Archive for August, 2018

413(8): Coordinate Transform Proof of Precession and Shrinking

413(8): Coordinate Transform Proof of Precession and Shrinking

This is a simple proof that the coordinate (1) produces a precessing and shrinking orbit as t goes to infinity. The modifications in Kepler’s three laws are discussed. As the angular velocity of the orbit goes to infinity the distance between m and M decreases to zero. In fact this is very well known. It is also well known that the dependence of phi on t must increase monotonically as in Eq. (1) (Marion and Thornton,, "Classical Dynamics", third edition, chapter seven). The ECE theory explains the precession of the S2 star through equation (13). The Einstein theory fails by an order of magnitude to explain the precession of the S2 star. This drastic EXPERIMENTAL failure of the Einstein theory is again very well known to leading astronomers, and the Einstein theory has been abandoned by astronomers independent of AIAS / UPITEC. This means that black hole theory, Big Bang, gravitational radiation, claims to magical precision and so on have been abandoned, although the propaganda is still blasted out to a general public that does not have the technical ability to understand anything at all about EGR. The ECE theory is widely seen among the professional colleagues to be the successor to Einsteinian general relativity. This is shown objectively by fourteen years of very detailed scientometrics of high accuracy.

a413thpapernotes8.pdf

413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

Many thanks! I think I will write one more note and then write up UFT413. So even in its classical limit the frame rotation theory is easily able to explain the main features of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar, precession and orbital shrinking. This is done without the use of gravitational radiation. Stephen Crothers has heavily criticized the experimental claims of LIGOS, which has wasted hundreds of millions in funding.

413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

The graph of eq.(11) shows a decreae of r for an exponentially growing omega_1, in accordance with the findings for note 3, model 2. This is consisitent.

Horst

Am 30.08.2018 um 06:50 schrieb Myron Evans:

Fwd: 413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

Many thanks, the orbital shrinkage can be plotted from Eq. (11) and comes directly from L = m r squared d phi’ / dt. The coordinate system is changed from (r , phi ) to (r, phi’) where phi’ = phi + omega sub 1 t. In the hamiltonian, phi is changed to phi’. This results in Eq. (14), in which the alpha and epsilon are defined with phi replaced by phi’. A useful rule is that whenever phi occurs in any calculation or situation, it is replaced by phi’, but r remains unchanged. The Lagrangian calculation is also correct, it is equivalent to the hamiltonian calculation and leads again to Eq. (14). I agree that r(t) defined by phi and r(t) defined by phi’ are different. The orbit is also defined by phi replaced by phi’, leading to Eq. (14). So we simply plot alpha versus t from Eq. (14). The answer to the mystery is that alpha, the half right latitude or semi latus rectum of a shrinking ellipse, also shrinks with time according to Eq. (14). The cosine function in Eq. (14) is always greater than or equal to – 1 and less than or equal to 1 as time t goes to infinity. However, as time t goes to infinity, r shrinks to zero and so alpha / (1 + epsilon cos phi’) shrinks to zero. The quantity omega = d phi / dt is defined with phi (i.e. equivalent to omega sub 1 goes to zero, or no frame rotation) , giving the angular momentum L sub 0 when there is no rotation.

Re: 413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

PS: Isn’t omega be observed in the observer system? Then it could not be
identified with L_0 as in eq. (8), or am I wrong?

Horst

Am 28.08.2018 um 12:13 schrieb Myron Evans:
> The shrinkage is expressed most clearly through equations (11) and
> (12), in which r can be plotted against t, resulting in Eq. (12). The
> shrinking orbit is then Eq. (14), from which the half right latitude
> can be plotted as a function of t. The orbit is given correctly by
> both the lagrangian and hamiltonian methods, so all is self
> consistent. The dependence of r on time of a binary pulsar can be
> measured in astronomy and the ECE theory compared with the data.

