]]>

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

]]>

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 20/10/2017 11:18:29 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Discussion of 391(7)PS: I replaced gamma-1 by an adjusted number so that more decimal places are effective. Using

gamma – 1 =

leads to

delta phi = arc sec per earth century

but this is pure numerical tricking.

Horst

Am 20.10.2017 um 09:45 schrieb EMyrone:

Agreed about the typo. I suggest adjusting epsilon and alpha to get the experimental phi. This calculation depends on the assumption that the orbit is r = alpha / (1 + epsilon cos (phi + delta phi)). The numerical methods used in previous UFT papers show that the numerical orbit is the correct one, but the numerical methods cannot be used for a small delta phi. So this calculation is meant to give a first theory only. It looks as if the result may be sensitive to the exact value of epsilon and alpha. It has been found that these values vary quite a lot between NASA and Wikipedia, so adjusting them to get the precise delta phi is justifiable. This looks like a better idea than using a constant aether potential energy.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 19/10/2017 20:56:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 391(7): Some More Details of the ECE2 calculation of PrecessionIn (24) is a typo, last term should be 1/alpha instead of 1/epsilon.

Evaluation of this eq. gives a value slightly above 1 at the RHS. Therefore the acos function cannot be taken from this. Should rather come out a value slightly below 1 ? Then we would obtain a small delta phi.Further results:

H(Newton) / H(relativistic) approx. gamma-1 = 1 + 1.e-8i.e. the modulus of H(Newton) is slightly larger than that of H(relativistic).

Horst

Am 19.10.2017 um 13:45 schrieb EMyrone:

In view of the catastrophic failure of the Einstein theory, the ECE2 theory is the only one that can be applied in cosmology and in precession theory. In this note the precession is expressed as Eq. (33). in which the hamiltonian H sub 0 is a constant of motion. In order to obtain precise and exact agreement with data, H sub 0 must be adjusted with a background, vacuum or aether potential defined in Eq. (36). Note carefully that delta phi must not be multiplied by 2 pi, and that the Newtonian orbital velocity at the perihelion, v sub N, is given by Eq. (11), and cannot be varied. It has also been found that the experimental value of precession is different according to which set of data is used. NASA data used by Horst Eckardt give 42.98 arc seconds per earth century, and Wikipedia data give 41.17 arc seconds per earth century for the Mercury precession.

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 20/10/2017 10:34:18 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Discussion of 391(7)Varying epsilon or alpha does not change much of the result. The problem is the gamma factor. The result for cos(delta phi) very sensitively depends on this factor because the kinetic energy term mc^2 is very large. gamma must be precise in more than 16 decimal places to give a delta phi of 10 power -8 as required. This is numerically not achievable. This method seems not to be a viable numerical solution, although it is conceptually much better than Einstein’s method.

Horst

Am 20.10.2017 um 09:45 schrieb EMyrone:

Agreed about the typo. I suggest adjusting epsilon and alpha to get the experimental phi. This calculation depends on the assumption that the orbit is r = alpha / (1 + epsilon cos (phi + delta phi)). The numerical methods used in previous UFT papers show that the numerical orbit is the correct one, but the numerical methods cannot be used for a small delta phi. So this calculation is meant to give a first theory only. It looks as if the result may be sensitive to the exact value of epsilon and alpha. It has been found that these values vary quite a lot between NASA and Wikipedia, so adjusting them to get the precise delta phi is justifiable. This looks like a better idea than using a constant aether potential energy.

To: EMyrone

Sent: 19/10/2017 20:56:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 391(7): Some More Details of the ECE2 calculation of PrecessionIn (24) is a typo, last term should be 1/alpha instead of 1/epsilon.

Evaluation of this eq. gives a value slightly above 1 at the RHS. Therefore the acos function cannot be taken from this. Should rather come out a value slightly below 1 ? Then we would obtain a small delta phi.Further results:

H(Newton) / H(relativistic) approx. gamma-1 = 1 + 1.e-8i.e. the modulus of H(Newton) is slightly larger than that of H(relativistic).

Horst

Am 19.10.2017 um 13:45 schrieb EMyrone:

In view of the catastrophic failure of the Einstein theory, the ECE2 theory is the only one that can be applied in cosmology and in precession theory. In this note the precession is expressed as Eq. (33). in which the hamiltonian H sub 0 is a constant of motion. In order to obtain precise and exact agreement with data, H sub 0 must be adjusted with a background, vacuum or aether potential defined in Eq. (36). Note carefully that delta phi must not be multiplied by 2 pi, and that the Newtonian orbital velocity at the perihelion, v sub N, is given by Eq. (11), and cannot be varied. It has also been found that the experimental value of precession is different according to which set of data is used. NASA data used by Horst Eckardt give 42.98 arc seconds per earth century, and Wikipedia data give 41.17 arc seconds per earth century for the Mercury precession.

]]>

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 19/10/2017 20:56:50 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: 391(7): Some More Details of the ECE2 calculation of PrecessionIn (24) is a typo, last term should be 1/alpha instead of 1/epsilon.

Evaluation of this eq. gives a value slightly above 1 at the RHS. Therefore the acos function cannot be taken from this. Should rather come out a value slightly below 1 ? Then we would obtain a small delta phi.Further results:

H(Newton) / H(relativistic) approx. gamma-1 = 1 + 1.e-8i.e. the modulus of H(Newton) is slightly larger than that of H(relativistic).

Horst

Am 19.10.2017 um 13:45 schrieb EMyrone:

In view of the catastrophic failure of the Einstein theory, the ECE2 theory is the only one that can be applied in cosmology and in precession theory. In this note the precession is expressed as Eq. (33). in which the hamiltonian H sub 0 is a constant of motion. In order to obtain precise and exact agreement with data, H sub 0 must be adjusted with a background, vacuum or aether potential defined in Eq. (36). Note carefully that delta phi must not be multiplied by 2 pi, and that the Newtonian orbital velocity at the perihelion, v sub N, is given by Eq. (11), and cannot be varied. It has also been found that the experimental value of precession is different according to which set of data is used. NASA data used by Horst Eckardt give 42.98 arc seconds per earth century, and Wikipedia data give 41.17 arc seconds per earth century for the Mercury precession.

]]>

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn’t understand how to supply the credentials required.

Additionally, a 401 Unauthorized error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

]]>

]]>

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 18/10/2017 15:43:49 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Discussion of 391(2), perihelion precession of Mercury

I checked my calculations. I used the experimental Mercury data from

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.htmlThen (with the factor 2 pi) the experimental value from Einstein’s formula is

42.98 arc sec per earth centurywhich is slightly different from the reported values of 43.03 or 43.11.

The calculation according to ECE2 gives

18.738 arc sec per earth centurywhich is in the order of magnitude of the experimental value. A factor of 2 pi was multiplied, I hope that this is correct for the calculation according to the note (to be verified).

The actual value depends sensitively on the Newtonian total energy H_N. When correcting this value by the ordinary gamma factor:H_N –> H_N * gamma,

with

gamma = 1 + 1.9 e -8,the delta phi value nearly exactly coincides with the experimental value:

42.986 arc sec per earth century.

This may be a bit handwaving, but all corrections to the experimental precession value are quite doubtful, so I think our “correction” is justified at least as well as those corrections. There is a stunning coincidence. We can broadcast now that “we were able to obtain Einstein’s good result exactly from ECE2 theory”.

Horst

Am 17.10.2017 um 15:43 schrieb Horst Eckardt:

I had a typo in my calculation, now the velocities are consistent. The precise value from the Einstein formula according to your calculation is

42.98 arc sec per earth century

I do not understand why the value of delta phi has to be multiplied by 2 pi. I thought that this is the angular increase per revolution so it is per 2 pi. Is the value from 3MG / (c squared alpha) meant as a differential value

delta phi / phi = 3MG / (c squared alpha)

?

Horst

Am 17.10.2017 um 11:35 schrieb EMyrone:

This is a very interesting result once again. The data on the internet give, for Mercury

Mass of sun M = 1.989 ten power 30 kg

G = 6.67408 ten power – 11 m cubed per kilogram per square second

c = 2.9979792 ten power 8 m per second

alpha = 5.7909050 ten power 10 mThese data give

delta phi = 3MG / (c squared alpha) = 7.652 ten power minus 8 radians.

This can be checked by Maxima. Now use

one arc second = 4.84814 ten power – 6 radians

So

delta phi = 0.01578 arc seconds

In a revolution of 2 pi radians the orbital angle increases by

delta phi per revolution = 4.808 ten power – 7 radians

= 0.09915 arc seconds per revolution of 2 pi

In one hundred revolutions, each of 2 pi, delta phi = 9.915 arc seconds. The revolution of 2 pi corresponds to a Mercury year, which is 0.240846 earth years. So the result is

delta phi in a hundred earth years = 9.915 / 0.240846 = 41.17 arc seconds per earth century.

Obviously, this is not the often cited 43.03 arc seconds per year from the Einstein theory. The experimental result is claimed to be 43.11 arc seconds per year (Marion and Thornton).

It is never made clear that the 43.11 arc seconds per century refers to the earth century, not the Mercury century. So it seen that the Einstein theory is NOT a precise replication of the experimental data. I took the data for the half right latitude alpha from Wikipedia, which gives it as 57,909,050 kilometers. There are large uncertainties in the mass of the sun. I have no idea how Wikipedia got teh figure of 6.8 ten power minus six radians per orbit. It gives the eccentricity of the Mercury orbit to be eps = 0.205630.

I would suggest adjusting the new theory of UFT391(2) by simply adjusting the hamiltonian H to give 43.11 arc seconds per earth century, assuming that this is correct. The hamiltonian could contain a background potential energy for example, and your explanation below could also be correct. If we go through the planets and other precessing objects with sufficient care, it would almost certainly be found that the Einstein theory is not precise at all. Precession is a terrible way of testing a theory, as these calculations show.To: EMyrone

Sent: 16/10/2017 11:45:41 GMT Daylight Time

Subj: Re: Discussion of 391(2), perihelion precession of MercuryCould you please verify that the experimental value of delta phi for Mercury is 7.99e-5 rad per one orbit? This is the result of

delta phi = 3 M G / (c^2 alpha).

From Wikipedia I read it is 1.4 arc seconds per orbit, which gives

1.4/3600*pi/180 = 6.8 e-6 rad per orbit.

With the method of note 301(2), using the Newtonian Hamiltonian, I obtain

delta phi = 3.42e-5

which is in the order of magnitude of the formula result. One has actually to compute

delta phi = acos ( 1 – cos(phi))

because cos(0)=1 at the perihelion phi=0.

Since the experimental uncertainty is very large, this is a good result.

There are two unresolved problems:

1. What does the experimental orbital velocity mean? It is orders of magnitude smaller than computed fromvN^2 = MG (2 / r – 1 / a).

Is it true that this equation only holds for ellipses? There is the condition r < 2a for vN^2 to be positive.

2. The virial theorem could be violated. It is

E_kin (vN) = 5.7 e 33 Joules

E_pot (r_min) = – 9.5 e 33 JoulesFor a weak relaltivistic system it should hold

2 * E_kin = – E_pot

but only in time average. So this seems not to be a severe problem.

Horst

Am 16.10.2017 um 09:08 schrieb EMyrone:

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 isa = 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

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 DeflectionI 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.

]]>