Note 409(7) : A Comparison of Conventional and New Methods

Note 409(7) : A Comparison of Conventional and New Methods

It is shown that the correct expression for precession is Eq. (23), which can be applied to any planetary, binary pulsar or pendulum precession, which can always be described precisely by the angular velocity of the de Sitter rotation (2). So experiments on pendulum precession would be very interesting. One experiment was carried out in the Netherlands a few years ago. It would be interesting to draw up a table of experimental precessions and omega calculated at a given point r such as the perihelion, aphelion, apastron or periastron. The Einstein, geodetic and Lense Thirring theories are obsolete and completely replaced by this new method. In UFT110 I used the conventional method described in Eq. (25), but it is shown in this note that that method is arbitrary and erroneous, containing several blunders. That is why students are advised not to reference Wikipedia.



Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

Agreed, the numerical calculations in UFT375 were very accurate and the same numbers should be used. In this note the rigorously correct reduced mass was used throughout as in Marion and Thornton chapter seven, so the accurate Binet equation is Eq. (10). Denoting m1 = m, m2 = M, Eq. (10) uses m squared M squared / (m + M). In the binary pulsar m is about the same as M. In the solar system M >> m, so the Binet equation reduces to that used by Marion and Thornton, Eq. (17). They replace this by Eq. (20) and calculate the Einstein precession, albeit in a very dubious way as we have shown. As shown in Eq. (18), m squared M must be replaced by m squared M squared / (m + M) in the accurate calculation. This is equivalent to replacing M by M squared / (m + M) as in Eq. (19). In the solar system this is a small correction, but in the binary pulsar it is a large correction. Finally M in Eq. (20) is replaced by M squared / (m + M), leading to the albeit dubious Einstein precession (22). Agreed that the Thomas velocity for the binary pulsar is larger that the observed velocities at periastron and apastron. However, the Thomas velocity needed to give the precisely observed binary pulsar precession is by a new hypothesis the result of an underlying spacetime torsion that results in frame rotation. This is a new idea, the spacetime torsion is related to the angular velocity of the rotating frame and therefore to the Thomas velocity due to spacetime torsion. In further work I intend to show precisely how the two concepts are related. So all precessions in the universe are due, by this new hypothesis, to spacetime torsion, which expresses itself as a Thomas velocity. This is the only correct theory of precession, because it does not use the Einstein equation and its metrics. When the Thomas velocity (or ECE2 velocity) is the Newtonian velocity, the particular result is obtained that the Lorentz boost and the ECE2 rotation give the same Lorentz factor. So a Thomas (or more accurately an ECE2) velocity of 1.366 ten power six meters per second gives the observed binary pulsar precession claimed to be 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per Earth year. The usual Einstein field equation gives 2.368 degrees per earth year and is totally wrong. This becomes very clear in the binary pulsar, and there are signs of the Einstein equation going wrong also in the solar system (UFT406). I have no idea how the EGR physicists claim precise agreement. My guess is that they play around with the Einstein metrics in an essentially empirical way and call this "a non linear correction". This correction also omits torsion and is also totally wrong (UFT301). Finally the inward spiralling of the pulsar is described by a decreasing ECE2 velocity and slowly decreasing spacetime torsion. This will be the subject of future work.

According to UFT 375, the masses of the double star system are not exactly equal, they differ by about 5%. Therefore it could be better to use the exact values in the reduced mass mu but hte result will nearly be the same.
I do not understand the transition in eq.(18/19) from M to m2.
The numerical calculations are correct. In comparison, the Newtonian velocity of the pulsar (eq.12) is

v_N = 6.570*10^5 m/s

while the experimentally found velocity, probably at apastron, is 4.50*10^5 m/s. This is only a half of the Thomas velocity.


Am 19.06.2018 um 13:04 schrieb Myron Evans:

Note 409(4): Description of Binary Pulsar Precession as a Thomas Precession

This note defines the classical theory of the binary pulsar, then shows that the Einstein theory produces a precession of 2.368 degrees per earth year. The experimentally observed precession is 4.226 plus or minus 0.002 degrees per earth year. So the Einstein theory is completely wrong as usual. It is shown that a well defined Thomas velocity produces the experimental result exactly, using a rotating ECE spacetime indicative of the presence of spacetime torsion. The ECE2 field equations of gravitation and electromagnetism are based on torsion and curvature. So all precessions in the universe are Thomas precessions (more accurately they should be called ECE2 precessions) due to the existence of torsion. The latter is neglected completely in the standard theory of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. This i sthe showcase of EGR, a showcase which is unfortunately full of howlers. The old and creaking ideas of EGR are wolves kept in captivity. They are all howlers, the theory is full of howlers. It is also shown that the standard model produces a completely incorrect total precession of 15.046 degrees per earth year when standard de Sitter precession is added to the Einstein precession. The two precessions always coexist. The shrinking of the orbit of the binary pulsar is described in ECE2 by a decrease in the Thomas velocity, meaning that the torsion slowly decreases. The EGR theory produces a wholly mysterious precise agreement using a method which is as clear as mud. This is claimed to be based on a non linear Einstein theory and gravitational radiation. ECE2 does not produce gravitational radiation from a binary pulsar. In ECE2, gravitational radiation is produced in exactly the same was as radiation theory in electromagnetism, but is twenty three orders of magnitude weaker. Stephen Crothers has heavily criticised the standard theory of gravitational radiation. The mythical methods of non linearity of the Einstein field equation consist of playing around with metrics which are however wildly erroneous due to the neglect of torsion (UFT301 (CEFE)). They neglect the very thing that produces all observable precessions – torsion.


