Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

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

This note gives the ECE2 explanation of precession in Eq. (2). Any observable precession is due to vacuum fluctuations, a simple and powerful new result that replaces the standard model’s elaborate and obsolete gravitational theory. For Mercury it is shown that the usual EGR analysis, repeated uncritically by dogmatists, is completely wrong. This is because it omits the geodetic and Lense Thirring precessions. The former is partly made up of the Thomas precession. When the calculation is carried out correctly, the theoretical result, the sum of the Einstein, geodetic and LT precessions of Mercury, is more than twice the experimental result. This is not "precise agreement" as claimed endlessly by the dogmatists. The ECE2 explanation of the claimed experimental result is given in Eq. (52) – the post Einstein paradigm shift. The results for Mercury are given in the Table on page 8 of the Note. The geodetic precession is larger than the Einstein precession, but in the dogmatic reiteration of the standard model, the geodetic precession of Mercury is ignored. Finally I did a spot check on the claim that the Einstein theory produces the observed rpecession of the Earth, but as shown in Eq. (56), it fails by a wide margin. Any reader with a calculator can check Eq. (54). So there can be no confidence in the EGR theory, and judging by the scientometrics, ECE has taken the high ground and the theory is the intellectual leader in contemporary physics. This is a magnificent achievement by the AIAS / UPITEC Institutes and congratulations to all! A vote of no confidence is moved in "the government of physics": "you have sat here o’er long for all the good you have done, in the name of God, go!" (my ancestral cousin Oliver Cromwell in 1653).

a406thpapernotes1.pdf

I think that all is OK for the following reasons. If the claimed experimental result of delta phi = 5.8 ten power minus nine radians per GPB orbit is interpreted as a Thomas precession then v = 1.252 ten power four metres per second using delta phi ~ pi (v/c) squared. in obsolete de Sitter theory delta phi ~ pi (v1/ c) squared. So we obtain v1 = 1.252 ten power four metres per second. This was used correctly in Eq. (27) to get the Thomas velocity v.
Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Thanks for the hints. I thint there is a numerical error in (27), the value of v (from 21) was inserted instead of v_1 in the first line of the equation.
Horst

Am 17.04.2018 um 14:27 schrieb Myron Evans:

Discussion of Note 405(3).

Thanks for studying this note. Eg. (25) originates in Eq. (24), which is the now obsolete method of rotating the so called Schwarzschild metric, a method used by de Sitter in 1916, and then by Thomas for the Minkowski metric. One can see Eq. (26) in Eq. (24). Eq. (21) is the velocity v of the ECE2 covariant frame rotation (Thomas precession) needed to reproduce the claim by NASA / Stanford. Eq. (26) is the relation between the velocity obtained by rotating the Schwarzschild metric (v sub 1) and the velocity obtained by rotating the ECE2 metric (v). Eq. (26) is the premultiplier of the second term on the left hand side of Eq. (24) To obtain Eq. (17) I used the NASA / Stanford result (15) reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. (106, 2201101), and Eq. (15) to convert from milliarcseconds to radians. Finally I adjjusted from one earth year to 90 minutes, the time taken for one orbit of Gravity Probe B. One can check the result (17) with Maxima. It is the precession in radians per orbital interval of Gravity Probe B (90 minutes in a polar orbit). As you mentioned a few days ago, the use of the earth year by NASA / Stanford is irrelevant and misleading. I think that NASA / Stanford is very dippy, because it completely ignores gravitational precession (the main precession) and uses magic to separate the de Sitter precession from the Lense Thirring precession. It "forgets" to separate them from the gravitational precession. This wouldn’t get a freshman very far in an examination. Howlers such as this come from laundering the data to suit a preconception – the opposite of Baconian science. The claimed agreement with a deeply dippy EGR is also magical, and this is true for all the much vaunted claims of EGR having been tested to incredible (i..e. unbelievable) precision. Einstein collapses completely in almost a hundred diifferent ways in the UFT series alone, and Stephen Crothes has also taken it to the cleaners. I used the obsolete Schwarzschild metric rotation only to illustrate the obsolete theory. Also ij deep trouble is the obsolete "establishment" of physics, which has failed to censor ECE theory and a large number of refutations.

