the planets. In the S2 star orbiting the central mass of the Milky Way galaxy the frame angular velocity is negative, about the same in magnitude as that of the earth but opposite in sign. These results replace the EGR theory by a rigorously correct unified field theory, ECE theory. I will write up the hand calculations tomorrow and send them over to Horst for computer checking. There is a change in the sense of rotation of the underlying torsion that causes planetary precession. This occurs between Mars and Jupiter. If the very dubious method of data reduction used to "test" the EFR is entirely rejected, then the total observable precession can be expressed in terms of angular velocities of the underlying torsion from Mercury to Pluto. For the total precession (the only precession that is actually observable) the sense of rotation is always positive. This is a much simpler and more powerful theory than EGR.

Universal Law of Precession Applied to the S2 Star System

In this case the observed precession of the S2 star system requires a frame angular velocity of 4.48 radians per second in a direction opposite to that needed in the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and the total observed precession of Mercury. The universal law of precession is extended to Eqs. (18) to (20) to encompass clockwise and anticlockwise frame rotations of type (19) and (21). The S2 star orbits a very large mass near the centre of the Milky Way. So the new universal law of precession works very well in the S2 star system. The ULP is able to describe planetary precessions and also precessions of objects outside the solar system. In the S2 star system the Einsteinian theory fails completely, giving a precession of 2.867 ten power minus five radians per earth year. The experimental result is 2.281 ten power minus four radians per earth year, about ten times higher. So where is the fabled precision?As discussed in UFT375 there is no room in S2 to fiddle the Einstein theory with non linear terms, so astronomers have quietly abandoned the EGR in S2 star systems. This shows that the criticisms in the UFT series have been heeded. In great contrast the universal law of precession of ECE2 works precisely. Thee is no moral or ethical justification in trying to extract yet more cash from the tax payer for an EGR theory that is so completely wrong in so many ways.

a410thpapernotes7.pdf

Universal Law of Precession Applied to the S2 Star System

In this case the observed precession of the S2 star system requires a frame angular velocity of 4.48 radians per second in a direction opposite to that needed in the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar and the total observed precession of Mercury. The universal law of precession is extended to Eqs. (18) to (20) to encompass clockwise and anticlockwise frame rotations of type (19) and (21). The S2 star orbits a very large mass near the centre of the Milky Way. So the new universal law of precession works very well in the S2 star system. The ULP is able to describe planetary precessions and also precessions of objects outside the solar system. In the S2 star system the Einsteinian theory fails completely, giving a precession of 2.867 ten power minus five radians per earth year. The experimental result is 2.281 ten power minus four radians per earth year, about ten times higher. So where is the fabled precision?As discussed in UFT375 there is no room in S2 to fiddle the Einstein theory with non linear terms, so astronomers have quietly abandoned the EGR in S2 star systems. This shows that the criticisms in the UFT series have been heeded. In great contrast the universal law of precession of ECE2 works precisely. Thee is no moral or ethical justification in trying to extract yet more cash from the tax payer for an EGR theory that is so completely wrong in so many ways.

a410thpapernotes7.pdf