Many thanks, the first column is correct, the second column should be about half of the values in the first column (see Eq. (25) of Note 406(3)), i.e. the geodetic precession is 3 pi MG / (c squared a), so the second column is right also. I agree that there is a factor 1/2 missing in the Lense Thirring formula so the values in the third column should be halved. So the LT contribution is negligible and the standard model gives a theoretical result which is much larger than the claimed experimental result. In other words the standard model itself must always give the sum of an Einstein precession and a geodetic precession, and a small LT precession. I agree of course that the standard model has been completely refuted, it is used here to show that even within its own terms of reference it is completely wrong, because the standard model neglects the geodetic and LT precessions of planets and gives only the Einstein precession of planets. The experimental claim is also very dubious as you know because the effects of other planets are calculated with a Newtonian method. strictly speaking the gravitomagnetic method was used to calculate LT, the stadnard method would give about the same, negligible, result.
Table of precessions
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>
I computed the three precessions according to note 404(4). I am not sure if the Lense-Thirring precession is correct. You used the factor 2/5. Is there contained the factor 1/2 from
Delts_phi_LT = 1/2 Omega * t ?
For t I used one earth year. Or must this be related to one planetary year first? In the formula the factor t seems to be missing. For omega and R I used rotational frequency and radius of the sun. r is the average distance of every planetary orbit.
All values of the table are in radians per earth year, please check the entries where we already had values available.
A question concerning interpretation: if the Einstein values are void, why adding all three values in the table? Shouldn’t only the geodetic and Lense-Thirring precession be relevant?
Horst