413(6).pdf

Note Concerning Bruhn to Prof. Bo Lehnert

Note Concerning Bruhn to Prof. Bo Lehnert

I note that Bruhn sent you a letter in which he attempted to put forward the nonsensical notion that the ECE theory is not Lorentz covariant. he insultingly descrined my work as a "distortion". On close scrutiny by able scholars, it as found that Bruhn deliberately misrepresented ECE theory with false mathematics. Bruhn’s output of work is miniscule and he suddenly disappeared in 2008 after a prolonged campaign of harassment, and abuse and insult of the British Head of State. The ECE theory is Cartan geometry itself, which is generally covariant and therefore Lorentz covariant. Bruhn also attempted to claim that the B Cyclic Theorem is not Lorentz covariant,whereas the B cyclic Theorem is the frame of reference itself (see UFT89). The frame of reference is automatically covariant. For example the Cartesian frame i x j = k et cyclicum transforms invariantly under the rotational Lorentz transform. Bruhn was thoroughly answered in UFT89 for example, and in many other ways, and suddenly disappeared in 2008 after a campaign of harassment which destroyed van der Merwe’s journals in a completely unethical and some would say, illegal manner. Bruhn also harassed members of the Royal Swedish Academy such as yourself and also SciTopics of Elsevier, which tipped me for a Nobel Prize, thus strengthening your nominations. You pioneering nominations are perfectly sound and ECE is now mainstream physics. Many of its papers and books are by now influential classics. I do not think that a small group of harassing , semi legal, dogmatists should be allowed to influence the Royal Swedish Academy in an attempt to distort nominations and prevent a candidate from being warded a Nobel Prize. Harassment is illegal in almost all laws. Lakhtakia is suspected of ethnic hate crime, in that a series of abusive e mails mocking the People of Wales were received at my address. These were traced to within a few hundred metres of his workplace at Penn State. The Penn State administration opened an enquiry. I found that ‘t Hooft did not have the technical ability to understand Cartan geometry. The defence of ECE theory is wholly impregnable. It is Cartan geometry itself within a scalar that transforms the geometry into physics. Wikipedia was commandered by people like Lakhtakia, who is also suspected of having impersonated ArXiv staff. I have expereience of Lakhtakia slamming down a telephone receiver in uncontrollable rage on more than one occasion when I tried to explain B(3) to him. I had helped him from Cornell in his early career. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Note Concerning Bruhn to Prof. Bo Lehnert

I note that Bruhn sent you a letter in which he attempted to put forward the nonsensical notion that the ECE theory is not Lorentz covariant. he insultingly descrined my work as a "distortion". On close scrutiny by able scholars, it as found that Bruhn deliberately misrepresented ECE theory with false mathematics. Bruhn’s output of work is miniscule and he suddenly disappeared in 2008 after a prolonged campaign of harassment, and abuse and insult of the British Head of State. The ECE theory is Cartan geometry itself, which is generally covariant and therefore Lorentz covariant. Bruhn also attempted to claim that the B Cyclic Theorem is not Lorentz covariant,whereas the B cyclic Theorem is the frame of reference itself (see UFT89). The frame of reference is automatically covariant. For example the Cartesian frame i x j = k et cyclicum transforms invariantly under the rotational Lorentz transform. Bruhn was thoroughly answered in UFT89 for example, and in many other ways, and suddenly disappeared in 2008 after a campaign of harassment which destroyed van der Merwe’s journals in a completely unethical and some would say, illegal manner. Bruhn also harassed members of the Royal Swedish Academy such as yourself and also SciTopics of Elsevier, which tipped me for a Nobel Prize, thus strengthening your nominations. You pioneering nominations are perfectly sound and ECE is now mainstream physics. Many of its papers and books are by now influential classics. I do not think that a small group of harassing , semi legal, dogmatists should be allowed to influence the Royal Swedish Academy in an attempt to distort nominations and prevent a candidate from being warded a Nobel Prize. Harassment is illegal in almost all laws. Lakhtakia is suspected of ethnic hate crime, in that a series of abusive e mails mocking the People of Wales were received at my address. These were traced to within a few hundred metres of his workplace at Penn State. The Penn State administration opened an enquiry. I found that ‘t Hooft did not have the technical ability to understand Cartan geometry. The defence of ECE theory is wholly impregnable. It is Cartan geometry itself within a scalar that transforms the geometry into physics. Wikipedia was commandered by people like Lakhtakia, who is also suspected of having impersonated ArXiv staff. I have expereience of Lakhtakia slamming down a telephone receiver in uncontrollable rage on more than one occasion when I tried to explain B(3) to him. I had helped him from Cornell in his early career. As Oscar Wilde wrote, "No good deed goes unpunished."

413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

Fwd: 413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation

Many thanks, the orbital shrinkage can be plotted from Eq. (11) and comes directly from L = m r squared d phi’ / dt. The coordinate system is changed from (r , phi ) to (r, phi’) where phi’ = phi + omega sub 1 t. In the hamiltonian, phi is changed to phi’. This results in Eq. (14), in which the alpha and epsilon are defined with phi replaced by phi’. A useful rule is that whenever phi occurs in any calculation or situation, it is replaced by phi’, but r remains unchanged. The Lagrangian calculation is also correct, it is equivalent to the hamiltonian calculation and leads again to Eq. (14). I agree that r(t) defined by phi and r(t) defined by phi’ are different. The orbit is also defined by phi replaced by phi’, leading to Eq. (14). So we simply plot alpha versus t from Eq. (14). The answer to the mystery is that alpha, the half right latitude or semi latus rectum of a shrinking ellipse, also shrinks with time according to Eq. (14). The cosine function in Eq. (14) is always greater than or equal to – 1 and less than or equal to 1 as time t goes to infinity. However, as time t goes to infinity, r shrinks to zero and so alpha / (1 + epsilon cos phi’) shrinks to zero. The quantity omega = d phi / dt is defined with phi (i.e. equivalent to omega sub 1 goes to zero, or no frame rotation) , giving the angular momentum L sub 0 when there is no rotation.