405(3) : Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I do not quite understand eqs.(26) and (27). If (21) is the result that gives the experimental result (14), then it should be

v = v_1.

This follows from the fact that eqs. (10) and (25) are formally identical and should give the same result for Delta phi. Where did you obtain (26)? This gives a strongly different result. There seems to be a numerical error in (17), it should give

v^2 = 1.567*10^8

According to (26), v_1^2 is

v_1^2 = 2.701*10^8.
or
v_1 = sqrt(v_1^2) = 16435.

This is of course different from v=12520 of eq.(21).

Horst

Am 12.04.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:

Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note gives an exact description of geodetic precession or de Sitter precession as claimed by Gravity Probe B using a velocity of frame rotation given by Eq. (21) from an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession in which both torsion and curvature are non-zero. The experimental claim is 5.48 ten power minus nine radians per orbit of Gravity Probe B (a ninety minute, almost circular, polar orbit). The standard model bases its theory on the Thomas rotation of the obsolete "Schwarzschild metric", and this is well accepted internationally by the ECE2 School to be a completely incorrect theory. An account of the standard model theory is given just for the sake of comparison. Finally the experimental claim from Gravity Probe B for the precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring or frame dragging effect) is 3.25 ten power minus eleven radians per GPB orbit, which compares with the ECE2 result at the equator (Note 405(1)) of 4.10 ten power minus eleven radians per GBP orbit at the equator. It is as clear as mud how NASA / Stanford makes these experimental claims. The LT effect is two orders of magnitude smaller than the de Sitter effect, and NASA / Stanford ignore both the orbital precession and the Thomas precession. Yet they claim that their results verify the obsolete and incorrect .Einstein theory.

Thanks again, these corrected values will be used in final paper.

Relation between any precession and vacuum fluctuations
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Maxima gives the same solution (4) of the diff. eq. (3). With the velocity corrected values of (10) I obtain for (11-13):

Horst

Am 16.04.2018 um 11:31 schrieb Myron Evans:

405(3-4).pdf
405(5).pdf

Discussion of Note 405(3).

Thanks for studying this note. Eg. (25) originates in Eq. (24), which is the now obsolete method of rotating the so called Schwarzschild metric, a method used by de Sitter in 1916, and then by Thomas for the Minkowski metric. One can see Eq. (26) in Eq. (24). Eq. (21) is the velocity v of the ECE2 covariant frame rotation (Thomas precession) needed to reproduce the claim by NASA / Stanford. Eq. (26) is the relation between the velocity obtained by rotating the Schwarzschild metric (v sub 1) and the velocity obtained by rotating the ECE2 metric (v). Eq. (26) is the premultiplier of the second term on the left hand side of Eq. (24) To obtain Eq. (17) I used the NASA / Stanford result (15) reported in Phys. Rev. Lett. (106, 2201101), and Eq. (15) to convert from milliarcseconds to radians. Finally I adjjusted from one earth year to 90 minutes, the time taken for one orbit of Gravity Probe B. One can check the result (17) with Maxima. It is the precession in radians per orbital interval of Gravity Probe B (90 minutes in a polar orbit). As you mentioned a few days ago, the use of the earth year by NASA / Stanford is irrelevant and misleading. I think that NASA / Stanford is very dippy, because it completely ignores gravitational precession (the main precession) and uses magic to separate the de Sitter precession from the Lense Thirring precession. It "forgets" to separate them from the gravitational precession. This wouldn’t get a freshman very far in an examination. Howlers such as this come from laundering the data to suit a preconception – the opposite of Baconian science. The claimed agreement with a deeply dippy EGR is also magical, and this is true for all the much vaunted claims of EGR having been tested to incredible (i..e. unbelievable) precision. Einstein collapses completely in almost a hundred diifferent ways in the UFT series alone, and Stephen Crothes has also taken it to the cleaners. I used the obsolete Schwarzschild metric rotation only to illustrate the obsolete theory. Also ij deep trouble is the obsolete "establishment" of physics, which has failed to censor ECE theory and a large number of refutations.

