Archive for April, 2018

Spin Connection for Light Deflection due to Gravitation

Monday, April 30th, 2018

Spin Connection for Light Deflection due to Gravitation

This is intended as a preliminary calculation for this topic, and shows that for light deflection the vacuum fluctuation is at a maximum. Another approach would be to solve Eq. (6) numerically for the spin connection. I will now proceed to write up UFT406.

a406thpapernotes6.pdf

Table of precessions

Sunday, April 29th, 2018

Many thanks, these data look to be right, For the three inner planets the total precession is larger than the part attributed to Einstein by a factor of about ten or more. For the outer planets this factor becomes much larger, so the correction of the influence of other planets has to be accurate to one part in a million, so the entire experiment becomes meaningless.

Table of precessions

Saturday, April 28th, 2018

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.

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

406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory

Friday, April 27th, 2018

Many thanks,there is currently a surge of intense international interest as the Einstein theory disintegrates, to be replaced by ECE2.

Date: Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: 406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

The calculated values are o.k. I will prepare a table with all three precessions for the planets.

Horst

Am 25.04.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Myron Evans:

This note summarizes some severe criticisms of standard precession theory and brings into question the very existence of Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The only thing that can ever be observed in astronomy is their sum. So I propose abandoning the ideas of the standard model and to express all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations as in Eq. (19). It is worth drawing up a table for all the planets, a table that gives the separate contributions (20) to (22) and their sum. This sum is always greater than the Einsteinian component. The standard model of planetary precession ignores the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions of the standard model itself and attributes everything to the Einsteinian component. There are so many fallacies and basic errors in the Einstein theory that it should be abandoned completely in favour of ECE theory.

406(4).pdf

406(4): Criticisms of Standard Model Precession Theory

Wednesday, April 25th, 2018

This note summarizes some severe criticisms of standard precession theory and brings into question the very existence of Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The only thing that can ever be observed in astronomy is their sum. So I propose abandoning the ideas of the standard model and to express all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations as in Eq. (19). It is worth drawing up a table for all the planets, a table that gives the separate contributions (20) to (22) and their sum. This sum is always greater than the Einsteinian component. The standard model of planetary precession ignores the geodetic and Lense Thirring contributions of the standard model itself and attributes everything to the Einsteinian component. There are so many fallacies and basic errors in the Einstein theory that it should be abandoned completely in favour of ECE theory.

a406thpapernotes4.pdf

Derivation of Planetary Geodetic Precession

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

This note gives another straightforward refutation of Einsteinian general relativity, showing that the precession predicted by EGR must be the sum of the Einsteinian, geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. This sum is more than fifty percent larger than the experimental claims for Mercury, Venus and Earth. The experimental claims are also very dubious in the solar system as argued by Miles Mathis and ourselves, and by many others for more than a century. The precessional method can only be applied in a clean system of one m orbiting one M, and the results interpreted in terms of vacuum fluctuations. The true theoretical result of the standard model itself should be Eq. (25), and this can be tabulated for all the planets using Maxima. I think that rational members of the ECE school in leading universities around the world will forget about EGR and develop other avenues of thought. The dogmatists will ignore the refutations and ask for more money from the taxpayer and more student fees. There is another way of considering the geodetic precession, and this will be developed next using ECE2 gravitomagnetism, developing UFT344 and UFT345.

a406thpapernotes3.pdf

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

Agreed, google "perihelion precession of the planets" and first site. Fitzgerald also gives details of the apsidal method, and this is a good site.
Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

ok, thanks, I now understand eq.(10). Since the eccentricities of all planets are given, you could multiply the result with a factor

(1 – epsilon_E) / (1 – epsilon_p)

but this factor is nearly unity because epsilon is quite small, except for Mercury and Pluto. I can set up tables 1 and 2 with the latest data of M&T and the Farside site. Table 8.2 of M&T does not contain more data than table 7.2 of the 3rd edition.
The site farside.ph.utexas.edu is the home page of prof. Fitzpatrick. What is the exact location of the values you found there?

Horst

Am 23.04.2018 um 10:44 schrieb Myron Evans:

This is interesting, does the fourth edition contain the experimental EGR claim for all the planets? It would be interesting to find the most up to date comparisons for all the planets. Since EGR theory has been refuted in so many ways to the satisfaction of essentially all the colleagues, even exact agreement would not prove anything. As argued in note 406(1), the geodetic contribution from the obsolete EGR theory ITSELF has been completely left out of consideration. For Neptune, the Newtonian contribution to the observed precession is over a million times the EGR contribution and would have to have been removed very precisely to one part in a million, if the experiment is to mean anything at all. Newtonian methods are used to remove it, so EGR is not used to remove it. EGR is applied to less than one part in a million of the observed precession, and this is completely absurd. This argument has also been used by Miles Mathis as you know. To answer your points:

Eq. (10) comes from Eq. (6). Define A := 6 pi MG / ( c squared) , assume eps squared about zero. Then delta phi = A / a. In reduced units a sub E = 1, so

delta phi (planet ) = delta phi (earth) / a sub p.