Re: 413(6): Orbital Shrinkage Equation
To: Myron Evans <myronevans123>

PS: Isn’t omega be observed in the observer system? Then it could not be
identified with L_0 as in eq. (8), or am I wrong?

Horst

Am 28.08.2018 um 12:13 schrieb Myron Evans:
> The shrinkage is expressed most clearly through equations (11) and
> (12), in which r can be plotted against t, resulting in Eq. (12). The
> shrinking orbit is then Eq. (14), from which the half right latitude
> can be plotted as a function of t. The orbit is given correctly by
> both the lagrangian and hamiltonian methods, so all is self
> consistent. The dependence of r on time of a binary pulsar can be
> measured in astronomy and the ECE theory compared with the data.

Note 413(7): Vacuum Force from Frame Rotation

Note 413(7): Vacuum Force from Frame Rotation

In this final note for UFT413 it is shown that the de Sitter type frame rotation (2) produces the vacuum force (5) as part of the underlying Cartan torsion, whose orbital part can be expressed as the total force (4). Using the same concepts as used in the well known Lamb shift theory, the modulus of the spin connection can be expressed as Eq. (12), in which the isotropically averaged vacuum fluctuation of position is developed in terms of the angular velocity of frame rotation. This spin connection produces the precessing ellipse (15) and the precession (16). The precession of the S2 star is explained by Eq. (16) by the product of the time T taken for one orbit and the angular velocity of frame rotation omega sub 1. The Einsteinian general relativity fails completely to describe the S2 star, by an entire order of magnitude, so the twentieth century dogma in general relativity has collapsed completely, to be replaced by plausible theories such as ECE and ECE2. In Alwyn van der Merwe’s memorable description, this is "the post Einsteinian paradigm shift", the new twenty first century enlightenment. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong." (Albert Einstein). There are now several experiments which prove him wrong, notably the S2 star system and the velocity curve of a whirlpool galaxy. He has been proven wrong in nearly a hundred different ways in the UFT series on www.aias.us. The dogmatists mindlessly block progress by ignoring all this progress.

a413thpapernotes7.pdf

Legacy of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking

Legacy of Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking

These were the sixties wizz kids in physics and clashed immediately with Fred Hoyle in a supermassive inelastic collision. As a result Hoyle left Cambridge in a towering rage and moved to Cardiff. Hoyle thought that Big Bang is complete nonsense, so did Einstein and so do all the members of the ECE School, hundreds of thousands of them, if not millions. Things are looking pretty dippy for the standard model now, it is facing a major challenge from ECE and ECE2 and is unable to reply rationally to that most rational of subjects, geometry. ECE is Cartan geometry combined with simple hypotheses to turn geometry into physics.Peter Higgs’ boson and electroweak theory were shredded in UFT225 by Horst and myself, and was shredded by the work of Vigier and myself on B(3) and boson mass a long time ago. ECE is a perfect theory, based on a perfect geometry, that of Elie Cartan and his colleagues. The B(3) field has been nominated several times for a Nobel Prize, and the dogmatists face the ghastly spectre of ECE being nominated too, or even worse, a Nobel Prize being awarded to B(3). That would eat into their funding and what is left of their credibility – next to nothing. Heisenberg indeterminacy is also looking seasick in the sea change. Progress and enlightenment is always accompanied by fringe nutters and mediocrities suffering indigestion grade one, they are always afraid of coming out into the open because they would be up against Cartan’s rigorous and beautiful geometry. The Greeks thought, indeed, that geometry is perfect beauty, and so did Kepler. Ubi materia ibi geometria, where there is matter there is geometry. I tried many times to correspond with Hawking, but he never replied. The Big Bang theory is refuted completely by ECE and in many other ways. In its time it was like the Beatles. ECE explains why Hawking radiation was never found, it cannot exist, neither can black holes. Of course I admired Hawking’s long fight against his terrible disability. I have corresponded with Penrose, who is more open to new ideas. Penrose has never criticized ECE, which has also been accepted by Sean Carroll and Alwyn van der Merwe, two great physicists of the late twentieth century, and by many very capable people like Horst Eckardt and Douglas Lindstrom who know the theory in all detail. No one is going to listen to anonymous trolls with no technical ability at all. It is hardly possible to reject ECE without mangling the geometry. The Einstein theory has been shredded completely by the discovery of the S2 star system – shredded by data. So the entire twentieth century in general relativity has collapsed, to be replaced by the ECE phenomenon of millions of readers. I am not fixated by the overblown Nobel Prize, the Civil List Pension is in fact a higher honour, the second most exclusive club in Britain. However, ECE should be awarded a Nobel Prize because of its well proven, hyperbole defying, impact and because it has been tested against experimental data. So the fabric of establishment physics is under the microscope. Can it judge fairly, or is it a club so exclusive that it has no members left?