404(5): Final Version of Notes for UFT404

Agreed about the fact that the apsidal method relates to the satellite orbit, but NASA / Stanford gave their results on Cornell arXiv (on the net) as milliarcseonds per year for some reason. I am glad that we have reached agreement and I will proceed to writing up and posting the final version of UFT404 using your data below. Eq. (18) seems to be OK, it is just the value of capital omega. This is a powerful new method which can be used with any precession to give the spin connection and vacuum fluctuation. So all precessions are due to vacuum fluctuations and we are making major progress in understanding. The net on the list are the de Sitter and Thomas precessions.

I have a problem with the relation of precession angles to one year. Isn’t Delta_phi the precessional difference angle between apogee and perigee? And doesn’t it relate to the satellite orbit? Then there is no relation to a terrestrial year. The units of eqs.(1) and (4) are radians. I guess that half the orbital period of the satellite has to be inserted for t in eq.(4).

In (18) obviously the factor omega_E is missing!
Inserting the satellite data for Omega in eq.(18) with

r = 7.02e6 m

gives from (18) in arc sec per year:

Omega =

which is identical with your result in the first three decimal numbers.
The result for <dr dr> is
m

and
<dr dr> / a^2 = ,

finally:
<dr> / a = .

The fluctuation radius is about 1% of the orbital radius of GPB. I think we have agreement now about the results. If you include the above numbers in the paper, I think there is no need for an extra section 3.

Horst

Am 06.04.2018 um 15:24 schrieb Myron Evans:

In this final version the apsidal and Larmor precessions are equated as in Eq. (8), and the vacuum fluctuation responsible for the Lense Thirring effect calculated as in Eqs. (23) ff., with the result (33). This is simpler and more incisive than previous versions. Once Horst has had a chance to look at this note, I will rewrite UFT404 and repost it. The problem posed in UFT345 remains unanswered – how did they separate the LT and de Sitter precessions? They are both always present. Also present is the orbital precession. Did they account for that? In the same way as a planet orbiting the sun precesses, GPB orbiting the earth precesses. This is once again a criticism of the standard model. There cannot be a precise fit of experiment and theory if the theory is totally wrong and the data ill defined and ill refined. However, I have always been an inductive scientist, as is co author Horst Eckardt and others of AIAS / UPITEC, so we are always looking for new ideas as well as new criticisms. So claims to the mysterious, very high precision of EGR are no longer taken seriously.

404(6).pdf

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: