Yes this as a useful summary. I will proceed today to interrelate theories of precession.
411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation
Thaks, I am glad that my summary is coorect and these new developments can be seen this way.
Horst
Am 21.07.2018 um 07:02 schrieb Myron Evans:
411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation
411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation
This is an accurate summary of recent advances in precession theory. It has become clear that there are several ways in which precession can be developed and defined, none of which use Einsteinian general relativity (EGR). The latter theory fails by an order of magnitude in the S2 star system and has in fact been abandoned by leading astronomers outside of AIAS / UPITEC. This may be a shock to the general public but that is an anthropomorphic statement outside of Baconian natural philosophy. The truth is often a shock, especially when the public is saturated with wild media rubbish about EGR, notably big bang and black holes. I agree with this summary by Horst of recent rapid advances. Clarification occurs when it is realized that there is only one observable precession, and the different theories of precession must all reproduce the same experimental data. So the different theories can be interrelated and are not therefore independent. For example frame rotation produces precession on the classical level, and the same equation of frame rotation produces precession when used in the ECE2 covariant infinitesimal line element. The classical method, however, does not lead to time dilation and length contraction so is not able to give as much information as the relativistic frame rotation method originally introduced by de Sitter in 1916. However, the de Sitter method was applied to the so called Schwarzschild metric and is wildly incorrect due to neglect of torsion. I agree that the angular velocity of frame rotation can be very different from angular velocity of the rotating object m in orbit around M. The EGR theory is by no wisely accepted as being a mirage, it is in fact wildly incorrect. So it is being replaced by several new methods of ECE2 theory.
The situation with precessions meanwhile becomes a bit unclear. To my understanding we have three types of orbital behaviour concerning precession:
1. no precession of any kind. This is a pure Newtonian orbit (exact ellipse).
2. Precession from the relativistic line element without additional frame rotation. The mass moves on an orbit whose coordinate system is plane polar as in classical mechanics.
This case is completely handable by relativistic Lagrangian mechanics (gamma factor with v_N). Eventually positive and negative precessions can be obtained from the choice of the force law.
This case describes the effect of the genrally covariant line element on orbits, including precession.3. There is an additional frame rotation phi –> phi + omega’ * t where omega’ is a new angular velocity which indicates the rotation of the frame, additional to the time dependence of the unit vectors e_r and e_phi in plane polar coordinates. This introduces new effects via the line element, for example different line elements for omega+ and omega- .
In case the additional frame rotation angular velocity is equal to the original velocity omega of the orbiting mass, this is a very special case where the frame is completely rotated as fixed to the mass. This is the approach of de Sitter precession. It should be stressed that this is a very special choice and using independent omega+ and omega- is a general effect interpretable as the influence of the vacuum on the orbit.Points 2 and 3 have to be discerned due to their different line elements. We should be careful in using the symbol omega which only should describe the rotation of the mass, no additional frame rotation. Another point is that negative precession has been observed experimentally. This can probably only be described consistently only by case 3. There may be more than two sign cases to be discerned (except for the line element which is generally valid).
So far my points for discussion.
HorstAm 19.07.2018 um 11:39 schrieb Myron Evans:
411(2): Orbital Shrinkage from Frame Rotation
In this note it is shown that the frame rotation (1) that produces the universal law of precession self consistently produces the precessing orbit (31),a shrinking orbit, and an increasing orbital velocity as the orbit shrinks. These are the well known main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Gravitational radiation is obviously not produced by these equations and the obsolete Einstein equation is just as obviously not used and is not needed.