405(3) : Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

I do not quite understand eqs.(26) and (27). If (21) is the result that gives the experimental result (14), then it should be

v = v_1.

This follows from the fact that eqs. (10) and (25) are formally identical and should give the same result for Delta phi. Where did you obtain (26)? This gives a strongly different result. There seems to be a numerical error in (17), it should give

v^2 = 1.567*10^8

According to (26), v_1^2 is

v_1^2 = 2.701*10^8.
or
v_1 = sqrt(v_1^2) = 16435.

This is of course different from v=12520 of eq.(21).

Horst

Am 12.04.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Myron Evans:

Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note gives an exact description of geodetic precession or de Sitter precession as claimed by Gravity Probe B using a velocity of frame rotation given by Eq. (21) from an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession in which both torsion and curvature are non-zero. The experimental claim is 5.48 ten power minus nine radians per orbit of Gravity Probe B (a ninety minute, almost circular, polar orbit). The standard model bases its theory on the Thomas rotation of the obsolete "Schwarzschild metric", and this is well accepted internationally by the ECE2 School to be a completely incorrect theory. An account of the standard model theory is given just for the sake of comparison. Finally the experimental claim from Gravity Probe B for the precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring or frame dragging effect) is 3.25 ten power minus eleven radians per GPB orbit, which compares with the ECE2 result at the equator (Note 405(1)) of 4.10 ten power minus eleven radians per GBP orbit at the equator. It is as clear as mud how NASA / Stanford makes these experimental claims. The LT effect is two orders of magnitude smaller than the de Sitter effect, and NASA / Stanford ignore both the orbital precession and the Thomas precession. Yet they claim that their results verify the obsolete and incorrect .Einstein theory.

a405thpapernotes5.pdf

Proof of Eq. (16) of UFT142
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Pleasure! There are many UFT papers dedicated to rigorous proofs of geometry, and several are already classics. In the early days of ECE I studied Carroll’s chapter three and found it to be very condensed. I doubt whether any chemist or engineer could follow it, and only a few theoretical physicists.Yet this is supposed to be a textbook. In my experience people take one look at Cartan geometry and give up immediately. This is a pity because Cartan geometry is not that difficult. The rigorous and now classic proofs reduced the charlatans to silence about twelve years ago. So a textbook should aim at clarity and give all detail of important proofs. Leaving a proof as an exercise for the student is useless. In my experience at UNCC the students would not be able to handle Carroll’s book at all. Even a master’s class found Marion and Thornton to be very difficult. The huge readership of our sites shows that we have found how to teach properly. The UFT papers already give all detail of the important proofs, so a really good textbook can build on this. You have the technical ability to write such a textbook. For example the Cartan identity is proven in all detail in Appendix C of UFT15. In minimal notation it is D ^ T = R ^ omega = omega ^ R. This is very elegant, but very condensed. The UFT papers expand it to tensor and vector notation, and the ECE2 phase of development reduces the complexity of internal indices, so we achieve an elegant result – ECE2 covariance, which has already produced nearly a hundred papers and books. The Evans identity was proven in the same way in UFT137. So I decided to expand the proofs in to tensor notation and vector notation as you know. This early work is summarized in the appendices of UFT15, appendices which give tensor proofs of the first and second Maurer Cartan structure equations and the first and second Cartan identities. Later I developed the second Cartan identity in what has become a famous paper, UFT88, in co authorship with yourself. There is no way of simplifying further than these tensor proofs, which show results that are rigorously identical. Only then does the true nature of the identities emerge. The readership often finds the switching of dummy indices to be very difficult to understand. UFT99 is another classic paper which gives full details of the commutator method. If one googles "Proof of the Bianchi identity", UFT104 comes up on the second page of Google, showing that it has become another classic. The Evans identity is proven in UFT137. The Evans torsion identity is proven in UFT109. I also recommend UFT255, and UFT313 puts all the concepts together to give the Jacobi Cartan Evans identity. UFT100 is useful for its charts, as is "Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation" (CEFE). PECE is a useful summary. If one plays around with google keywords one sees the UFT papers often appearing on the first or second pages. An ideal textbook would give all details of important proofs, an example is Appendix C of UFT15. This paper comes up on the first page of Google with keywords "spinning curving Cartan".

Thanks for the proof. I think I can now formulate what I wanted to explain.

I am beginning now the section with the Bianchi identity, Evans identity and Jacobi Cartan Evans identity. According to an earlier email, these are described in papers 109, 313 and 354. Can you recommend papers which are best suited to describe these identities in textbook manner?

Horst

Am 13.04.2018 um 12:51 schrieb Myron Evans:

Horst is writing what I regard as an important textbook, in which all details such as this proof can given. He asked for the proof of Eq. (16) of UFT142, a paper which gives simplified proofs of the first and second Maurer Cartan structure equation, the foundational equations of differential geometry and ECE theory. This proof was left as the proverbial "exercise for the student" by Sean Carroll, in a Harvard graduate class. Carroll gives only the proof of the first structure equation in his chapter three of "Spacetime and Geometry". All the proofs left out by Caroll are given in the UFT series.

Horst is writing what I regard as an important textbook, in which all details such as this proof can given. He asked for the proof of Eq. (16) of UFT142, a paper which gives simplified proofs of the first and second Maurer Cartan structure equation, the foundational equations of differential geometry and ECE theory. This proof was left as the proverbial "exercise for the student" by Sean Carroll, in a Harvard graduate class. Carroll gives only the proof of the first structure equation in his chapter three of "Spacetime and Geometry". All the proofs left out by Caroll are given in the UFT series.

a142ndpapersupplementaryproof.pdf

Geodetic Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note gives an exact description of geodetic precession or de Sitter precession as claimed by Gravity Probe B using a velocity of frame rotation given by Eq. (21) from an ECE2 covariant Thomas precession in which both torsion and curvature are non-zero. The experimental claim is 5.48 ten power minus nine radians per orbit of Gravity Probe B (a ninety minute, almost circular, polar orbit). The standard model bases its theory on the Thomas rotation of the obsolete "Schwarzschild metric", and this is well accepted internationally by the ECE2 School to be a completely incorrect theory. An account of the standard model theory is given just for the sake of comparison. Finally the experimental claim from Gravity Probe B for the precession due to rotation (Lense Thirring or frame dragging effect) is 3.25 ten power minus eleven radians per GPB orbit, which compares with the ECE2 result at the equator (Note 405(1)) of 4.10 ten power minus eleven radians per GBP orbit at the equator. It is as clear as mud how NASA / Stanford makes these experimental claims. The LT effect is two orders of magnitude smaller than the de Sitter effect, and NASA / Stanford ignore both the orbital precession and the Thomas precession. Yet they claim that their results verify the obsolete and incorrect Einstein theory.

a405thpapernotes3.pdf

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.

This looks like a deeply dippy process. In the EDCL Room 62 we piked up a signal far below the noise with a lock in amplifier, but in this case the signal completely dominates the "noise".

Perhaps for GPB the physicists have proceeded as for determintion of the microwave background radiation: They have "filtered out" the main signal being stronger than the signal to be measured by several orders of magnitude, a procedure that has been severely critisized by Robitaille.

Horst

Am 11.04.2018 um 09:51 schrieb Myron Evans:

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.