Daily Report 18/10/17

The equivalent of 325,754 printed pages was downloaded (1.188 gigabytes) from 2,922 downloaded memoy files (hits) and 620 distinct visits each averaging 3.9 memory pages and 9 minbutes, printed pages to hits ratio of 111.48, top preferrals total 2,314,261, main spiders Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 2470, Top ten 1018, Collected Evans / Morris 594(est); Collected scientometrics 400(est); F3(Sp) 332, Principles of ECE 189, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 183, Barddoniaeth 178, Collected Proofs 149, Autobiography volumes one and two 148, UFT88 110, MJE 89, Evans Equations 70, Engineering Model 67, CV 56, PLENR 53, PECE 51, UFT311 40, 83Ref 37, CEFE 35, PECE2 32, ADD 30, UFT321 29, Llais 28, UFT313 26, UFT314 29, UTF315 37, UFT316 23, UFT317 35, UFT318 34, UFT319 35, UFT320 36, UFT322 30, UFT323 38, UFT324 49, UFT325 35, UFT326 25, UFT327 30, UFT328 40, UFT329 35, UFT330 21, UFT331 46, UFT332 50, UFT333 24, UFT334 17, UFT335 17, UFT335 39, UFT336 24, UFT337 16, UFT338 19, UFT339 30, UFT340 28, UFT341 30, UFT342 30, UFT343 31, UFT344 27, UFT345 36, UFT346 34, UFT347 31, UFT348 25, UTF349 28, UFT351 47, UFT352 33, UFT353 25, UFT354 31, UFT355 28, UFT356 20, UFT357 34, UFT358 29, UFT359 24, UFT360 19, UFT361 20, UFT362 24, UFT363 25, UFT364 25, UFT365 19, UFT366 31, UFT367 30, UFT368 32, UFT369 37, UFT370 32, UFT371 29, UFT372 26, UFT373 27, UFT374 24, UFT375 23, UFT376 21, UFT377 34, UFT378 33, UFT379 22, UFT380 25, UFT381 42, UFT382 55, UFT383 49, UFT384 50, UFT385 68, UFT386 50, UFT387 53, UFT388 38, UFT389 60, UFT390 32 to date in October 2017. University of Queensland UFT177; Universite Catholique de Louvain general; University of Antioquia Colombia UFT316; Mathematics University of Arizona, Tucson UFT142; Eastern Michigan University UFT25; Mathematics North Carolina State University general; Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Wisconsin Madison UFT177; United States Fermi National Laboratory extensive; Aotearoa People’s Network New Zealand UFT142; University of Fort Hare South Africa UFT229. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for October 2017.

Unauthorized

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.

Advertisements

391(8): Integrating the Limit of the Einstein Theory

The integral is given by Eq. (7). It can be seen from inspection of Eq. (9) that as r becomes small the integrand becomes singular and ill behaved. The integral (9) can be integrated by the online Wolfram integrator but is exceedingly complicated. As the note shows it can be integrated in the approximation (10) to give an ill behaved orbit. The accurate and outstanding numerical work by Horst is a much clearer demonstration of the failure of the Einstein theory. If it fails in one limit it is useless. The next and final note for UFT391 will apply the theory of autonomous differential equations to ECE2.

a391stpapernotes8.pdf

Discussion of 391(2), Exact agreement with ECE2

Many thanks, I made a few more precession calculations based on this very good note, and have just sent them over. I think that exact agreement between ECE2 and experiment can be obtained by use of a background or aether potential energy as in Note 391(7). The Newtonian orbital velocity of the Lorentz factor can be measured experimentally at the perihelion (Eq. (11) of Note 391(7)) and cannot be varied. Also there is no need to multiply by a factor 2 pi. So that means that the aether potential U sub 0 of Eq. (36) of Note 391(7) can be adjusted to give exact agreement. I agree that NASA and Wikipedia give wildly different results as explained in Note 391(7). I agree that NASA is probably the better set of data. We all know that Wikipedia contains many errors, distortions and pejorative and unscientific comments. It is merely a populist private company and of course never does any experimental or theroetical work itself.

