Note 405(1)/405(2)
Thanks again. Agreed, Eq. (18) gives the increase in the apsidal angle. For a static ellipse the apsidal angle is pi as you know. Eq. (2) is the same increase considering a rotation of 2 pi. This is compared with the Thomas precession after a 2 pi rotation, Eq. (1). Eq. (6) of Note 405(2) gives the velocity of the Thomas precession needed to produce the experimental result exactly. The Thomas precession takes place in an ECE2 covariant general relativity, not in Minkowski space as in special relativity. This assumes that the experimentalists are reliable, and have filtered out the precession correctly from the influence of other planets. Eq. (20) gives the spin connection of the Thomas precession. It is much better to consider the precession in a system of two objects, one orbiting the other, because there is no need then to filter out the influence of other orbiting objects. As you know, Miles Mathis has severely criticized the methods used by the experimentalists in the solar system on the grounds that they filtered out the influence of other planets using a non relativistic method, whereas they should have used a relativistic method. No one has ever been able to answer the criticisms by Miles Mathis, and I agree with him. So the miraculous agreement with Einstein is very dippy as Feynman would have written. I accept the experimental claim just for the sake of argument. Another very dippy problem with gravity Probe B is that the gravitation precession is two orders of magnitude larger than the Lense Thirring precession. So how could they have observed the Lense Thirring precession? The GPB instruments would have picked up the gravitational precession, but for some obscure reason they did not. No one seems to have pointed this out. So millions may have been completely wasted. Again a miraculously precise agreement with Einstein was reported.
Date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Note 405(1)/405(2)
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
In eq.(5) of the first note the term -r^2dphi^2 is missing, a small typo, without consequences.
note 405(2): Delta_phi of eqs.(17/18) is related to half a rotation. This is compared to eq.(2) which relates to a full rotation. Is this correct?
Horst
Am 08.04.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:
This note considers the Thomas precession of Gravity Probe B and shows that it is roughly two orders of magnitude larger than the Lense Thirring precession. Thomas precession of planets and satellites seems never to have been considered in the standard model of physics. It is correctly ECE2 covariant. It is shown that for a near circular orbit it is very similar to the totally incorrect Einstein theory, so what is actually observed in planetary precession is Thomas precession. The next note will calculate the spin connections and vacuum fluctuations of the Thomas precession and will consider the de Sitter precession of GPB using the methods of UFT345. Thomas precession is of course a vitally important ingredient of the Dirac equation and of spin orbit interaction in atoms and molecules. It can also be observed in a pendulum. Until now it has never been realized that it is also the precession responsible for the orbits of planets, satellites and indeed all objects. Following the great confidence in our work generated by a classic such as UFT88 and UFT110 (on the Thomas precession) it can be concluded that the Einstein theory is completely obsolete. Gravity Probe B can be subjected to further severe criticism because it claims to pick up a precession that is two orders of magnitude smaller than the Thomas precession and does not report the latter. NASA / Stanford never considered the Thomas precession. My work on scientometrics generates further great confidence, because it shows that all the UFT books and papers are being constantly consulted in all the best places, and have been for fifteen years. A pathological science like EGR can go wildly wrong, and makes people miss much simpler explanations. Thomas precession was discovered by on a Fellowship taken up by Thomas to the Niels Bohr Institute. How is it possible for GPB to pick up the Lense Thirring precession and miss the much larger Thomas precession, or the Einstein precession as the standard modellers would call it? This is like claiming to observe noise without observing the much larger signal.