419(1) : Application of m Theory to the S2 Star

Many thanks a very interesting result because the orbit of the S2 star can be explained exactly with this value of m(r). Are the values of v and r at closest approach sufficient for a numerical integration to produce the precessing orbit of m theory? That will give the astronomers a much needed idea of the expected magnitude of the S2 precession, and will show whether EGR is anywhere near the truth or just totally wrong.

419(1) : Application of m Theory to the S2 Star

I evaluated the formulas. I used the latest value of the gravitational constant published in 2016 (see Wikipedia):

G = 6.67408(31) [SI units]

The precession values remain the same within 3-4 digits.

The ratio of v/c at r[min] is 2.55%, therefore relativistic effects are small.

The formula of m theory gives

m(r[min]) = 0.9895

For comparison, the value from the Newtonian velocity (eq.(1) of the note) gives

m(r[min]) = 0.999999

as expected. This is consistent with the fact that the ratio v/v_N is 98.9%. We do not know the experimental error.

If further velocity measurements are available, we would obtain more or less m=1, because the radius is larger there.

Horst

Am 11.11.2018 um 13:18 schrieb Myron Evans:

Subject: 419(1) : Application of m Theory to the S2 Star

This note shows that the orbit of the S2 star is essentially Newtonian, any deviations from Newton such as those in Eqs. (2) and (3) can be explained in a well defined limit of m theory by Eq. (4), from which m(r) may be determined from the data given in this note. On May 18th 2018 the S2 star was at closest approach to the large mass that it orbits. This has a mass M of 8.572 ten power 36 kilograms. Clearly this is not a "black hole" because the theory of black holes erroneously omits torsion. By now this is very well known. Einsteinian general relativity predicts a forward S2 precession of +4,896 arcseconds per earth century. This compares with the famous +43 arcseconds per earth century for Mercury in the solar system. EGR always produces a forward precession. The experimental result however is given by Eqs. (2) and (3), which indicate that the orbit of S2 is Newtonian within the uncertainty in the astronomical data.This means that the experimental precession is zero plus or minus an uncertainty. From another point of view the difference between Eqs. (2) and (3) can be taken to indicate the need for m theory as in Eq. (4), from which m(r) can be found from the astronomical data. The R power n theory of gravitation produces a retrograde precession of minus 22,459 arcseconds per earth century and the Yuhawa theory of gravitation produces a forward precession of plus 44,917 arcseconds per earth century. There can be no confidence in the dogmatic claim that the S2 star "verifies" EGR.