Second Method of Refutation of de Sitter Precession
Second Method of Refutation of de Sitter Precession
In the third term of Eq. (1) it is the radius of the earth, better denoted r sub E for clarity. In the second term it is the electron proton distance. The expectation value of the third term is the term itself, because it is a macroscopic quantity. So this is worked out in the note.
What is the variable r in this note? In eq.(1) ist is the radius of the earth, but in (3) it seems to be the radius of the H atom. De Sitter precession is smaller than <U_C> in my earlier calculation.
Horst
Am 13.05.2018 um 15:20 schrieb Myron Evans:
Second Method of Refutation of de Sitter Precession
This is an improvement on Note 407(3) and shows that the de Sitter theory imparts an unquantized positive energy to the energy levels of the H atom. This is a thousand times larger than the observed negative valued energy levels of the H atom, elegantly described by the Thomas / ECE2 precession. This comes from the gravitational interaction of the electron with the earth’s mass. The electron is never free of the earth’s gravitational field, and its energy levels are known with great precision. The de Sitter theory’s predictions are never observed, Q. E. D. I encourage the colleages within AIAS / UPITEC and elsewhere to find other trivial refutations like this of the marbles in EGR. Many thanks to Horst for pointing out the need to simplify Note 407(3). The famous "Evans Eckardt dialogue" always lands up with improvements. I should think that EGR is a load of old cobblers, with none of its marbles left upon which to carve ineluctable wisdom. If I were a standard modeller I would be a white haired raving maniac trying to deal with numerous refutations and having lost all my marbles entirely. "Trivial" in this context means very simple, and very profound – Ockham’s Razor – keep it as simple as possible without losing precision and mathematics. The gravitational interaction of the electron and proton is completely negligible, but not the gravitational interaction of the electron and the earth, moon, other planets and sun. It is OK now to criticise Albert Einstein. In fact he would have encouraged criticism.