## Discussion of 391(2)

Many thanks again! To discuss the points, one by one:

1) The hamiltonian H is simply a constant, so A and B are also constants and can be used as input parameters. I agree that H contains phi, but it is a constant of motion. So use H as an input parameters and vary it to get the observed delta phi.
2) Agreed.
3) The delta phi can be calculated analytically from Eq. (45), so the numerical dificulties can be circumvented using an analytical formula, Eq. (45).
4) Eq. (48) is simply the usual one: v sub N squared = MG (2 / r – 1 / a). The semi major axis is

a = alpha / (1 – eps squared)

and
r = alpha / ( 1 + eps cos phi))

at perihelion, cos phi = 1, so 1 / R0 = (1 + eps) / alpha, so Eq. (48) is obtained.

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 15/10/2017 14:58:12 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: 2nd Re: Discussion of 391(2)

A closer inspection of the note revealed the following:
1) Eqs.(27-30) are formally correct, but A contains the hamiltonian H which in turn contains cos(phi). Therefore cos(phi) cannot be determined in this way.
2) To compare the Newtonain and relativistic hamiltonians, we have to subtract the rest energy m*c^2 from the relativistic hamiltonian.
3) The differences in the hamiltonians are very small, these are not suited to compute reliable precession angles.
4) There seems to be a problem with the orbital velocity vN at perihelion. According to the caclulation it is about 1.9e6 m/s, but from experimental tables it is only 5.9e4 m/s, a much more realistic value.

Horst

Am 15.10.2017 um 15:11 schrieb EMyrone:

This is all very interesting. The ECE2 Binet equation can be solved using the general solution of the autonomous equation of mathematics, Eq. (5) of the last note. That may lead to an analytical method for ECE2 precessions. A severe scientific pathology (i.e. self delusion or mirage) has grown up around orbital precessions. This is in fact a terrible way of testing a theory, because they are so small as you point out. Miles Mathis has cast a lot of doubt on the experimental methods. This is because Newtonian methods are used to correct for the precessions caused by other planets, (the great majority of the precession), whereas relativistic methods should have been used. So to many people a lot of laundering goes on in the alley of a thousand dustbins full of old fogma or foggy dogma. No open minded scientist would wander in to such an alley. Light deflection due to gravitation is explained by ECE2 with the utmost simplicity: the definition of the relativistic velocity leads straight to the famous result: 4MG / (c squared R0). Light deflection is a very big effect, and so is much better suited for testing a theory.

To: EMyrone
Sent: 15/10/2017 13:23:58 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(2): Conservation of Antisymmetry in Light Deflection

I wonder if the method of determining the angle of precession Delta phi from the Newtonian velocity v_N can be applied to determine the precession of the planet Mercury. The numerical solution of Lagrange equations is not applicable because Delta phi is so small.
In (47) you used a constant r. Since relativistic effects are by far largest at perihelion, it would be appropriate to use this radius in the calculation for Mercury. Obviously (47) is this radius already. What we need are the orbit quantities M, m, alpha, epsilon. I will look up these in the internet.

Horst

Am 11.10.2017 um 13:27 schrieb EMyrone:

In ECE2 physics light deflection due to gravitation is given immediately and exactly from the definition of relativistic velocity, Eq. (1). To me this is one of the most satisfying discoveries of ECE2 theory. It immediately makes the hugely elaborate Einstein theory of light deflection irrelevant by Ockham’s Razor, because the ECE2 theory is far simpler and works exactly for all observed precessions. As shown in UFT150 – UFT155, the Einstein theory of light deflection is riddled with obscurities, some would say cooking or fudging by Einstein to get the right result. These refutation papers are now classics. There is an upper bound on the Lorentz factor, another major discovery which completely refutes hyperrelativistic physics and zero photon mass theory, together with Higgs boson theory. The definition of the relativistic velocity occurs in any good book on special relativity, but the upper bound was missed for one hundred and ten years. This means that light deflection due to gravity automatically conserves antisymmetry because it is ECE2 covariant and so is described by the same theory as precession (see UFT390). In this note three dimensional precession theory is defined, because it takes three dimensions to conserve antisymmetry rigorously. Three dimensional forward and retrograde precession will be very interesting to graph. This has been shown in immediately preceding papers. Finally a new analytical method is given for explaining precession from ECE2 theory. This is useful but the rigorous theory must be based on the Lagrangian. So major progress is being made now in ECE2 physics and this is being acknowledged by the readership.