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.html

Then (with the factor 2 pi) the experimental value from Einstein’s formula is
42.98 arc sec per earth century

which 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 century

which 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 m

These 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 Mercury

Could 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 from

vN^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 Joules

For 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 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
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.

391(7): Some More Details of the ECE2 calculation of Precession

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.

a391stpapernotes7.pdf

Daily Report 17/10/17

The equivalent of 266,516 printed pages was downloaded (971.717 megabytes) from 3,148 downloaded memory files (hits) and 624 distinct visits each averaging 4.0 memory pages and 8 minutes, printed pages to hits ratio 84.66, top referrals total 2,314,082, main spiders Baidu, Google, MSN and Yahoo. Collected ECE2 2283, Top ten 963, Collected Evans / Morris 561(est), Collected scientometrics 382, F3(Sp) 314, Barddoniaeth (Collected Poetry) 174, Principles of ECE 168, Collected Eckardt / Lindstrom 160, Autobiography volumes one and two 142, Collected Proofs 137, UFT88 103, MJE 86, Evans Equations 68, Engineering Model 62, CV 52, PLENR 51, PECE 46, UFT311 38, CEF 35, 83Ref 33, PECE2 29, Llais 28, UFT321 27, ADD 20, SCI 20, UFT313 23, UFT314 25, UFT315 34, UFT316 22, UTF317 31, UFT318 32, UFT319 33, UFT320 33, UFT322 28, UFT323 37, UFT324 42, UFT325 32, UFT326 22, UFT327 27, UFT328 37, UFT329 34, UFT330 21, UFT331 41, UFT332 45, UFT333 22, UFT334 17, UFT335 32, UFT336 22, UFT337 17, UT338 19, UFT339 28, UFT340 25, UFT341 28, UFT342 24, UFT343 29, UFT344 25, UFT345 35, UFT346 31, UFT347 28, UFT348 25, UFT349 24, UFT351 43, UFT352 28, UFT353 22, UFT354 30, UFT355 27, UFT356 18, UFT357 30, UFT358 26, UFT359 20, UFT360 16, UFT361 20, UTF362 21, UFT363 23, UFT364 24, UTF365 18, UFT366 29, UFT367 29, UFT368 31, UFT369 35, UFT370 31, UFT371 27, UFT372 26, UFT373 26, UFT374 23, UFT375 23, UFT376 21, UFT377 34, UFT378 30, UFT379 22, UTF380 25, UFT381 40, UFT382 51, UFT383 45, UFT384 49, UFT385 66, UFT386 48, UFT387 52, UFT388 35, UFT389 59 to date in October 2017. Swinburne University of Technology Australia extensive; St. Hilda’s College Melbourne extensive; Public Services International Brazil general; Chemistry University of British Columbia My Page; Eduroam University of British Columbia UFT4; University of Quebec Trois Rivieres UFT366 – UFT390; Swiss Federal Institute Lausanne UFT6; Data Centre University of Hamburg UFT papers; Physics Carnegie Mellon University UFT213; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) extensive, impact table; Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm extensive; National University of Singapore UFT33. Intense interest all sectors, updated usage file attached for October 2017.

Unauthorized

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.

Comment by GJE

Agreed!

To: EMyrone@aol.com
Sent: 18/10/2017 12:31:24 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: Re: 391(6) : Check that the Einstein Theory gives 41.17″ per earth century

Rather convincing! Thing is, Einstein would probably not have objected to this and other advances. More likely, he would have embraced the new physics – this is what he was searching for.

Sent from my Samsung device

391(6) : Check that the Einstein Theory gives 41.17″ per earth century

This note gives all details of the method and comes to the same result as yesterday, the Einstein theory gives 41.17 arc seconds per Earth century. This is not the claimed experimental value of 43.11 plus or minus 0.45 arc seconds per century. In addition, Horst has shown with numerical precision that the orbit is wildly wrong in general, so cannot be precisely right. This is standard physics dogma at its worst. The data I used are given in Eqs. (13) to (15), and I used the fact that the Mercury year is 87.969 Earth days.

a391stpapernotes6.pdf