Fwd: Note 409(3): Equivalence of Lorentz boost and Thomas Rotation

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Good to hear from you! These experiments would be most interesting, in for example a pendulum. It is possible to work fluid dynamics into the ECE2 formalism through the expression for acceleration. From 2003 to 2018 a million page equivalents of material has been produced on all aspects of ECE and ECE2 physics,and every one of these million pages is read around the world continuously. So AIAS / UPITEC is the intellectual compass for all these people. Ideas are developing very rapidly. Th ECE2 precession of the pendulum can be explained with a e sitter rotation in exactly the same was as the precession of planets and the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar.

Hi Prof. Evans,

I’ve been investigating ways to experimentally confirm aspects of the ECE2 fluid spacetime representation. This, for me, has become a somewhat difficult material science problem (owing to the limited resources here at my home). Dr. Horst Eckardt has provided additional guidance to aid in my efforts, which are ongoing.

However, I became aware of a recent publication, Relativistic fluid dynamics with spin ,Wojciech Florkowski, Bengt Friman, Amaresh Jaiswal, and Enrico Speranza Phys. Rev. C 97, 041901(R) – Published 10 April 2018 , to which I do not have access.

A general audience level article description (available here: When fluid flows almost as fast as light with quantum rotation, ) prompted me to wonder how your recent work describing Thomas precession may be related to the companion fluid spacetime representation, and how the Thomas precession finds expression at the quantum level. My initial thought was that there might be some pertinent experimental facts revealed in this Physical Review C source article, notwithstanding any of the extraneous Standard Model gibberish contained therein, which may offer additional ECE2 corroboration.

Russ Davis

Miami, FL

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

Note 409(6): The correct expression for Thomas precession

It is shown in this note that the well known invariance condition (11) of the ECE2 four rotation produces the ECE2 precession (8) with Newtonian velocity. This is a wholly new result that shows that the Lorentz factor can be derived by four rotation in two equivaklent ways, the Lorentz boost and the precession due to four rotation. It is shown that the correct theory of Thomas precession produces the result (23), which explains why a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe binary pulsar and planetary precessions. The usual theory of the Thomas precession, using the de Sitter rotation (18) produces an incorrect result (28). This is another error of the standard model that has been repeated uncritically for nearly a century. It is proposed that the correct result (23) be applied to all planetary and binary pulsar precessions. It is already known from a recent note that a velocity greater than the Newtonian velocity is needed to describe the precession of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar. Eq. (23) shows why. It is proposed that a radical paradigm shift is now necessary, the Einstein, de Sitter and Lense Thirring precessions must be discarded completely as obsolete, and the correct result (23) used from now on for all observable precessions. The ECE School of Thought can lead this paradigm shift, following calculations of the AIAS / UPITEC group. My initial calculations are always checked very carefully by Dr. Horst Eckardt and myself. That is why there is great international confidence in our work.


Some Results of the Paradigm Shift

Some Results of the Paradigm Shift

1) Any observed precession is described completely and exactly by the ECE2 velocity v and by spacetime torsion. For a given r such as the perihelion, the ECE2 angular velocity omega is found from v = omega r. 2) Electromagnetic deflection by gravitation is described completely and exactly by the relativistic velocity.

These theories amount to a major advance in understanding and the theory is far simpler and more powerful than the obsolete Einstein theory. Feedback shows that these theories have been accepted by the avant garde around the world.

Note 409(5) : Proof of the Origin of Thomas Precession in Spacetime Torsion

Note 409(5) : Proof of the Origin of Thomas Precession in Spacetime Torsion

This note shows that the origin of the Thomas precession is spacetime torsion, which gives rise to the acceleration due to gravity in ECE2 theory. It is first shown that the origin of the plane polar coordinates is frame rotation, then it is shown that the Thomas precession originates in a further rotation, Eq. (35). This gives the Thomas velocity (38) and the Thomas acceleration (39). When the Thomas velocity is the Newtonian orbital velocity, the Lorentz factor is derived from a simple frame rotation, a major advance in understanding. It is usually derived from a complicated Lorentz boost as is well known. It is proposed that this type of rotation be named the ECE2 rotation in a space with finite torsion and curvature and that the resulting precession be named the ECE2 precession. The original theory by Llewellyn Thomas (1903 – 1992) was developed in a Minkowski space, with no consideration given to torsion or curvature. Finally it is shown that the ECE2 precession can be understood in terms of a change in the spin connection, another major advance in understanding. It is proposed that all precessions in the Universe be described with complete precision in terms of an ECE2 rotation, and it is further proposed that all metrics and theory based on the Einstein field equation be discarded by avant garde physicists as obsolete and incorrect. These proposals represent the culmination of a rapid advance in understanding over the past few months, resulting in a much simpler and more powerful theory that is above all, geometrically correct. Obviously this has necessitated the refutation of the Einsteinian theory of general relativity. So I will now write up UFT309 and transmit this note to Horst as usual for checking and addition of his own insights. The refutation of EGR is no longer met by howling wolves. In fact it has been accepted in a revolutionary paradigm shift named "the post Einsteinian paradigm shift" by Prof. Emeritus Alwyn van der Merwe, probably the most eminent contemporary physics editor, and a referee of my Civil List Pension nomination by the Royal Society of Chemistry.