The precession in Eq. (6) is for a rotation of 2 pi. For mercury for example this 2 pi takes 88 days. It must be adjusted to 365 days to give it in terms of the earth year of 365 days. For Mercury this is about 44 arcseconds per EARTH century. This is never made clear in the literature. So the precession per earth year (delta phi sub p) in eq. (10) is the precession per Mercury year multiplied by I / T= 365 / 88 where T is 0.2408. So combining the two adjustments we obtain Eq. (10). This is applied to Mercury in Eq. (12) and to Venus in Eq. (12b), giving the correct results in both cases. Finally, the total observed precessions are taken from the Fitzgerald site www.farside.ph.utexa.edu. For Neptune, the actually observed precession in radians per earth year is 1.76 ten power minus five. Eq. (6) gives 3.76 ten power minus eleven radians per earth year. Essentially all of the precession is explained in standard astronomy with Newtonian methods. In the most up to date research they use computer based perturbation theory and N body theory, Monte Carlo methods and so on. The observed precession of Neptune is more than a million times larger than that given by Eq. (6). This is not exactly "precise agreement" with EGR theory. Nearly all of the experimentally observed precession is attributed to the influence of objects other than the sun, and removed with supercomputers using Newtonian methods, and not by relativistic methods. What is left after that is attributed to the EGR contribution. However, i have not been able to find this experimental EGR contribution. It might be in some astronomy library. I cannot find it using Google.

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Obviously Marion & Thornton used slightly different values for table 7.1 (for Jupiter onwards) which is table 8.1 in the 4th edition.
Where did you get eq.(10)? Did you base this on eq.(6)? And why can you use astronomical units here instead of SI units?
What is Total Delta phi (obs.) in table 2?

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 13:53 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Monday, April 23rd, 2018

In integrating Eq. (1), delta phi is taken to be the constant experimental value, e.g. 44 seconds of arc per earth century for Mercury, so the integration gives the simple result (5), which leads to the result (10), a completely new explanation of all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations. This method replaces the claims of the standard physics, and can be extended to light deflection by gravitation and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. Real physics is simple, first pointed out by William of Ockham in the context of mediaeval philosophy. He was expelled from Oxford and Paris, declared a heretic, and was given the protection of Ludwig of Bavaria

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

The differential equation (2) contains Delta phi which you assumed constant. Doesn’t this depends on the radius r via r(phi) or specifically r(2 pi)?
I think we should precisely describe the different kinds of precession as you did in the comment for note 406(2).

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Myron Evans:

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Monday, April 23rd, 2018

This is interesting, does the fourth edition contain the experimental EGR claim for all the planets? It would be interesting to find the most up to date comparisons for all the planets. Since EGR theory has been refuted in so many ways to the satisfaction of essentially all the colleagues, even exact agreement would not prove anything. As argued in note 406(1), the geodetic contribution from the obsolete EGR theory ITSELF has been completely left out of consideration. For Neptune, the Newtonian contribution to the observed precession is over a million times the EGR contribution and would have to have been removed very precisely to one part in a million, if the experiment is to mean anything at all. Newtonian methods are used to remove it, so EGR is not used to remove it. EGR is applied to less than one part in a million of the observed precession, and this is completely absurd. This argument has also been used by Miles Mathis as you know. To answer your points:

Eq. (10) comes from Eq. (6). Define A := 6 pi MG / ( c squared) , assume eps squared about zero. Then delta phi = A / a. In reduced units a sub E = 1, so

delta phi (planet ) = delta phi (earth) / a sub p.

The precession in Eq. (6) is for a rotation of 2 pi. For mercury for example this 2 pi takes 88 days. It must be adjusted to 365 days to give it in terms of the earth year of 365 days. For Mercury this is about 44 arcseconds per EARTH century. This is never made clear in the literature. So the precession per earth year (delta phi sub p) in eq. (10) is the precession per Mercury year multiplied by I / T= 365 / 88 where T is 0.2408. So combining the two adjustments we obtain Eq. (10). This is applied to Mercury in Eq. (12) and to Venus in Eq. (12b), giving the correct results in both cases. Finally, the total observed precessions are taken from the Fitzgerald site www.farside.ph.utexa.edu. For Neptune, the actually observed precession in radians per earth year is 1.76 ten power minus five. Eq. (6) gives 3.76 ten power minus eleven radians per earth year. Essentially all of the precession is explained in standard astronomy with Newtonian methods. In the most up to date research they use computer based perturbation theory and N body theory, Monte Carlo methods and so on. The observed precession of Neptune is more than a million times larger than that given by Eq. (6). This is not exactly "precise agreement" with EGR theory. Nearly all of the experimentally observed precession is attributed to the influence of objects other than the sun, and removed with supercomputers using Newtonian methods, and not by relativistic methods. What is left after that is attributed to the EGR contribution. However, i have not been able to find this experimental EGR contribution. It might be in some astronomy library. I cannot find it using Google.

Fwd: Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

Obviously Marion & Thornton used slightly different values for table 7.1 (for Jupiter onwards) which is table 8.1 in the 4th edition.
Where did you get eq.(10)? Did you base this on eq.(6)? And why can you use astronomical units here instead of SI units?
What is Total Delta phi (obs.) in table 2?

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 13:53 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 406(2) : Final Version of Note 406(1)

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Sunday, April 22nd, 2018

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini