Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies

u = 1 / r = (1 + epsilon cos (x theta)) / alpha

Common sense means that no other function will give this function.

In a message dated 24/11/2012 16:11:34 GMT Standard Time, writes:

I tried out terms from first to fourth order, with positive and negative delta constant, and additionally exponents -1, -2. In all cases the ellipse is distorted in a way that pressession-like orbits appear. This seems to be a general behaviour of a perturbation of the equation as expected.

Horst

Am 24.11.2012 15:26, schrieb EMyrone

These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.

In a message dated 24/11/2012 16:01:25 GMT Standard Time, writes:

The comparison of graphs of theta(r) for a precessing ellipse and EGR are quite instructive.
For x=1, delta=0 both curves coincide as expected (not graphed).

In the first graph the curves for x=1 (ellipse) and delta=0.01 (EGR) are compared. One sees that at the upper and lower bounds both curves are very similar, but delta evokes a divergence as described in the note.

In the second graph , x=0.9 and delta=0.1, the effect of delta (the quadratic u term) leads to a completely different curve. Both coincide at one point only.

Horst

Am 24.11.2012 15:26, schrieb EMyrone

These are eqs. (9) and (10). Eq. (10) comes from trying to force EGR to give the true precessing elliptical result (9). Some accurate data for the planet earth are used to show that x is so small in the solar system that perihelion precession is next to useless as a method of testing theory. The true precessing ellipse or conical section (1) comes directly from multiplying an angle theta with a precession parameter x, while EGR gives a pathological or badly behaved function (10) which as note 232(5) showed, can never be a true precessing ellipse. This note makes the point clear by giving two functions of theta against r, eqns. (9) and (10), which can be plotted and directly compared with some of the advanced plotting software now available. This paper gives about eleven more refutations of EGR, whose basic error was to neglect torsion. This was compounded by many other errors over a century. Experimental data on perihelion precession and light deflection may or may not be accurate, but have to be reinterpreted. The easiest way is the common sense way, to build up tables of x of various experiments. I will proceed to write up UFT232 now with co author Dr. Horst Eckardt. There are also severe doubts about the experiments used to test EGR. Prof. Paul Marmet was one of those who revealed the experimental flaws in great detail. He received the Order of Canada. Also it has been well known for a century that light deflection experiments are plagued with problems, and that perihelion precession has many contributory factors. The dogmatists just do not have a rational answer to any of these criticisms.

232(6).pdf

a232ndpapernotes6.pdf

note231-7c.pdf

1 – x = 3.548 ten power – 8

The entire idea of testing a deviation form Newton by perihelion precession in planets of the solar system is absurd therefore. The precession is so small that x is for all practical purposes unity. Numerical integration of eqs. such as (33) of this note can be done, it will probably produce something that looks like a precessing ellipse for small perturbations, but simple algebra shows that the curve can never be a true precessing ellipse (3). In general the solution of equations such as (33) will be unstable, containing singularities and negative r solutions, and critically dependent on the choice of initial condition. In great contrast, the true precessing ellipse ((3) is a well behaved function for all x and theta giving the petal and fractal conical sections discovered recently by AIAS.

a232ndpapernotes5.pdf