## Discussion of 363(3), Part Two

Agreed in principle, the new velocities and accelerations can also be used in a molecular dynamics computer simulations, or Monte Carlo simulations by replacing the Newtonian force. The new expressions for velocity can be used to compute the velocity curve of a spiral galaxy in terms of the spin connections. There should also be tiny effects on the centrifugal and centripetal accelerations of classical dynamics in all situations, and on the Coriolis velocity. Pick up any good textbook such as Marion and Thornton, and the whole book can be modified for vacuum effects. It is important first of all to work out the hamiltonian and lagrangian corresponding to the new force law and velocity law.

EMyrone
Sent: 08/12/2016 20:52:43 GMT Standard Time
Subj: PS Re: 363(3) : The Effect of Fluid Spacetime on the Inverse Square Law

PS: the spacetime flow model may be a good basis for computing the galaxy model of the electric universe, you know: the two plasma jets that move out from the galactic centre and go back by building stars in the outer galactic spiral arms.

Horst

Am 08.12.2016 um 15:59 schrieb Norman Page:

Myron/Horst Shouldn’t it be possible to use this equation to match the empirical data from the galactic rotation curves and eliminate the need for dark matter?This would be a spectacular achievement. Norman

On 12/8/2016 5:49 AM, EMyrone wrote:

The rigorous result is that the fluid spacetime, vacuum or aether produces new fundamental accelerations in classical dynamics, defined by Eq. (15). These augment the centrifugal and Coriolis accelerations in every situation in classical dynamics, so can be looked for experimentally. In orbital theory the Hooke Newton inverse square law is changed. In an excellent approximation it becomes Eq. (22) which can be graphed by computer algebra in terms of r. The usual radial component of the Newtonian result is changed and there appears a component in e sub theta which is not present at all in Newtonian theory. This is the approximate force law responsible for a precessing orbit. The rigorous force law for any planar orbit is given by Eq (15). My ancestral cousin John Aubrey F.R.S. (attached genealogy) was an antiquarian and wrote “Brief Lives” (online) which describes how his friend Robert Hooke was the discoverer of the inverse square law for an elliptical orbit, and not Isaac Newton. However, neither Robert Hooke nor John Aubrey could prove that the inverse square law gives an elliptical orbit. The proof was apparently carried out by Newton from 1665 to 1687, but this seems dubious to me because Newton obviously did not know of the 1835 centrifugal and Coriolis accelerations. In 1689 Leibnitz accidentally stumbled on the centrifugal acceleration, but did not prove it. So as usual, physics history is a bit of a pig’s breakfast – semi mythological. On the other hand the genealogy is very accurate, based on source documents for every generation, cross checked between many genealogists.