406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

In integrating Eq. (1), delta phi is taken to be the constant experimental value, e.g. 44 seconds of arc per earth century for Mercury, so the integration gives the simple result (5), which leads to the result (10), a completely new explanation of all precessions in terms of vacuum fluctuations. This method replaces the claims of the standard physics, and can be extended to light deflection by gravitation and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. Real physics is simple, first pointed out by William of Ockham in the context of mediaeval philosophy. He was expelled from Oxford and Paris, declared a heretic, and was given the protection of Ludwig of Bavaria

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

The differential equation (2) contains Delta phi which you assumed constant. Doesn’t this depends on the radius r via r(phi) or specifically r(2 pi)?
I think we should precisely describe the different kinds of precession as you did in the comment for note 406(2).

Horst

Am 22.04.2018 um 08:40 schrieb Myron Evans:

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR

Thank you! I will continue the analysis today for the other planets, and co Horst will check as usual using Maxima. I think that you are referring to the equinoctial precession, which is developed in UFT119. In this case they used Newtonian dynamics, and they are probably correct within their assumptions, but UFT119 gives an entirely new viewpoint.

406(1): Precessions of Mercury and Earth : Complete Refutation of EGR
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

Great professor Evans!

The light is finally coming! Shame on the bunch of dogmatists that parroted a wrong physics for more than 100 years!

Question: you say that each precession is due to vacuum fluctuations. Is it also valid for the Earth axis precession?

IF yes: how is it possible that the classical celestial mechanics attributed such 26000 years precession to the luni-solar attraction on the equator bulge? Is it possible that Lagrange/Laplace/Tisserand/Moulton did such a quantitative macroscopic mistake?

Lorenzo

Lorenzo Santini

Project Manager

Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant

Enel Produzione Spa / Seconded to Slovenské elektrarne, a.s.

3. a 4. blok Eléktrarne Mochovce, zavod

935 39 Mochovce, Slovak Republic

T +421 366 378 654

M +421 911 442 421

lorenzo.santini

  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: